Wall Street "Fat Cats" Heart Romney But Warren Buffet Hearts Obama

Wall Street ditches Obama, backs Romney

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- but what about a Wall Street titan?

Deep-pocketed financiers have abandoned President Obama and are flocking to Mitt Romney in droves, providing more donations to his campaign than any other industry except retired workers. (And that's not really an industry.)

Individuals who work in the securities and investment industry have given the Romney campaign $8.5 million through the end of April, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Over the same time period, Obama has brought in only $3 million from securities and investment workers, and the industry is only the campaign's fifth largest source of funds.

"They have basically ditched Obama," said John Dunbar, the managing editor for politics at the Center for Public Integrity. "Romney is just a much friendlier candidate if you are a banker."

The absence of Wall Street love is a departure from the norm for the Obama campaign. In 2008, then-Senator Obama raised almost $16 million from Wall Street.

John McCain, the Republican nominee, received donations totaling only $9 million.

The shift is evident even within specific firms.

The employees of Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), who have traditionally given more money to Democratic candidates, have donated more to Romney's campaign than any other firm.

Meanwhile, individuals associated with Goldman have given far less to Obama this cycle, even after he milked the bank for $1 million in 2008 -- or four times McCain's haul.

Goldman isn't an isolated case. The top six spots on Romney's donor list are all financial firms, with Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Credit Suisse (CS) and Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) following Goldman.

Of the top 20 organizations and businesses with donors who contributed to the Obama campaign, not one is a bank or investment firm, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

The dwindling donations underscore intense feelings of dissatisfaction that some on Wall Street feel toward the White House, both in terms of the rhetoric used and the policies pursued by the president.

"Wall Street has taken some of the blame for the financial crisis," said Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The result of that has been increased oversight and regulation -- two things that are never popular."

Early in his presidency, Obama chastised "fat cat" bankers who took large bonuses during the financial crisis.

He then worked to pass a financial reform law that included restrictions on banks that some in the industry find onerous, especially the so-called Volcker Rule that would limit some types of trading activity.

After a period when it looked like the relationship between big business and the White House was on the mend, new fissures appeared as the president embraced the rhetoric of income inequality.

Obama discussed the growing wealth gap in a series of high-profile speeches, including his most recent State of the Union address.

With the general election campaign now fully underway, Obama has been more specific in his attacks on Romney, and much emphasis has been put on the former governor's career at Bain Capital.

The president's words and the campaign's advertisements have not cast private equity in a flattering light. Vice President Joe Biden said last week that a career in private equity "no more qualifies you to be president than being a plumber."

Dunbar said the escalating rhetoric is a sign that the White House has "made a calculated decision" to "go to war" with Romney over Bain. "They've decided to burn the bridge and go after Wall Street.

They have decided to rely on populism."

The industry, by all accounts, is not enjoying its thrashing from the president.

On the same day that the Obama launched its campaign against Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, the president attended a fundraiser at the Manhattan home of Tony James, the president of private equity firm Blackstone (BX).

Fortune reported that the president didn't specifically mention private equity, and the attendees, who had paid $35,800 per plate, didn't ask.

Two power players who are even closer to the White House, ex-auto czar Steven Rattner and Newark Mayor Cory Booker, have come to the industry's defense, complicating matters for the president.

Asked last week about his campaign's attacks on Bain Capital, Obama walked a fine line, saying that there "are folks who do good work in that area" but "their priority is to maximize profits."

"When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits," Obama said. "Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot."

The breakdown of decorum between Wall Street and the White House sharply reduces the odds that Obama will be able to match Romney's fundraising totals from industry players.

But given the substantial investments the White House has made in its so-called ground game, dwindling funds from Wall Street won't necessarily leave the campaign cash-strapped. Many observers still expect Obama to raise a cool $1 billion by November.

Still, the attacks could push a wealthy donor to make a substantial contribution to a pro-Romney super PAC -- groups that can accept and spend unlimited money.
One pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, has already raised more than $20 million from individuals and organizations associated with the securities and investment industry.

Obama's super PAC, Priorities USA Action, has received only $218,500 from the same group.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NBC, The Atlantic, Youtube, Google Maps

Zuckerberg, Buffett, Gates: "Tax Me Baby One More Time!"

Tax Me Baby One More Time!

L’Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt has joined a group of wealthy French citizens calling for a 'special contribution' tax on the richest of the rich.

Mark Zuckerberg and President Obama have something in common: both want to pay more in federal taxes. The Facebook founder told the president during a town hall-style meeting this week that he would favor an increase in the federal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans.

Although in December Obama and Congress renewed the Bush tax cuts, which offer the greatest tax-rate relief for families earning more than $1 million, the start of the election cycle has reignited the conversation. The cuts will expire in 2012.

Aside from Zuckerberg, several other prominent billionaires and wealthy Americans have spoken out in favor of greater taxation, characterizing their support as a democratic responsibility and a duty of the successful. No one has been more outspoken than Warren Buffett. “I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it,” Buffett has said.

Sources: CBS News, Daily Beast, Youtube

Obama Wages "War On Poverty" With New Deficit Reduction Plan (Decision 2012)

War on poverty in 2011?


America's poverty rate is now the worst since 1993, according to a shocking report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Over 46 million people are living in poverty, 2.6 million more than in 2009 and the poverty rate has reached 15.1 percent.

The outlook is grim. The recession has compounded decades of growing economic inequality, structural poverty, and urban decay. With the projections that unemployment will remain high for several years, these numbers are not likely to improve.

Making matters worse, as Ron Haskings at the Brookings Institution noted, "Safety net programs run by the federal and state governments are helping millions of families avoid poverty, but the programs could be subject to cuts at the federal and state level because of continuing deficit and debt problems."

Despite the enormity of this social problem, American politicians in either party rarely discuss the subject. Since the poor don't tend to vote in high rates or contribute much in campaign funds, they don't get a place at the table in Washington, D.C. Yet with the U.S. poverty rate being the highest in the developed world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this statistic marks a terrible failure for the nation as a whole.

Most Republicans have tended to avoid the question of poverty because they reject the notion that government can do anything to solve it. For decades, conservatives have railed against welfare programs for creating a cycle of dependency.

Republicans and conservative Democrats ultimately believe that the only way to reduce poverty is to grow the economy. But poverty has been a problem in good times and bad.

Democrats avoid tackling the problem because they fear the political consequences of being tagged as big government liberals. In 1996, when President Clinton signed the welfare reform act that ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), he effectively took poverty off his party's agenda.

Those who support government programs for the poor have been haunted by the political backlash against the War on Poverty.

It was during the 1960s, an era of unprecedented economic growth, that President Lyndon Johnson and allied Democrats decided to tackle the problem of poverty in this wealthy nation.

President Kennedy had started to explore an anti-poverty program in 1963 under the guidance of Walter Heller, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, but Kennedy was assassinated before he could take action.

When Johnson heard about the program shortly after taking office, he said it was the kind of initiative he could support. Johnson, who had been inspired by the New Deal and grew up amid poverty in Texas, sympathized with the plight of the poor and believed that the government could and should so something about it: "That's my kind of program. I'll find money for it one way or another. If I have to, I'll take away money from things to get money for people."

To build a legislative coalition in favor of the War on Poverty in 1964, Johnson enlisted the support of liberals in Congress as well as the conservative Democrat Phil Landrum of Georgia, who won over the votes of many in the party who usually opposed new federal programs. Landrum, and other conservatives in the party, had constituencies who struggled with economic hardship.

In his address to Congress in March 1964, Johnson said: "What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front.

Were this so, we would have conquered poverty long ago. Nor can it be conquered by government alone. For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation.

Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation, not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy."

The War on Poverty claimed some notable accomplishments. According to the historian Michael Katz, "Between 1965 and 1972, the government transfer programs lifted about half the poor over the poverty line." Many programs, such as Head Start, became popular across the nation and perceived as integral to the well being of struggling Americans.

Even as the policies were making great strides, Republicans attacked the War on Poverty as a waste of federal money that only helped elected officials.

Many Democratic urban machine politicians lambasted the Community Action Program—a part of the war on poverty that put money into the hands of local organizations to shape anti-poverty initiatives--because they felt the dollars were winding up in the hands of left-wing organizations who then opposed them. Many groups representing the poor felt the War on Poverty did not go far enough.

For decades afterward, attempts to reduce levels of poverty through government action were unpopular. Indeed, AFDC, a product of the New Deal commonly known as welfare, became the focus of conservatives who called for eliminating the program and younger Democrats who felt it needed to be reformed. Reforming welfare gained more attention than the problem the program was originally meant to solve.

Today's silence about poverty is striking. Very few presidential candidates ever bring up the issue. There have been a few in each party, such as John Edwards for the Democrats and Rick Santorum for the Republicans, but in general this is the cause that has no champion.

The new data from the Census Bureau, comes at a crucial time, with government programs on the chopping block as Washington focuses on cutting the budget deficit.

Candidates running for office in 2012 should be forced to confront this issue and explain what they intend to do about it.

Proposals such as public jobs, education reform, and tax incentives to rebuild blighted areas must be discussed. There must also be strong consideration given to protecting -- and even expanding --state and local services for the poor despite the current obsession with budget cuts.

Unless voters and the media help to make this an issue in the campaign, the problem will likely only become worse.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Fights To Protect Tax Breaks For Rich As Unemployment Rises (Warren Buffett: "Raise My Taxes!")

Tax the rich: How Obama will pay for his stimulus package

President Obama proposed Monday to pay for his $447 billion stimulus package largely by taxing the rich more.

Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples).

The tax measure would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, when the White House assumes the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%, up from the current 33% and 35% as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Obama's proposal would cap itemized deductions at 28%. That would mean for every $100 in deductions the rich claim in 2013, they would be able to reduce their tax bill by only $28. That would be less than the $36 or $39.60 they would get if they are in the top two tax brackets.

Relative to other federal tax filers, high-income households benefit disproportionately from itemized deductions -- including those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

What's in Obama's stimulus package

Obama's plan is similar to one he offered in each of his three budgets. But the proposal has gone nowhere in Congress.

The president put forth other repeat proposals on Monday to pay for the stimulus package.

So-called carried interest -- a portion of the money paid to managers of hedge funds and other investments partnerships -- would be taxed as ordinary income under Obama. Translation: It would be subject to rates as high as 39.6%, up from the current preferential rate of 15%. The White House estimates this change could raise $18 billion over 10 years.

Obama also wants to repeal various oil subsidies for an estimated savings of $40 billion. And he would impose a less-generous depreciation rule for the purchase of corporate jets. That measure would raise an estimated $3 billion.

All told, the pay-for proposals would raise roughly $467 billion, White House budget director Jacob Lew told reporters.

Lew noted that the White House measures "intentionally overachieve" on savings to compensate for likely differences in estimates that will be made by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official cost-and-savings arbiter for Congress.

"We've built in a cushion for the differences that happen," Lew said.

The president's pay-for proposals will likely meet with stiff opposition from Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers don't want to raise taxes on anyone and aren't keen on the president's jobs plan to begin with, even though it contains more than $200 billion in tax cuts.

And at a time when Congress' debt super committee is working to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Obama's pay-for plan would reduce the committee's revenue-raising options.

On the other hand, many career deficit hawks support measures to spur the economy now, so long as they are paid for eventually and paired with a long-term debt reduction plan.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

Bank Of America's Lay-Offs Threatens Charlotte's Economy; The Countrywide Curse!

Bank of America Confirms 30,000 Jobs to Go

Bank of America’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, vowed on Monday to eliminate $5 billion in costs annually by 2014, a move that will eliminate at least 30,000 jobs at the company, which employs 288,000 people and is the largest bank in the United States.

In a widely anticipated speech at an investor conference organized by Barclays in New York, Mr. Moynihan outlined his plan to make Bank of America, the largest bank in the United States, more efficient and profitable even if that means sacrificing scale. “We don’t have to be the biggest company out there,” he said. “We have to be the best.”

While he did not specify the number of jobs that might be involved, the company announced shortly after his speech that 30,000 jobs are to be eliminated under the company’s Project New BAC cost-cutting initiative. The initial recommendations by the architects of New BAC, which takes its name from the company’s ticker symbol, were reviewed last Thursday and Friday by the company’s top management in Charlotte, N.C.

“As the decisions are implemented, employment levels in the areas under review during Phase I are expected to be reduced by approximately 30,000 jobs over the next few years,” the bank said in a statement. “The company expects that attrition and the elimination of appropriate unfilled roles will be a significant part of the anticipated decrease in jobs.”

The first part of New BAC involves the consumer banking operations of the company, as well as its home loan, technology and support operations. Other parts of the business, including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, will be reviewed in the second phase, which begins in October and continues through March 2012.

Out of $73 billion in annual expenses, Mr. Moynihan aims to cut at least $5 billion by shutting some of its 63 data centers, eliminating overlapping deposit systems and trimming layers of back-office staff accumulated during the acquisition binge undertaken by his predecessor, Ken Lewis.

“It’s taking out work we don’t need to do any more, and getting it out of the company,” he said. “We’re a much simpler company than we were 24 months ago.”

While the speech fell short of the bold blueprint many analysts and investors had been hoping for, Bank of America shares rose in early trading by 1.1 percent to $7.06.

It has been a very busy summer for Mr. Moynihan. In the last few weeks, the company has announced a management shake-up, a $5 billion investment by Warren E. Buffett and the sale of more than $15 billion in assets.

None of those major news events have propped up the bank’s battered stock, which is down nearly 30 percent since the beginning of August.

During the question-and-answer part of the session, Mr. Moynihan was asked whether Bank of America had been asked by the federal regulators to raise capital at the time of Mr. Buffett’s investment. Mr. Moynihan said they had not.

A shareholder asked him: “Can you or would you bankrupt Countrywide?” Mounting losses at Countrywide Financial are still plaguing the bank, three years after Bank of America bought it for $2.8 billion when Countrywide nearly collapsed into bankruptcy as its financing dried up.

Mr. Moynihan answered that in dealing with the troubled mortgage giant, the bank “looks at all our options on everything.”

When the questioner followed up by asking Mr. Moynihan if he was saying that bankrupting Countrywide was a viable option, Mr. Moynihan again demurred. “There are options around all this stuff that we continue to work on,” he said.

Angry investors are trying to force Bank of America, and other large banks, to buy back billions of dollars worth of mortgages that have defaulted, arguing that the home loans did not conform to the original underwriting standards or were originated with little evidence of adequate assets on the part of borrowers.

In other cases, investors including the federal government and the insurance giant A.I.G. want to recover tens of billions of dollars from the big banks for losses on securities they assembled from now-troubled subprime mortgages.

Then there is the investigation by state attorneys general into mortgage servicing abuses, which could cost the big banks more than $20 billion in a proposed settlement that so far they’ve been unable to finalize. “The attorneys generals settlement is part of what can move us forward, but the settlement has to be reasonable for the company and reasonable for shareholders,” Mr. Moynihan said.


View Larger Map

Sources: Associated Press, Charlotte Magazine, Forbes, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Warren Buffett Urges Congress To Raise Taxes On Rich & Reform Tax Code

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.





A Closer Look at Taxes on the Rich

With the budget deficit growing and tax rates at a 60-year low, one question will remain near the center of the political debate in the coming months: Should the federal government raise taxes on the rich?

Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor known as the Oracle of Omaha, pushed the issue to the forefront this week by urging members of the new Congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction to stop “coddling” him and other affluent Americans and raise their taxes.

In an opinion article in The New York Times on Monday, Mr. Buffett said he paid just under $7 million in federal payroll and income taxes last year, about 17 percent of his income, a lower percentage than anyone else in his office.

Echoing comments he has made in the past, he called on Congress to make the tax system more fair by rolling back the so-called Bush tax cuts on people who earn more than $1 million a year and on income from capital gains and dividends. He would also close the loophole allowing hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate.

Whatever the political viability, his proposal would put a significant dent in the nation’s budget shortfall. Based on projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury, the tax increase on all three fronts would generate as much as $500 billion in new revenue over the next decade — about a third of what the Congressional committee is supposed to cut from the deficit.

“It’s not going to solve the long-term budget shortfall all by itself,” said Eric Toder, an economist at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “The only way to do that is to have broader tax increases or reduce entitlements. But it could be an important piece of the puzzle.”

Because of Mr. Buffett’s high visibility and wealth — Forbes estimates his net worth at $50 billion, making him the world’s third-richest person — his comments brought a torrent of reaction. President Obama, who has fought unsuccessfully to increase taxes on the nation’s highest earners, cheered Mr. Buffett’s remarks during his Midwestern bus tour on Monday, saying that it was only fair that the spending cuts be balanced by tax increases on the wealthy.

Conservative bloggers and commentators brushed aside the proposals as grandstanding or as a gimmick to usher in a middle-class tax increase, and Pat Buchanan, a commentator on CNN, suggested that Mr. Buffett visit the section of the Internal Revenue Service Web site that accepts donations.

Republicans have been united in their opposition to tax increases, and gave Mr. Buffett’s proposals a chilly reception. All six Republican members on the committee have taken a no-tax pledge. Representative Kevin Brady, a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a Texas Republican, flatly rejected Mr. Buffett’s ideas.

“This is not a serious solution for deficit control or getting this dismal economy on its feet,” Mr. Brady said. “Economic growth does not follow a tax increase. So as much as I respect Mr. Buffett, his proposal fails on virtually every level.”

Despite the intense antitax sentiment that has helped the rise of the Tea Party movement since Mr. Obama took office, tax rates in the United States are at their lowest level since Harry Truman was president.

In 1950, the top income bracket had a 91 percent rate; today it is 35 percent. Mr. Buffett called for two new tax brackets for high earners — for income above $1 million a year and another above $10 million. While Mr. Buffett’s proposal did not suggest a rate, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that a 50 percent tax rate on income over $1 million would raise $48 billion over the next decade.

But one of the biggest factors reducing the comparatively low tax rates on investment income is the 15 percent for dividends, capital gains and “carried interest,” the money paid to hedge fund managers and private equity investors. Eliminating the carried interest provision alone would raise $21 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And restoring capital gains and dividend rates to the levels before the Bush tax cuts — when capital gains were taxed at a top rate of 20 percent and dividends were treated as ordinary income — would bring the Treasury an additional $340 billion over the next decade.

Any of those measures would face intense lobbying and a battle in Congress. Indeed, Democrats were unable to roll back the carried interest tax break or the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy even when they controlled both houses of Congress. But with the prospect of severe spending cuts and another round of bitter deficit negotiations in Washington, proposals like Mr. Buffett’s call to raise taxes on the affluent are likely to become an increasingly urgent part of the discussion.


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Mort Zuckerman Slams Obama's Policies Just Like Warren Buffet

Mort Zuckerman: Obama's Done Everything Wrong!


Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.





Warren Buffett Would Scrap Current Health Care Bill


Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system. He added that while he does not like the Senate bill, he’d vote for it in preference to doing nothing.

“What we have now is untenable over time,” said Buffett, an early supporter of Obama’s candidacy. “That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.”

“We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,” he added. “And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.”

But while Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, applauded Obama for taking up the reform effort, he said that “unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much.”

Asked if he would be in favor of scrapping the Senate health care bill, Buffett responded: “I would be.”

If the president were to start over, Buffett would advise him to “just show this chart of what's been happening and say this is the tapeworm that's eating at American competitiveness. And I would say that one way or another, we're going to attack costs, costs, costs, just like they talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Buffett urged Obama to say that “we're going to cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida or the Cornhusker kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and we're going to — we're going to get rid of the nonsense. We're just going to focus on costs and we're not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. And I would say, as president, `I'm going to come back to you with something that's going to do something about this, because we have to do it.’”

Like Democrats in Congress, Buffett would like to expand access to health insurance, but he said he does not “believe in insuring more people till you attack the cost aspect of this.”

“If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of — the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill,” Buffett said. “But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things.”

Sources: The Daily Beast, Fox News, Politico, CNBC, Youtube

Warren Buffet Advises Obama To Scrap Current HC Bill & Start Over

Warren Buffett Would Scrap Current Health Care Bill


Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system. He added that while he does not like the Senate bill, he’d vote for it in preference to doing nothing.

“What we have now is untenable over time,” said Buffett, an early supporter of Obama’s candidacy. “That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.”

“We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,” he added. “And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.”

But while Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, applauded Obama for taking up the reform effort, he said that “unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much.”

Asked if he would be in favor of scrapping the Senate health care bill, Buffett responded: “I would be.”

If the president were to start over, Buffett would advise him to “just show this chart of what's been happening and say this is the tapeworm that's eating at American competitiveness. And I would say that one way or another, we're going to attack costs, costs, costs, just like they talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Buffett urged Obama to say that “we're going to cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida or the Cornhusker kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and we're going to — we're going to get rid of the nonsense. We're just going to focus on costs and we're not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. And I would say, as president, `I'm going to come back to you with something that's going to do something about this, because we have to do it.’”

Like Democrats in Congress, Buffett would like to expand access to health insurance, but he said he does not “believe in insuring more people till you attack the cost aspect of this.”

“If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of — the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill,” Buffett said. “But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things.”

Sources: Politico, CNBC

Warren Buffett, Goldman Sachs Team Up To Aid America's Small Businesses...Job Creation

Goldman, Buffett to aid small businesses


Goldman Sachs (GS) might be one of few companies to have survived the economic downturn with profit to spare, so the company is giving back.

Goldman is teaming up with investing guru Warren Buffett in launching a $500 million initiative called "10,000 Small Businesses," which aims to provide assistance ranging from financing to lending programs for 10,000 small U.S. companies.

"Our recovery is dependent on hardworking small-business owners across America who will create the jobs that America needs," Buffett said. "I'm proud to be a part of this innovative program, which provides greater access to know-how and capital -- two ingredients critical to success."

Buffett is Goldman's biggest shareholder. The project will be co-chaired by Buffett, Harvard professor Michael Porter and Goldman chairman Lloyd Blankfein.

"Small businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and growth in America's economy," Blankfein said. "We are pleased to work with our partners in this initiative to support small-business owners, particularly in those underserved communities."

The program will contribute $200 million to community colleges, universities and other institutions for business education. Goldman will invest $300 million in Community Development Financial Institutions, which will help provide lending and philanthropic support to low-income and underprivileged areas.

The $500 million is about 3% of the $16.7 billion Goldman has set aside so far for compensation. The company paid back the $10 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds it owed the government in June.

The financial-market meltdown has caused many banks to hold off lending to small businesses, and the credit crunch has prevented many small-business owners from getting the credit lines they need to keep their businesses up and running.

In related news, Blankfein apologized for Goldman Sachs's role in some of the activities that led to the financial crisis, saying that the company "participated in things that were clearly wrong, and we have reason to regret and we apologize for them." Blankfein spoke at a conference Tuesday that was sponsored by Directorship magazine. He was named him its CEO of the year.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNBC, MSN, Goldman Sachs, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Warren Buffet Spends $34 Bil On Burlington Northern Railroad Deal

Buffett buys a railroad. Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, discusses on CNBC his company's $34 billion deal to buy Burlington Northern.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Buffet's deal is about betting on America. He still believes that our nation can bounce back.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Buffet's Berkshire buys Burlington. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is buying Burlington Northern for $100 a share, the company's largest takeover to date. Jon Langenfeld, a transportation analyst at Robert W. Baird, shares his insight.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: MSNBC, CNBC, Google Maps