Wall Street Escalates Bonus Schedules Amid Tax Hike Fears

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tax Fear May Move Bonuses Earlier


Congress is debating tax rates, and that has Wall Street nervously eyeing the calendar.

Worried that lawmakers will allow taxes to rise for the wealthiest Americans beginning next year, financial firms are discussing whether to move up their bonus payouts from next year to this month.

At stake is a portion of the hefty annual payouts that are a familiar part of the compensation culture on Wall Street, as well as a juicy target of popular anger. If Congress does not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.

Goldman Sachs is one of the companies discussing how to time bonus season, according to three people who have been briefed on the discussions. Pay consultants who work with major Wall Street companies say that just about every other large bank has also considered such a move in recent weeks.

With tax politics in Washington unpredictable, bank executives have spent months sketching out several options for their bonus plans, including the possibility of an earlier payout. Lawmakers have been trading accusations across a partisan divide, but after this weekend, it appears likely that a compromise will extend the tax cuts for all income levels.

Even so, the banks’ discussions about bonus timing underscore how focused the industry is on protecting every dollar of pay.

A spokesman for Goldman declined to comment. Bonus payouts are traditionally shrouded in secrecy; companies are required to disclose their top executives’ pay, but they do not disclose the size of their total bonus pools in their public filings or internally.

Goldman, not surprisingly, is the canary in the coal mine. It often announces its top executives’ bonuses before other firms, and the richness of its payouts sets the tone across the industry.

This year the tax debate has imposed a new wrinkle, and executives at two large banks said their companies tentatively decided not to speed payouts, unless Goldman did. Then, these two executives said, they would consider paying early as a competitive measure, so that their workers were not upset.

These executives and the people briefed on the Goldman discussions spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

Bonus timing is also being discussed at scores of public companies, beyond banks, for top executives who receive multimillion-dollar payouts around the turn of the year. At most companies outside the financial sector, an early bonus would help only a handful of executives, while on Wall Street, the benefit would apply to many more workers.

“This has been a topic of conversation among those of us who are involved in designing and administrating compensation plans,” said Brian Foley, a pay consultant in White Plains, N.Y. “But I really would be surprised if anyone went down this path. This is a bounce-back year in terms of bonuses going up and probably not the time to draw attention to yourself.”

Wall Street firms pay out billions of dollars in bonuses each year. In good years top executives can receive bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars. Even midlevel financial workers often earn above $250,000 a year, and they receive most of their compensation as bonuses paid early in the new year.

Extending the tax cuts for all Americans with taxable income over $250,000 for joint filers ($200,000 for single filers) would cost the country about $40 billion next year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and it would cost $700 billion over the next decade.

Currently the highest rate for taxable income is 35 percent; that would increase to 39.6 percent if the Bush tax cuts expire this year.

The top five Wall Street firms have put aside nearly $90 billion for total pay this year, and they are expected to raise that amount using their end of year earnings. That would make this year one of the best ever for bank pay.

As Mr. Foley said, much of the focus within banks is on the appearance of the payouts. Several senior banking executives received either no bonuses or modest ones in recent years, and with the taxpayer-financed bailouts receding, top executives are pushing to be paid well again.

Some compensation consultants have been helping their clients devise new labels for the pay that are less likely to inflame the public. For instance, some banks are considering reducing the amount of their payouts that are labeled as bonuses, and instead shifting some to other categories like “long-term incentives.”

Depending on how banks structure this part of the payout package, it might not represent much of a change for bankers, since it has long been standard practice to tie up some pay for a few years for retention purposes. But, some bankers said, the goal was to make the dollar amounts appear less offensive.

Bankers are also discussing speeding up the way they award company stock. Many banks pay a substantial portion of bonuses in stock, rather than cash, and companies often have a multiyear delay between when those shares are awarded and when the employees can sell them. The tax bill does not come due until employees sell the shares, or own them outright.

Robert J. Jackson Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who helped oversee the Treasury Department’s rules on compensation at bailed-out companies, said he would look carefully at footnotes in company filings to see if they accelerated executives’ stock awards. “Even companies who pay in stock instead of cash can structure it to be taxed at this year’s rates,” Mr. Jackson said. “If it does happen, it may be a little tricky to see.”

It is not uncommon for Wall Street to consider the tax consequences of its pay practices. Private firms like hedge funds often let workers choose when they’re paid. And until about a decade ago, Goldman allowed its partners to decide whether they received their bonuses in December or January. Back then, Goldman was an investment bank, and like other former investment banks, it closed its books at the end of November, making it easier to pay earlier.

One of the challenges for the banks in paying bonuses early would be coming out with exact amounts before the year is over and before they determine their final earnings — a lengthy process. Banks have in the past found ways to get around rules, or make their workers’ pay look lower than it actually was. For instance, a year ago Goldman capped the pay of all of its London workers at £1 million each.

But last summer, Goldman made it up to its partners in Britain, albeit quietly. The bank made dozens of multimillion-dollar stock grants to its partners there, according to a person briefed on their pay. Credit Suisse, in similar form, paid its British bankers summer cash bonuses to make up for their lower pay last year.


View Larger Map


Sources: Meet The Press, MSNBC, NY Times, The Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

Debt Settlement Companies Targeted By FTC: New Rules Curb Scams

New Federal Rules Take Aim At Shady Practices Of Debt-Settlement Companies


Got debt?

Well, if you do, the Federal Government has made it more difficult for unscrupulous or sham debt-settlement companies to make false claims that much of your debt can be easily erased.

Debt-settlement or debt-relief services promise to renegotiate or in some way change what you owe to an unsecured creditor or debt collector.

As the economy tanked, many people fell behind on their consumer loans and as a result were drawn in desperation to firms that claimed they could, in some cases, cut debts in half. The promised assistance might have included finding ways to reduce a debt balance, an interest rate or penalty fees.

Law enforcement officials have increasingly been receiving complaints about companies that collected fees but did little, if anything, to settle people's debts.

The Better Business Bureau said that since the recession started in late 2007, it has received thousands of consumer complaints from all 50 states about debt-settlement companies that have driven people deeper into the hole, in some cases causing them to be sued by creditors or even to have wages garnished.

To curb deceptive practices, as of Monday, new rules being implemented by the Federal Trade Commission require debt-relief companies to make specific disclosures to potential customers, such as how long it will take to get results, how much the service will cost and the potential negative consequences that could result from seeking debt relief. The firms are also prohibited from misrepresenting what they can do for debtors, in particular the percentage of debt that is typically erased.

For example, in calculating how well a company has done for customers, a debt-relief service has to include those customers who dropped out or otherwise failed to complete the program.



The new rules amend the Telemarketing Sales Rule and specifically cover telemarketers of for-profit debt-relief services, including those offering credit counseling, debt settlement and debt negotiation services. Legitimate nonprofit organizations that help people renegotiate their debts aren't covered under the new rules. However, companies that falsely claim nonprofit status are subject to the FTC standards.

It's important to note that the rules cover telephone calls made to potential customers and calls made by debtors in response to advertisements and other solicitations, including people working on behalf of a debt-relief firm.

Another phase of the law will take effect next month, and it's significant. Beginning Oct. 27, it will be illegal for a debt-relief service to charge upfront fees. Companies that sell their services over the telephone won't be able to get paid until they successfully settle or reduce a customer's credit card or other unsecured debt.

The fees are often based on a percentage of the amount of debt that you want help with. Let's say you owe $20,000 on four credit cards. You might be charged a fee of 15 percent ($3,000) of the debt you want reduced. Here's the problem. You would pay the fee regardless of how many of the accounts, if any, are actually settled, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

There are also provisions on how money set aside for a settlement offer is to be handled. Customers are told to stop paying their bills and instead send money to the debt-settlement firm with the intention of offering creditors a lump-sum offer for less than what's owed. Under the new rules, a dedicated account has to be established at an insured financial institution, and the money belongs to the client, who can withdraw it anytime without penalty.

These new rules are a great first start, but Congress needs to close some loopholes. The rules don't limit the amount of fees companies can charge. There's just too much room to gouge people. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced legislation that would limit debt-settlement fees.

Further, the rules need to expand beyond debt-relief services offered by telephone. Providers who meet face to face with people before signing them up are exempt from most of the new provisions.

This effort should help stem the scams, but it won't stamp them out. There are just too many desperate debtors willing to believe anything if it means getting relief from their bills.

"It's significant that the FTC is cracking down on the offending debt-settlement companies, but real protection for consumers will mean enforcing the rules, and that'll be harder," said Chris Viale, chief executive of the nonprofit Cambridge Credit Counseling.

If you're in debt, learn about your new protections. Otherwise, you'll just make a bad situation worse. And don't believe in easy fixes. There aren't any.

Sources: BBB, Cambridge Credit, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube

Obama Still Perceived A "Loser" By Mainstream Media (Politico)

Why President Obama Loses By Winning


The recent passage of Financial Reform, just a couple months after the passage of comprehensive health care reform, should decisively end the narrative that President Barack Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naive hope crushed by the inability to master Washington.

Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency.

Eric Alterman, in a column in The Nation that drew wide notice, wrote that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats were at near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November.

This is an odd reversal of expectations. When he came into office, the assumption, even among some Democrats, was that he was a dazzling politician and communicator who might prove too unseasoned at governance to win substantive achievements.

The reality is the opposite. You can argue over whether Obama’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But especially after Thursday’s vote, you can’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. To the contrary, he has, as promised, covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill.

The problem is that he and the West Wing are not especially good at politics, or communications — in other words, largely ineffective at the very things on which their campaign reputation was built. And the promises he made during two years of campaigning have turned out to be much less appealing as actual policies.

“I tell you, it’s very frustrating that it’s not breaking through, when you look at these things and their scale,” said a top Obama adviser, who spoke on background to offer a candid take on the state of play. “Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had achieved even one of these? Part of it is because we are divided, even on the left…And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification.”

But there are many other reasons for Obama’s woes. Based on interviews with officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill, and with Democratic operatives around town, there are a half-dozen reasons why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures, he is clearly succeeding:

The flight of Independents

Obama sees himself as a different kind of Democrat: one who transcends ideology but is basically a centrist. By some measures, his self-image fits. His war and anti-terrorism policies are remarkably similar to those advocated by the man he blames for most the country’s problems: former President George W. Bush. He’s butting heads with teachers unions by enticing states to stop rewarding teachers on tenure rather than on merit. On immigration, he stresses border security instead of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

But on the issues voters care the most about — the economy, jobs and spending — Obama has shown himself to be a Big Government liberal. This reality is killing him among independent-minded voters — a trend that started one year ago and has worsened lately. On the eve of his inaugural address, nearly six in 10 independents approved of his job performance. By late July of 2009 — right around the time Obama was talking up health care and pressuring Democrats to vote on cap-and-trade legislation — independents started to take flight.

Many never returned. For the first time in his presidency, Obama’s approval rating among independents has dropped below 40 percent, according to the widely respected Gallup.

A recent poll by Democrat Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps found that 57 percent of likely voters regard Obama as “too liberal.”

“The key thing here is the economy and the unemployment rate hangs over everything,” another top White House official told us. “Until that gets better, for most people, they will be frustrated.”

The Ideology conundrum

Even as Obama pays the price for liberal positions, he doesn't manage to reap what should be the rewards. That's because he has never adequately reckoned with the divisions in his own party and taken a clear stand of his own. During the campaign, he avoided the whole question of whether he is a centrist “new Democrat” or a “traditional liberal” by insisting the debate was irrelevant and uniting the party around hatred for Bush and the power of his own biography.

But on a score of questions — how long to pursue war in Afghanistan, how much to emphasize deficit reduction versus stimulus, whether to court the business community or condemn it — the Democrats’ internal debate is relevant. By failing to clarify and speak often about his larger philosophy, the way that former President Bill Clinton did, and instead responding tactically to circumstances on Capitol Hill or on the day’s news cycle, Obama pays a price.

What is Obamaism? Conservatives think he stands for backdoor socialism. Liberals think he is a sell-out. Independents think he is a president with no clear compass who is breaking the bank with excessive spending.

Every move Obama makes, whether he is accommodating the center or the left, is interpreted through the prism of process and derided as reactive and expedient.

The tactical improvisation leaves even many Obama supporters saying they “don’t know what he really stands for” — as though there could somehow be a mystery as to where he stands after nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending and two landmark pieces of legislation passed within 18 months.

The likability factor

Many Democrats on the Hill don’t much like Obama, or at least his circle of advisers. They think the White House makes them take tough votes, but doesn’t care that much about the problems those votes leave politicians facing in tough races in 2010. Numerous Democrats have complained privately that Obama only cares about Obama — a view reinforced by Gibbs’s public admission that Democrats could lose the House.

But on the issues voters care the most about — the economy, jobs and spending — Obama has shown himself to be a Big Government liberal. This reality is killing him among independent-minded voters — a trend that started one year ago and has worsened lately. On the eve of his inaugural address, nearly six in 10 independents approved of his job performance. By late July of 2009 — right around the time Obama was talking up health care and pressuring Democrats to vote on cap-and-trade legislation — independents started to take flight.

Many never returned. For the first time in his presidency, Obama’s approval rating among independents has dropped below 40 percent, according to the widely respected Gallup.

A recent poll by Democrat Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps found that 57 percent of likely voters regard Obama as “too liberal.”

“The key thing here is the economy and the unemployment rate hangs over everything,” another top White House official told us. “Until that gets better, for most people, they will be frustrated.”

It was no coincidence that Majority Leader Harry Reid this week criticized Obama for not being tough enough in some legislative showdowns — and that Democrats leaked word that Nancy Pelosi ripped into a top White House official about the Gibbs comments.

In what would surprise media critics outside Washington, many reporters don’t much like Obama or his gang either. They accurately perceive the contempt with which they are held by his White House, an attitude that undoubtedly flows from the top. Insults and blustery non-responses, f-bombs flying, are common in how West Wing aides speak to reporters.

In a transactional city like Washington, personal relations usually only matter at the margins. But in a poor political climate those margins can be important, and there’s no mistaking that across the capital there are many people who seem to be enjoying the president's travails, and cheering whenever he takes a cream pie to the face.

As individuals, most of the people who work in this West Wing are plainly decent and hard-working folks, who say the modern media echo chamber leaves them no choice but to be aggressive.

But collectively Obama has recruited a team with an uncommonly brash personality.

His West Wing is unsteady

A lot of attention was paid to how Obama surrounded himself with powerful and skilled personalities in his Cabinet: Hillary Clinton at State and Robert Gates at the Pentagon sit atop that list.

But Democrats privately complain that the real power center — the West Wing staff — isn’t nearly as impressive. A common gripe on the Hill and on the lobbying corridor is that the communications team isn’t great at communicating, the speech-writing team isn’t great at speech writing (exemplified by Obama’s flaccid Oval Office speech last month on the BP spill and energy policy) and the political team often botches the politics.

The criticism is probably unfair on several fronts. It would be impossible for the best of communicators to offer clarity and convincing words when the country is locked in two wars, wrestling with a once-in-a-lifetime oil spill and mired in high unemployment. But the White House didn’t help its cause by wrongly predicting a record-sized stimulus plan would hold unemployment below 8 percent and then waffling on its commitment to deficit reduction while signing into law massive expansions of the federal government. As for the big speeches, Obama is often the main author.

The political team is rightly knocked for hamhandedness. The White House failed to clear the Senate primary field in Arkansas, Colorado and Pennsylvania — even after dangling government jobs to help its preferred candidate in two of them. And it couldn’t land the candidate it wanted to run for Obama’s old seat. But, then again, it is operating in a political environment in which the establishment has very little control in many of the biggest races.

Numbers matter

Obama is swimming up Niagara until joblessness improves. But, even while Obama doesn’t directly control the economy, he has not been a disciplined or effective communicator about the state of the economy and his prescriptions for it. People will tolerate a weak economy if they feel there is an upward trajectory. But Obama has not managed to instill that confidence.

“The economy is off the charts on what people care about — nothing is a close second,” one of the advisers said.

The unemployment rate is expected to remain near 9.5 percent through the election, which is a big reason that some White House officials are even more pessimistic than Gibbs about the chances of keeping control of the House.

It doesn’t matter that Republicans such as Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) say Obama’s policies helped avert a worse economic calamity than most Americans will ever realize — or that the federal government is turning a profit on some of the investments it made in bailing out companies in 2009.

No politician can escape the gravitational pull of bad employment numbers and economic figures in real-time.

The liberal echo chamber

Polls show most self-described liberals still strongly support Obama. But an elite group of commentators on the left — many of whom are unhappy with him and are rewarded with more attention by being critical of a fellow Democrat — has a disproportionate influence on perceptions.

The Liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness — unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that.

So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is also how he campaigned. The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Stan McChrystal’s scalp has been replaced with David Petraeus’s, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely clapped for the passage of health care. They treat the firing of a blogger from the Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation over the next couple years.

In private conversations, White House officials are contemptuous of what they see as liberal lamentations unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities.

The BP cam

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) beat his chest to force BP to make public the footage of gushing oil from an underwater camera. Democrats celebrated that as a victory for public accountability. But it was actually a painful defeat for Obama. The camera produced an indelible image played 24-7 on cable that highlighted how ineffectual Obama was for two months in stopping this catastrophe.

Obama is not responsible for the leak, and realistically there was little he could do to expedite the repair. But for an irritable public the Gulf coast debacle was a reminder — horribly timed from Obama’s perspective — that big business and big government are often a problem, not a solution.


Sources: Politico

Wall Street Reform: Pres. Obama's 3rd Legislative Victory

Senate Passes Sweeping Wall Street Reform


Congress passed a sweeping overhaul of America's financial regulations Thursday, securing for President Barack Obama his third major, hard-fought legislative victory.

Obama said he will sign the bill next week.

"I'm about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse," the president said at the White House.

"Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear."

The bill has been Obama's top domestic priority after the passage of health care legislation and his early victory in setting up a nearly $800 billion fund to pump life into an economy hit with the deepest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The 2,300-page bill aims to address regulatory weaknesses blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. It gives regulators broad authority to rein in banks, limit risk-taking by financial firms and supervise previously unregulated trading. It also makes it easier to liquidate large, financially interconnected institutions, and it creates a new consumer protection bureau to guard against lending abuses.

The measure also includes new protections for millions of American consumers.

Only three opposition Republicans in the Senate backed the overhaul, a reflection of the party's solidarity in bucking Obama's legislative agenda. The measure has already passed in the House of Representatives, where Democrats hold a larger margin of votes.

Partisan rancor in the United States has reached levels seldom encountered in recent history, with Republicans apparently gambling that they could gain strength or even win back congressional majorities by erecting roadblocks to Obama's reform agenda.

Republicans are widely expected to recapture many seats from the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate in congressional elections in November. Americans' frustrations and fears spawned by near-10 percent unemployment and a sputtering economic recovery are playing into Republican hands.

The Republicans also have largely welcomed into their ranks ultraconservative tea party activists and candidates who promise to reduce government size and power by, in many cases, uprooting social welfare programs. Their political strategy has been to paint the new financial regulations just another symptom of government overreach.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Democrat who is retiring, negotiated several provisions with key committee Republicans such as Richard Shelby and Bob Corker. With a virulent anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation, however, neither senator voted to vote for the bill.

Republicans were betting that the voters' antipathy toward big government and their worries over jobs would trump their anger at Wall Street.

"Ultimately in November, people are going to be looking at the size and scope of the federal government, spending and debt and see that a lot of aspects of this bill make things worse in terms of getting America back to work rather than better," said Sen. John Cornyn, the head of National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chairman, praised party colleagues for their hard work and also offered thanks to Republicans, even those who voted "no," for having added to the legislation during the long months of negotiations.

The legislation, among other things:

* Gives the government new powers to break up teetering companies whose failure would threaten the economy.
* Creates a new agency to guard consumers in their financial transactions.
* Shines a light into shadow financial markets that have escaped the oversight of regulators.

The bill's many provisions don't offer a quick remedy, however. Rather, they are a prescription for regulators to act. In many cases, the real impact of the legislation won't be felt for at least two years.

"We have no idea whether this bill is historical or not," Corker said. "We won't know for a long time, until the regulators decide what they're going to do with this bill."


Sources: MSNBC, Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

Senator Byrd's Death May Stall Passage Of Wall Street Bill

Senator Robert Byrd's Death Leaves Wall Street Bill In Doubt


Sen. Robert Byrd’s death Monday cast serious doubt on whether Senate Democrats can pass the Wall Street reform bill this week.

The combination of Byrd’s passing and early negative reactions to the conference report by at least one key Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, signals Democrats face the real possibility of falling several votes shy as they try to finish the bill.

"It is a tougher road, believe me," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Monday. "A 58-vote majority is not as good as a 59-vote majority."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) spent Monday trying to line up votes, and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) was planning to sit down Monday evening with one of the Republican holdouts, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

But at least one Democrat, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who previously opposed the bill has told Reid that he was still not supportive. Reid asked him to help Democrats at least break a Republican filibuster, but that was “not really” something he would consider, Feingold said.

"They'd like me to vote for cloture," Feingold told POLITICO, adding that he hears from leadership "all the time."

"I'm not going to enable something that doesn't do the job to be passed so that people can pretend it does the job," he continued. "It does not do the job. The American people deserve a bill that prevents the kind of collapse that occurred a couple years ago and I don't think this bill does it."

Reid could attempt to bring up the bill this week and force Republicans to vote against it, or he could wait until West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, appoints a replacement for Byrd’s seat, which may not come until after the July 4 recess, according a senior Senate Democratic aide.

"It's hard to see how we do it this week, unless one of our members is willing to change his mind or if Scott Brown stops his retreat," the aide said. "But overall, people remain confident it will pass sooner rather than later."

The House could vote as early as Tuesday, but action could get pushed to Wednesday, said a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Even before Byrd’s death Monday, the prospects for the financial regulatory overhaul appeared cloudy in the Senate.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Two Democrats, Feingold and Maria Cantwell of Washington, opposed the bill last month, and they have no given no indication to Democratic leaders that they will switch their votes. Without their backing, Democrats would need to hold the support of at least three of the four Republicans who have voted for the bill — Brown, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Without Byrd, Democrats would need all four Republicans.

But the late addition of a 10-year, $19 billion tax on banks came as a surprise to Republicans, who have typically used new taxes as reason enough not to support a bill. Democrats added the tax to ensure the bill was deficit-neutral and satisfied pay-go rules in the House.

A conference report cannot be amended, so Democrats will be unable to promise any changes in order to mollify Brown or win other votes.

“There is much to like in the bill, but I do not like the new $19 billon tax that was slipped in at the wee hours of the morning,” Collins told reporters Monday. “I'm looking at how that works and what my options are.

There is much in the bill that I think will strengthen oversight of financial institutions. I'm very pleased my capital standards amendment was included and that auto dealers and other small businesses were not swept up in the bill. So I have to weigh all those factors."

Snowe said Monday that she needed to study the bill before making a decision.

"It's regrettable that in the course of business, in this case in the House-Senate conference, that different initiatives emerged that clearly should not have," Snowe said, adding that Dodd had given her no advance warning about the provision.

But Snowe suggested the bank tax might not be a deal-breaker for her vote. When asked whether the tax was "more palatable" because it calls for a fee against banks with more than $50 billion in assets, and hedge funds and hedge funds with more than $10 million, Snowe said "absolutely."

"I think that is certainly preferable that it's on the larger banks where the legislation is appropriately designed and for including private equity and hedge funds. Absolutely," Snowe said. "I mean, if you have to draw the line some place, that's where to draw it.”

Durbin said Democrats, including Dodd, were surprised to see Brown's statement Friday. Brown said he was "surprised and extremely disappointed" with a $19 billion bank tax added to the conference report and signaled he might switch his vote from yes to no.

"Senator Dodd went the extra mile to try to address his concerns in the bill, so I hope he reconsiders," Durbin said.

Brown was one of the driving forces behind a change in the bill to temper the Volcker Rule, winning an amendment that allows banks to make modest investments in hedge funds and private-equity funds with their own money. Massachusetts banks including State Street would be helped by the change, as would others nationwide.

Dodd defended the $19 billion bank tax when it was first debated by the conference committee about 3 a.m. Friday. He said the amount of the tax could effectively be paid for if Wall Street executives were willing to forgo their bonuses.

Those executive’s firms “are alive because the American taxpayer wrote a check,” Dodd said early Friday morning, referring to the $700 billion bank bailout plan. “To ask them to forego their bonuses ... ought not to be a lot to ask.”

Brown, at least, didn’t sound persuaded.

“While I'm still reviewing the bill's details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” Brown said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

If Democrats are able to persuade Cantwell to support the bill — and hold Collins, Snowe and Grassley — they would have a path to 60 votes.

But the likelihood of that scenario remained unclear Monday.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the opposition from Feingold and Cantwell was empowering Republicans.

"No one has shown me a strategy by which my friends on the left can get a better bill," Frank said. "So I mean, if they vote against cloture, what they do is they increase the leverage of people who want to weaken it. So I don’t understand how, if you start out in the position that you want a stronger bill, you take an action which can only have the effect of weakening the bill."


View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Google Maps

Highlights Of Obama's Wall Street Reform Bill, What's In It?

Wall Street Reform: What's In The Bill?


After more than a year of work and two weeks of negotiations, lawmakers early Friday finished melding different versions of Wall Street reform.

The final bill won't be ready for a few days, but here's CNNMoney.com's breakdown of key provisions that aim to protect consumers, prevent firms from getting too big to fail and crack down on risky bets that leave taxpayers on the hook.

Creating a consumer agency:

Establishes an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau housed inside the Federal Reserve. Fees paid by banks fund the agency, which would set rules to curb unfair practices in consumer loans and credit cards. It would not have power over auto dealers.

Credit scores:

All consumers have been able to get one free credit report a year from the credit rating agencies. But the bill would also allow a consumer to get an actual credit score along with a report.

Interchange fees:

Lawmakers want the Fed to crack down on debit card swipe fees, which retailers pay to banks to cover the operational cost of transferring money. The Fed could cap the fees and make them more reasonable and proportional.
0:00 /2:30Behind the derivatives reform debate

Banning 'Liar loans':

Lenders would have to document a borrower's income before originating a mortgage and verify a borrower's ability to repay the loan.

Mortgage help for unemployed:

Unemployed homeowners with good credit would be eligible for low-interest loans to help them avoid foreclosures. The bill would spend $1 billion on such relief, using funds that had been directed for Troubled Asset Relief Fund bailing out the financial system.

Fixed-equity annuities:

Prohibits tougher federal rules on life insurance products, in which customers pay a lump sum upfront in exchange for monthly income over time, pegged to an index. The Securities and Exchange Commission had been gearing up to step in and start requiring more disclosure for these products, often sold to seniors, that are currently regulated by state insurance commissioners. Lawmakers decided to stop the SEC from tougher federal regulation.
Too big to fail

New oversight power:

Creates a new 10-member oversight council consisting of financial regulators to look out for major problems at financial firms and throughout the financial system. The Treasury Secretary gains a key role in enforcing tougher regulations on larger firms and watching for systemic risk. The council also has veto power over new rules proposed by new consumer regulator.

Unwinding powers:

Gives the FDIC new powers to take down giant financial firms in the same way it takes down banks. Banks would be taxed to reimburse the federal government for the cost of resolving these firms after a failure occurs.
Wall Street reform bill ready for final votes

Breaking up Banks:

Gives regulators strengthened powers to break up financial companies that have grown too big, but only if the firms threaten to destabilize the financial system.

Checking on the Fed:

Allows Congress to order the Government Accountability Office to review Fed activities, excluding monetary policy. Audits would be allowed two years after the Fed makes emergency loans and gives financial help to ailing financial firms.

Forcing 'skin in the game':

Firms that sell mortgage-backed securities must keep at least 5% of the credit risk, unless the underlying loans meet new standards that reduce risk.

Financial system fee:

Banks and financial firms would be taxed to pay for the $19 billion cost of implementing the Wall Street reform bill.
Risky bets

Regulating derivatives:

Attempts to shine a light on complex financial products called derivatives that many blame for bringing down American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500) and Lehman Brothers. Would force most derivatives to be bought and sold on clearinghouses and exchanges. Some derivatives, including those traded by agriculture companies and airlines to mitigate risk, would still be unregulated.

Spinning off swaps desks:

Big banks that want to engage in nontraditional bets, such as on mortgage products or certain commodities, would have to spin off their swaps divisions.

Reining in risky bets:

Limits giant Wall Street banks from making trades on their own accounts, although with a long lead time and opportunities for delays up to seven years. While the original proposal would have banned banks from owning hedge funds, the bill would allow banks to sink up to 3% of capital into hedge funds or private equity funds.

Improving credit ratings:

Agencies that rate securities must disclose their methodologies. The Securities and Exchange Commission would have to study a way to find an independent way to match credit rating agencies with financial firms seeking ratings. After two years, they'd have to implement such a process, or appoint a panel to independently match ratings agencies with firms that need securities rated.

Curbing executive pay:

The bill would also impose new rules for how all publicly-traded companies, not just banks and other financial firms, pay top executives. Shareholders will be given a nonbinding advisory vote on how top executives are paid while in office. Shareholders also get a nonbinding advisory vote on executives' outsized severance payments, or so-called "golden parachutes."

The new rules would also beef up oversight of pay practices within the financial industry, which some critics have suggested helped fuel the crisis by encouraging workers to place risky bets. The bill, for example, would require industry regulators to draft their own set of rules aimed at eliminating risky pay practice among banks and other financial firms.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Obama Touts Wall Street Reform Bill Consumer Protections-Weekly Address

View Larger Map


Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Continues To Target Wall Street, Help Mainstreet (Weekly Address)

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

Goldman Sachs & SEC In Settlement Talks; Silver Lining?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Goldman & SEC Reportedly Talking Settlement


Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s lawyers are in talks with representatives of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to settle the fraud charges brought against it by the regulator, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the situation.

Goldman's co-general counsel Gregory Palm, along with other lawyers and SEC officials participated in the preliminary discussion, the paper said, adding that the talks did not include any terms, such as the amount of fine or agreements Goldman could make with the agency.

On Friday, Goldman Sachs Group Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein called for the besieged company to undertake a "rigorous self-examination" at the annual shareholder meeting.

"There is no bigger priority for our board of directors and management than to undertake a comprehensive review of all of our business practices," Blankfein told shareholders.

Goldman will establish a business standards committee that will report suggestions to management on standards and transparency, he said.

The committee, which Blankfein first broached during U.S. Senate hearings last week but explained in more detail on Friday, is the latest sign that Goldman is responding to the concerns of regulators and the public backlash facing the firm.

Goldman, Wall Street's dominant investment bank, is facing fraud charges from the SEC, which has accused the bank of failing to tell investors that the securities underlying risky debt tied to subprime mortgages were chosen by a short-seller, John Paulson, whose fund was betting the securities would lose value.

Goldman has drawn the attention of a Senate subcommittee and is facing shareholder lawsuits. It also is facing a Justice Department criminal investigation, sources previously told Reuters.

Silver lining?

Blankfein, who testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee last week, said Friday that it "was not the most comfortable moment in my life."

Blankfein said lawmakers in Washington asked that Goldman return to help assess the impact of financial regulation. Goldman has a "duty" to explain the ramifications, he said.

For the past year, Goldman has faced a backlash over its quick rebound from the financial crisis and its bonus pool, which topped $16 billion last year.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson raised some of those criticisms on Friday, expressing concerns about Goldman's success while others struggled.

Blankfein, who said late last year he was "doing God's work," made an effort to demonstrate humility Friday.

"There is no future for Goldman, certainly no success for Goldman Sachs, unless the economy as a whole grows, and the economy grows in a way in which it doesn't create a wider divergence," he told Jackson. "If there is a silver lining, it certainly affords us an opportunity to be introspective."

Goldman shares turned positive on Friday, rising 1.2 percent to $144.03 in midday trading. They were the top performer in the Amex Securities Broker/Dealer Index.

Silver lining?
Blankfein, who testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee last week, said Friday that it "was not the most comfortable moment in my life."

Blankfein said lawmakers in Washington asked that Goldman return to help assess the impact of financial regulation. Goldman has a "duty" to explain the ramifications, he said.

For the past year, Goldman has faced a backlash over its quick rebound from the financial crisis and its bonus pool, which topped $16 billion last year.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson raised some of those criticisms on Friday, expressing concerns about Goldman's success while others struggled.

Blankfein, who said late last year he was "doing God's work," made an effort to demonstrate humility Friday.

"There is no future for Goldman, certainly no success for Goldman Sachs, unless the economy as a whole grows, and the economy grows in a way in which it doesn't create a wider divergence," he told Jackson. "If there is a silver lining, it certainly affords us an opportunity to be introspective."

Goldman shares turned positive on Friday, rising 1.2 percent to $144.03 in midday trading. They were the top performer in the Amex Securities Broker/Dealer Index.

Calls for Blankfein's Resignation

Some have speculated that Blankfein might not be able to keep his job through the struggles facing the firm, but he did not offer any indication Friday that he would step aside.

Longtime corporate gadfly Evelyn Y. Davis kicked off the question and answer session by calling for Blankfein's voluntary resignation — and setting a deadline of Monday.

"I have no current plan to step down Monday," answered Blankfein, cracking a smile.

Davis persisted, later asking Blankfein, "If you won't resign by Monday, how about by the end of the month?"

Blankfein again retorted, "I have no intention of doing that right now."

One shareholder from Yonkers received loud applause when he expressed his support for Blankfein.

Shareholders backed the company's nominations for directors and a proposal for an advisory vote on pay. They defeated a proposal by The Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic relating to the use of collateral in derivatives trading.

Shareholders defeated a proposal urging the company to separate the roles of chairman and CEO. Goldman's board has recommended a vote against that proposal.

Blankfein, who is also chairman, said at the meeting that splitting the chairman and CEO roles would undercut the board's judgment.

"Our bylaws and our policy don't require that the chairman and CEO be in one office," he said. "It is the judgment of the board."


Sources: CNBC, Reuters

Pres. Obama Pledges He'll Return American Gov't To Voters...Weekly Address

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

Wall Street Battles Washington: Who Will Win?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Wall Street-Washington Divide


For all the money that has moved back and forth between Wall Street and Washington in recent years, what’s most striking is how little each understands, still, about the other.

When young executives from Goldman Sachs appeared before a Senate panel Tuesday, members were taken aback by what they viewed as an Arrogant and Condescending tone; “smart asses,” said one Conservative Republican.

Yet by afternoon, there were flashes of sympathy for Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein as he tried to get senators to appreciate his pride in making the markets work — not just in profiting from “short” and “long” bets on derivatives.

All this comes to bear now in a few lines in the giant bill that would force major banks to spin off their swaps operations or lose all federal aid, including access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window. And Wednesday’s agreement to begin debate means the issue could be joined as early as Thursday, when Democrats take up their revised derivatives language — including this Section 716.

The restrictions go beyond even the “Volcker rule” associated with the former Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, an adviser to President Barack Obama. And since just five commercial banks — including Goldman, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — account for 97 percent of the value in the derivatives market, it’s seen as a direct hit on Wall Street, provoking a fierce reaction.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) was almost apoplectic this week in a floor speech condemning the provision as an ill-informed attempt to really rough up Wall Street — not reform it.

“It is penal. That is the purpose of this: punitive,” said Gregg. “In the end, it is going to cut off our nose to spite our face.”

“Rampant pandering populism” was his favorite catchphrase; that and Argentina under Juan Peron in the 1950s.

The Treasury — albeit considerably calmer — shares some of his concerns. An unusually aggressive memo from the Federal Reserve staff recommends outright that the provision be deleted. But at the insistence of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, it remains.

The Arkansas Democrat has touched a chord among senators wanting to break up the concentration of power in a few banks and put the focus back on traditional lending, not speculative trades.

“If they want to do swaps, there’s no problem with them wanting to be in this business,” Lincoln told POLITICO. “But they need to separate themselves out so they are not putting at risk the depositors from the bank. And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.”

“They can do it. They just have to separate it out. They have to capitalize it on its own. They can’t capitalize it from the depositors at the bank.”

Nonetheless, Volcker, who remains an icon for many in Congress, has proposed a more qualified ban: allowing banks to operate a derivatives business to serve their customers but not to trade among themselves or take positions on a proprietary trade.

For example, if a big Wall Street bank were asked to offload a large block of stock for a retirement investment fund, it might decide to do so in increments, so as to guard against any sudden impact on the markets. Since those stock transactions could then take some time, Volcker would allow the bank to protect itself — and its depositors — by generating derivatives as a hedge on the stock price.

Lincoln said she’s not fazed by going beyond Volcker. But as she explained her language, she also seemed to be leaving some room for compromise. Bank holding companies could have swap operations — separate from the bank itself, for example. And she said she is not opposed to a bank’s buying a swap to protect itself but that it ought not to be the dealer.

“They can still use a derivative as a risk-balancing tool,” Lincoln told POLITICO. “They just can’t be a major swap dealer.”

Watching from across the Capitol, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that Lincoln’s comments did leave room for compromise.

“The question is whether there is a legitimate need for commercial banks, including small ones, to be able to hedge their own risks,” Frank said in an interview. “If that’s made clear, then there is no problem.”

“There’s a bit of a push-pull in this. I believe the consensus will be, they can’t be dealers, they can’t be major players, but they should be allowed to hedge their own commercial risk.”

“Volume becomes very important for the regulators,” Frank said, imagining some conversation in the future when a regulator asks a bank: “‘You’re saying you’re hedging your own risk, and you’re way out there?’”

“I like the idea that banks don’t have other profit centers,” the chairman said, smiling. “They’ll have to lend more money.”

Gregg warned that separating the banks from swaps operations will create less credit, not more, since the new independent entity will drain away capital to meet its own needs.

“Where it comes from, quite honestly, is the creditworthiness of other activity. ... It will cause a contraction of about $700 billion of credit in this country.”

Within Democratic ranks, Lincoln’s activist stance is not without some irony. In the run-up to her committee markup last week, Treasury officials had portrayed her as being too weak on derivatives regulation and took credit for turning her around.

But she’s now gone further than the administration expected — and left Treasury in a position where it now looks like it’s defending the Wall Street banks from a more populist Congress.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t help himself in this regard by failing to even meet with the new chairwoman before her markup. And given his own history with the New York Federal Reserve and dealings with many of the same Wall Street interests, it’s the Lincoln camp that now suggests he ought to be on the defensive.


View Larger Map


Sources: Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC, Politico, Google Maps

Democrats Warn Bank Tax Is Coming, "Too Big To Fail"

Max Baucus: A Bank Tax Is Coming


It was a short hallway conversation but spoke volumes about the dilemma facing Democrats, hungry for new revenues after emptying the cupboard on health care reform.

“I don’t think there’s much doubt that there will be a bank tax,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus told POLITICO. And more than ever, the Montana Democrat signaled that Congress will also crack down on wealthy hedge fund and private equity partners who shelter their income as capital gains — taxed at half the top 35 percent rate.

Three times in recent years, the House has voted to rein in the so-called carried interest provision — only to meet Senate resistance. That’s changing with the pressure to find revenues to pay for other priorities such as a $35 billion measure extending popular tax provisions for businesses and families.

“I’ve asked my staff to look at alternatives ... Carried interest will probably be part of the offsets,” said Baucus. “We were thinking of putting it on later as part of tax reform. But we’re here; we’re here now.”

Wealthy Democratic donors are sure to scream; Baucus concedes he could face opposition from his own party moderates. But isn’t the chairman himself the “very soul of the moderate Democrat?” a reporter asks. “I’m a ‘Do-the-Right-Thing’ Democrat,” Baucus grinned.

Doing the right thing isn’t easy in today’s tax-writing world — whipsawed by record deficits, new “pay-go” budget rules, restless voters and a legacy of Bush-era tax breaks due to expire in December. Even the giant financial reform bill, facing its first Senate test Monday night, has potential revenue problems. And Baucus was sorely frustrated last December, when the Senate let the estate tax expire — thereby costing Treasury billions.

At least three major tax-related battles are taking shape in the next few months:

First and most immediate is how to pay for the long-delayed extenders bill, which Democrats want to complete by Memorial Day and which includes a must-pass provision authorizing long-term unemployment benefits past the November elections. Health care picked clean most of the planned revenue offsets in the initial bills, leaving a $35 billion hole and carried interest — worth $24.6 billion over 10 years — standing alone in this game of musical chair offsets.

Second — and fast closing — is President Barack Obama’s proposed bank tax. Baucus wants to keep the bank levy separate from the current debate over financial reform, thereby having the chance to claim the tax revenues as an offset. But the Congressional Budget Office is raising red flags that the Senate reform package will be $17 billion in the red if Democrats drop a $50 billion industry-financed “orderly liquidation fund” opposed by Republicans.

Third, but scarcely least, is this summer’s battle over Bush-era income tax cuts due to expire at the end of this year. The Senate Budget Committee last week approved a five-year plan that assumes the most popular middle-class tax breaks will be made permanent. House Democrats say some extension could be a powerful engine for a revenue bill prior to the elections; part of the mix would be some compromise on the estate tax issue, which splits the party in the Senate.

Each of these fights has its own nuances and competing equities.

The Obama bank tax proposal began as a plan to recoup money already spent by Treasury in the 2008-09 bailouts. The reform bill’s “orderly liquidation fund” is a bet on the future, imposing an assessment on the industry now in case big companies again fail and demand resolution.

Nonetheless, the two issues have become joined in the reform debate. Treasury officials have hinted they would like to sub the bank tax in and the fund out; House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says Congress should consider a bigger and more permanent bank tax than Treasury has proposed if the liquidation fund is dropped.

“The already strong case for the bank tax gets stronger,” Frank told POLITICO. “I think one possible approach is no pre-existing fund but a bigger and longer-lasting bank tax.”

How the levy is designed depends on how one sees the financial crisis — another reason Baucus is unlikely to move before late May or June, so as to allow time for hearings.

As first proposed in January, the so-called responsibility fee was assumed to raise about $90 billion over 10 years through a 0.15 percent tax on the covered liabilities of the very largest financial institutions. And Treasury has since refined its approach to focus more on risk—measured both by the loans or trading done by banks and how firm the financing is behind them.

In tandem with financial reform the goal is go after what one Treasury official described as “the toxic combination of high levels of risky assets funded by highly unstable sources of funding.”

“We look at both sides of the coin,” he said in an interview. “Someone doing traditional banking — using all deposits to fund even somewhat risky commercial and small-business loans — would be largely shielded from the fee.”

Nonetheless, the mechanics can seem so complicated that this message is lost. And lawmakers are clearly spooked by the notion that the tax could still penalize commercial loans and fall more heavily on banks like Wells Fargo than on Wall Street’s high rollers, Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley.

Getting to the bottom of this question means wading into the thicket of Federal Reserve rules governing the weighted risks of commercial loans vs. market activities.

The Fed’s capital experts warn against quick, generalized comparisons, but a Joint Taxation Committee report this month said that “because commercial loans are assigned the highest risk-weight of 100 percent, a tax on risk-based assets could prove a disincentive for an institution to make such loans, including loans to small businesses.”

“There are pluses and minuses,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. “We’re looking at ways to relate it to risk, but that’s not easy to do because the ‘riskiest’ are commercial loans, and we don’t want to tax those.”

This invites a Ways and Means option based on income and profits. A bank’s taxable income would be first adjusted upward by adding back some portion of the rich bonuses deducted as compensation, then would come a surtax imposed to raise the required funds.

Given the huge profits and bonuses being reported by Wall Street investment banks, this has a clear political appeal. But Treasury would argue that its risk approach is substantively better — in terms of the reform message at home and in partnership with reforms overseas by U.S. allies.

The very different carried interest tax debate has its own nuances — and winners and losers.

At issue is whether income paid to wealthy investment fund managers should be taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate or the upper income bracket, 35 percent and climbing. Proponents of the current system argue that the managers have a “carried interest” in the capital investments they oversee. Critics say it is ordinary income paid in exchange for the performance of services, and the managers often have very little skin in the capital game.

The House permits some leeway: allowing carried interest to be taxed at the capital gains tax rate to the extent that it reflects a reasonable return on invested capital. And after interviewing different coalitions with a stake in the outcome, Senate Finance staff is now looking at compromises that could address some complaints — but still yield much needed tax revenue.

Hedge fund partners make for an easy political target today, but much of their trading is so short term that it doesn’t qualify for the lower capital gains rate that applies to assets held more than six months.

Private equity, publicly traded partnerships in the energy field and real estate partnerships are often affected more, especially given the strained state of commercial real estate. To win the needed votes, Baucus will have to look at options that ease the transition by perhaps imposing a midpoint rate — between 15 percent and 35 percent — or grandfather in some deals already made before a fixed date.

These deals mean less revenue, so tax writers are also looking at closing a foreign tax credit loophole — estimated to be worth $9.5 billion over 10 years. But the gap is too big to plug without pain.

“There are no easy choices left,” said one person familiar with the search for revenues and focus on carried interest. “No final decisions have been made. We’re about a week away, but I won’t argue, it is a leading candidate.”


Sources: AP, Politico, Youtube