On Wednesday, we reported that 18 recipients of TARP funds [1] were not paying dividends on the government’s investment. Among those banks is one that got money thanks to help from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wrote a provision into the $700 billion TARP bill that essentially guaranteed help for Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank. Frank told the Wall Street Journal [2] in January that he’d added the section because OneUnited, which owned a large amount of Fannie Mae preferred shares, had suffered large losses after government took over Fannie. As he told the Journal, “I did feel that it was important to frankly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper.”
So even though OneUnited might not have qualified for a program reserved for “healthy” banks, it got $12.1 million [3] anyway — only two months after the bank was scolded by regulators [4] for poor lending practices and executive perks (such as a Porsche [4]). After paying the Treasury a $94,000 dividend in February, the bank missed its May payment. OneUnited did not return a call seeking comment.
Frank’s spokesman Steve Adamske told us the fact that OneUnited might be struggling again didn’t change the original rationale for the investment. Not only was the bank hurt by the government takeover of Fannie Mae, he said, but OneUnited was “one of few if any other African-American-owned banks serving African-Americans in New England. That was the central reason he did this.”
Frank wasn’t the only lawmaker the bank had as an ally. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., whose husband held shares in the bank, arranged a meeting last September between regulators and the National Bankers Association, whose chairman was the general counsel of OneUnited. Treasury officials told the New York Times [5] that OneUnited’s CEO, who was also present, used the occasion to request a $50 million bailout.
The language in the TARP bill (passed only weeks after that meeting) set out three criteria tailored to OneUnited’s condition. The “Secretary [of the Treasury] shall take into consideration ... providing financial assistance to financial institutions,” the bill reads [6], that 1) have assets under $1 billion, 2) were at least adequately capitalized under regulatory guidelines as of June 30, 2008, and 3) owned preferred shares in Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and were significantly hurt by the takeover. The bill emphasizes that institutions “serving low- and moderate-income populations and other underserved communities” should be given consideration.
It’s unclear if any other of the 657 banks to receive funds through the main bailout program have also met these criteria. Frank’s spokesman could not name one.
Urban Outfitters
We, Americans, are fools.
1i'm at a loss for words,but living overseas is looking mighty good lately
2
3So BF slept with someone from FM2, which BF said was a safe investment, it tanks. BF from MASS then bails out an MASS AA bank because they listened to him and took on FM2 shares. Then a AA politician from the other side of the country whose personal wealth is dependent on this, pipes in and says yes to it to save herself from a major loss. Would this have happened if the bank was a LO or WO bank.
I hate that over sized lispy purple dinosaur.
4***************
"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
The whole process is just so frustrating. Normally, I can't even read this stuff because I find it so upsetting.
5another odd bailout:
"Remember Charlie Rangel? The Congressman illegally renting multiple apartments in New York City subject to rent control who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee? Back in the 70s, he beat his predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, in a primary over, among other things, shady dealings in the Bahamas. Now Rangel appears to have his own shady dealings in the US Virgin Islands.
The long and short of it is that Chairman Rangel is defending a provision of the bailout that allows the government of the Virgin Islands to subsidize (paid for with US excise taxes) the building of facilities for Diageo, the makers of Captain Morgan rum. Oh. And Rangel has a lot of donors in the Virgin Islands.
This one is a little complicated. So let me walk you through it.
There was a provision in the Bailout (aka TARP) that allows “Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to pocket $192 million in federal excise taxes collected from rum-makers,” a substantial proportion of which is then handed out by the territories to rum-makers who maintain operations there in the form of “marketing subsidies and production incentives.”
Or at least it is by the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico was apparently not giving Diageo, the maker of Captain Morgan rum, enough money from the public coffers. So as of 2012, Diageo will be moving to the Virgin Islands, whose government is more willing to subsidize the company (which, you might be interested to know, had a £2.2 billion operating profit in 2008). Under the deal cut between Diageo and the Virgin Islands:
…the Virgin Islands is to build Diageo a $165 million, state-of-the-art plant on the island of St. Croix. After assuming a $500 million debt obligation associated with the plant’s construction, the Virgin Islands will hand over the keys and title to Diageo. The Virgin Islands will tap its portion of the rum tax revenue to pay the $18.4 million in annual financing costs.
The 30-year agreement also gives Diageo a $2.1 billion marketing subsidy…
So what, right? Well … Chairman Rangel has a pretty good fundraising network in the Virgin Islands, and this wouldn’t be the first time he championed legislation benefiting Virgin Islands-based Rangel donors:
The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed legislation that would effectively halt some current tax audits of people who get a tax break for living and operating a business in the United States Virgin Islands.
Many beneficiaries of the tax break are campaign contributors to the lawmaker, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, according to data collected by CQ MoneyLine, which tracks political contributions.
So what, right? Well … Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, wants to put a stop to corporate handouts like this. Sure, he’s got a good, in-my-backyard kind of reason, but it actually sounds like good policy. According to Reuters, Pierluisi “proposed legislation seeking to establish a special rule blocking Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from using rum rebates to provide ‘unreasonable’ subsidies to rum producers. The bill defines an ‘unreasonable’ subsidy of more than 10 percent of the rum rebate funds a jurisdiction receives.” This legislation, which goes through Rangel’s committee isn’t moving.
So the question is why Rangel is so determined to give billions in corporate welfare in the Virgin Islands?
Maybe his donors there have an idea.
Or maybe he just “got a in little captain” in him and he’s just “standing up for what” he drinks."
***************
6"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
Where did you find this information Sam? Believe me, I don't doubt what you say but am amazed that you know all of this. What do you do Sam for a living Sam?
7It is amazing how we seem to be getting more information about the ethical distortions our representatives commit, and yet we seem to suffer from a kind of brain lock when it comes to doing the ethical thing with them in turn.
8Sheer insanity. The whole bailout mess gets me very worked up.
9it came from redstate
10& if i tell you i have to kill you
***************
"I will marshal all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide." - In the Loop
Grrrr
11So upsetting.
Kind of off topic, but thought I would share
12Ha, I was driving to the beach last weekend, and I saw a big sign that said something to the gist of " American Reinvestment and Recovery Act at work" First of all I wondered how much that sign cost... then I thought, wow there is noone even here working. I thought they wanted to really get stuff accomplished, but i guess not that bad. Then I also thought about the road they were improving. I drive down this road for 3-4 times a year. And only on a very rare occasion do I have to go slower than 55 mph. And it usually isn't for very long because there are about 5 passing lanes on the highway that only takes about 45 minutes to get through. So you can easily pass slower traffic at that time. I know that 9 minutes is way too long to wait behind a truck going 50. Funny thing is that people already drive 80 down that stretch of road, and making it 4 lanes will actually make the speeding worse. It made me really angry to think that our money is going to road improvements that aren't even necessary.
***** ***** *****
"The federal government and its bureaucracies dictating who, when, and what kind of treatment you receive is not reform at all."
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.