Lawyers and Taxes

Supporting conservative principles based on Main Street USA values. Extremely suspicious of Ivy League elites and lawyers who are running the government.

Creative Accounting in Texas Senate Republican Primary

Texas Lawyer Ted Cruz made a splash among the political chattering class with a seemingly impressive fundraising haul in the first reporting period for his U.S. Senate campaign. 

 The Cruz campaign  was quick to boast about its success.  In reality, the numbers tell a different story.  According to the FEC, Cruz took in 61 donations over the federal contribution limit, including six donations over $9,000 and two $10,000 contributions received on the final day of the reporting period.  

Digging further, it becomes clear that Cruz’s financial report is not the strong showing among the “grassroots” or Tea Partiers his campaign claims. More than 70% of the reported contributions were $500 and up and more than 200 contributions came from lawyers, attorneys or others in the legal profession.  

In short, Cruz claimed to have raised $1 million.  He appears to have exaggerated that figure by close to $150,000.  Did he ask friends to give in excess of the federal contribution limits in the final hours to create a paper dragon?  Looks that way... 

 

Search for Rafael Edward Ted Cruz if you want to read the FEC report for yourself.

Ivy League Elite Ted Cruz, Jesse Jackson Jr., and the Constitutional Convention

While investigating the upcoming race to replace RINO Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, it has come to our attention that there is a young candidate claiming to be a movement conservative, but who probably actually fits more into the mold of the Federalist Society and other Ivy League lawyer elites.

Former Texas solicitor general, Ted Cruz, was quoted recently in the Washington Post saying that he sees the 2010 election "as incredible moment in time" and predicts a "real move in the coming year" toward calling a convention - referring to a Constitutional Convention.

Ted Cruz and the Texas Lt. Governor - David Dewhurst, a true establishment politician who is commonly referred to as "Dewcrist" because of the personal and political characteristics he shares with the former governor of Florida - have both staked out a Constitutional Convention as a plank in their platforms. 

Ted Cruz is currently running aggressively for the Senate seat and has started downplaying his support for his Ivy League ways in this pursuit.

He wants to convince Texas Republican primary voters - a group that is not usually taken with the Ivy League credentials Mr. Cruz so proudly wears while in D.C. - that he is part of the grassroots movement that is bringing real change to Washington.

The problem is that if Ted Cruz were to get elected somehow, how would anyone really know where he stands on the critical issue of protecting the U.S. Constitution?

Will he be with his Ivy League colleagues? Or would he stand with the Tea Party Patriots and Founding Fathers? 

Right now Washington D.C. is literally overrun with Ivy League elites - think Barack Hussein Obama - who think they're smarter than the Founding Fathers and who regard most Americans as sheep to be herded.

Let's hope Texas doesn't go from RINO to worse this election. Hutchison was not a true movement conservative, but at least she hailed from the heartland.

Incidentally, Ted Cruz is in company with Jesse Jackson Jr. on the matter of wanting to rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

We haven't heard much from him lately, but before he went into hiding, this speech on the floor of the U.S. House by then Congressman Jackson gave us an idea of the debates we could expect at Ted Cruz's Constitutional Convention.

Pledge to Repeal Trial Lawyer Provisions in Dodd-Frank So Called Reform Act!

Pledge-to-america-300x239

Perhaps a voter from Delaware said it best when he called the Kilroy provisions in Dodd-Frank act on behalf of the trial lawyers, "still another reason to keep the Democratic Party contribution spigot wide open." 

It's no wonder that Nancy Pelosi made sure that Congresswoman Kilroy was on the conference committee of the so called Wall Street Reform bill when it was being finalized. Neither of them wanted to risk having the trial lawyer giveaway provisions stripped out of the final version of the bill.

It was very encouraging to read U.S. Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) state that the Dodd-Frank Act that would only benefit "trial lawyers and government bureaucrats." Perhaps lobbyists should also be added to that illustrious group. 

So while it great that there was overwhelming opposition to the Dodd-Frank bill from conservatives in Congress, it is just a little worrisome that the Pledge to America didn't specifically address the trial lawyer giveaways in the Dodd-Frank Act or mention the damage the provisions have caused in the bond market or the pain in store for small businesses, local and state governments, and taxpayers everywhere.

It is very likely, however, that a victory for conservatives in November will signal a new ability and willingness to roll back the trial lawyer inspired language that is already causing problems in every aspect except, of course, for the ability of Democrats - like Pelosi, Kilroy, and Frank - to raise loads of cash from lawyers for the upcoming election.

On to November, on to Victory, and on to the Repeal of the Dodd-Frank liability provisions sponsored by Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy and Speaker Nancy Pelosi!

Pledge_to_america
 

RedState.com and the Dodd-Frank Disaster

Redstate_logo

This comment on a Redstate.com post back in July precisely identified the key problems with the Dodd-Frank act. As the voters in Delaware and New Hampshire make their voices heard in opposition to higher taxes, trial lawyers, and new government bureaucracies; our friends in Congress need to keep the pressure on to repeal the Dodd-Frank act and to get rid of the Kilroy-Pelosi amendment.

 

See Today's Wall Street Journal For An "Unintended" Consequence of The Dodd-Frank Disaster

Ausonius Thursday, July 22nd at 10:55AM EDT (link)

 

On page C1 and continued on C8 there is an article about Ford pulling out of plans to issue new bonds backed by packages of auto loans because the ratings firms in America have been almost terrorized by the Dodd-Frank Bill.

Ratings firms for bonds can now be held legaly liable for the quality of their ratings.

From the article:

“The result has been a shutdown of the market for asset-backed securities, a $1.4 TRILLION market that only recently clawed its way back to health…”

(My emphasis on “trillion”)

Later one reads that even “third parties” like lawyers and accountants, who provide opinions on a deal, must make their opinions public.

The article does not explicitly say so, but the implication of Dodd-Frank is that even lowly accountants who write a memo on Bond X could be in jeopardy of litigation (or prosecution?) by voicing their opinions.

Welcome to the Orwellian “Unintended” Consequences of Dodd-Frank! Welcome to the NewSpeak Method of Stimulating Private Businesses to start financing new projects!!!

I once taught at a school where curious traditions were present, e.g. when going to an assembly in the theater, students on the second floor were sent downstairs to the ground floor, and the first-floor students went upstairs to the balconies, causing absolutely mass chaos in the halls and delaying any assembly by over 10 minutes.

I dared to ask why and was called a troublemaker who had better keep his mouth shut and not question authority. (It seems that 20 years earlier, a prank of some sort had been played, and the solution to prevent it from ever happening again was to endure this chaos in the halls!)

So for the actions of a few, the 99% honest majority must now endure the chaos of Dodd-Frank and be under suspicion as possible troublemakers who had better keep their mouths shut and not question authority!

Kilroy-Pelosi Liability Provisions in Dodd-Frank Trial Lawyer Relief Act Impact Municipal Funding

In this excellent blog post from RadioViceOnline, the author points out that the new legal liability provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act aimed at enriching the trial lawyers will actually make it more difficult to build new police and fire stations with municipal bonds.

Radioviceonline

Dodd/Frank financial reform…haste makes confusion

September 7, 2010 at 3:57 pm by SoundOffSister 

The recently enacted Financial Reform bill, brought to us chiefly through the efforts of Senator Dodd (D. Ct.) and Congressman Frank (D. Ma.), was, like much of the handiwork of this Congress, passed in haste. Remember, something had to be done immediately so that we never have another financial meltdown like we just had?  This bill, too, was ponderous, consuming 2300 plus pages, and, like Obamacare, probably wasn’t read by anyone who voted for it.  Well, as Speaker of the House Pelosi (D. Ca.) would have said, now that the bill has passed, we can see what is in it. 

Within days, what we saw was problematical, and, I’m guessing this is the tip of the iceberg.  Here are just two of the issues.

The first involved the $1.4 trillion asset-backed securities market.  This is the market where corporations and municipalities sell bonds to raise funds for certain specific projects.  As an example, your town might issue bonds to cover the cost of a new police and fire station. 

What happened here was that under SEC regulations, any bond issue sold must have a rating from a “credit rating” firm, such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s.  The Dodd/Frank bill, however increased the legal liability of these credit rating agencies (a lawyer’s relief act), so the companies refused to provide ratings in bond deals.  The bond market screeched to a halt.  After a few days, the SEC had to “suspend” its long standing regulation of requiring credit ratings, and allow the bond deals to proceed without a credit rating.

The second involves the process by which the FDIC gauges the soundness of banks.

Banking regulators were “weeks away” from finalizing a long-running effort to set risk-based capital standards for smaller, less-complex banks, say people familiar with the matter.

But now, thanks to the Dodd/Frank Bill, it is anyone’s guess when that will happen.  Bank regulators had planned to use credit ratings as part of that process, but the bill bans the use of credit ratings in setting those standards. 

As Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, an FDIC board member said,

I do worry about there is a little bit of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It might be worth Congress taking a second look at.  [emphasis supplied]

Anyone think Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank will do so?

Please visit RadioViceOnline to leave a comment. 

 

Repeal Kilroy-Pelosi Provisions of the Disastrous Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation Act

Republican victory in November will make it possible to repeal the trial lawyer loving, investor and taxpayer crushing, Kilroy-Pelosi provisions of the Dodd-Frank disaster of a financial regulation bill.

National_mortgage_pro

Republicans eye Frank’s chair

Republicans are eyeing the powerful chairmanship of the House financial services committee held by Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, as one of the biggest spoils of victory in November’s midterm congressional elections.

Mr Frank, whose sharp tongue makes him one of the Democrats’ most formidable congressmen, pushed through Wall Street reform against Republican opposition and will have a key role in determining US housing policy should his party retain its majority in the House. Polls show control of the House of Representatives is too close to call while the Democrats are expected to retain control of the Senate, albeit with a reduced majority.

Barney_frank

 

 

Kilroy Contradicted on Her Trial Lawyer Amendment

Wall_street_journal
 

"...the lawyers have still another reason to keep the Democratic Party contribution spigot wide open." Ron Wohlust, Dagsboro, Del.

 

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 23, 2010, in response to U.S. Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy's defense of her anti-taxpayer, anti-investor, pro-trial lawyer amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act.

 

Main Beneficiaries Aren't Investors

Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy's letter ("It's Right to Make Ratings Agencies Take Responsibility," Aug. 10) attempts to justify her famous amendment as protection for helpless investors. Not mentioned is that her provision provides a sop to favored Democratic Party financial supporters, namely the trial lawyers and the public employee unions.

The rating agencies become de facto guarantors of the issues they score. Whether or not they were negligent in their work, any default in a rated security will be followed by lawsuits brought by investors and especially by public employee pension fund administrators. The latter have become eager securities regulation plaintiffs as they seek to shore up unfunded deficits caused by unsustainable levels of promised benefits. Securities lawyers are happy to take these big-fee cases, most of which result in settlements coerced by the high cost of defense and willingness of juries to spend other peoples' money. The rating agencies, faced with a risk to their very existence, understandably responded by declining to issue ratings, and the provisions had to be suspended to avoid a shutdown of the bond markets.

With unlimited liability attaching to their every move, it's difficult to see how the raters can ever charge enough for their services to compensate for their risks. But the lawyers have still another reason to keep the Democratic Party contribution spigot wide open.

Ron Wohlust

 Dagsboro, Del.

 

 

Dodd-Frank Act Will Increase the Costs for Local Governments to Issue Bonds to Build Roads and Schools, Kill Jobs, and Increase Local Taxes

Skadden_arps_4

Buried in the Dodd-Frank Act are provisions that make it very difficult for local governments to issue new bonds to build roads and schools and to fund other essential services normally provided through state and local governments. 

These new liability provisions - which were included in order to gain political favor with the trial lawyers - will negatively impact the basic services for local taxpayers and will result in less available financing in the form of municipal bonds which are used to pay for local infrastructure and services.

With the loss of these funds, the overall municipal budgets across the country will necessarily be negatively impacted, putting also at risk the salaries used to pay for teachers, fire fighters, police, EMS, and other essential personnel.

The law firm of Skadden Arps has written an excellent analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act. In it they point out that delays in bringing new securities to market, along with increased administrative, compliance and operating costs and increased exposure to third-party claims, will negatively affect the municipal bond market.

Local taxpayers will have to make up for lost revenue from municipal bonds used to provide for these essential services and infrastructure needs through higher taxes; all so that the trial lawyers can have yet another source of income.

This is not reform. This is a payoff to a powerful special interest group at the expense of taxpayers at the local level.

If you are concerned about these developments, we encourage you to contact your elected local and state elected officials. Also contact the Members of Congress and the U.S. Senate who represent you. Follow us on Twitter to show your support for our efforts to educate the public.

Please write your Congressman and U.S. Senators to express your opposition to these provisions. Please follow us on Twitter and Facebook to stay informed on this issue. Together we can make sure this relatively unknown provision is removed. 

Please click here for the full report; or, here for the section regarding the new liability provisions

Ohio Democrat Creates Economic Turmoil at Trial Lawyers' Behest

Main_street_ohio_15th

Friday, July 23, 2010

 Kilroy Keelhauls Economy with Sweetheart Deal

As Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy updates her resume for her post-November job hunt she can add a new achievement: causing economic chaos by bringing a $1.4 trillion market to a grinding, painful halt. As the result of a Kilroy-authored provision of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, the world's three largest bond rating agencies said their credit ratings could no longer be used in documentation for new bond sales. Because many types of bonds are required by law to include credit ratings in their official documentation, the bond market was completely shut down with no asset-backed bonds put on sale this week. 

 I'm not sure how many jobs the collapse of a $1.4 trillion market destroys or fails to save, but I'm sure it's a lot. And beyond the killed jobs, the ramifications for consumer credit will be devastating: Ford Motor Co. has already been forced to scuttle a debt deal to finance auto loans.

 [For a good discussion of Kilroy's blunder, watch the video here with Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally. It gets relevant around 4:21.]

 Think about it: Nobody can get a loan to buy a car because Congresswoman Kilroy just killed the bond market. If nobody can get financing then there aren't going to be many cars rolling off the lot. If nobody is buying cars, there's no need to make cars (or car parts). If there's no need to make cars or car parts, there's no need for workers to be employed at Honda Marysville (Congratulations to them on cranking out their 10 millionth vehicle earlier this week!).Worthington Industries would likely have to make cutbacks too as the demand for automobile steel tanks. So where does that leave us? Car dealers, car manufacturers, steel workers, the drivers who deliver the cars, the workers who make the car parts, and all the support personnel at all the previously mentioned entities left without work. Of course, you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial for a car dealership so there are going to be some cutbacks at the TV stations too from the loss of advertising revenues... but I'm sure, by now, you see the pattern: it's all connected. It's not so much a financial overhaul as an economic keelhaul. No bond sales = no consumer financing = no consumption = no jobs.

And why'd Kilroy do it? To make the financial system more accountable? To right horrific wrongs?

Nope. She did it to excite the erogenous zones of one of her key constituencies: the trial lawyers! This is an election year, and she needs cash.

The Kilroy provision (or Kiljobs provision, if you prefer) renders ratings agencies "expert", and thus, exposes them to a new liability similar to that held by auditors. A major difference, of course, is that auditors are liable for their examination of what is and bond raters are now liable for predictions of what may be. In effect, bond raters now face a level of liability greater than anyone else in all of business: in order to avoid being sued into oblivion bond raters must predict the future accurately every time at bat.

Congresswoman Kilroy knows full well that no one bats a thousand. Just look at her own political party and the "Summer of Recovery".

The impossibility of bond raters getting it right 100% of the time is exactly why Kilroy authored the provision making them legally liable for not having the foresight of Nostradamus: it's food on the table and Benzes in the driveway for her trial lawyer donors.

When they thrive, she thrives.

But we don't:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kilroy provision "has done the exact opposite of the bill’s intended efforts at creating more transparency and openness. It is forcing more deals underground, where there will be less access to capital and less opportunity for public scrutiny." Where only people who have the cash and theconnections can have access and reap the benefits.

Congresswoman Kilroy has sold us up the river again, pretending to pass Wall Street reform legislation while rewarding her donor base. Let's hold her liable in November.

 

Wall Street Pit: Global Markets Insight

Breaking Dishes in the Credit Market

By Larry M. Elkin|Aug 3, 2010, 3:10 PM|Author's Website  

Parents have a sixth sense that warns us when a small child has been too quiet for too long. We call out “What are you doing?” and the little munchkin chirps back, “I’m helping you! I’m washing all the nice china!”

The next thing we hear is a loud crash.

So it goes with President Obama and the current Congress. They want to help, but they just can’t keep from breaking the dishes.

Take, for example, their latest effort to ensure that investors get adequate information from credit rating agencies. The legislative fix was included in the recently passed financial regulatory reform act.

Thanks to this particular reform, would-be buyers of the affected securities now receive no ratings at all. Oops.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has for a long time required asset-backed securities to have ratings from established agencies like Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s or Fitch. Asset-backed securities are instruments such as auto loans that are packaged into bonds before being sold to investors.

When the credit markets crashed, it became evident that many of these securities were riskier than the agencies had thought. The bonds lost their AAA ratings, and their values plummeted. Investors lost a lot of money.

The financial legislation that Obama signed on July 21 attempts to make the credit ratings agencies more accountable for their perceived failures. These firms now are exposed to claims of “expert liability,” the same legal risks facing accountants and other parties involved in bond sales.

The agencies’ response was quick and definitive. They stopped letting bond-sellers use their ratings. Rating agencies do not have crystal balls. Sooner or later a security they’d rated highly would be bound to default, leaving the raters on the hook under the new standard. The only way the agencies could ensure that they would never be wrong was to get out of the guessing game.

This was a potentially shattering development for the president and his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. One of the keys to getting the economy rolling again is to restore a healthy flow of credit, as voters are likely to remind Washington in November. Asset-backed securities are essential to the credit market because they allow lenders to quickly recoup most of their funds so they can lend again.

But SEC rules require the investment bankers who create such securities to have them rated, and the new law made this impossible by prompting the rating agencies to quit a game that now seemed rigged against them. The market for these asset-backed securities was immediately dead in the water.

As a result, the SEC temporarily suspended the rule requiring securities to be rated. This six-month suspension, in theory, is to allow credit rating agencies to implement policy changes to comply with the new law. In the meantime, securities will be sold without ratings.

What will be different in six months? Nothing, other than the upcoming elections will be history – though the SEC would never acknowledge that political considerations enter into its rulemaking.

Actually, one more thing will be different six months from now: we will have a new Congress. Maybe the incoming group of legislators will be mature enough to fix the new law so the ratings agencies will conclude it is safe to re-enter this line of business.

Or the SEC might just let the marketplace decide whether it needs ratings at all. If the asset-backed securities market can function during the next six months without ratings, then the original SEC requirement will be exposed as having been pointless, and the new liability standard will stand as nothing more than an attempt to give unhappy investors one more deep pocket to sue.

It’s pretty upsetting when valuable things get broken, and it’s easy to get mad if you have repeatedly warned your little tyke to stay out of the china closet. But we must be patient with little children, inexperienced presidents and congressional Democrats. They are only trying to help.