Don’t know if you have credit cards with major TARP-rescued banks. I certainly do, and this week I received a notice from one of them telling me that they were summarily
changing the terms of my credit agreement. In essence, they said they were raising the interest rate on my card to 23%. Yes, that’s right – 23% on a balance well below my credit limit, on a card I’ve had for at least a decade without missing a payment. You don’t seem surprised. Perhaps they’ve done the same to you… and, in fact, they are doing the same to everyone, as far as I know. It seems CitiGroup, the recipient of $45 billion in publicly funded bailout dollars, has settled on a business model that empties the pockets of American taxpayers a second time. Charging 23% and more on credit in an economic environment such as this, when people are losing their jobs, their homes, their shoes, for chrissake… and when institutions like Citi are drawing money from the Federal Reserve lending window at 0% to 0.25% interest. So… I guess when they’re earning less than 20% on your ass, you’re considered a non-performing asset.
Okay, so that’s one screw job. Not surprising that they would attempt to get all of their rate hikes in place before the consumer protection law goes into effect. Law of the jungle, right? Still… our government has a bit of leverage over these guys. Last I looked, we were the equivalent of major shareholders. And last I looked, CitiGroup’s executives were still making a pretty penny (top execs getting an average of $18.2 million – not bad). If this isn’t a case when pressure should be brought to bear, I don’t know what is. And lest this seems as though I’m just complaining about my own situation, I should say that this is not killing me – it’s people whose mortgages are underwater, whose kids are in college, whose jobs are on the chopping block… I mean, those folks really worry me. And if they’ve got a Citi card that’s shooting up to 23 or 29% and a JPMorgan Chase card that’s rifling 5% minimum payments out of them, they’ve got a problem.
Of course, it goes beyond that. The banking sector is making life impossible for people’s employers, as well. It’s making it hard to get credit for capital expansion. It’s tightening up on educational loans, scrutinizing the financial profile of colleges and universities to a more stringent degree than even the Department of Education uses. It’s lobbying hard against its own regulation, particularly the proposed Consumer Protection agency. So it seems like we need to severely limit these people’s ambitions, instead of acting as though everything is still the way it was three or four years ago when nothing could ever go wrong, ever. Meanwhile, there seems to be no limit on the amount of money we can borrow to burn pointlessly (and, in fact, profoundly counterproductively) in Iraq and Afghanistan, year after year. It almost seems as though Obama is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall with respect to the latter war. I wonder when he’ll see it with respect to these rapacious financial institutions.
I suggest we all communicate with our Congressional reps about this, with a cc to the various committee leaders (and one to the President, as well).
luv u,
jp
Long time Republican Congressman John McHugh was tapped by Obama to be Army Secretary, opening up a special election to replace him. Instead of being in essence a regional race for a national office, this became a clusterfuck grudge match between two wings of the Republican Party – the moderate-conservative and the lunatic-conservative. And the actual fighting took place not so much between office holders in the G.O.P., but among retirees, resignees, also-rans, and professional bloviators like Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, George Pataki, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Army, and so on. The G.O.P.’s-nominated candidate was apparently not conservative enough to please these… these…. objects, so they inserted themselves into a district of which they have no knowledge, to which have no connection, and in whose welfare they have no interest, just to score a point for their brand of reactionary politics. They supported the Conservative party nominee, pumped money into the race, and packed the airwaves with their endorsement messages and attack ads. And, well… they lost.
lesser extent, the Democrats poured millions into influencing the outcome of the race for a then-open seat. (We even got a visit by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, endorsing the Republican. Not sure it helped much.) It’s the kind of thing that makes campaign finance reform seem a more urgent matter than either party is willing to admit. In that kind of atmosphere, it takes real effort to discern the actual political positions of the various candidates. Much of the advertising is intended to discourage people from voting, rather than changing their minds. I am a registered Democrat and received stacks of direct mail from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, all of them flailing away at now-Congressman Michael Arcuri, the Democrat, accusing him of pretty much everything short of the Kennedy Assassination. None of it stood up to the most cursory review, but who has time to do research, right? Again… very cynical.
kind of success story. The truth is, that country is simply blowing up a bit more slowly than it was a couple of years ago. I suppose you could say that the success of counterinsurgency strategy was to help bring a full-scale fratricidal war down to 2003-04 levels of killing. That is a bit like an arsonist taking credit for helping to put out a house fire he himself started – one that resulted in multiple fatalities. (Note to our “leaders”: Don’t expect a good citizenship award any time soon… aside from the Nobel prize.) I must admit, I find the “the surge worked” crowd more than a little nauseating – most of them were in favor of this disastrous war in the first place. If Iraq is to be presented as a model for future interventions, I can see why the Iranians might want to be building bombs. We’ve, in essence, destroyed Iraq, killed perhaps a million people, permanently displaced several million more. Anyone want the same out there? Anyone?
to “drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan” back in the 1980s and how we had, after that was over, turned away from that country and left it for the buzzards to fight over. (My words, not hers.) She might have mentioned that we had begun meddling in Afghanistan’s internal affairs prior to the Soviet invasion, and that that invasion was, in part, a response to the fanatical insurgency our intelligence agencies had helped to set in motion – you know, the one that later spawned the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a few other organizations we’ve heard from more recently. International interventions of this kind have consequences, intended or not, that seldom redound to our benefit as a society (to say nothing of the peoples we subject to our policies).