Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) will be the new Chair of the Senate Banking Committee for the 112th Congress. Senator Johnson said that he is committed to making US financial regulations world class and ensuring that consumers and investors are meaningfully protected. From the perspective of the Banking Committee, this will include overseeing the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and beginning housing finance reform. Senator Richard Shelby (R-ALA) will continue as the Committee’s Ranking Member.
During the House-Senate conference committee on Dodd-Frank, Senator Johnson vetted a compromise provision on a uniform federal fiduciary standard for brokers and investment advisers. The provision required an SEC study under strict parameters, which has now been filed.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Big Four Believe that PCAOB Should Clarify ``Failure to Supervise’’ within Quality Control System
While supporting the PCAOB’s objective to clarify failure to supervise under Section 105(c)(6) of Sarbanes-Oxley and enhance documentation of these responsibilities, the Big Four audit firms believe that this effort should be implemented through the quality control project already on the Board's agenda. The consensus is that a separate rulemaking on supervision is not necessary. If the Board nonetheless decides to institute such a rulemaking, it should not do so before it has completed the QC project.
A PCAOB Concept Release examines issues relating to the responsibilities of an accounting firm and its supervisory personnel with respect to supervision (PCAOB Release No. 2010-005). Section 105(c)(6) of Sarbanes-Oxley authorizes the Board to impose sanctions on accounting firms and their supervisory personnel for failing reasonably to supervise associated persons who have violated certain laws, rules, or standards.
In its comment letter on the Concept Release, KPMG said that effective supervision is fundamental to any system of audit quality control and permeates all quality control elements designed and maintained collectively to provide reasonable assurance that a firm’s personnel are complying with applicable professional standards and regulatory and legal requirements, and with the firm’s standards of quality. The strength of a firm’s control environment is influenced by the extent to which individuals understand their responsibilities, recognize that they will be held accountable and understand the related implications of that accountability. Documentation of a firm’s supervisory structure would enable a clearer understanding of responsibilities in the context of the respective system of audit quality control. That clearer understanding supports the effective operation of a system of audit quality control.
Thus, due to the pervasive impact of supervision on any system of quality control, reasoned KPMG, it is most appropriate for any documentation requirement relative to supervision assignments and responsibilities contemplated in the Concept Release be considered in the context of the broader quality control standards project. Any supervisory responsibility documentation requirement proposed by the Board should be made part of the quality control standards and considered in the context of a firm’s system of audit quality control in its entirety.
While the Concept Release suggests that the supervisory structure imposed on broker-dealers may present an appropriate model for supervision of public accounting firms, KPMG believes that the broker-dealer model of supervision does not provide a useful guide for constructing rules for supervision of the auditing profession. The NASD rules under which broker-dealer supervision is maintained are highly detailed and prescriptive and are intended to give definitive guidance in a business with a rigid hierarchical structure wholly unlike that of an accounting firm.
These detailed requirements are inconsistent with the nature of supervision effected by registered public accounting firms and their personnel in fulfilling their respective obligations pursuant to the Board’s professional standards. While the SEC has brought charges in the broker-dealer arena challenging the actions and judgments of more senior officers and supervisors, those cases are highly fact-specific and do not present practical direction in the context of accounting firm supervision.
Echoing these comments, Ernst & Young said that the Board should not adopt separate failure to supervise rules but rather should clarify responsibilities within the existing quality control framework. The Board should consider expanding the quality control standards to clarify supervisory duties. While Sarbanes-Oxley Sec. 105(c)(6)(B) tracks the broker-dealer duty to supervise language of Exchange Act Sec. 15(b)(4)(E), E&Y pointed out that the structure of an audit firm is different from that of a brokerage firm. Enforcement cases against broker-dealer supervisors are generally brought for violation of their duty to supervise securities salespersons. The activities of audit firm personnel, by contrast, have little in common with the activities of registered representatives. For example, the activities of audit engagement teams involve the extensive exercise of professional judgment.
Deloitte also commented that efforts related to clarifying or adding to supervisory
responsibilities should be accomplished through revision to the PCAOB’s quality control standards. Similarly, in its comment letter. PricewaterhouseCoopers urged the Board to consider revising the existing standards to incorporate a requirement for additional documentation relating to supervision and monitoring within the quality control standards that meets Board's objectives. PwC believes that supervision requirements would be better defined in the context of existing QC and auditing standards, which are designed to establish comprehensive professional standards governing how firms conduct audits, than in separate stand-alone rules overlaid on top of applicable QC and auditing standards.
There was also a consensus at a recent meeting of the Board’s Standing Advisory Group that failure to supervise should be baked into quality control. John Archambault, Grant Thornton senior partner, said that the issue of failure to supervise flows into quality control standards. The main thrust of failure to supervise rules is that audit firm personnel need to know who has what responsibilities. Mary Hartman Morris, Calpers Investment Officer for Global Equity, said that failure to supervise is one more step toward audit quality and is tied to key quality performance indicators. Steven Rafferty of BKD added that if Board inspections are finding that the failure to supervise is a failure of people to do their jobs then it is part of the quality control system.
A PCAOB Concept Release examines issues relating to the responsibilities of an accounting firm and its supervisory personnel with respect to supervision (PCAOB Release No. 2010-005). Section 105(c)(6) of Sarbanes-Oxley authorizes the Board to impose sanctions on accounting firms and their supervisory personnel for failing reasonably to supervise associated persons who have violated certain laws, rules, or standards.
In its comment letter on the Concept Release, KPMG said that effective supervision is fundamental to any system of audit quality control and permeates all quality control elements designed and maintained collectively to provide reasonable assurance that a firm’s personnel are complying with applicable professional standards and regulatory and legal requirements, and with the firm’s standards of quality. The strength of a firm’s control environment is influenced by the extent to which individuals understand their responsibilities, recognize that they will be held accountable and understand the related implications of that accountability. Documentation of a firm’s supervisory structure would enable a clearer understanding of responsibilities in the context of the respective system of audit quality control. That clearer understanding supports the effective operation of a system of audit quality control.
Thus, due to the pervasive impact of supervision on any system of quality control, reasoned KPMG, it is most appropriate for any documentation requirement relative to supervision assignments and responsibilities contemplated in the Concept Release be considered in the context of the broader quality control standards project. Any supervisory responsibility documentation requirement proposed by the Board should be made part of the quality control standards and considered in the context of a firm’s system of audit quality control in its entirety.
While the Concept Release suggests that the supervisory structure imposed on broker-dealers may present an appropriate model for supervision of public accounting firms, KPMG believes that the broker-dealer model of supervision does not provide a useful guide for constructing rules for supervision of the auditing profession. The NASD rules under which broker-dealer supervision is maintained are highly detailed and prescriptive and are intended to give definitive guidance in a business with a rigid hierarchical structure wholly unlike that of an accounting firm.
These detailed requirements are inconsistent with the nature of supervision effected by registered public accounting firms and their personnel in fulfilling their respective obligations pursuant to the Board’s professional standards. While the SEC has brought charges in the broker-dealer arena challenging the actions and judgments of more senior officers and supervisors, those cases are highly fact-specific and do not present practical direction in the context of accounting firm supervision.
Echoing these comments, Ernst & Young said that the Board should not adopt separate failure to supervise rules but rather should clarify responsibilities within the existing quality control framework. The Board should consider expanding the quality control standards to clarify supervisory duties. While Sarbanes-Oxley Sec. 105(c)(6)(B) tracks the broker-dealer duty to supervise language of Exchange Act Sec. 15(b)(4)(E), E&Y pointed out that the structure of an audit firm is different from that of a brokerage firm. Enforcement cases against broker-dealer supervisors are generally brought for violation of their duty to supervise securities salespersons. The activities of audit firm personnel, by contrast, have little in common with the activities of registered representatives. For example, the activities of audit engagement teams involve the extensive exercise of professional judgment.
Deloitte also commented that efforts related to clarifying or adding to supervisory
responsibilities should be accomplished through revision to the PCAOB’s quality control standards. Similarly, in its comment letter. PricewaterhouseCoopers urged the Board to consider revising the existing standards to incorporate a requirement for additional documentation relating to supervision and monitoring within the quality control standards that meets Board's objectives. PwC believes that supervision requirements would be better defined in the context of existing QC and auditing standards, which are designed to establish comprehensive professional standards governing how firms conduct audits, than in separate stand-alone rules overlaid on top of applicable QC and auditing standards.
There was also a consensus at a recent meeting of the Board’s Standing Advisory Group that failure to supervise should be baked into quality control. John Archambault, Grant Thornton senior partner, said that the issue of failure to supervise flows into quality control standards. The main thrust of failure to supervise rules is that audit firm personnel need to know who has what responsibilities. Mary Hartman Morris, Calpers Investment Officer for Global Equity, said that failure to supervise is one more step toward audit quality and is tied to key quality performance indicators. Steven Rafferty of BKD added that if Board inspections are finding that the failure to supervise is a failure of people to do their jobs then it is part of the quality control system.
Chinese Corporate Governance Improved by Passage of Legislation and Adoption of a Code
The corporate governance of Chinese public companies has improved dramatically since the passage of the Company Law of 2006 and the Securities Law of 2006 and the adoption of a Code of Corporate Governance based on the legislation, according to an OECD report. Chinese corporate governance is characterized by the increasing reliance on independent directors and a strong role for independent audit and compensation committees.
The Company Law and the Securities Law provide the foundation for drawing up and developing a corporate governance framework in China. The Company Law improved companies’ governance structure and mechanisms to protect lawful shareholders' rights and public interests. It highlighted the legal obligations and duties of those in actual control of the company, such as the directors and senior management. It improved companies' financial accounting systems, internal controls, and the systems governing corporate mergers, divisions and liquidation.
The Securities Law improved the system governing the issuance, trading, registration and settlement of securities and provided for the establishment of multi-tiered capital-market architecture. It improved the supervision of listed companies and increased the legal responsibilities of the controlling shareholders or those actually in control, namely the directors, supervisors and senior management of listed companies. The Securities Law strengthened investor protection, especially for minority investors, established a securities investor protection fund, and defined the system of civil responsibility to compensate for damages to investors.
The Code of Corporate Governance was drawn up in line with the basic principles established by the Company Law and Securities Law. The Code governs shareholders and shareholders’ meetings, listed companies and controlling shareholders, directors and board of directors, and information disclosure and transparency. The Code comprises the main measurement criteria used to judge whether a listed company has a sound corporate governance structure.
The Code provides that independent directors must account for more than one-third of the board in a listed company. Independent directors must be independent of their employer and the company’s main shareholders. Independent directors must hold no other position but that of independent director. In China, an independent director may in principle serve on the board of at most five listed companies as an independent director.
An independent director has a fiduciary obligation and an obligation of diligence toward the company and all of its shareholders. Independent directors must perform their duties without interference from the main shareholders or actual controllers, or other entities or individuals that have a material interest in the company.
The Code says that a company’s board may set up special committees on audit, compensation and nomination, with independent directors making up more than half of the committee member. In audit committees, at least one independent director should have an accounting background. Each special committee may engage intermediaries to provide professional opinions, with expenses paid by the company.
The Code of Corporate Governance provides that the main duties of the compensation committee are studying the appraisal standard for directors and managers, conducting appraisals, and making recommendations, as well as reviewing the company’s compensation policies. The main duties of the audit committee are engaging the company’s outside auditor, overseeing internal audit and the interaction between internal and external audit, inspecting the company’s financial information and its disclosure; and monitoring the company’s internal control system.
.
The Company Law requires directors to comply with the duties of loyalty and care. Under the duty of care, directors must not divert, misappropriate or lend the company’s capital, or serve as guarantors of the company’s capital. They must not misappropriate the company’s funds or deposit the company’s assets in their own personal accounts. They must not take advantage of their positions or seek for themselves or others a commercial opportunity that should fall to the company.
The Code of Corporate Governance stipulates that a listed company must establish fair and transparent standards and procedures for the assessment of the performance of directors and executives. The evaluation of the directors and executives must be conducted by the board of directors or by its compensation committee. The evaluation of the performance of independent directors must be conducted through a combination of self-review and peer review.
In addition, the Code requires a company to establish an incentive mechanism linking executive compensation with the company’s performance and the individuals' performance. The performance assessment of management must become a basis for determining the compensation and other pay and bonus arrangements for the person reviewed. Executive compensation is subject to approval by the board of directors, and must be disclosed and explained at the shareholders’ meeting.
There are aspects to China's institutional framework for the equitable treatment of shareholders. First, the regime ensures shareholders' equitable participation in corporate governance through equal voting power, low-cost participation in corporate governance by shareholders, cumulative voting rights and the right to make proposals. The Company Law provides that shareholders individually or jointly holding 3 percent of the shares of the company may, ten days prior to the general meeting, submit a temporary written proposal to the board of directors. The board must, within two days of receiving the proposal, inform other shareholders and submit the proposal to the general meeting of shareholders for deliberation.
The Company Law and the Securities Law provide the foundation for drawing up and developing a corporate governance framework in China. The Company Law improved companies’ governance structure and mechanisms to protect lawful shareholders' rights and public interests. It highlighted the legal obligations and duties of those in actual control of the company, such as the directors and senior management. It improved companies' financial accounting systems, internal controls, and the systems governing corporate mergers, divisions and liquidation.
The Securities Law improved the system governing the issuance, trading, registration and settlement of securities and provided for the establishment of multi-tiered capital-market architecture. It improved the supervision of listed companies and increased the legal responsibilities of the controlling shareholders or those actually in control, namely the directors, supervisors and senior management of listed companies. The Securities Law strengthened investor protection, especially for minority investors, established a securities investor protection fund, and defined the system of civil responsibility to compensate for damages to investors.
The Code of Corporate Governance was drawn up in line with the basic principles established by the Company Law and Securities Law. The Code governs shareholders and shareholders’ meetings, listed companies and controlling shareholders, directors and board of directors, and information disclosure and transparency. The Code comprises the main measurement criteria used to judge whether a listed company has a sound corporate governance structure.
The Code provides that independent directors must account for more than one-third of the board in a listed company. Independent directors must be independent of their employer and the company’s main shareholders. Independent directors must hold no other position but that of independent director. In China, an independent director may in principle serve on the board of at most five listed companies as an independent director.
An independent director has a fiduciary obligation and an obligation of diligence toward the company and all of its shareholders. Independent directors must perform their duties without interference from the main shareholders or actual controllers, or other entities or individuals that have a material interest in the company.
The Code says that a company’s board may set up special committees on audit, compensation and nomination, with independent directors making up more than half of the committee member. In audit committees, at least one independent director should have an accounting background. Each special committee may engage intermediaries to provide professional opinions, with expenses paid by the company.
The Code of Corporate Governance provides that the main duties of the compensation committee are studying the appraisal standard for directors and managers, conducting appraisals, and making recommendations, as well as reviewing the company’s compensation policies. The main duties of the audit committee are engaging the company’s outside auditor, overseeing internal audit and the interaction between internal and external audit, inspecting the company’s financial information and its disclosure; and monitoring the company’s internal control system.
.
The Company Law requires directors to comply with the duties of loyalty and care. Under the duty of care, directors must not divert, misappropriate or lend the company’s capital, or serve as guarantors of the company’s capital. They must not misappropriate the company’s funds or deposit the company’s assets in their own personal accounts. They must not take advantage of their positions or seek for themselves or others a commercial opportunity that should fall to the company.
The Code of Corporate Governance stipulates that a listed company must establish fair and transparent standards and procedures for the assessment of the performance of directors and executives. The evaluation of the directors and executives must be conducted by the board of directors or by its compensation committee. The evaluation of the performance of independent directors must be conducted through a combination of self-review and peer review.
In addition, the Code requires a company to establish an incentive mechanism linking executive compensation with the company’s performance and the individuals' performance. The performance assessment of management must become a basis for determining the compensation and other pay and bonus arrangements for the person reviewed. Executive compensation is subject to approval by the board of directors, and must be disclosed and explained at the shareholders’ meeting.
There are aspects to China's institutional framework for the equitable treatment of shareholders. First, the regime ensures shareholders' equitable participation in corporate governance through equal voting power, low-cost participation in corporate governance by shareholders, cumulative voting rights and the right to make proposals. The Company Law provides that shareholders individually or jointly holding 3 percent of the shares of the company may, ten days prior to the general meeting, submit a temporary written proposal to the board of directors. The board must, within two days of receiving the proposal, inform other shareholders and submit the proposal to the general meeting of shareholders for deliberation.
Is this another one of Steve Helms' WTF moments?
This billboard,one of several in Springfield (I saw it on Grant Avenue, just north of the Brown Derby store at St. Louis Street) certainly caused some fireworks at the last meeting of the Greene County Republican Central Committee which was held last week at a downtown restaurant.And the guy who started the fireworks?
Why Steve Helms, of course, the master of the sucker punch.
He is upset with Roseann Bentley, a Greene County Commissioner, Springfield Area Arts Council Board Member, former Missouri State Senator, former chair of the Senate's Education Committee, former president of the State Board of Education, and former president of the Springfield R-12 Board of Education.
The story I heard is that at the end of the meeting, as people were leaving, Helms got the floor and made a motion to censure Bentley for appearing in that campaign ad and also to remove her from the central committee.
After being seconded by Larry Russell, the motion passed.
WTF?
A recent bus rider had this to say about Helms:
He was discharged from the Army for reasons unknown; arrived in these parts of the country with fewer papers on birth, education and employment history than President Obama; drug out of bankruptcy by some woman active in the Republican Party; appointed to a top legal community position in the courts system with no prior skills by a Governor who quit his position after supporters had spent millions of dollars to get him elected, and, this is almost a novel but not as good as Winters Bone.And now he wants to kick Roseann Bentley out of the Republicans.
Another bus rider said
The employees at the courthouse say Helms, when he is there, hides in his office and works on Springburg and has nothing to do with the running of the office and courts system.
The judges rely on another person for leadership and liason with the Circuit Clerk's office.
Look at Helms' personal bio on his website, stevehelms.net:
Born: September 12 no date given here, does he even have a birth certificate? is he hiding something?What's Bentley done? - This narrative was taken from one of the many websites that come up when Bentley's name is googled.
Married: Virginia R Helms, January 30, 1988
Children: Sarah, David, & Elizabeth no mention of what school they attend, are they homeschooled?
Education: Sarasota High School, 1984 did he graduate? Is this Sarasota Florida?
Attended: OTC, Austin Peay State University, Hopkinsville Community College OTC we can assume is Ozarks Technical College here in #SGF, Austin Peay and Hopkinsville CC are in Clarksville TN and Hopkinsville, KY. Fort Campbell next to these two areas. So we can deduce that Helms was stationed at Fort Campbell sometime during his army career. (I took my basic training at Ft. Campbell, which is hte home of the 82nd Airborne.)
Military Service: US Army from 1989-1996 No memtion of rank? duty stations? dates of assignments? MOS?
Self-employed/Business: 1996-2008 Would the business be Helms Home Repair? Helms Enterprise and Complete Mobile Home, Mello's Tree Service? or maybe it is your "mini-vacation rental" business or your newspaper publishing business?
Greene County Circuit Court Clerk: 2008 - Present
Boards: S.A.L.T.
Local Emergency Food and Shelter Board
Organizations: American Legion National Rifle Association Missouri Republican Assembly - NFRA
Church: Second Baptist Church
This is from the Missouri Women's Council when they presented their Award of Distinction to Bentley in 2006.
Roseann Bentley
Greene County Commissioner 2nd District
Roseann Bentley’s exceptional contributions to the cause of women and children have had a significant impact locally, state-wide and nationally. She has been tireless in her efforts to make a difference over many years and through a variety of ways.
Roseann was the first woman elected to the Missouri Senate from Southwest Missouri. She helped set up a Take Your Daughters to Work Day in the State Capitol and gave keynote addresses to approximately 100 girls for several years.
Roseann sponsored legislation which was amended onto House Bill 1519 which took thirty million dollars from the gaming boat entry fees and used it to fund better early childhood education. This bill set up programs for more quality child care, for parenting education and for developmentally appropriate activities taught to childcare providers and to stay at home moms.
She chaired the Children’s Services Commission for three years. This commission discussed and analyzed how their actions and legislation affected families.
She was co-founder of the United Way Day of Caring fourteen years ago. This event has become an annual event in Springfield. She has seen thousands of volunteer hours given on behalf of women and children.
She served as the President of the Junior League of Springfield. The year she served, the League started a thrift shop which has given three million dollars back to the community from the profits the shop has generated. She was awarded the Association of Junior Leagues’ International Mary Harriman Award for her work on behalf of women and children.
She co-sponsored the bill that set up the first Missouri Office for Women’s Health.
Her insights and far reaching efforts are a tribute to a woman who has made significant contributions to the cause of women and families. Her dedication and focus are truly amazing.
For Helms to even suggest that Bentley needs to be censured for appearing with Coonrod in the billboard speaks volumes about the mindset of Helms. Helms needs to apologize to Commissioner Bentley, the Greene County Republican Central Committee and HE needs to resign from the Central Committee.
WTF, Steve?
Republican Pickup Truck Owner Fears Rhinoceros Attack In Missouri
from Wonkette.com: What is ruining America for middle-aged white guys who drive monstrous pickup trucks around the Ozarks thanks to the oil from Islamofascist dictatorships? Oh, the usual: President Obama, “the news media,” and higher education. Also, beware of “rhinos,” also. Thanks to Wonkette operative “Will Ferrell.”The only missing here is trucknutz.
Is Billy Long abusing his position?
Remember when Long turned over names of bloggers who were 'worrisome to Long'? Turns out that all those interactions between Long and the bloggers (You remember, the asking Billy questions he wouldn't answer and how he would just walk away from those seeking answers of him) all those events occurred in a one week period in early September during Billy Long's business tour in which he encouraged members of the public to come out and discuss issues. 
Well, they did. And this was Billy's response. (remember this all took place between September 6 -10, 2010 by several bloggers in the 7th district.)
Here are the tapes:
Notice in this tape after Billy gets down taking about how important the young people are to him, how he just ignores a question from one of the college students not once but twice.
In clip, Long ignores the questioner:
In this clip, after Long had spoken at Meek's Lumber in Monett, he completely ignores the blogger.
After that horrible tragedy in Tuscon, Long gave Sheriff Arnott a list of names, probably six, of people who were worrisome to him. Arnott told the press and the F.B.I. said the bloggers would be receiving a visit from law enforcement agencies.
These video tapes, all taped in the week of September 6, 2010, show Long consistently refusing to answer questions from constituents.
It wasn't until January, four months after the fact and a week after the Tuscon tragedy that Long decided these encounters were worrisome to him.
But, Sheriff Arnott says Long didn't give him the names, his staff did. But in the tapes, Long is generally alone without staff present -- save for one instance in Monett.
Videotapes don't lie. You have seen citizens question public officials like this frequently-- just watch C-Span. It happened to Roy Blunt. He didn't turn names of the questioners into the F.B.I. If Long embellished his tales of the encounters with the bloggers (I mean the guy's an auctioneer, would he embellish?) to make them more threatening than they were, as he appears to have based on the video tape evidence, Long's motives for doing so become suspect.
Long has a history of playing a victim. You heard that in his tale of what he is giving up-- his auction company...what kind of assets does an auction company have, anyway? A couple of portable pa's? A computer, a trailer maybe and a whole bunch of bidder number cards. He plays the victim with the bloggers.
Billy Long, Sheriff Arnott used the F.B.I. in an attempt to intimidate critics.
I gotta tell you, if the Greene County Sheriff and an F.B.I. agent came to my house (and I live in Greene County so Arnott would be in the right county) and started asked me questions I would have never thought to record the interview, in fact, I would have probably been scared sh*tless and fumbled all over myself trying to answer their questions.
Arnott and the F.B.I. agent --he's the only guy in this whole affair who was doing the right thing. Based on the information he was given, he had to check it out. The only problem is the information he was given was not true.
Bus riders, you watched the videos. did Billy look threatened? Using my favorite John Boehner quote, "Hell NO!" He ignored us most of the time.
I recorded an hour of conversation with Billy Long. His staffer kept telling him that they needed to go to another event. Billy kept talking. The staffer kept trying to shut him up.
At the very end of my conversation with Billy on September 7, 2010, I asked him if he furnished health insurance for his employees. During last night's debate, our favorite auctioneer was asked how much his health insurance cost. He didn't know. Ask his wife, he said.
Ah jeez, this is a guy who wants us to send him to Washington and he wants us to ask his wife how much his health insurance costs. For someone who wants to repeal and replace "Obamacare" you would think that he would know how much his health insurance premiums were costing him, you know, just sort of as a talking point?
But, remember this: on September 7, 2010, I asked Billy Long if he provided health insurance for his employees.
Billy Long replied "They're all covered, I've offered it to them, the ones that don't have, everybody's got healthcare, I offer it to them either in salary and that, and they always take it in salary, so."
Long told me, "everybody's got healthcare."
Then he inserted this caveat: "I offer it to them either in salary and that, and they always take it in salary, so."
But he said, "They're all covered." Then he said, "they always take it in salary".
Doesn't that mean that no one is covered?
Long is Wrong for the seventh district and why the tea party folks aren't letting him that he is selling them out and fast, is beyond me.
Billy hasn't learned that the kind of crap you can pull at an auction, how you can sucker people and manipulate them into making higher bids is fine in an auction setting and joke around and play grabass maybe ok while you are wearing a mike and wielding a gavel but there is no place for such actions and antics when you are a congressman.
A simple search of this blog will turn up repeated instances where Long has embarrassed the district or demonstrated his lack of knowledge of what it means to be a congressman.
A man is known by the company he keeps and Billy is keeping company with everything he said he was against.
"Not afraid of anybody,anytime?" But you turned their names over to the police. And that Billy Long was an abuse of power and was wrong, wrong, wrong.
More here.
Well, they did. And this was Billy's response. (remember this all took place between September 6 -10, 2010 by several bloggers in the 7th district.) Here are the tapes:
Notice in this tape after Billy gets down taking about how important the young people are to him, how he just ignores a question from one of the college students not once but twice.
In clip, Long ignores the questioner:
In this clip, after Long had spoken at Meek's Lumber in Monett, he completely ignores the blogger.
After that horrible tragedy in Tuscon, Long gave Sheriff Arnott a list of names, probably six, of people who were worrisome to him. Arnott told the press and the F.B.I. said the bloggers would be receiving a visit from law enforcement agencies.
These video tapes, all taped in the week of September 6, 2010, show Long consistently refusing to answer questions from constituents.
It wasn't until January, four months after the fact and a week after the Tuscon tragedy that Long decided these encounters were worrisome to him.
But, Sheriff Arnott says Long didn't give him the names, his staff did. But in the tapes, Long is generally alone without staff present -- save for one instance in Monett.
Videotapes don't lie. You have seen citizens question public officials like this frequently-- just watch C-Span. It happened to Roy Blunt. He didn't turn names of the questioners into the F.B.I. If Long embellished his tales of the encounters with the bloggers (I mean the guy's an auctioneer, would he embellish?) to make them more threatening than they were, as he appears to have based on the video tape evidence, Long's motives for doing so become suspect.
Long has a history of playing a victim. You heard that in his tale of what he is giving up-- his auction company...what kind of assets does an auction company have, anyway? A couple of portable pa's? A computer, a trailer maybe and a whole bunch of bidder number cards. He plays the victim with the bloggers.
Billy Long, Sheriff Arnott used the F.B.I. in an attempt to intimidate critics.
I gotta tell you, if the Greene County Sheriff and an F.B.I. agent came to my house (and I live in Greene County so Arnott would be in the right county) and started asked me questions I would have never thought to record the interview, in fact, I would have probably been scared sh*tless and fumbled all over myself trying to answer their questions.
Arnott and the F.B.I. agent --he's the only guy in this whole affair who was doing the right thing. Based on the information he was given, he had to check it out. The only problem is the information he was given was not true.
Bus riders, you watched the videos. did Billy look threatened? Using my favorite John Boehner quote, "Hell NO!" He ignored us most of the time.
I recorded an hour of conversation with Billy Long. His staffer kept telling him that they needed to go to another event. Billy kept talking. The staffer kept trying to shut him up.
At the very end of my conversation with Billy on September 7, 2010, I asked him if he furnished health insurance for his employees. During last night's debate, our favorite auctioneer was asked how much his health insurance cost. He didn't know. Ask his wife, he said.
Ah jeez, this is a guy who wants us to send him to Washington and he wants us to ask his wife how much his health insurance costs. For someone who wants to repeal and replace "Obamacare" you would think that he would know how much his health insurance premiums were costing him, you know, just sort of as a talking point?
But, remember this: on September 7, 2010, I asked Billy Long if he provided health insurance for his employees.
Billy Long replied "They're all covered, I've offered it to them, the ones that don't have, everybody's got healthcare, I offer it to them either in salary and that, and they always take it in salary, so."
Long told me, "everybody's got healthcare."
Then he inserted this caveat: "I offer it to them either in salary and that, and they always take it in salary, so."
But he said, "They're all covered." Then he said, "they always take it in salary".
Doesn't that mean that no one is covered?
Long is Wrong for the seventh district and why the tea party folks aren't letting him that he is selling them out and fast, is beyond me.
Billy hasn't learned that the kind of crap you can pull at an auction, how you can sucker people and manipulate them into making higher bids is fine in an auction setting and joke around and play grabass maybe ok while you are wearing a mike and wielding a gavel but there is no place for such actions and antics when you are a congressman.
A simple search of this blog will turn up repeated instances where Long has embarrassed the district or demonstrated his lack of knowledge of what it means to be a congressman.
A man is known by the company he keeps and Billy is keeping company with everything he said he was against.
"Not afraid of anybody,anytime?" But you turned their names over to the police. And that Billy Long was an abuse of power and was wrong, wrong, wrong.
More here.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Billy shuts the door on the Billy Long Auctions Llc; MO jobless rate now 9.5%; 26 million people under 35
don't want health insurance and Obamacare might have killed his mother back in March, 2008.
From KSPR comes this story —
I seem to recall a radio interview Long did where he told the DJ that without him his auction company was worthless. Looks like he was right. Now the question is, when will he get rid of this 1/3 interest in Murney Company?
IN other news, Missouri had third-worst job loss rate in 2010
From KSPR comes this story —
U.S. Rep. Billy Long was expected to sell his auction company but instead he decided to just close the doors.
After 29-years Long closed the doors on his auction company and according to his former vice president at Billy Long Auctions Llc. Long sold the company's assets to competitors.
Get weather and breaking news alerts on your cell phone >>
House rules prohibit representatives from owning a business while serving.
But Long could re-open his business when his service in congress is done.
Long consulted with an ethics committee on what to do with his company.
"He really wanted to clear the books of his business and focus one hundred percent on his role of representative." says Eric Olson.
They said Long couldn't sell the name of the company so Long sold off the assets.
I seem to recall a radio interview Long did where he told the DJ that without him his auction company was worthless. Looks like he was right. Now the question is, when will he get rid of this 1/3 interest in Murney Company?
IN other news, Missouri had third-worst job loss rate in 2010
A year-over-year 0.6 percent decrease in employment put Missouri third-worst among states in percentage job loss last year.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday that Nevada suffered a 1.5 percent employment decline in 2010, followed by New Jersey, down 0.8 percent, and then Missouri.
The unemployment rate went up in 20 states last month, the bureau said, down in 15 and stayed the same in 15.
On the flip side, Kansas ranked in the top 10 states for low unemployment rates compared with the national average. Kansas ended the year with a 6.8 percent jobless rate, compared with the national average of 9.4 percent, seasonally adjusted.
Missouri’s jobless rate was 9.5 percent.
The bureau reported this year-end data:
•For Missouri: A civilian labor force of 3,003,800, with 2,647,400 on establishment payrolls, and 285,100 unemployed job hunters.
•For Kansas: A civilian labor force of 1,502,400, with 1,330,200 on establishment payrolls, and 102,600 unemployed job hunters.
| Diane Stafford, stafford@kcstar.com
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The acorn didn't even fall in the same forest....
It is customary for any woman in politics who is against the established regime to be called feisty, more or less the way any elderly black sharecropper whose picture is taken by a magazine photographer is spoken of as having great dignity.
So starts Calvin Trillin's 1972 Profile of Sissy Farenthold. Continuing,
BTW, he won and is currently serving on the Homeland Security Committee with Billy Long and, along with Long, is a co-sponsor of this bill.
So starts Calvin Trillin's 1972 Profile of Sissy Farenthold. Continuing, Frances (Sissy) Farenthold, a state legislator from Corpus Christi who just lost a runoff for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Texas, was occasionally called feisty during the campaign by some visiting reporter, but the Texas Observer — a liberal Austin biweekly that happens to have as its principal editors two women who are sometimes called feisty themselves — titled its cover story on her last year “A Melancholy Rebel.” When Mrs. Farenthold said during the campaign that a “private government” of special interests controls the state capitol, she seemed to be expressing disappointment even more than anger. Her voice often had a tone of weary resignation, as if nothing would please her more than to hear that everyone in Austin had reformed and thus relieved her of the unpleasant duty of dealing once more with a tiresome subject. When asked about her mood by reporters, Mrs. Farenthold sometimes said it derived partly from her experiences during the two years she served as director of a legal-services program in her home county, just before her election to the Texas House of Representatives. An alternate theory is that anybody who has seriously worked for change through three sessions of the Texas House of Representatives is fortunate to escape with a melancholy frame of mind instead of severe, disabling depression.Continuing the analogy, here's the "acorn".
Mrs. Farenthold went to Austin in 1968 with the idea of working for welfare reform — having come to the conclusion that the welfare laws had a lot to do with the pathetic condition of her clients in Nueces County — but she eventually became identified with reform of the state government itself. The Sharpstown stock-fraud scandal — a complicated series of events tied together by the passage of some banking legislation and the stock profits of some people who were helpful in passing it — made corruption the most important issue in Texas politics during her second term in the House. Normally, officeholders in a state like Texas have differed from eminent public servants in the federal government primarily in the way some social scientists claim that lower-class Americans differ from those Americans who have arrived at the middle class — an inability to defer reward. A commissioner of an important federal regulatory agency is content to live on his government salary, secure in the knowledge that his next job may be as a highly paid executive or counsel in the industry he has been regulating. Distinguished Washington lawyers who serve as deputy secretaries of one department or another are ordinarily not given large retainers to use their influence until after they resign their posts. In some states, though, it is understood that such patience is too much to ask of a poor frail human being who happens to find himself governor. In Texas, participatory democracy has meant that leading Democrats can participate in the most lucrative business deals. During her campaign for governor, Mrs. Farenthold would sometimes ask her audience, “How long has it been since we’ve had a governor who left office without a ranch?” When Orval Faubus left the governorship of Arkansas, he was asked how he had managed to build a two-hundred-thousand-dollar house after having earned only ten thousand dollars a year during his twelve years in office, and he said he owed it all to thrift.
What brought Sissy Farenthold to prominence was that the Sharpstown scandal was blatant enough to offend the voters but not the Legislature. In the House, Mrs. Farenthold’s resolution calling for an independent committee to investigate the scandal drew the support of only thirty out of a hundred and fifty members — a group that became known in Austin as the Dirty Thirty. But it soon became obvious that even Texans who are relatively tolerant about how the temptations of high public office might strain a man’s patience were shocked by the Sharpstown disclosures. Voters never seem shocked at hearing about the impersonal forces that actually control a state government. Nobody seemed surprised during the campaign, for instance, at Mrs. Farenthold’s disclosure that there were a hundred and seventeen utility lobbyists registered at the last session of the Texas Legislature and that Texas remains one of the few states in the country without statewide regulation of utility rates. Candidates for governorships around the country rarely bother to bring up the fact that the state regulatory agencies that do exist are often controlled by the industry they are supposedly regulating. (When Mississippi’s insurance commission authorized a rate increase after Hurricane Camille, the commission consisted of two insurance agents and a lawyer for insurance companies.) But personal corruption can make voters angry. In Texas, there has been much more interest in how relatives of some legislators managed to end up on the payroll of other legislators than in how Texas manages to remain one of the four states in the union without a corporate income tax.
When the governor of Texas, Preston Smith, who profited personally in some stock transactions connected with the Sharpstown case, decided to run for renomination in the Democratic primary this spring anyway, he was given little chance of success. Dolph Briscoe, a millionaire banker and rancher from Uvalde, who had finished fourth after an expensive campaign for the nomination in 1968, was considered a strong candidate, partly because he could prove that he was innocently banking and ranching in Uvalde when everybody was trading stock in Austin, his only state-government service having been as a legislator in the fifties. The favorite in the primary was Ben Barnes, the lieutenant governor, who had not been directly involved in the Sharpstown transactions, although, as David Broder of the Washington Post pointed out, all the talk about the number of investigations that had failed to link him with the scheme made him sound uncomfortably similar to Big Jule in “Guys and Dolls,” who was renowned for having had thirty-three arrests, no convictions. (In the financial statement required of gubernatorial candidates, Barnes stated that he had two hundred and sixty-seven thousand dollars in assets — which, for a young man who had spent his entire career as a public servant at a salary even below that of the governor of Arkansas, displayed a degree of thrift that approached asceticism.) In winning the lieutenant governorship, Barnes, a protégé of Lyndon Johnson and John Connally, had carried every single one of the two hundred and fifty-four counties in Texas. His political rise was considered so inevitable that the two sides of a late-night political discussion about him in Austin could be divided by differing opinions on precisely which year he would become President of the United States.
The candidacy of Frances Farenthold seemed barely able to survive a description of who she was — a politically liberal woman who was called Sissy and had gone to Vassar and was married to a foreigner. (George Farenthold is a businessman who was born in Belgium and has been an American citizen since 1940. The George Farenthold, Jr., who was found murdered last week was his son by a previous marriage.) She was dismissed by all professional politicians as a token candidate who had absolutely no chance of making the runoff. In Austin, she was known for holding strong views and expressing them — which in the way professional politicians judge candidates for statewide office is like having a serious disease and developing complications. In 1969, a resolution commending Lyndon Johnson for his handling of the Presidency, including, presumably, his handling of the war in Vietnam, had divided the Texas House along strictly male-female lines — a hundred and forty-nine for, one opposed. Among all the legislators who believed that sooner or later there had to be a change in the Texas marijuana law, which now makes possession of marijuana a felony that can be punished by life imprisonment, Mrs. Farenthold was the one willing to become identified as an advocate of pot by introducing a bill that would have made first-offense possession a misdemeanor. She openly supported the farm workers’ boycott of lettuce and refused to join the other candidates in reciting the dread effects of school busing. Early in the campaign, she called for the abolition of the Texas Rangers — an élite corps of the state police that many Texas Anglos think of as a symbol of proud Texas history and many Mexican-Americans in the southern part of the state think of as a symbol of Anglo oppression. (She later said she would settle for making South Texas off-limits to the Rangers.) Her supporters could think of hardly anything else she could do to offend the type of voters Texas candidates ordinarily cultivate, except, perhaps, to launch a vitriolic personal attack on John Wayne. But her most important identification was still as someone who had fought the corruption in Austin rather than tolerated it — the Den Mother of the Dirty Thirty. Dolph Briscoe, advertising that he was a man Texans could believe in, got forty-four per cent of the votes, almost winning the primary without a runoff. But Sissy Farenthold finished second, eliminating both the incumbent governor and the incumbent lieutenant governor from the race.
Whether the simple fact of being a woman gained or lost votes for Sissy Farenthold was a popular subject for discussion after the primary — the primary results having relieved the discussants of the burden of arguing about which year Ben Barnes would be President. There was some question whether a woman candidate was culturally unacceptable to a lot of Mexican-Americans or to those Texas Anglos whose idea of a public leader is the father of the Cartwrights on horseback. There was some question whether middle-class Anglo women found her a source of pride or envy. She had, after all, lived what might be the fantasy of any housewife who felt unfulfilled by the League of Women Voters: a lawyer from a family long prominent in Texas law, she had waited until her youngest child was in school before taking up full-time practice, and seven years later had found herself as a candidate for governor. There were those who believed that her unusually strong primary vote in normally conservative suburbs reflected the support of women, although other analysts traced it to simple snob appeal.
In the runoff campaign, being a woman gave Mrs. Farenthold certain advantages — all of them the kind of advantages that would strike a women’s liberationist as reflections of a sexist society. Briscoe suffered from his refusal to meet her in debate, a refusal normally expected of a candidate who knows he has a large lead, mainly because it made him appear to be cowering before a woman. Mrs. Farenthold, who at one point trapped Briscoe in a Fort Worth hotel lobby to ask him about the debate face-to-face, often said that Briscoe was running away from her, and in speeches during the last week of the campaign she sometimes followed that accusation with a line that never failed to draw applause: “How unmanly!”
The singularity of a woman candidate was probably responsible for some of the television and newspaper coverage that made Mrs. Farenthold’s name familiar to voters in an extraordinarily short time. At some point in the runoff campaign, Mrs. Farenthold became a star, and rallies would end with dozens of young people coming up to the platform to thrust forward posters on which she was expected to scrawl “Sissy.” Outside Corpus Christi, she did not receive the endorsement of one major newspaper, but any news item about Dolph Briscoe seemed to be accompanied by two or three about Sissy Farenthold. The headlines usually referred to Briscoe formally by his last name and called Mrs. Farenthold Sissy, as if the reporter thought of him as some stiff banker suffering an interview and of her as a personal friend — which, as it happened, was usually the case. Just before the runoff voting, a labor lawyer who has become accustomed to finding word of his candidates somewhere back near the auction notices told an acquaintance that he first realized Mrs. Farenthold’s appeal to the press after she made a routine trip to inspect the pollution in the Houston ship channel. (The ship channel may be best known to future historians not for the role it plays in Houston’s economy but for a remark made in defense of its cleanliness. When environmentalists were being particularly critical a year or so ago about what some factories were dumping into the water, one official tried to put it all into perspective by telling a reporter that arsenic is a scare word.) “At breakfast the next morning, I picked up the paper and there was a three-column headline saying ‘Sissy Astonished at Pollution in Ship Channel,’” the labor lawyer said. “Three columns! I said, ‘Well, the Lord is with us this time.’” On the day the conservative Dallas Morning News endorsed Briscoe on its editorial page, its two interpretive pieces on the campaign were headlined “Briscoe Strategy Barring Full Coverage by Press” and “Sissy Shoulders Burden of Stardom with Aplomb.”
Despite their reputation for being embattled, liberals in Texas are not just a tiny minority, as they would be in, say, Mississippi. When their traditional coalition of labor and the minorities and ideological liberals is operating, they can carry the state — which hasn’t happened in the governor’s race for many years but has accounted for the election of Ralph Yarborough to the Senate a few times. The two or three people who told Sissy Farenthold that she had a chance of making the runoff based their prediction not on her appeal as a reformer but on what they called a “structural opportunity” — a number of liberal votes that no other candidate was likely to get. She went into the runoff without the official endorsement of the state labor organization and without assurance of a large turnout of black and Mexican-American voters. But her advisers hoped she could make up the difference with the support of young voters and women and, most of all, people of all sorts of backgrounds who were disgusted with the state government and wanted reform.
It is routine for Texas-candidates who can be labelled liberals to assure voters that old labels like “liberal” and “conservative” are meaningless. Mrs. Farenthold managed to sound more persuasive than most, partly because of her approach — she seemed to be considering each issue separately rather than fitting it into some ideological framework — and partly because of the issue that brought her to prominence. Although the Dirty Thirty had included the liberal faction in the House, it had also included some Democrats who were not liberals and even some Republicans. Mrs. Farenthold, campaigning as a reformer rather than a liberal, maintained that the issue of the campaign was public government versus private government rather than liberal versus conservative. Compared to what she was accused of believing about marijuana and busing and abortion, her concentration on the need to end favoritism and bring honest representation to Austin sometimes sounded like a respectable, middle-class appeal for good government. But if public government actually ever did replace private government in Austin — if, as Mrs. Farenthold suggested, the lobbyists were reduced to the role of petitioners rather than manipulators — the result would have been the “radical upheaval” Briscoe accused Mrs. Farenthold of favoring. The manipulators she was talking about represent the most powerful financial interests in the state. What the Democrats who have always defeated the liberals in statewide races have had in common is not a rigid political ideology — a number of them, including Ben Barnes, are noted for their flexibility — but a compassion for the plight of people who have to wake up every morning and face the problems of running an oil company or a bank or a utility.
Briscoe, in a cautious campaign restricted pretty much to television and newspaper advertisements, said that the reform issue had been settled in the first primary. As most voters perceive the need for reform — ending personal corruption rather than tampering with corporate control — he was right. The incumbent governor had been badly defeated, after all, and the Speaker of the House had eventually been convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery. The line that always drew the most applause at one of Mrs. Farenthold’s speeches — that the governor’s chair was not for sale this year — expressed a view that cost Briscoe no votes among voters who were interested in reform. As a matter of personal corruption, it made no difference that, as Mrs. Farenthold often said during the campaign, Briscoe had already begun to deal with the same lobbyists she had been fighting. In the traditional view of reform, Briscoe had the same qualification that is often mentioned about a Rockefeller who runs for governor in a place like Arkansas or West Virginia or New York — “He’s too rich to steal.”
BTW, he won and is currently serving on the Homeland Security Committee with Billy Long and, along with Long, is a co-sponsor of this bill.
Something's happening here, what it is aint' exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there, telling me I've got to beware.
Bus riders: have you ever heard of Gregg Hartley?
He describes himself on his twitter page as a Republican policy advisor.
Opensecrets.org, however, sees it another way and The Washington Post reports that "He (Hartley) has reorganized the firm and turned it into a predominantly Republican operation."
The firm with which he is, for now at least, Chief Operating Officer of, Cassidy & Associates, is one of the largest lobbying firms in D.C. One of their clients is City Utilities of Springfield, MO.
According to their website, Cassidy & Associates has "helped businesses, non-profits, and political figures navigate their way through once-in-a-lifetime crises that resulted from federal action."
Hartley also understands social media. Tweeting under the name GreggLHartley and listing his location as "The Shady Side", Hartley clocks in this morning with over 4,000 tweets.
Earlier this month, The National Journal's Jeremy Jacobs reported:
Hartley, who supported Gary Nodler in the August primary, quickly shifted his allegiance to Billy Long and frequently tweets about it.
This morning, after I finished reading the print edition of the Springfield News-Leader (I love the smell of newspaper ink in the morning, it smells like...home), I switched to electronic media.
There I tumbled upon a series of twitter exchanges that started several days ago between Bungalow Bill (remember him? he's Christian County blogger who got a visit from Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott and the F.B.I. for being critical of Billy Long.) and Hartley -- back in the day, we'd call it a 'pissing contest'.
Does anyone else wonder why Gregg Hartley, the COO of one of the most, if not the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington D.C., Cassidy & Associates, is allowing himself to get ruffled by a constituent of Billy Long's who asks tought questions and who was labeled by the Springfield News-Leader as a "thorn"?
The F.B.I. agent who, with Sheriff Arnott sitting on the couch next to him, conducted the interview, said to Bungalow Bill, the blogger in question, "You are absolutely in your to do just that (question Long)and more power to you. That's what you're supposed to be doing: holding people accountable. Because that's the people we elect and they are supposed to be accountable to us. And somebody's got to do it and more power to you."
Yesterday, Hartley retweeted this from JamesMNHarris (as Bus riders may or may not know, Harriswas part of the Billy Long campaign team with Jeff Roe. Harris also achieved some sort of notoriety, I guess, caused by some stuff that went on in Washington MO during the election-- another pissing contest?): Amazing how individuals w/ no journalism training, but email or blog now think they are now reporters. Self proclaimed importance.
Sure looks like somebody is ruffling some feathers!
Getting back to what started this post, also on Hartley's twitter feed this morning is this:
They have a website and a member of the board of directors is Sam Paredes.
VIDOL also endorses candidates. Their website boasts "75% combat efficiency with 2010 endorsements".
"Combat efficiency"? WTF does that mean?
Angry people with guns who are mad at the government.
And Gregg Hartley's working with them.
Bus riders: have you ever heard of Gregg Hartley?
He describes himself on his twitter page as a Republican policy advisor.
Opensecrets.org, however, sees it another way and The Washington Post reports that "He (Hartley) has reorganized the firm and turned it into a predominantly Republican operation."
The firm with which he is, for now at least, Chief Operating Officer of, Cassidy & Associates, is one of the largest lobbying firms in D.C. One of their clients is City Utilities of Springfield, MO.
According to their website, Cassidy & Associates has "helped businesses, non-profits, and political figures navigate their way through once-in-a-lifetime crises that resulted from federal action."
Hartley also understands social media. Tweeting under the name GreggLHartley and listing his location as "The Shady Side", Hartley clocks in this morning with over 4,000 tweets.
Earlier this month, The National Journal's Jeremy Jacobs reported:
Former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman picked up a big endorsement for her Senate bid on Thursday: Gregg Hartley.Talent this week announced that he would not seek the senate seat he lost to a Mccaskill in 2006.
Hartley is one of the top lobbyists on Capitol Hill, currently working for Cassidy and Associates. He has deep ties to Missouri, having served as Sen. Roy Blunt's (R) chief of staff as he was ascending the leadership in the House.
In an email to his personal email list -- obtained by Hotline On Call -- Hartley threw his weight behind Steelman. The email had the subject, "Steel Magnolia from Missourah," and in it Hartley wrote that he is ready to back Steelman even though it is unclear whether there will be a contested Republican primary.
"Too early to know for sure if there will be a serious primary or to predict winners," Hartley wrote. "But supporting a solid candidate isn't always that big of a choice. I've made mine."
Hartley also encourages the recipients of the email to visit Steelman's site and to consider making a contribution.
Hartley, who supported Gary Nodler in the August primary, quickly shifted his allegiance to Billy Long and frequently tweets about it.
This morning, after I finished reading the print edition of the Springfield News-Leader (I love the smell of newspaper ink in the morning, it smells like...home), I switched to electronic media.
There I tumbled upon a series of twitter exchanges that started several days ago between Bungalow Bill (remember him? he's Christian County blogger who got a visit from Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott and the F.B.I. for being critical of Billy Long.) and Hartley -- back in the day, we'd call it a 'pissing contest'.
Does anyone else wonder why Gregg Hartley, the COO of one of the most, if not the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington D.C., Cassidy & Associates, is allowing himself to get ruffled by a constituent of Billy Long's who asks tought questions and who was labeled by the Springfield News-Leader as a "thorn"?
The F.B.I. agent who, with Sheriff Arnott sitting on the couch next to him, conducted the interview, said to Bungalow Bill, the blogger in question, "You are absolutely in your to do just that (question Long)and more power to you. That's what you're supposed to be doing: holding people accountable. Because that's the people we elect and they are supposed to be accountable to us. And somebody's got to do it and more power to you."
Yesterday, Hartley retweeted this from JamesMNHarris (as Bus riders may or may not know, Harriswas part of the Billy Long campaign team with Jeff Roe. Harris also achieved some sort of notoriety, I guess, caused by some stuff that went on in Washington MO during the election-- another pissing contest?): Amazing how individuals w/ no journalism training, but email or blog now think they are now reporters. Self proclaimed importance.
Sure looks like somebody is ruffling some feathers!
Getting back to what started this post, also on Hartley's twitter feed this morning is this:
Hill COS agreed this week to help with efforts for Veterans in Defense of Liberty..... about 6 hours ago via web from Shady Side, MDI don't know who the "Hill COS" refers to, but I sure do know who the "Veterans in Defense of Liberty" are: That's the group formed earlier late last year by Scott Magill
They have a website and a member of the board of directors is Sam Paredes.
VIDOL also endorses candidates. Their website boasts "75% combat efficiency with 2010 endorsements".
"Combat efficiency"? WTF does that mean?
Angry people with guns who are mad at the government.
And Gregg Hartley's working with them.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Chairman Bachus Asks SEC and CFTC How Much Dodd-Frank Regulations Will Cost
In a letter to the Chairs of the SEC and CFTC, House Financial Services Committee Chair Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) asked for information on the costs to each agency of implementing Dodd-Frank regulations and the annual execution of Dodd-Frank mandates. Specifically, the Chair asked for the amount of their FY 2011 budget request and how much that differs from the FY 2010 budget request, and estimates for the FY2012 budget request. The Chairman asks how much of these budget amounts is attributable to the execution of Dodd-Frank. He also wants to know what each agency has budgeted to implement Dodd-Frank and what percent of the full budget this represents. The same letter was also sent to the FDIC and the Fed and Professor Elizabeth Warren, who is assisting Treasury in setting up the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The agencies must respond to the Chairman’s request by Feb. 10, 2011.
The Chair also asks how many new staff members the SEC and CFTC plan to hire to carry out the Dodd-Frank mandates and how many hires have been made since the passage of the Act on July 21, 2010. Also, the committee wants to know what contracts have been entered into since passage to purchase new equipment, lease office space or hire new consultants. The agencies must also disclose any managerial changes and plans and mission statements they have made to implement and maintain Dodd-Frank.
Chairman Bachus also wants to know what fees the Commissions plan to impose or increase to increase funding. Noting that Dodd-Frank mandates the creation of new offices and divisions, the Chair wants information on plans to create these new offices, the number of employees needed to staff them, and the funding needs of
The Chair also asks how many new staff members the SEC and CFTC plan to hire to carry out the Dodd-Frank mandates and how many hires have been made since the passage of the Act on July 21, 2010. Also, the committee wants to know what contracts have been entered into since passage to purchase new equipment, lease office space or hire new consultants. The agencies must also disclose any managerial changes and plans and mission statements they have made to implement and maintain Dodd-Frank.
Chairman Bachus also wants to know what fees the Commissions plan to impose or increase to increase funding. Noting that Dodd-Frank mandates the creation of new offices and divisions, the Chair wants information on plans to create these new offices, the number of employees needed to staff them, and the funding needs of
Shareholder Cannot Maintain Derivative and Federal Securities Fraud Actions Simultaneously against Same Company
A shareholder could not maintain a derivative action against a company while simultaneously maintaining his own individual federal securities fraud action against the same company, ruled a federal judge, since the shareholder could not fairly and adequately enforce a right of the corporation while suing that corporation. The shareholder is engaging in the litigation equivalent of riding two horses until the rider determines which is stronger and faster, said the court, and a willingness to cast aside a derivative claim if it is the slower and weaker horse does not speak well of a person's adequacy as a representative of others. Thus, the court concluded that the derivative action could not proceed with the shareholder acting as the derivative plaintiff. (In re Bank of America Securities and ERISA Derivatives Litigation, 19 Civ. 1234 (PKC), Dec. 14, 2010).
The shareholder is individually seeking damages from the company under the Exchange Act for violations of securities antifraud provisions while simultaneously standing in the company’s shoes to claim that the company was damaged by officer and director misconduct. Under the 1934, the shareholder claims injury caused by misstatements and omissions made by the company with regard to an acquisition. The derivative action asserts common-law claims on behalf of the company against directors and officers alleged to have injured the company through material misstatements and omissions.
Federal courts have long found that plaintiffs attempting to advance derivative and direct claims in the same action face an impermissible conflict of interest. Since this shareholder owned 70,000 shares in the company purchased for over $2 million, noted the judge, his personal recovery under the federal securities claims could be substantial. The court further noted that the derivative action was filed slightly less than one year after the federal securities action and, given the complaints' similar factual allegations, the one year lag does not reflect a zealous approach to the derivative claim.
The shareholder is individually seeking damages from the company under the Exchange Act for violations of securities antifraud provisions while simultaneously standing in the company’s shoes to claim that the company was damaged by officer and director misconduct. Under the 1934, the shareholder claims injury caused by misstatements and omissions made by the company with regard to an acquisition. The derivative action asserts common-law claims on behalf of the company against directors and officers alleged to have injured the company through material misstatements and omissions.
Federal courts have long found that plaintiffs attempting to advance derivative and direct claims in the same action face an impermissible conflict of interest. Since this shareholder owned 70,000 shares in the company purchased for over $2 million, noted the judge, his personal recovery under the federal securities claims could be substantial. The court further noted that the derivative action was filed slightly less than one year after the federal securities action and, given the complaints' similar factual allegations, the one year lag does not reflect a zealous approach to the derivative claim.
The party's over...
Four months after first opening its doors at 4512 Hampton Avenue, the headquarters of the St. Louis Tea Party is no longer.
The Riverfront Times has more on this story.
In other news, three newly elected senators, who were elected under the tea party banner, elected not to join the Tea Party Caucus.
From the Washington Post
Long, who refused to confirm that he has a conceal and carry permit and whether or not he pack heat, is a newly appointed member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
He, and several others members of that committee(Blake* included) are co-sponsoring a bill that expands the current bill -- "If you see something, say something".
Remember it was Long who gave the names of bloggers who wrote posts critical of him were to law enforcement officials.
It seems that in Billy Long's world not agreeing with him is "suspicious activity" and needs to be investigated by the F.B.I.
Where's Billy today? He and 56 other representatives are at Heritage Foundation Conservative Members Retreat.
Oh, he seems amusing.
*I do not believe that Blake Farenthold and Billy Long are related other than by political ideology.
The Riverfront Times has more on this story.In other news, three newly elected senators, who were elected under the tea party banner, elected not to join the Tea Party Caucus.
From the Washington Post
The decisions of Johnson and Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) not to join the Tea Party Caucus underscore the fissures within the Republican Party as it seeks to build an effective governing coalition in Washington while satisfying an emboldened conservative base outside the Beltway. And for the tea party, the new Congress presents a test of whether the movement's activist momentum can continue within the rhythms and business of governing.Locally, and all politics is local, local Congressman Billy (I was tea party when tea party wasn't cool)Long's tea party bonefides are wearing thin. Remember when he or his office turned in a list of names to Greene County Sheriff Arnott as being "worrisome to Long"? It gets better.
Long, who refused to confirm that he has a conceal and carry permit and whether or not he pack heat, is a newly appointed member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
He, and several others members of that committee(Blake* included) are co-sponsoring a bill that expands the current bill -- "If you see something, say something".
Remember it was Long who gave the names of bloggers who wrote posts critical of him were to law enforcement officials.
It seems that in Billy Long's world not agreeing with him is "suspicious activity" and needs to be investigated by the F.B.I.
Where's Billy today? He and 56 other representatives are at Heritage Foundation Conservative Members Retreat.
Oh, he seems amusing.
*I do not believe that Blake Farenthold and Billy Long are related other than by political ideology.
Does writing blog posts critical of Billy Long reflect a terrorist threat? Apparently Billy and Blake think so.
Washington, D.C. (Wednesday, January 26, 2011) – Today, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, along with 11 other Committee Republicans, introduced legislation that would provide legal protections to individuals who report suspicious activity that may reflect a terrorist threat.
The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 would provide civil immunity in U.S. courts for individuals who, acting in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, report threats to appropriate law enforcement officials.
“I have long advocated for a multi-layered approach to securing our homeland,” said King. “Alert and vigilant citizens who report suspicious activity provide one critical layer. Good citizens who report suspicious activity in good faith, should not have to worry about being sued. In 2007, I pushed for a law protecting vigilant Americans from frivolous lawsuits when they report suspicious activity involving our transportation systems. The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 extends that protection to those who report suspicious activity anywhere. This legislation would enhance the Department of Homeland Security’s national ‘See Something, Say Something’ awareness campaign.”
Recently, reports from ordinary citizens have helped defeat terrorist plots. Last year in Times Square, a street vendor helped save countless lives by alerting NYPD officers to a vehicle loaded with explosives, a report that resulted in the arrest of Faisal Shahzad Additionally, a tip from an vigilant citizen contributed greatly to the December 2008 conviction of five men for plotting to attack and kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. As the DHS campaign recognizes, such reporting should be encouraged.
In 2007, in response to frivolous lawsuits filed against passengers who reported suspicious activity on a commercial aircraft, Rep. King, along with Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), included similar language in The implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that protected citizens who reported threats to the nation’s transportation systems. In 2009, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. Several witnesses at those hearings, including Charles Allen, DHS’s Chief Intelligence Officer, Donald Van Duyn, the FBI’s Chief Intelligence Officer, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Al Orlob, Marriott International’s Vice President for Corporate Security, endorsed the idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector.
The legislation has received the support of law enforcement and community groups, including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Troopers Coalition, and the National Association of Town Watch.
Joining Chairman King in introducing The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 are Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Rep. Michael T. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), and Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), all of whom serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. Also joining is Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA).
The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 would provide civil immunity in U.S. courts for individuals who, acting in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, report threats to appropriate law enforcement officials.
“I have long advocated for a multi-layered approach to securing our homeland,” said King. “Alert and vigilant citizens who report suspicious activity provide one critical layer. Good citizens who report suspicious activity in good faith, should not have to worry about being sued. In 2007, I pushed for a law protecting vigilant Americans from frivolous lawsuits when they report suspicious activity involving our transportation systems. The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 extends that protection to those who report suspicious activity anywhere. This legislation would enhance the Department of Homeland Security’s national ‘See Something, Say Something’ awareness campaign.”
Recently, reports from ordinary citizens have helped defeat terrorist plots. Last year in Times Square, a street vendor helped save countless lives by alerting NYPD officers to a vehicle loaded with explosives, a report that resulted in the arrest of Faisal Shahzad Additionally, a tip from an vigilant citizen contributed greatly to the December 2008 conviction of five men for plotting to attack and kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. As the DHS campaign recognizes, such reporting should be encouraged.
In 2007, in response to frivolous lawsuits filed against passengers who reported suspicious activity on a commercial aircraft, Rep. King, along with Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), included similar language in The implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 that protected citizens who reported threats to the nation’s transportation systems. In 2009, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. Several witnesses at those hearings, including Charles Allen, DHS’s Chief Intelligence Officer, Donald Van Duyn, the FBI’s Chief Intelligence Officer, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Al Orlob, Marriott International’s Vice President for Corporate Security, endorsed the idea of expanding the 2007 law beyond the transportation sector.
The legislation has received the support of law enforcement and community groups, including: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Troopers Coalition, and the National Association of Town Watch.
Joining Chairman King in introducing The See Something, Say Something Act of 2011 are Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Rep. Michael T. McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA), Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA), and Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), all of whom serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. Also joining is Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA).
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Branson's Baldknobbers present artifacts to Smithsonian, Billy Long misses the Ceremony and a special Billy Long WTF moment
KY3 and the SN-L have a story about Branson's Baldknobber's Country Music Show presenting artifacts to the Smithsonian Institute. 
From the SN-L story:
Where's Billy?
Well, last night Billy was stuck in the snow at Dulles Airport and ended up, he says, spending the night with a staffer of Michele Bachmann..
Of course he tweeted (why, the man's a serial tweeter) about getting stuck which was captured Al Kamen, who writes a gossip column for the Washington Post:
After reading that account, FishbowlDC, a Washington D.C. media blog posted this on their twitter account this morning (click on image to enlarge):
He seems amusing?
The link embedded in the post links to this entry in their daily round-up and Long's tweet about spending the night with Representative Bachmann's staffer.
Too bad he missed the Baldknobbers presentation at the Smithsonian Institute today. Roy was there. Billy missed a great photo opportunity here.
A quick check of FEC records indicate Billy received no contributions from the Mabe Family. Apparently Billy still had time to attend his breakfast happy hour meeting(I think that's what he calls them) with his five lobbyist friends who forked over at the most two grand a person to eat sausage and bisquits with Billy at the Capitol Club. He's got his priorities set.
How many times does a constituent family get enshrined in the Smithsonian? This reminds me of the time Billy missed the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the house because he was busy meeting with a lobbyist.
Wherever Billy was, that he missed the Smithsonian presentation, it must have been important, don't you think?
I know, I'll check to twitter to see if he tweeted where he was that was so important he missed the doings at the Smithsonian!
He did! YEA! (click on image to enlarge it):
I guess the pleasure obtained from being a member of the first group to go through the revamped and updated Ronald Reagan Museum (which, as Billy tells us, doesn't open to the public until February 7) was more important, in Billy's mind at least, than attending the Baldknobbers (who happen to be his constituents) ceremony with Roy Blunt at the Smithsonian.
Baldknobbers at Smithsonian or Ronald Reagan Museum. Tough choice, I gather.
"He seems amusing."
Here it is: Billy's WTF moment(click on image to enlarge):
He seems amusing?
Ah, jeez.
This just in, via Billy Long tweet:
General Edwin Meese gave a great after dinner speech at The Heritage Foundation Banquet tonight at the Reagan Library & Museum about 1 hour ago via Mobile Web
From the SN-L story:
In a ceremony today in Washington, D.C., several members of The Baldknobbers, Branson’s oldest live music show, officially donated many artifacts to the Smithsonian.
The performers flew out to Washington make the presentation at the National Museum of American History. Before flying out, performer Brent Mabe talked about how much had changed from when the show began performing, primarily for vacationing fishermen, along Lake Taneycomo in 1959.
Where's Billy?
Well, last night Billy was stuck in the snow at Dulles Airport and ended up, he says, spending the night with a staffer of Michele Bachmann..
Of course he tweeted (why, the man's a serial tweeter) about getting stuck which was captured Al Kamen, who writes a gossip column for the Washington Post:
Going once, going twice
Freshman Republican Rep. Billy Long, the Missouri auctioneer and tea party favorite, was among those who took a chance but failed to get a flight out of Dulles during Wednesday night's snowstorm.
He tweeted of his plight, our colleague Philip Rucker reports. "Stranded at Dulles with Reps. Michele Bachmann & Dr. Phil Gingrey & his Wife Billie plus everyone else in the free world - no more flights," he typed.
Then: "Dulles PA 'Don't accept ground transportation offers from anyone - REALLY? They could charge $200 if they could get to the terminal!!!"
Three hours later, Long tweeted: "Midnight at the Oasis - and we're stuck in a for real Cul-De-Sac, we surrender after 9 hours of this Dulles/Subdivision adventure."
Thursday morning brought better news for our hardy travelers. "We dug out in light of day - crashed at a Rep. Bachmann's staffer's house - like Willie Nelson put on my cleanest dirty shirt - Dulles bound."
After reading that account, FishbowlDC, a Washington D.C. media blog posted this on their twitter account this morning (click on image to enlarge):
He seems amusing?
The link embedded in the post links to this entry in their daily round-up and Long's tweet about spending the night with Representative Bachmann's staffer.
Too bad he missed the Baldknobbers presentation at the Smithsonian Institute today. Roy was there. Billy missed a great photo opportunity here.
A quick check of FEC records indicate Billy received no contributions from the Mabe Family. Apparently Billy still had time to attend his breakfast happy hour meeting(I think that's what he calls them) with his five lobbyist friends who forked over at the most two grand a person to eat sausage and bisquits with Billy at the Capitol Club. He's got his priorities set.
How many times does a constituent family get enshrined in the Smithsonian? This reminds me of the time Billy missed the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the house because he was busy meeting with a lobbyist.
Wherever Billy was, that he missed the Smithsonian presentation, it must have been important, don't you think?
I know, I'll check to twitter to see if he tweeted where he was that was so important he missed the doings at the Smithsonian!
He did! YEA! (click on image to enlarge it):
I guess the pleasure obtained from being a member of the first group to go through the revamped and updated Ronald Reagan Museum (which, as Billy tells us, doesn't open to the public until February 7) was more important, in Billy's mind at least, than attending the Baldknobbers (who happen to be his constituents) ceremony with Roy Blunt at the Smithsonian.
Baldknobbers at Smithsonian or Ronald Reagan Museum. Tough choice, I gather.
"He seems amusing."
Here it is: Billy's WTF moment(click on image to enlarge):
He seems amusing? Ah, jeez.
This just in, via Billy Long tweet:
General Edwin Meese gave a great after dinner speech at The Heritage Foundation Banquet tonight at the Reagan Library & Museum about 1 hour ago via Mobile Web
SEC Defers Creation of Dodd-Frank Mandated Investor Advisory Committee
Citing budgetary concerns, the SEC has deferred the creation of the Investor Advisory Committee mandated by Section 911 of Dodd-Frank. The Act requires the creation of an Investor Advisory Committee within the SEC and authorizes appropriations for its implementation and operation. The committee is designed to advise and consult with the SEC on regulatory priorities and issues regarding securities products, trading strategies, fee structures and the effectiveness of disclosures, as well as initiatives to protect investor interests and promote investor confidence. Late last year, due to budgetary uncertainty, the SEC has put on hold the creation and staffing of the Office of Whistleblower Protection and four other new Offices mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Hong Kong Courts Support SFC’s Corporate Governance Actions
Hong Kong courts have issued rulings backing the Securities and Futures Commission actions against company directors and thereby enhancing the corporate governance of listed companies. Recently, the SFC achieved a breakthrough in investor protection by obtaining orders in the High Court to disqualify company directors on new grounds, namely the failure to make timely disclosure of material information to shareholders. In addition, the SFC obtained a court order directing the company to commence civil proceedings to seek recovery of compensation for the loss and damage suffered by the company as a result of directors’ misconduct
In another action, two former executive directors were disqualified from being directors or being involved in the management of any corporation, without leave of the court, for five years and two years respectively. Both directors accepted that they failed to manage the company with the necessary degree of skill, care, diligence and competence as reasonably expected of persons of their knowledge and experience holding their offices and functions within the company and failed on a number of occasions to ensure that the company complied with the disclosure requirements under the Listing Rules and to give shareholders all the information they might reasonably expect.
The Commission has noted that company directors are in positions of substantial trust and responsibility. As such, they have an obligation to ensure the market is properly informed. Directors who breach their obligations, commit misconduct or keep bad news to themselves when it should be disclosed, cause real damage to the company, their shareholders and the market. Directors also have an obligation to ensure that the company reports material information to the investing public on a timely basis. Failure to do so destroys transparency, trust and confidence in the market, emphasized the Commission.
In commencing proceedings to seek compensation orders, explained the Commission, it does not seek to make directors personally responsible for financial losses that are incurred in good faith. Rather, the SFC focuses on cases where alleged misconduct and bad faith by directors have led to the loss of shareholders’ funds. There is no reason why shareholders should pay for losses caused by directors’ misconduct, reasoned the Commission.
In another action, two former executive directors were disqualified from being directors or being involved in the management of any corporation, without leave of the court, for five years and two years respectively. Both directors accepted that they failed to manage the company with the necessary degree of skill, care, diligence and competence as reasonably expected of persons of their knowledge and experience holding their offices and functions within the company and failed on a number of occasions to ensure that the company complied with the disclosure requirements under the Listing Rules and to give shareholders all the information they might reasonably expect.
The Commission has noted that company directors are in positions of substantial trust and responsibility. As such, they have an obligation to ensure the market is properly informed. Directors who breach their obligations, commit misconduct or keep bad news to themselves when it should be disclosed, cause real damage to the company, their shareholders and the market. Directors also have an obligation to ensure that the company reports material information to the investing public on a timely basis. Failure to do so destroys transparency, trust and confidence in the market, emphasized the Commission.
In commencing proceedings to seek compensation orders, explained the Commission, it does not seek to make directors personally responsible for financial losses that are incurred in good faith. Rather, the SFC focuses on cases where alleged misconduct and bad faith by directors have led to the loss of shareholders’ funds. There is no reason why shareholders should pay for losses caused by directors’ misconduct, reasoned the Commission.
GAO Dodd-Frank Mandated Study on Financial Planners Sees No Need for More Regulation; But Identifies Consumer Issues
While finding no need for additional regulation of financial planners at this time, the GAO recommended that the SEC incorporate into its ongoing review of financial literacy among investors an assessment of the extent to which investors understand the titles and designations used by financial planners, GAO found confusion here, and any implications a lack of understanding may have for consumers’ investment decisions. In a study mandated by Section 919C of Dodd-Frank, the GAO also urged the SEC to collaborate with state securities regulators to identify methods to better understand the extent of problems specifically involving financial planners and financial planning services, and take actions to address any problems that are identified.
The study found that existing statutes and regulations appear to cover the great majority of financial planning services, and individual financial planners nearly always fall under one or more regulatory regimes. The SEC has issued guidance that broadly interprets the Investment Advisers Act to apply to most financial planners because the advisory services they offer clients typically include providing advice about securities for compensation. Similarly, the states take a similar approach on the application of investment adviser laws to financial planners and, as a result, generally register and oversee financial planners as investment advisers. Moreover, financial planners that provide brokerage services are subject to broker-dealer regulation at the federal and state levels.
In addition, under Section 1011 of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection regulates the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the federal consumer financial laws. Dodd-Frank defines a financial product or service to include financial advisory services to consumers on individual financial matters, with the exception of advisory services related to securities provided by a person regulated by the SEC or a state securities commission to the extent that such person acts in a regulated capacity. Thus, in GAO’s view, the Bureau may have jurisdiction over financial planners to the extent that they may offer services that would not be under the jurisdiction of the SEC or a state securities commission.
With all this in mind, the GAO concluded that, while no single law governs the broad array of activities in which financial planners may engage, an additional layer of regulation specific to financial planners is not warranted at this time. At the same time, more robust enforcement of existing laws could strengthen oversight efforts. In addition, there are some actions that can be taken that may help address consumer protection issues associated with the oversight of financial planners.
The GAO is concerned about investor confusion over the different titles used by individuals who provide financial planning services, such as financial planner, financial consultant, and financial adviser. GAO noted that Section 917 of Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to conduct a study identifying the existing level of financial literacy among retail investors, including the most useful and understandable relevant information that they need to make informed financial decisions before engaging a financial intermediary.
While the section does not specifically mention the issue of financial planners’ titles and designations, GAO believes that the confusion over titles used by financial planners could potentially be addressed or mitigated if the SEC incorporated this issue into its overall review of financial literacy among investors. SEC staff told GAO that their review would not likely address this issue, although it would address such things as the need for conducting background checks on financial professionals. Financial markets function best when consumers have information sufficient to understand and assess financial service providers and products, noted GAO, and so including financial planners’ use of titles and designations in the SEC’s financial literacy review could provide useful information on the implications of consumers’ confusion on this issue
The GAO study also found that the SEC has limited information on the extent to which the activities of financial planners may be causing consumers harm. While the Commission does record and track whether federal and state-registered investment adviser firms provide financial planning services, said GAO, its data tracking systems for complaints, examination results, and enforcement actions are not programmed to readily track whether the complaint, result, or action was specifically related to a financial planner or financial planning service.
For example, the SEC staff told GAO that the number of complaints about financial planners would be undercounted in their data system that receives and tracks public inquiries, known as the Investor Response Information System, because this code would likely be used only if it could not be identified whether the person or firm was an investment adviser or broker-dealer. In addition, the data system that the SEC uses to record examination results, known as the Super Tracking and Reporting System, does not allow the agency to identify and extract examination results specific to the financial planning services of investment advisers.
However, SEC staff told GAO that a review of its Investor Response Information System identified 51 complaints or inquiries that had been recorded using their code for issues related to “financial planners” between November 2009 and October 2010, often involving allegations of unsuitable investments or fraud. The SEC staff also said that they did not have comprehensive data on the extent of enforcement activities related to financial planners per se.
In addition, NASAA said that states generally do not track enforcement data specific to financial planners. At GAO’s request, the SEC and NASAA provided examples of enforcement actions related to individuals who held themselves out as financial planners. Using a keyword search, the SEC identified 10 such formal enforcement actions between August 2009 and August 2010. According to SEC documents, these cases involved allegations of such activities as defrauding clients through marketing schemes, receiving kickbacks without making proper disclosures, and misappropriation of client funds. Although NASAA also did not have comprehensive data on enforcement activities involving financial planners, representatives provided GAO with examples of 36 actions brought by 30 states from 1986 to 2010. These cases involved allegations of such things as the sale of unsuitable products, fraudulent misrepresentation of qualifications, failure to register as an investment adviser, and misuse of client funds for personal expenses.
Because of limitations in how data is gathered and tracked, SEC and state securities regulators are not currently able to readily determine the extent to which financial planning services may be causing consumers harm. The SEC and state securities regulators do not routinely track potential problems specific to financial planners. SEC and NASAA representatives told GAO that they have been meeting periodically in recent months to prepare for the transition from federal to state oversight of certain additional investment adviser firms, as mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act, but that oversight of financial planners in particular had not been part of these discussions. SEC staff noted that additional tracking could consume staff time and other resources. They also said that because there are no laws that directly require registration, recordkeeping, and other responsibilities of financial planners per se, tracking such findings relating to those entities would require expenditure of resources on something that SEC does not have direct responsibility to oversee.
While recognizing the need to balance the cost of data collection efforts against the usefulness of the data, GAO believes that a regulatory system should have data sufficient to identify risks and problem areas and support decision making. Given the significant growth in the financial planning industry, ongoing concerns about potential conflicts of interest, and consumer confusion about standards of care, GAO suggested that securities regulators should identify ways to get better information on the extent of problems specifically involving financial planners and financial planning services.
The study found that existing statutes and regulations appear to cover the great majority of financial planning services, and individual financial planners nearly always fall under one or more regulatory regimes. The SEC has issued guidance that broadly interprets the Investment Advisers Act to apply to most financial planners because the advisory services they offer clients typically include providing advice about securities for compensation. Similarly, the states take a similar approach on the application of investment adviser laws to financial planners and, as a result, generally register and oversee financial planners as investment advisers. Moreover, financial planners that provide brokerage services are subject to broker-dealer regulation at the federal and state levels.
In addition, under Section 1011 of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection regulates the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the federal consumer financial laws. Dodd-Frank defines a financial product or service to include financial advisory services to consumers on individual financial matters, with the exception of advisory services related to securities provided by a person regulated by the SEC or a state securities commission to the extent that such person acts in a regulated capacity. Thus, in GAO’s view, the Bureau may have jurisdiction over financial planners to the extent that they may offer services that would not be under the jurisdiction of the SEC or a state securities commission.
With all this in mind, the GAO concluded that, while no single law governs the broad array of activities in which financial planners may engage, an additional layer of regulation specific to financial planners is not warranted at this time. At the same time, more robust enforcement of existing laws could strengthen oversight efforts. In addition, there are some actions that can be taken that may help address consumer protection issues associated with the oversight of financial planners.
The GAO is concerned about investor confusion over the different titles used by individuals who provide financial planning services, such as financial planner, financial consultant, and financial adviser. GAO noted that Section 917 of Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to conduct a study identifying the existing level of financial literacy among retail investors, including the most useful and understandable relevant information that they need to make informed financial decisions before engaging a financial intermediary.
While the section does not specifically mention the issue of financial planners’ titles and designations, GAO believes that the confusion over titles used by financial planners could potentially be addressed or mitigated if the SEC incorporated this issue into its overall review of financial literacy among investors. SEC staff told GAO that their review would not likely address this issue, although it would address such things as the need for conducting background checks on financial professionals. Financial markets function best when consumers have information sufficient to understand and assess financial service providers and products, noted GAO, and so including financial planners’ use of titles and designations in the SEC’s financial literacy review could provide useful information on the implications of consumers’ confusion on this issue
The GAO study also found that the SEC has limited information on the extent to which the activities of financial planners may be causing consumers harm. While the Commission does record and track whether federal and state-registered investment adviser firms provide financial planning services, said GAO, its data tracking systems for complaints, examination results, and enforcement actions are not programmed to readily track whether the complaint, result, or action was specifically related to a financial planner or financial planning service.
For example, the SEC staff told GAO that the number of complaints about financial planners would be undercounted in their data system that receives and tracks public inquiries, known as the Investor Response Information System, because this code would likely be used only if it could not be identified whether the person or firm was an investment adviser or broker-dealer. In addition, the data system that the SEC uses to record examination results, known as the Super Tracking and Reporting System, does not allow the agency to identify and extract examination results specific to the financial planning services of investment advisers.
However, SEC staff told GAO that a review of its Investor Response Information System identified 51 complaints or inquiries that had been recorded using their code for issues related to “financial planners” between November 2009 and October 2010, often involving allegations of unsuitable investments or fraud. The SEC staff also said that they did not have comprehensive data on the extent of enforcement activities related to financial planners per se.
In addition, NASAA said that states generally do not track enforcement data specific to financial planners. At GAO’s request, the SEC and NASAA provided examples of enforcement actions related to individuals who held themselves out as financial planners. Using a keyword search, the SEC identified 10 such formal enforcement actions between August 2009 and August 2010. According to SEC documents, these cases involved allegations of such activities as defrauding clients through marketing schemes, receiving kickbacks without making proper disclosures, and misappropriation of client funds. Although NASAA also did not have comprehensive data on enforcement activities involving financial planners, representatives provided GAO with examples of 36 actions brought by 30 states from 1986 to 2010. These cases involved allegations of such things as the sale of unsuitable products, fraudulent misrepresentation of qualifications, failure to register as an investment adviser, and misuse of client funds for personal expenses.
Because of limitations in how data is gathered and tracked, SEC and state securities regulators are not currently able to readily determine the extent to which financial planning services may be causing consumers harm. The SEC and state securities regulators do not routinely track potential problems specific to financial planners. SEC and NASAA representatives told GAO that they have been meeting periodically in recent months to prepare for the transition from federal to state oversight of certain additional investment adviser firms, as mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act, but that oversight of financial planners in particular had not been part of these discussions. SEC staff noted that additional tracking could consume staff time and other resources. They also said that because there are no laws that directly require registration, recordkeeping, and other responsibilities of financial planners per se, tracking such findings relating to those entities would require expenditure of resources on something that SEC does not have direct responsibility to oversee.
While recognizing the need to balance the cost of data collection efforts against the usefulness of the data, GAO believes that a regulatory system should have data sufficient to identify risks and problem areas and support decision making. Given the significant growth in the financial planning industry, ongoing concerns about potential conflicts of interest, and consumer confusion about standards of care, GAO suggested that securities regulators should identify ways to get better information on the extent of problems specifically involving financial planners and financial planning services.
"Fiscally Untenable...Pure Fantasy"
"That fair tax scares me, Daddy. Those fair tax people scare me too."From Fired Up Missouri:
A new letter to Auditor Tom Schweich from former Governor John Ashcroft's Commissioner of Administration, Jim Moody, slams Rex Sinquefield's initiative petitions to hike the state's sales tax as "fiscally untenable" proposals that would bankrupt the state or Missouri's middle and working classes.
Moody writes
We will begin our analysis with some words of caution for you, and suggestions for the questions that you should ask in every phrase of your analysis. We believe that a sound analysis by your office will reach the conclusion that we have reached--that is, all of these petitions are fiscally untenable. They will either bankrupt the state, or in the alternative, bankrupt the poor and the working lower or middle income classes.
The first page of Moody's letter is below, the rest of it is here
Fired Up concludes
Sinquefield is obviously a major GOP donor -- and provided financial backing for Schweich in his 2010 campaign - and the Auditor's actions on these petitions will provide an early indication of whether he can be the independent and honest official he promised to be (when he wasn't promising to be a hyper-partisan auditor, of course).
Another one of those WTF moments
This was actually painful to watch.
GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?
PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don’t need one of those.
GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?
PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don’t need one of those.
House Bill Would Apply FOIA to Government-Sponsored Enterprises
House Bill Would Apply FOIA to Government-Sponsored Enterprises
A bill introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) would apply the Freedom of Information Act to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during periods when these GSEs are in conservatorship or receivership, as they are now. The measure (HR 463) is designed to achieve a level of transparency and accountability in federal agencies. The legislation is co-sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chair Spencer Bachus (R-ALA) and the committee’s Deputy Chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who introduced major GSE reform legislation in the 111th Congress.
Another co-sponsor of the bill, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being run by the federal government to achieve objectives set by the federal government. As long as this continues, he emphasized, it is common sense that they should be subject to FOIA requests.
The Hensarling bill, HR 4889, would have set a deadline for the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to terminate the conservatorship of either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac if the Director determines that it is financially viable. It would also instruct the Director to establish minimum levels of capital for the enterprises and deem failure of an enterprise to maintain revised minimum capital levels to constitute an unsafe and unsound condition. Moreover, the bill would prohibit the enterprises from purchasing and securitizing mortgages that exceed the median area price for the affected property.
A bill introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) would apply the Freedom of Information Act to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during periods when these GSEs are in conservatorship or receivership, as they are now. The measure (HR 463) is designed to achieve a level of transparency and accountability in federal agencies. The legislation is co-sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chair Spencer Bachus (R-ALA) and the committee’s Deputy Chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who introduced major GSE reform legislation in the 111th Congress.
Another co-sponsor of the bill, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are being run by the federal government to achieve objectives set by the federal government. As long as this continues, he emphasized, it is common sense that they should be subject to FOIA requests.
The Hensarling bill, HR 4889, would have set a deadline for the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to terminate the conservatorship of either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac if the Director determines that it is financially viable. It would also instruct the Director to establish minimum levels of capital for the enterprises and deem failure of an enterprise to maintain revised minimum capital levels to constitute an unsafe and unsound condition. Moreover, the bill would prohibit the enterprises from purchasing and securitizing mortgages that exceed the median area price for the affected property.
SEC Staff Study Mandated by Dodd-Frank Recommends Enhancing Investor Access to Data on Brokers and Advisers
The SEC staff has recommended a unified public disclosure database for accessing information about brokers and advisers pursuant to a study on how to improve investors’ access to information about these financial intermediaries mandated by Section 919B of Dodd-Frank. Alternatively, the staff recommended unifying search returns for the existing BrokerCheck and IAPD tools while continuing to maintain them as separate databases. BrokerCheck and IAPD are Web-based disclosure systems providing investors access to information about brokers and advisers, such as employment history and disciplinary records, that help an investor investigate and evaluate these financial intermediaries.
The gold standard remains centralized access to registration information so that all of the data in the two systems would be in one place, making it easier for investors to obtain useful data. The current disclosure system comprises two distinct registration databases, requiring investors to know which database to search: BrokerCheck or IAPD. For investors who do not know whether their financial services provider is registered as a broker-dealer or an investment adviser, knowing where to conduct a background search may be problematic.
Moreover, not all financial services providers are required to register, including some service providers in the mortgage brokerage or futures industries. Some are exempt from registration or operate outside the Commission’s oversight. Centralizing access would make it more likely that investors could find data about a financial services provider who at any time was registered as a registered representative or investment adviser representative, whether or not they knew the provider’s registration status.
But since Section 919B mandates that any recommendations must be implemented 18 months after completion of the study, the SEC staff felt that practical difficulties would most likely prevent implementing a centralized unified public disclosure database within that timeframe. Thus, the staff recommended as a more feasible alternative the unification of search returns for BrokerCheck and IAPD and increasing the usefulness of these tools in two ways. First, by expanding search functions to permit searches for broker-dealers, investment advisers, registered representatives, and investment adviser representatives, based on ZIP code or other indicator of location. Second, by adding educational content, such as links and definitional material, perhaps embedded in alternate text tags, such as pop-ups or other kinds of hover text, which would appear automatically whenever a user’s electronic cursor hovers over certain text or items on the BrokerCheck and IAPD Web pages.
These functions would provide definitions or other explanatory content to help a user better understand the significance of a particular technical term or reference. Both Forms BD and ADV contain a glossary of terms that could be used to populate the hover text, suggested the staff.
The study also recommends that, subsequent to the eighteen-month implementation period, Commission staff and FINRA continue to analyze, including through investor testing, the feasibility and advisability of expanding BrokerCheck to include information currently available in CRD, as well as the method and format of publishing that information; and that SEC staff continue to evaluate expanding IAPD content and the method and format of publishing that content, including through investor testing. Potential modifications could include adding summary data for advisory firms on IAPD, hyperlinks between CRD numbers and SEC file numbers containing information related to a particular CRD number, and additional links to content available elsewhere on BrokerCheck or IAPD.
More broadly, the study reaffirmed that, because selecting a broker or investment adviser is one of the most important decisions that investors face, information to help them make this choice should be easy to find, easy to use, and easy to understand. The Commission recognizes that investors are entrusting financial intermediaries with their savings and should have sufficient pertinent information available to enable them to select a registered representative with whose background they are comfortable.
The gold standard remains centralized access to registration information so that all of the data in the two systems would be in one place, making it easier for investors to obtain useful data. The current disclosure system comprises two distinct registration databases, requiring investors to know which database to search: BrokerCheck or IAPD. For investors who do not know whether their financial services provider is registered as a broker-dealer or an investment adviser, knowing where to conduct a background search may be problematic.
Moreover, not all financial services providers are required to register, including some service providers in the mortgage brokerage or futures industries. Some are exempt from registration or operate outside the Commission’s oversight. Centralizing access would make it more likely that investors could find data about a financial services provider who at any time was registered as a registered representative or investment adviser representative, whether or not they knew the provider’s registration status.
But since Section 919B mandates that any recommendations must be implemented 18 months after completion of the study, the SEC staff felt that practical difficulties would most likely prevent implementing a centralized unified public disclosure database within that timeframe. Thus, the staff recommended as a more feasible alternative the unification of search returns for BrokerCheck and IAPD and increasing the usefulness of these tools in two ways. First, by expanding search functions to permit searches for broker-dealers, investment advisers, registered representatives, and investment adviser representatives, based on ZIP code or other indicator of location. Second, by adding educational content, such as links and definitional material, perhaps embedded in alternate text tags, such as pop-ups or other kinds of hover text, which would appear automatically whenever a user’s electronic cursor hovers over certain text or items on the BrokerCheck and IAPD Web pages.
These functions would provide definitions or other explanatory content to help a user better understand the significance of a particular technical term or reference. Both Forms BD and ADV contain a glossary of terms that could be used to populate the hover text, suggested the staff.
The study also recommends that, subsequent to the eighteen-month implementation period, Commission staff and FINRA continue to analyze, including through investor testing, the feasibility and advisability of expanding BrokerCheck to include information currently available in CRD, as well as the method and format of publishing that information; and that SEC staff continue to evaluate expanding IAPD content and the method and format of publishing that content, including through investor testing. Potential modifications could include adding summary data for advisory firms on IAPD, hyperlinks between CRD numbers and SEC file numbers containing information related to a particular CRD number, and additional links to content available elsewhere on BrokerCheck or IAPD.
More broadly, the study reaffirmed that, because selecting a broker or investment adviser is one of the most important decisions that investors face, information to help them make this choice should be easy to find, easy to use, and easy to understand. The Commission recognizes that investors are entrusting financial intermediaries with their savings and should have sufficient pertinent information available to enable them to select a registered representative with whose background they are comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)