Banksters: The scandals continue

Banksters: The scandals continue

--- by N. Craig Smith --- Four years into the economic crisis, a Harris poll of U.S. adults in 2012 found that 70 percent believed “most people on Wall Street would be willing to break the law if they believed that they could make a lot of money and get away with it”. Despite efforts to regulate better behaviour in banking, there is ample evidence that little has changed. N. Craig Smith The summer has seen one accusation after another suggesting banks still cannot be trusted, be it to adequately manage risk (JP Morgan Chase), to avoid money laundering by drug gangs (HSBC), to not violate sanctions against Iran (Standard Chartered), or to operate core banking activities without engaging in deceptive practices (Goldman Sachs) if not systemic corruption (Barclays). The Economist in its reporting resurrected a 1929 Depression-era term that blends banker and gangster and called them all “Banksters”. The scandal involving Barclays—which has admitted to falsifying LIBOR rate information—was described in a Bloomberg editorial in July as “The worst banking scandal yet… a breath-taking portrait of avarice and deceit”. As Bloomberg explained: “To hide their institutions’ problems during the financial crisis, or often to boost their traders’ profits, bankers knowingly submitted false data for the calculation of the London Interbank Offered Rate, a benchmark interest rate that influences the value of hundreds of trillions of dollars in financial contracts around the world, including floating-rate mortgages, corporate loans and interest-rate swaps.” Barclays is only the first to settle charges brought by the U.S. and U.K. regulatory authorities in the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal (Citigroup and Deutsche Bank are among as many as 20 other banks implicated). The public perception at least is that little has been learned since the financial crisis and the taxpayer-bailed-out bankers are back to business as usual, where making a buck—or, rather, megabucks—takes precedence over ethics. Casual Dishonesty Bob Diamond Is there something about banking that attracts people who readily adopt a practice of “casual dishonesty” (as The Economist described the culture revealed by the LIBOR scandal)? If greed is at the root of the misconduct, historically at least banking has offered considerable opportunities for self-enrichment of spectacular proportions and generally by taking risks with other people’s money. Many also argue that the financial crisis revealed that these financial rewards were not commensurate to talent or effort and had to do more with recklessness rather than judicious risk-taking—if not dodgy practices. Is regulation the answer? Bankers have claimed that proposed regulatory changes in light of the financial crisis are largely unnecessary, wouldn’t work, and would stifle the sector and prevent it fulfilling tasks essential to the economy. Leading the charge has been Bob Diamond, the disgraced former head of Barclays, and Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, also discredited in light of the reported US$5.8 billion trading loss by its Chief Investment Office (CIO), which was not supposed to take risky positions (the current estimated loss is three times the amount revealed in the bank’s quarterly earnings statement and has yet to be definitively quantified). The loss is officially attributed to a London trader known as “the London whale” because of the size of the positions he took. Yet no matter who actually placed the trades, this loss not only reflects poor risk management and weak internal controls but could also reveal fraud if it can be established that trading losses were intentionally hidden, as has been alleged (and is subject to investigation by regulatory authorities). Even though regulators are acting in response to the weak oversight, poor internal controls and the possible fraudulent conduct, the JP Morgan Chase loss casts new doubt on bankers’ claims that further regulation is unnecessary. Moreover, commentators on the JP Morgan Chase loss observe that the scale of the bank’s CIO trading was such that it almost unavoidably moved markets as it attempted to hedge the bank’s positions. At the very least, it seems, “too big to fail” has become “too big to manage”. Bring ‘em into line Solutions that will, if adequately implemented, bring bankers back into line include more effective regulation, stronger enforcement of regulations coupled with higher penalties (prison for corporate criminals as well as bigger fines for individuals and their firms), and if not breaking up the big banks then a separation of retail banking from investment banking (many propose a return to the days of Glass-Steagall, including Sandy Weill, who—as then-head of Citicorp—was instrumental in bringing it down in the first place). However, while regulation must be part of the solution, we also need more integrity in banking. Jamie Dimon This brings us to the question of culture: unethical banking cultures have been widely identified as at least partially responsible for the LIBOR scandal. This is another hypothesis rejected by JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, along with the claim of inadequate regulation. Indeed, having recovered his composure following the multi-billion dollar trading loss under his watch, Dimon is once again outspoken in his latest response to banking’s critics. In New York Magazine (“122 minutes with Jamie Dimon”, 12 August 2012) he is quoted as saying: “Everyone is talking about the culture, the culture, and all that, and it’s just not true… Most bankers are decent, honorable people. We’re wrapped up in all this crap right now. We made a mistake. We’re sorry. It doesn’t detract from all the good things we’ve done.” Of course many bankers are decent and honorable people, but the cumulative evidence today suggests that the banking scandals are not simply misconduct by a few bad apples; rather, there appears to be a systemic issue here. It is bad apples in bad barrels. Fostering ethical organisational cultures—changing those barrels as well as getting rid of bad apples—is surely key to generating greater integrity in banking. This is not something that can be achieved overnight, but organisations and, perhaps, an entire sector can be changed. Change starts with the tone from the top and it is noteworthy that the new chairman of Barclays, Sir David Walker, has been publicly welcomed as a critic in the past of compensation excesses in banking. However, integrity must permeate the entire organisation. Achieving this sort of change is comparable to how car manufacturers have instilled a commitment to quality or chemical companies such as DuPont have succeeded in making safety first such a central value. Often, external pressure, not least from regulators wielding big sticks, spurs recognition of the need to change. The incubators Finally, what about the role of business schools? Do they provide a training ground for this bad behaviour? Luigi Zingales, a professor on the finance faculty at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, observed in a comment piece for Bloomberg (“Do business schools incubate criminals?”, 17 July 2012), that “We are dealing with a drop in ethical standards throughout the business world, and our graduate schools are partly to blame.” He sees the banking scandals as the result of an “amoral culture that we—business-school professors—helped foster”. He proposes that the solution should start in our classrooms, with ethics as an integral part of core MBA classes, something that happens only rarely today. While there are notable exceptions, in too few schools is there any real attention to integrity and the role of values in business. For all the promises of greater attention to business ethics, with the financial crisis seemingly over, it’s back to business as usual at B-School as well as at the banks. N. Craig Smith is the INSEAD Chaired Professor of Ethics and Social Responsibility. First published: August 27, 2012 Last updated: August 27, 2012

ALEX BRUMMER: Now bring on the 'Banksters'

PUBLISHED: 16:23 EST, 22 August 2012 | UPDATED: 01:45 EST, 23 August 2012

• Comments (0)
• Share

The Serious Fraud Office will bask in accolades now that after 22 years it has finally nailed former Polly Peck chief Asil Nadir on ten beefy counts of theft. 

It does demonstrate comprehensively that the courts and juries can deliver in complex fraud cases. 

As a result the SFO and recently appointed director David Green may gain a respite from the disparagement that has dogged it for two decades after a series of botched trials and investigations. 

No one should lose sight of the fact that the Nadir case was fundamentally a simple one of the boss looting a public company. 

Asil Nadir pictured arriving at the Old Bailey: The case proves juries can deliver in complex fraud cases

Or that the verdict is of no great relevance to the challenges facing the SFO today, as the case is antique and protections and governance have been totally overhauled. 

What the public will really want to know is why, some five years after the great financial panic began at Northern Rock, not a single senior banker or financier has yet to stand in the dock. 

This despite the fact that many of the greatest abuses, including the creation of exotic financial instruments, took place under the regime of light touch regulation in London.

 

More...

• ALEX BRUMMER: The Serious Fraud Office is back from the dead

In the last few months we have learned that the returns, profits and bonuses of the UK banking system have been built on wholesale abuse. 

The Libor market, that sets interest rates for households, businesses and big corporate transactions across the globe was systematically rigged. 

Some of our most respected banks HSBC and Standard Chartered – thought to have set high standards in probity – have been exposed by the US authorities as money launderers and cheats. 

We should not be surprised, perhaps, that the gullible Royal Bank of Scotland was sucked into money laundering. But the distortion of values at StanChart and HSBC is breathtaking. One trusts that rather than sitting around waiting for the US Department of Justice and other authorities to do its stuff, a newly invigorated SFO is conducting its own probe with a view to seeing justice done in the UK. 

Only this will satisfy the public that the City stable has been cleansed. 

Busman’s holiday 

The hassle of having powerful founding shareholders outside the tent rather than inside has been amply demonstrated at easyJet and Wm Morrison where the big men, Sir Stelios Haji-Inonnou and Sir Ken Morrison, still like to have their say. 

But the constant sniping, even if it is well informed (as is the case at easyJet), can be a bit disconcerting for the rest of the investors. 

So on balance it is probably just as well that Sir Brian Souter, who with his family still owns some 26pc of Stagecoach, hangs around as chairman. The departure of Sir George Mathewson from the top job is unlikely to cause investors to shed many tears given his role in advancing the career of Fred Goodwin at RBS and setting that bank on its madcap acquisition trail. 

What is more important than Souter stepping up is that there is a sufficiently robust and independent deputy chair and a strong cadre of good non-executives. Whether Gary Watts, who already has five years on the Stagecoach board, can fulfil this role effectively may be open to question. 

And investors will also need to be assured that Souter has an exit plan. It has not been the best of times for Stagecoach, the more invisible partner in Virgin Rail’s West Coast rail contract, which has been contentiously awarded to Scottish rivals FirstGroup. In his old role as chief executive Souter has done a reasonable job of keeping Stagecoach on the right path with UK regional bus operations, railways and the North American arm including Megabus putting in useful performances in the first quarter. Only London buses look to be underwhelming. 

That will be for new chief executive Martin Griffiths to sort without, one trusts, too much intrusion from yesterday’s man. 

Setting Sun 

Amid the machinations in Greece, the push toward the US elections and China’s slowdown, the sub-octane performance of the world’s third largest economy – Japan – is too easily ignored. 

Data coming out of Tokyo is grim. Exports, traditionally the driving force for Japanese expansion, slumped 10.4pc in July and are down 8.3pc over the last quarter. 

This is a fall comparable to that at the start of the Great Recession in 2009. Consumer spending is in retreat, after several quarters of expansion. Growth is being held up for the moment from by reconstruction in the wake of the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima disaster. 

Japan is bracing for tough times and with Chinese output also stalling policymakers need to gird themselves urgently themselves if a hard landing is to be avoided

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2192156/ALEX-BRUMMER-Now-bring-banksters.html#ixzz24PKI8cwW

Banksters! Why should we pay for their greed?

By ALEX BRUMMER

PUBLISHED: 18:14 EST, 20 August 2012 | UPDATED: 18:18 EST, 20 August 2012

• Comments (14)
• Share

Most people won’t be the least bit surprised to learn that so-called ‘free banking’ is nothing of the sort. While everyone realises that banks use our deposits as they please, we now learn the sheer amount of money that banks make.

The shocking findings are the latest blow for the beleaguered financial sector, already reeling from a series of scandals.

Of course, none of these hidden charges take into account the nearly £1trillion  of assistance that we, as taxpayers,  have had to plough into the banking  system to prevent it crashing in the five years since the credit crunch flared up in August 2007.

Myth of free banking: Banks are ripping off customers by refusing to pay decent interest rates on current accounts

Despite mounting evidence that banks use every opportunity to impose charges on consumers and profit heavily from the so-called ‘endowment effect’ – the difference between the paltry interest rates they pay savers and the heavy charges imposed on borrowers – bank chiefs are desperate to end the tradition of free banking.

What makes this concerted campaign even more egregious is that it is supported by Sir David Walker, chairman-elect of Barclays.

In his first interview since his appointment, the 72-year-old City grandee – who was brought in to clear up the mess created by Bob Diamond following the Libor interest-rate-rigging scandal – said that ‘in principle’ he favoured the idea that ordinary customers should pay for their current accounts.

But it was what he said next that was most offensive.

New role: Sir David Walker replaces Marcus Agius as new chairman of troubled Barclays

Walker declared: ‘Free banking is one of the main problems behind some of the recent scandals and until people understand what the banking services they are paying for actually cost we will not have real competition.’

What utter cheek to suggest that, if the banks had imposed charges on ordinary accounts sooner, they would not have felt the need to rip people off by mis-selling products such as payment protection insurance.

In other words, the boss of a scandal-hit bank was claiming that it was the public’s fault that bankers behaved so despicably, because customers weren’t handing over enough money each month to guarantee their bonuses.

Instead of concentrating on providing a proper service for consumers and small and medium-sized businesses in the way that the Governor of the Bank of England Sir Mervyn King has been calling for, Walker seemed to be blaming the customers for the banks’ own blunders.

It was as if the customers, not the banks, were responsible for the £8billion swindle surrounding the wrongful sale of payment protection insurance to people who did not need it. In Walker’s mind, such profiteering by the banks seems justified by the fact that customers are getting free services on their current accounts. 

Of course, it is possible to understand Walker’s desire to improve transparency in terms of charging. But that alone will not change the sullied culture of the banks. No doubt bankers, many of whom find it impossible to see beyond their own fat-cat pay packets, would use the same twisted logic to justify the trend of selling customers premium services, such as access to airport lounges, travel insurance and car breakdown services.

 

More...

• New Barclays chairman Sir David Walker putting his foot in it
• Germans say Greece Euro exit is 'manageable' as diplomats prepare for another week of crunch talks over nation’s spiralling debts
• Apple becomes biggest company in U.S. history as its stock reaches $623 BILLION

Indeed, these so-called premium accounts are already the subject of a preliminary investigation by the finance authorities and could well be the next big scandal in the banking industry. It is indisputable that customers’ lives are made easier by having bank accounts.

Cash machines offer us instant access to money across the globe, while direct debits are a great convenience, saving bank customers the regular chore of sitting down to write cheques or queue up at the local gas showroom, for instance, to pay in cash. 

Having said that, it is outrageous that those who choose to do so, many of them elderly, face punitive extra charges.

Chairman-elect of Barclays, Sir David Walker, declared that 'free banking is one of the main problems behind some of the recent scandals'

But we should never forget that what may appear to be a free service is not.

The cash we leave in our current accounts is freely available for the bank’s own use. It can lend it to other banks or financial institutions, earning an instant return, or even better it can be used to lend to people who have taken on overdrafts, which never come cheap.

For some years, high street banks have been stealthily plotting to end the era of free banking.

Lord Turner, who chairs the Financial Services Authority and is widely tipped to be the next governor of the Bank of England, argued recently that the free current account banking model was the ‘central problem’ of British banking. 

In classic banker-speak, he suggested current accounts were ‘sold at below the cost of production’.

The corollary of what Walker, Turner and their colleagues have been saying about the need to end free banking and charge for services is that the banks, in turn, should follow the same principle when it comes to customers who maintain their accounts in credit. This is precisely what banks such as Santander UK do by offering customers a proper, market-related interest rate return on their deposits.

Risk: The cash we leave in our current accounts is freely available for the bank's own use

Also, banks and building societies should be forced to ensure that savers (who outnumber mortgage borrowers seven to one) automatically receive the best rate of interest available on their deposits and ISAs. This would end the disgraceful situation whereby banks discriminate against existing savers, paying them low rates of interest, while enticing new customers with higher rates, cash bonuses and other carrots.

In the aftermath of the bailout of the banking system and the scandals that have shattered people’s trust in the industry, the least that individual customers and small businesses deserve is a square deal.

The debate about free banking, coming as it does while taxpayers continue to shoulder a huge bill for the foolishness and chicanery of the bankers, merely highlights how divorced from the real world so many in the City are.

It is sheer effrontery to shift the burden to the customer. Instead, it is the banks and the ‘banksters’, as the Economist magazine has labelled them, who should be paying a heavy price for their own mistakes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2191211/Banksters-Why-pay-greed.html#ixzz24DnLzyAG

Goldman Sachs Will Not Face Criminal Charges: Justice Department

Reuters  |  Posted: 08/09/2012 7:13 pm Updated: 08/10/2012 12:22 pm

1,236

91

1

18

951

GET BUSINESS ALERTS:

SIGN UP

REACT:

InspiringGreedyTypicalScaryOutrageousAmazingInnovativeInfuriating

FOLLOW:

Goldman Sachs, Video, Goldman Criminal, Goldman Sachs Criminal Charges, Goldman Sachs Doj, Goldman Sachs Justice Department, Reuters, Business News

* DOJ says could not meet criminal burden of proof

* Decision follows more than a year of investigation

* Senator Levin had asked for criminal investigation

By David Ingram and Aruna Viswanatha

WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said it will not pursue criminal charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc or its employees related to accusations that the firm bet against the same subprime mortgage securities it was selling to clients.

The decision not to prosecute Goldman, a firm held up by critics as a symbol of Wall Street greed during the 2007-2009 financial crisis, highlights the difficulty in prosecuting crisis-related cases.

Few expected the bank to face criminal charges, but in April 2011, U.S. Senator Carl Levin asked for a criminal investigation after the subcommittee he leads spent more than a year looking into Goldman.

The accusations were aired in a heated 2010 Congressional hearing in which Levin grilled Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein for hours about whether it was morally correct for the firm to sell its clients products described internally as "crap".

"The department and investigative agencies ultimately concluded that the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time," the Justice Department said in a statement late on Thursday.

The DOJ does not typically make public statements when it concludes an investigation.

Neil Barofsky, a former watchdog for the U.S. government's financial system bailout in 2008, said the announcement was a stark reminder that no individual or institution had been held meaningfully accountable for their role in the financial crisis.

"Without such accountability, the unending parade of megabanks scandals will inevitably continue," said Barofsky, who has been an outspoken critic of the government's response to the financial crisis.

In a brief statement emailed to Reuters, a Goldman Sachs spokesman said: "We are pleased that this matter is behind us."

A Levin aide had no immediate comment.

In a related civil case, Goldman settled with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for $550 million in July 2010, without admitting wrongdoing.

The SEC, in one of its premier financial crisis cases, said Goldman failed to tell investors the Paulson & Co hedge fund helped choose and bet against the subprime mortgage-backed securities underlying an investment product named Abacus.

The SEC is still pursuing a civil complaint against Fabrice Tourre, a Goldman vice president involved in the Abacus deal.

Separately on Thursday, Goldman said the SEC had dropped an investigation into the firm's role in selling a different $1.3 billion subprime mortgage-related deal arranged in 2006.

TARNISHED REPUTATION

The Abacus deal was a major focus of the televised hearings held by Levin's subcommittee in 2010. The hearings and a following report from Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations weighed on Goldman's shares as the firm suffered a reputational hit from the unwelcome spotlight.

Goldman -- dubbed a "great vampire squid" in a 2009 article in Rolling Stone magazine -- has continued to be dogged by criticism, including from its own ranks.

A Goldman Sachs banker in March published a withering resignation letter in the New York Times, calling the Wall Street titan a "toxic" place.

In its release on Thursday, the Justice Department said there was "not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution" against Goldman. If new or additional evidence emerged, it could make a different determination, it said.

Prosecuting financial fraud would continue to be a top priority and it highlighted other investigations, including its probe into banks' alleged manipulation of Libor, a widely used benchmark for interest rates.

The SEC has brought a handful of high-profile cases related to the financial crisis, including against former Countrywide Financial Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo and its case against Goldman. But the Justice Department has struggled to bring criminal charges.

The frustration, in part, has been because such charges involve securing evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant intended to break the law.

For example, a federal jury in 2009 acquitted two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers accused of continuing to push souring investments as sound.

Jurors said prosecutors did not prove the case, which relied on e-mail evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Since then, the Justice Department has brought few major prosecutions tied to the subprime crisis.

In January, President Barack Obama announced a new task force to investigate misconduct that fueled the financial crisis, and the Justice Department has said it has issued more than a dozen civil subpoenas and has multiple inquiries underway.

So far, no cases have come out of that effort, and some critics have dismissed the task force as an election-year stunt.

Goldman doesn't have a great reputation, here are some other companies with bad reps:

11 Companies With Bad Reputations

1 of 12

Romney Uses Banksters' Money to Play Race Card

Wednesday, 15 August 2012 00:00By Danny Weil, Truthout | News Analysis

• 101
• font size   
• Print 
• Email

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, speaks at a campaign event at the NASCAR Technical Institute in Mooresville, North Carolina, August 12, 2012. (Photo: Eric Thayer / The New York Times)Whether one is voting this presidential election or not, Mitt Romney's most recent TV ad proclaims that president Obama eliminated the work requirement for welfare recipients and promises that Mitt Romney will make welfare recipients work for their benefits - unlike the lax Obama who can't seem to exercise parental control.

Not only is the Romney TV ad not true, the ad is classic racist "code." It is, in fact, a deliberate intent to incite racial animosity by mentioning welfare for the down and out, not welfare for the rich, Romney's real constituency. Yet another cynical appeal to poor white voters and the growing right-wing racist fringe, it conjures up images of working people of color as lazy and non-industrious, when - in fact - the so-called "job creators," like Romney and his supporters, are busy shipping employment overseas or engaging in high risk, high frequency trading on Wall Street where the real non-industrious can be found. Unfortunately, thanks to eight years of George W. Bush and the Great Financial Crisis that has now become a perpetual depression, we have a whole lot more poor white folks out of work, many of whom are, unfortunately, moving targets for racist appeals.

To read more articles by Danny Weil and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here. 

From Willy Horton, to the white woman telling Harold Ford Jr., "call me," the race card has long been a trusted weapon in the Republican arsenal when it comes to dividing the American people. To this mendacious ad - with more likely to surface - add voter suppression efforts and the Republican theme is glaringly obvious: Do you want a white man in the White House or a black man in the White House? And it is no surprise that all of this racist hyperbole is appearing during the emergence of the New Jim Crow, the latest ugly head rearing of Social Darwinism by the elite of a new cyber Gilded Age.

Plutocracy, Propaganda and Neo-feudalism

Racist appeals to the public by the Romney campaign conceal the fact that eight out of ten of Romney's top donors are scurrilous banking scoundrels - the one tenth or one hundredth of the 1% who essentially run this country - and I can assure you they are not African-Americans. They are multinational corporations whose deep-pocketed CEOs have made mega-billions since the crash of 2008.

According to opensecrets.org, Mitt Romney's top ten financial donors are the usual colluders, grifters, economic vipers and corrupt suspects one would imagine:

Goldman Sachs	$636,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$502,874
Morgan Stanley	$476,300
Bank of America	$465,850
Credit Suisse Group	$421,310
Citigroup Inc	$345,265
Barclays	$322,400
Kirkland & Ellis	$295,042
Wells Fargo	$276,700
Deloitte LLP	$250,510

What Mitt Romney offers Americans is a lurid, Dickensian future where plutocrats, banksters and corporate hucksters are society's shot callers, drafting and writing laws allowing them to engage in criminal activity, while they dismantle regulations and directives that prevent them from continuous looting and pillage of the planet. And while the rich use grimy for-profit colleges, sub-prime mortgages and for-profit prisons to extract wealth from the poor and working class, they deliver a deracinated trail of tears, hardship, decaying environment - a toll-booth society to replace a vanquished public commons creating untold human misery. These companies traffic in poverty.

Just as an example, take Romney's top donor, Goldman Sachs. This corrupt, global crime syndicate engages in all three activities listed above with the for-profit college Educational Management Corporation (EDMC) recently being sued for the alleged theft of billions of dollars in federal funds. Yet, they even announced recently they're bagging a contract to provide so called "educational services" at New York City jails. This corporation is a key player among the criminals and thieves that crashed the casino economy and brought down whole countries like Greece.

Yet, instead of going to jail themselves, the CEO of Goldman Sachs is now financing the construction of burgeoning jail services for working people whose lives the corporations and their surrogates have left in ruin, some of whom will become candidates to occupy the New York city jail cells and use the Wall-Street-driven "educational service" products. The company is now trying to corner the market on financing incarceration for the poor.

According to Reuters, Goldman Sachs will invest nearly $10 million in:

... the nation's first "social service bonds" to help fund a New York City program that aims to lower the 50 percent recidivism rate among youthful offenders jailed at the Rikers Island correctional facility. 

It is quite extraordinary that the recidivist plutocrats, the corporations they run and the surrogate class that serves them are getting away with financing prison and jail "services" rather than being prosecuted, convicted and then frog marched into jail cells. Not one of the fraudsters from the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 ever ended up in Rikers Island nor any other correctional facility, federal or state, and it is doubtful any of them will.

Meanwhile, Romney will continue to accept corporate largess in untold quantities in exchange for carrying the plutocrats' water, and he will resort to racist and sexist tactics, advertisements and outright lies to do so. With Citizens United now the law of the land, we might not know where all the money is coming from or just how much, but one thing we do know: Mitt Romney will do anything to get "selected" as CEO of America, Inc