ICELAND JAILS BANKERS, ETC.

Iceland is a tiny country. It sits in the far reaches of the north Atlantic somewhere east of Canada. Its clock/days different. Because of its location, 24 hour days of sunshine or darkness are common. Population 320,000.

Iceland suffered the same banking disasters as the United States. Iceland had its 2008 where the banks brought the economy down.

Iceland dealt with the problem different from the United States. Iceland showed it had brass testicles.

Iceland’s banks needed a bailout. The people said no. An emphatic no! It was a David/Goliath situation. As in biblical times, David won.

The people in effect created a new government, adopted a new constitution, and arrested, prosecuted and jailed bankers and politicians. None of the too big to fail and too big to prosecute crap for them.

At the same time, Iceland created a Special Prosecutor to investigate banking crime in connection with or in the wake of its banking crisis. The list of bankers and government officials jailed is endless. Proof in many of the cases revealed the bankers enjoyed playboy lifestyles, mistresses and all.

Iceland’s economy took three years to improve.Following 2011, the  percentage of unemployed dropped dramatically. Loans were available to Main Street and ordinary people.

Banks are and have been whores throughout history. For whatever reasons, governments have not been able to control bankers. Bankers have made money for themselves in gigantic numbers during certain periods. Most recently, the early 2000s through 2008 in Iceland. The early 2000s to today in the United States. Banks are still screwing the American people. The reason simple. The U.S. did not take the bankers in hand and kick them in the ass as Iceland did. Iceland’s finances continue to improve at the same time that  the U.S.’s remain the same. In the U.S., bankers incomes are the highest ever and continue to rise. Whereas, people’s incomes remain stagnant.

Iceland and the U.S. are now facing another banking problem. That of central banks. The Federal Reserve System in the U.S.

Central banks allocate money to those entities actually in the banking business. A purpose of central banks is to protect depositors. In the 1970s, Congress changed Federal Reserve laws to spell out the purpose of the Federal Reserve. To effectively promote…..the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates. Also to…..regulate responsibility over many consumer credit protection laws.

The Federal Reserve has failed dismally in its responsibilities. The organization overwhelmingly does everything to protect and aid banks to the detriment of the American people.

Iceland has a similar problem. Their central banking system still leans the way of banks. A strong movement is underway to change the money allocation responsibility of Iceland’s central bank to the government. Makes sense. The government creates money. It should bear responsibility for who gets it. It is expected Iceland will make the move in the near future.

In the U.S., there are isolated voices to debunk the Federal System and give the allocating power to the government. Whether successful is highly doubtful. The banks, their money, their lobbyists and their attorneys, are geared up to oppose such a change.

The U.S.has not changed its banking laws as radically as Iceland. Until the U.S.does, bankers will continue becoming richer by day and the people poorer.

Dodd-Frank became law in 2010. The new law contained many provisions favorable to the American people. Laws were changed so greedy bankers could not practice certain of their evil ways again.

One provision had to do with deposits insured against loss. Somehow the banks had utilized the old law to have many of their 2008 losses guaranteed by the government. Taxpayer dollars were used to make the banks whole.

Derivative trading, securitized debt and non performing loans were guaranteed 100 percent by the government. The government paid off these guarantees with taxpayer dollars.

Dodd-Frank said no more! A victory for the American people. It lasted only four years. In December 2014, it lost its way. The old game returned. The government would insure and otherwise guarantee the speculative games/investments the banks were engaged in. It has been described as heads the bankers win, tails the taxpayers lose.

How did Congress and the President permit this regression so soon? The budget battle was in play in December 2014. No budget, the government would shut down. The budget was $1.1 trillion.

Republicans required their pound of flesh. Rollback the Dodd-Frank provision re; no taxpayer guarantees in certain areas. Many Democratic legislators and the President himself gave in to get the budget passed and keep the government running.

I do not like what happened. It is politics, however. It also represents one of the rare moments of a negotiated result.

A problem specific to the U.S. regarding banks involves the use of money in a less than palatable sense. Banks are so big they can buy the political process. And they have.

Little Iceland did what big United States could not/would not do. Iceland took the bull by the horns and did everything necessary to correct its banking problems. The U.S. did not. The people were buffaloed into the thinking the government had.

The American people remain in a precarious position with regard to banks. The solution is to do what Iceland did. Roll over the banks, force them to do what is right. I doubt such will occur. Our elected officials are too receptive and too dependent when it comes to banker contributions and perks.

Government by the people, for the people, continues to erode away.

THE POOR PEE IN A CUP

 

Florida has always been righteous regarding drug use. More so since the election of Rick Scott as Governor. The Governor successfully signed into law a bill mandating drug testing by welfare applicants.

 

Scott's reasoning was twofold. First, to protect children from danger. Drug users it was felt would abuse their little ones. Second, to insure tax dollars were not being used to buy illegal drugs.

 

Scott's law required the welfare applicant to pay for the test. The test a simple one. The welfare applicant peed in a cup which then was tested for drug content. The tests were conducted at privately owned clinics and drug facilities. The welfare applicant was required to pay for the test. The cost generally in the $35 -$40 range. If the test result was negative, the welfare applicant would be reimbursed by the State.

 

The Governor went further. He was concerned that State employees might be engaged in drug use. He issued an Executive Order requiring mandatory drug testing of all State prospective hires and random testing of current employees. Scott's Executive order applied only to employees working in those State agencies where Scott had appointed the Directors.

 

The sense of the law itself was that the unemployed poor were more prone to use drugs.

 

Studies had been conducted prior to the passage of the law. The United States Chamber of Commerce found that 70 per cent of illicit drugs were used by employed persons. Another study regarding drug use among rich and poor children found that children of the rich were more likely to use drugs than the poor.

 

Florida had data which was derived from actual applicants for welfare benefits. The 2011 numbers showed that out of 4,086 applicants tested, 108 of the tests came up positive for drug use. The numbers indicated very few welfare recipients were drug users.

 

The State countered the interpretation by saying that drug users did not take the test because they knew what the outcome would be. Some credence is to be given to such position. However, I find it hard to believe the number who avoided taking the test was anywhere near the number who actually did.

 

There is the United states Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To mandate wholesale testing of all welfare applicants without something more was considered by some improper. Where was the necessary requisite of reasonable cause? How can reasonable cause even be determined in a mass testing situation?

 

A federal lawsuit came about. It was inevitable. The case was Lebron v. Wilkins. Judge Mary S. Scriven of Orlando rendered her decision this past New Year's eve. She found the law to be unconstitutional in that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The law permitted in effect illegal searches and seizures by mandating mass urine testing of a particular group. The Judge found no pervasive drug problem among welfare recipients.

 

The only governmental study on the subject was one done by Florida itself in 1998. The study is referred to as the Demonstration Study. Judge Scriven relied on it as part of her decision.  She said Florida's Demonstration Project was the only competent evidence of record addressing drug use by Florida welfare recipients.

 

The study indicated there was a lower rate of drug usage among welfare recipients than the population of Florida as a whole. The study further found  there was no indication of children being adversely affected.

 

Florida's own study came back to bite the State in the ass.

 

Scott has stated Florida will appeal.

 

Now for the interesting part of this story.

 

Prior to his election as Governor, Scott owned a drug testing business. Solantic. An urgent  care chain consisting of 32 sites. Drug testing was one of Solantic's more popular services. During the campaign, Scott estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings to be $62 million.

 

Upon election, Scott did the right thing. He divested himself of his interest in Solantic. The question is did he divest in a proper fashion. Scott transferred the shares in a revocable trust to his wife.

 

Scott's attorneys met with the Florida Commission on Ethics. Apparently the procedure was acceptable. I however question the propriety of the revocable trust transfer to the wife.

 

There is the adage if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. The same applies here from my perspective. Conflict of interest rears its ugly head. The problem arose when Scott supported and signed into law welfare drug testing. It went a step further when he required by Executive Order that certain State employees also be tested. His wife owned the controlling interest in his former company Solantic. Solantic had to benefit to some extent in the revenue to be derived from the drug testing.

 

I am not saying Scott did anything wrong. However, it is my belief that a high ranking official such as a governor should be as pure as Caesar's wife. There is an appearance of conflict of interest. 

 

This matter goes a step further. We live in an age where people believe most public officials are benefiting from their positions. Generally to the detriment of the citizenry. The mandatory urine testing scenario does not play well with the

Governor's image. Right or wrong, it supports the public's general feeling that something may be amiss at the high ends of government.