On Monday, the SEC slapped Bank of America with a $33 million fine for misleading investors on plans to award multi-billion dollar bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives during BofA's purchase of the failed bank. In case people are keeping track...this fine is less than one percent of the $3.6 billion in bonuses paid out. SEC officials say this is the largest penalty ever imposed for a failure to disclose relevant information in connection with shareholder votes.

Bank of America has agreed to settle, without admitting to the charges. The bank also has yet to pay back $45 billion in bailout funds of taxpayer money. "This is further proof that bank executives will do anything to pay themselves bonuses and stick it to taxpayers, shareholders and workers," said SEIU's Stephen Lerner in USA Today .

Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could solve our problems the BofA-way?

As part of their "Morris on Campus,™ Life According to an Upperclassman™" campaign to "educate and empower students to take control of their finances," Bank of America sponsored a survey last summer that found 38 percent of surveyed college-aged students reporting they could use help in managing their money. Four in ten (42 percent) students reported to overdrawing their checking account.

The irony here is almost too much to bear...Bank of America knows a thing or two about spending money they don't have. It's suffice to say that these students (like BofA's promotions poster child Morris) would probably be thrilled to be granted the same pardons as BofA. Imagine what that scenario would look like if we all lived under the same skewed logic BofA decision makers seem to be adhering to..."I owed thousands and thousands in student loans but walked away after earning my college diploma owing just 1 percent!" The same goes for the millions of people who owe money to their credit card companies. Or their health insurance companies.

Christmas come early? News reports today suggest that this latest failure by Bank of America could be setting the stage for CEO Ken Lewis's departure. In spite of all the hurt they've heaped onto our economy, there's really been no holding banks accountable for their shortsighted practices and failing to live up to their responsibilities to taxpayers who bailed them out in the first place. Kicking Ken Lewis to the curb would be a good start.

Congress took a step towards cracking down on corporate and big bank CEO pay today, as the House passed the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009 by a 237-to-185 vote. Today's vote to restrict risky compensation and bonuses would apply to any company with more than $1 billion in assets. It follows mind-boggling report on Thursday that nine of the country's biggest banks--all receiving billions of dollars in bailout funds--had 'awarded' roughly 4,800 million-dollar-plus bonuses.

Today, the average CEO today makes in one day what the average worker is paid in one year. Employment compensation for workers in this country has grown over the past 12 months by the lowest amount on record--a stark reality that stands in direct contrast to the skyrocketing CEO pay and bonuses that have not slowed since our economic crisis hit. Here's a visual to help illustrate our point:

The Penthouse View vs. The Main Street Reality

Bonuses at big banks have even outpaced earnings. CBS News reports that while Goldman Sachs earned $2.3 billion last year and received $10 billion in TARP funds they paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses--more than double their income. "America is not living up to its promise when one of the architects of the economic crisis gets paid billions in bonuses for his failures while his employees take home wages barely above the poverty level," said SEIU President Andy Stern.

The House passage of the bill is an important step to correct the enormous disparity between those at the top and regular working Americans, but much more needs to be done to help Main Street recover. SEIU is calling on lawmakers to pass the Employee Free Choice Act as an essential way to rein in reckless CEOs and corporate greed and speed up economic recovery.

A new report released by SEIU today shows that Bank of America has cut small business loans made through the Small Business Administration (SBA) 7(a) program - despite taking billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts meant to stimulate the economy.

At a time when the failure rate of small businesses has been on the rise, Bank of America has - and continues - to reduce the amount it lends in SBA loans while increasing higher-interest credit card lending to small businesses. The result is less capital to support struggling small businesses and boost the economy.

Here's a quick look at the facts about Small Business Loans at the Bank of America.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Lending to Small Businesses AFTER Taking Billions in Bailout Money to Stimulate the Economy - Latest Cuts Came on Top of Years of Decreased Lending

• Not only did Bank of America cut small business lending after taking billions in bailout funds, but the bank lent out significantly less money to small businesses than many of its top competitors - under the SBA 7(a) program the Small Business Administration's main loan program.
• The average loan amount was comparatively small. In FY 2008, the average loan amount for all SBA 7(a) lenders was $182,492. At Bank of America, the average loan amount was only $31,032.

FACT: Bank of America Cut SBA 7(a) Loans by 90 percent -- Twice the National Average

• Over the past two years, Bank of America's small business lending has decreased from more than 10,000 SBA 7(a) loans to fewer than 500. The greatest decline occurred after the bank received bailout funds last October -- money intended to jump start lending.
• In the first seven months of FY 2009 (October-April), the bank made only 241 loans through the SBA 7(a) program, worth a total of $10 million. In the same time period last year, the bank made 3,053 SBA 7(a) loans, worth $92 million.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Small Business Lending in States

• In FY 2007, Bank of America lent more than $335 million to small businesses in 44 states through the SBA 7(a) program. In the first seven months of FY 2009, the bank cut SBA 7(a) lending completely in 14 states.
• Cuts were most severe in states like Arkansas, where the bank made 49 SBA 7(a) loans worth $1.4 million in FY 2007, and made zero in the first seven months of FY 2009, and in three New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), where the bank went from making 109 loans worth $2.8 million in FY 2007 to zero to date in FY 2009.

FACT: Bank of America Pulled a Bait and Switch, Shifting Small Business Portfolio from Traditional Loans to Higher-Interest Credits Cards

• Instead of lending money to small businesses through SBA loans (with typical interest rates of 7-9%), Bank of America appears to be moving its small business clients to higher-interest credit card loans. (Credit cards typically charge small businesses 16-23%.)
• In 2007 (the most recent year for which this data is currently available), more than 75% of Bank of America's small business loans were made through FIA Card Services, its credit card division. Bank of America acquired FIA (previously called MBNA) in January 2006. FIA's small business loan volume increased nearly 400% between 2006 and 2007. The $6.3 billion increase in the bank's total small business lending between 2006 and 2007 came almost entirely from the bank's credit card division.

FACT: Bank of America Hurt Small Businesses and Shareholders with Risky Lending Practices

• Bank of America shifted its loan portfolio - favoring "Express Loans" with lower underwriting standards - despite the fact that these loans are guaranteed by the SBA at a lower rate and have been found more likely to default. From FY 2006 through FY 2008, more than 95% of Bank of America's SBA 7(a) lending was through the SBA Express program, saddling shareholders and communities with unnecessary risk.
• Reminiscent of the mortgage crisis, small business defaults have risen. In fall 2008, Bank of America announced that its small business default rate had doubled to match the national rate and possibly exceed it, going from 6% in 2007 to 12% (annualized) in 2008. Bank of America's Chief Financial Officer Joe Price described the bank's small business lending as performing more like consumer debt than commercial lending. CEO Ken Lewis more bluntly called Bank of America's SBA loan portfolio "a damn disaster."

Read and download the full report "Small Business Lending at Bank of America" here.

There are two storylines that Bank of America has been pushing about its decision to go through with the Merrill Lynch acquisition, even after it became clear that Merrill was facing billions in losses. The first paints Bank of America as a martyr that decided to bite the bullet and go through with the deal in order to save the broader economy from collapse. The second is that BofA was forced into a shotgun wedding by federal regulators. But recently released emails from Federal Reserve officials raise questions about both of these stories.

As for the notion that BofA returned to the taxpayer trough for a second serving of bailout funds in order to save Merrill and prevent a larger financial catastrophe... According to the Washington Post, the Fed's internal emails show that "the government did not just move to rescue the Merrill Lynch acquisition -- officials also needed to rescue Bank of America," whose "own health still was in a downward spiral. Regulators calculated more than half the decline in Bank of America's capital reserves was the result of internal problems..."

Far from being Merrill's heroic savior, these events raise the question: Did BofA use Merrill as a crutch to garner public sympathy for another taxpayer handout? Or perhaps something even more cynical. The Washington Post reports that when BofA CEO Ken Lewis testified before a Congressional committee on June 11th, "Democrats pressed Lewis to acknowledge he had threatened to leave a major investment bank to a grim fate as a gambit to get public money" (more on that below).

Which brings us back to that second storyline -- the shotgun wedding.

Big Banks liquidating your workplace like Hartmarx suit makers in Chicago? Now there's a place to turn to for resources to fight back.

Yesterday, SEIU launched "Keep America Working" -- a toll-free hotline and website to support small business owners and workers facing job loss because of frozen credit and liquidation at the hands of bailed-out banks. The new website is www.keepworkinghotline.org and the hotline number is 877-286-1Job (it will be open Monday-Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT).

Up until now, there has been no system in place to hold banks accountable for their lending practices, despite the fact that they have received more than $410 billion in taxpayer bailout funds in an effort to restore lending and get the economy moving. The Keep America Working hotline and website will help shed light on the shortsighted practices of big banks who have failed to live up to their responsibilities to taxpayers and are now pushing for company and worker liquidation. SEIU is also working with Rep. Hare and Rep. Schakowsky in getting support from their colleagues to draft a letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner to enlist his help to protect jobs in our communities and hold banks accountable who received TARP for actions that undercut a meaningful economic recovery.

Some of the banks who act as prime lenders to companies that are currently liquidating jobs include--no surprise here-- Bank of America and Wells Fargo. If you're a business owner or employee that's affected by big banks like these putting the squeeze on your company, visit www.keepworkinghotline.org and let us know.

You need help - and you're certainly not getting it from the banks. So call the hotline at 1-877-286-1JOB or visit www.KeepWorkingHotline.org

While the US taxpayer has been more than generous towards Bank of America, giving the bank up to $199.2 billion in federal assistance, CEO Ken Lewis hasn't exactly returned the favor.

The New York Post is now reporting that Bank of America has "expanded its India-based payroll to 5 percent of its 301,000 employees" this year - a total of around 15,000 people.

While expanding operations in India, Bank of America continues to lay off its American workers. Since 2004, the bank has cut over 34,000 American jobs, and recently announced plans to eliminate up to 35,000 additional jobs over the next three years. These cuts will amount to 12% of the company's workforce, and would be one of the largest rounds of layoffs in the history of the financial services industry.

"I feel bad about firing people, but at least I have the courage to do it." -Ken Lewis, Bank of America CEO

"It's as if these guys got a windfall payoff for betting the family's savings on the wrong horse. A fundamental duty to shareholders has been violated, and we expect immediate action by the Boards of Directors to put a stop to these unmerited executive payouts," said SEIU President and SEIU Master Trust Chair Andy Stern.

In letters addressed to the Boards of Directors of 29 major companies in its investment portfolio, the SEIU Master Trust--a consortium of pension funds with approximately $1.3 billion in assets--demand that the companies' boards overhaul their executive compensation structure so top executives do not reap bonuses and other incentivized pay rewards regardless of the companies' performance. The SEIU Master Trust argues that corporate compensation payments based on false economic metrics may be recovered under U.S. Law, and asks the companies to overhaul executive compensation practices to better align them with corporate performance.

Since 2005, the top five most highly paid executives at the 29 financial services firms received a total of more than $3.5 billion in cash and equity pay, and over $1.5 billion in stock options. The companies include the most well-known names in banking, insurance, and financial services, such as AIG, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co. American Express and Goldman Sachs.

"The recent collapse of the companies' stock prices show that the economic metrics used by the boards in justifying these compensation payments were worthless, and that the companies' stock prices were artificially inflated," said Stephen Abrecht, Executive Director of the SEIU Master Trust.

Click here to review the complete list of the 29 companies in the SEIU Master Trust portfolio receiving letters.

Yesterday, the Chamber of Commerce announced the launch of a $1 million television advertising campaign that takes a new line of attack against the Employee Free Choice Act. On their blog yesterday afternoon, the business group admitted to accepting dues from member companies who have received taxpayer bailout money.

Receiving economic stimulus money only to turn around and spend such tax-payer relief funds lobbying against public interest legislation that would improve the lives of hardworking Americans is unacceptable.

"Over the years, the Chamber has made clear its stand against working people. They've spent millions blocking pro-worker legislation like the minimum wage, medical and paid sick leave, the Employee Free Choice Act, and expansion of children's healthcare coverage," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, in response to the Chamber's admission yesterday. "American taxpayers have had enough. The Chamber of Commerce must stop accepting taxpayer funds to lobby against taxpayer interests. " Read Burger's entire response here.

Join the Facebook group to take action on this issue: "Petition: Chamber of
Commerce Shouldn't Use Bailout Money to Attack Workers." You can also sign the petition here.

I have a story for you.

Two CEOs lead two large public companies that start sinking, putting thousands out of work and toppling the American economy. Both CEOs accepted billions in taxpayer dollars to sustain their companies, but both failed to stop their companies' downward spirals.

One CEO -- GM's Rick Wagoner -- got his pink slip from President Obama this morning. The other -- Bank of America's Ken Lewis -- accepted bailout funds while continuing to fleece consumers and taxpayers.

It's time for the Obama Administration to show the door to CEO Ken Lewis in order for real reform to take hold at Bank of America.

Sign our petition to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner calling for Ken Lewis to be replaced as Bank of America CEO. Click here to take action:

http://action.seiu.org/page/s/firekenlewis

Firing GM's CEO is a positive step towards restructuring this critical American industry. But the Obama Administration needs to apply the same lesson to the financial sector: replace failed leadership and shepherd the industry into a new era.

Why should Ken Lewis be fired? Let's count the reasons.

• $45 billion bailout for more of the same. Ken Lewis' Bank of America has yet to change its core business practices that ran our economy into the ground in the first place.
• $5 billion in bonuses met with blind eye. CEO Ken Lewis turned a blind eye when one of his new acquisitions gave out an estimated $5 billion in bonuses right before the company got a $10 billion bailout.
• $120 million in CEO pay. Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis took home more than $120 million dollars in the last several years, more than 4,000 times what his average employee makes. The era of excess is over.
• 247,000 forgotten employees. Ken Lewis' Bank of America is actively fighting the Employee Free Choice Act, which would level the playing for its employees. In some states, Bank of America employees take up large portions of public health care because they don't earn enough money.

And that's not the half of it. Let's be clear, though: it's not enough to just fire Ken Lewis. He needs to be replaced by someone ready to reform Bank of America from top to bottom.

It's time for Ken Lewis to go. Sign our petition to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for a new direction for Bank of America.

With $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds still in its coffers, Bank of America needs new leadership and a new direction. CEO Ken Lewis has not shown he's up to the task. Send your note to the Treasury now.

Despite efforts by the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR)--the lobbying organization for banking and financial industries--to keep the location of their spring meeting secret, a group of spirited protesters found them yesterday in Washington, D.C. at the luxury hotel Park Hyatt in Georgetown.

"How did they get in here?" That's what the woman staffing the FSR spring meeting wanted to know. She and meeting attendees like Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf were clearly agitated and miffed when they realized that a group of outraged taxpayers entered the posh hotel where the meeting was being held.

Dressed in black with shirts that read "Bailout Watchdog Team" and name tags that read "Taxpayer," the spirited protesters marched into the hotel like they belonged there. And seeing how FSR members have taken more than $203 billion in bailout money as TARP recipients, it seems like the taxpayers who found the "secret" meeting place had every right to be there.

But that's not how FSR saw it. They freaked out when the crime scene tape went up and the giant eviction notice was delivered to the FSR lunch area, along with hundreds of pink slips for the bank executives who have gotten bailouts while taxpayers keep getting sold out. The protest caught the attention of financial executives.

Throughout the lobby, hallways and restaurant, you could hear guys in suits chattering about the "Bailout Watchdog Team" and crime scene tape. When last seen, CEO Stumpf was engaged in an animated discussion with the FSR staffer in charge of making sure that the security team showed the taxpayers to the door.

FSR had originally planned to hold its spring meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort in Naples, FL, that includes three miles of white-sand beaches, a 51,000 square-foot spa, golf course, three pools, and six restaurants; where rooms start at $530 per night. What changed their minds into moving the meeting to an 'undisclosed location' in Washington, DC, you may be wondering. The answer: labor coalition Change to Win found out about the bank CEOs' plans to meet in Florida on the taxpayer's dime to continue to push their anti-worker agenda and wasted no time blowing the whistle on FSR's egregious misuse of U.S. taxpayer's bailout funds.

Change to Win chair and SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger wrote a letter to FSR President and CEO Steve Bartlett, in which she outlined why the meeting was a bad idea and urged him to reconsider. Here's a quick excerpt:

Any private use of taxpayer funds to influence the political process, whether by individual TARP recipients or the industry association they fund, raises serious questions. But partisan political activity by the Roundtable and its members with respect to Employee Free Choice crosses the line and constitutes an indefensible abuse of taxpayer money. It violates the intent of Congress, conflicts with Obama Administration policies prohibiting government contractors from using federal funds to oppose union organizing and throws a body blow to the working men and women who are paying for the bailout and whose economic security has already been ravaged by the excesses of your members.

The Roundtable's decision to move their three-day meeting-whose invitees included Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., FDIC chair Sheila Bair, and SEC chair Mary Schapiro-made in response to Burger's letter was first reported in the Los Angeles Times.

There are a plethora of problems with the lack of transparency in lobbying, with one of the most prominent being that lobbyist disclosure laws only require that lobbyists report back on which branch of government or department they've met with. They don't have to list who they met with, what bill or issue they discussed, or even what position they are taking towards the aforementioned bill or issue.

Timothy Geithner's first act as Treasury Secretary was to restrict contact between lobbyists and Treasury officials "in connection with applications for, or disbursements of," TARP funds. However, these rules do not address the larger problem that firms receiving millions of TARP assistance continue to lobby against the interests of hard working taxpayers. TARP recipients spent $114 million on lobbying last year as the financial crisis emerged. In total, bailout recipients that continued to spend money on lobbying spent over $14 million dollars over the three month period of October to December 2008---all this right as the TARP funds were being distributed.

Dave Johnson, a fellow at the Commonwealth Institute, gives some detail about the political activities of these corporations:

"TARP recipients are currently lobbying against compensation caps at companies receiving TARP, against increasing bank regulation - and even against increased oversight of the use of TARP funds in the TARP Reform and Accountability Act! They are also lobbying against the Arbitration Fairness Act, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act and the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act, Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights and the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act!"

Rather than focusing on paying the American people back, these bailout corporation are instead using their resources to lobby against measures that would improve the lives of their new investors--us.

When the CEOs of eight bailed out banks went in front of Congress to answer questions about how they used hundreds of billions in taxpayers' money in early February of this year, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis admitted he thinks it's in "the best interest" of Bank of America to spend money lobbying against economic recovery legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation allows a majority of workers to decide if they want a union, which results in increased income and benefits for working people---thereby enabling them to make their credit card and mortgage payments.

Since that time, a number of other TARP recipients including AIG, Citigroup and Burger King have followed Bank of America's path to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. This really should be a no-brainer: if you're receiving massive taxpayer subsidies, you shouldn't be able to turn around with that money and actively lobby against measures that would improve the lives of very same people that work within the company and other hardworking Americans struggling to keep afloat.

Dave Johnson spells out how this kind of lobbying may have contributed to our country's economic downfall:

"Use of corporate funds to influence our government is a larger problem than just this current misuse of TARP. In fact, this BofA and other companies' use of TARP funds to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act supports an argument that the current economic crisis is a result of corporate lobbying. A corporate-funded assault on government has resulted in de-legislation and deregulation, enriching a few at the expense of the rest of us, while eroding the foundations of our economy and our democracy. Now the public has been harvested in one scheme after another, plundered for every dollar as incomes stagnated, debt skyrocketed and savings fell. Consumption fell off the cliff as the work- and debt-load tapped out people's ability to participate in the economy. The resulting crisis has led to taxpayer dollars propping them all up."

In his address to state legislators today, President Obama renewed his administration's commitment to enforce much tighter lobbying disclosure for recovery funds, saying "these are unprecedented restrictions that will help ensure that lobbyists don't stand in the way of our recovery." This is a step in the right direction, although implementation of these restrictions will be the key to real change here. Americans need an enforceable guarantee that companies receiving billions from taxpayers will not lobby or otherwise influence legislation.

If you've been following our blog, you've no doubt heard about last year's anti-Employee Free Choice call sponsored by Bank of America. As you'll remember, just three days after receiving its first set of bailout funds - $45 billion in total - participants on the call were encouraged to send "large contributions" to groups working to block passage of the bill.

Since that time, a number of groups have followed Bank of America's path. Rather than focusing on paying the American people back, they've instead used their resources to lobby against measures that would improve the lives of their new investors - us.

Here's a quick look at a few of these groups, in addition to Bank of America:

AIG

The American International Group has received the largest of all taxpayer bailouts, at a total cost of $173 billion to the American people, who now own approximately 80% of the group.

More than $90 billion of AIG's bailout funds went towards paying numerous domstic and foreign banks, such as Bank of America and Citigroup. Both of these groups are part of a huge lobbying effort against laws that would benefit working families, such as Free Choice.

The Financial Services Roundtable

The Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) a special interests group that represents more than 90 companies in the finance and insurance industry, including the nation's largest banks and insurance companies. Their leadership includes Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and U.S. Bank.

In total, member companies have received an estimated $213.8 billion in taxpayer money. You could buy a lot of round tables with that kind of money.

In every quarter in 2008, the RSF has lobbied against the Employee Free Choice Act. And this year, they've banded together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make its defeat their top priority in 2009.

Citigroup

Since last year, Citi has received a total of $45 billion in taxpayer bailouts.
Following Bank of America's lead, they hosted a conference call to build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. The call, led by a senior executive at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was held on March 11th.

Just a day before the call, Citigroup cited Free Choice as the reason to downgrade Wal-Mart's rating, leading to speculation that the move was politically motivated to try to paint the bill as anti-business.

Burger King

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest shareholders of Burger King, and along with private equity firms TPG and Bain Capital, control the Burger King board through seats on its executive committee. Goldman Sachs has received $10 billion in taxpayer bailouts.

Burger King's second largest franchisee is a unit of Cerberus Capital Management, the same private equity firm that also owns Chrysler. Chrysler has received $5.5 billion in taxpayer bailouts.

As public anger erupts at over bonuses to AIG executives and almost daily revelations of abuses by Wall Street giants, we're channeling our frustration and anger into action that can make a difference. In just the last two days, thousands of people have signed up to march on major banks and other corporations including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. There will be more than 10,000 people in the streets at 150 bank locations in 35 states across the country this Thursday, March 19.

In the first national protests since the federal bailouts began, working families and a broad coalition of community groups are sending a message to Congress that we've had enough of corporate greed and lack of accountability. With the CEO of "Bailout King" AIG testifying in front of Congress today about his company's $165 million bailout-funded bonuses, it's more important than ever for us to mobilize against corporate excess.

It's time for real change, and we need solutions that will help build a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone: the Employee Free Choice Act; affordable, quality health care for all; and strong banking reforms.

Please tell everyone you know about our actions at banks tomorrow. Click here to send an email to your friends.

See you in the streets tomorrow.

For more information on actions happening across the country, please visit www.TakeBackTheEconomy.org.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger issued a statement yesterday commenting on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's latest TALF proposal to invite private equity and hedge fund investors to a fire sale of bank assets--a fundamentally flawed plan Burger says is no more than a "return to the very same policies and practices that triggered the financial crisis in the first place."

From the statement:

Secretary Geithner's proposal for the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) would enable private equity firms and hedge funds to buy up higher quality loan securitizations, including auto, consumer, student and small business loans. The Federal government would provide low-cost financing for up to 95% of the purchase price, with private firms putting down as little as 5% and the securitizations as collateral. The hope is then to expand this proposal to include toxic mortgage-backed securities.

Each of these programs could cost taxpayers up to $1 trillion. If the private firms make a profit from the deal, they keep all of it. If they end up losing money, they are only on the hook for the nickel or two of equity they put in. The taxpayers would then assume the rest of the losses. Even worse, subsidizing the purchase up to 19-to-1 will drive up the price of the assets, which would be yet another gift to the same banks that caused this crisis while at the same time putting taxpayers at a much greater risk of bearing huge losses.

Firedoglake's Ian Welsh has a palpable reaction upon reading Anna Burger's 'succinct description' of Geithner's plan for convincing private investors to buy up assets. "Under Geithner's plan, the government accepts all the risk and none of the profits and puts up almost all of the money? This is ideology run rampant at the cost of common sense," writes Welsh.

"Burger is right when she says that this plan will lead to yet another bubble. Ultra-cheap financing with no risk for the investors is exactly what investors thought they were getting with collateralized debt obligations. They were wrong then, but this time they'll be right, because Geithner is giving them the money. And the result will be artificially high prices, which taxpayers will have to pay off when they crash..."

Geithner's theory is that recipients of TALF money will use it to make new auto, consumer, student and small business loans. However, given Main Street's experience with bank bailouts, this plan's supposition that U.S. taxpayers' money will actually be used to make new loans seems pretty hard to fathom. Geithner's proposed TALF plan lacks any real implementation structures and seems to have a lot more in common with the "fast money" schemes that spiraled our economy into crisis, rather than a program that would be in the public's best interest and deal fairly with consumers, workers and investors.

At the plan's unveiling last week, Geithner vowed to bring the "full force" of the U.S. government to battle the financial crisis, assembling an 'unprecedented coalition of agencies and mustering federal resources on a scale rarely seen except at wartime.'

What Geithner actually accomplished with the plan's announcement: widespread confusion from many of our country's leading financial minds on how the plan is going to work. From NY Times' Paul Krugman:

An old joke from my younger days: What do you get when you cross a Godfather with a deconstructionist? Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand.

I found myself remembering that joke when trying to make sense of the Geithner financial rescue plan.

There's something terribly alarming about a Financial Stability Plan that even leading economists refer to as "vague."

"This is, thus, in the end, simply another bailout," writes Firedoglake's Welsh. "It could wind up costing taxpayers $2 trillion. Kind of makes one long for the old days when the bailout was $700 billion, doesn't it?"

For more on Geithner's latest TALF proposal, visit www.SEIU.org.

Insurance giant AIG is the poster child of corporate irresponsibility. It gambled on the housing market and lost, big time. That's why the government had to dole out nearly $200 billion in bailouts just to keep the company afloat.

But word broke yesterday that despite being crowned the "Bailout King," AIG is going to pay out more than $400 million in bonuses.

We've had enough. On Thursday, March 19, thousands of people nationwide will demonstrate outside major banks and demand real change. We want you to join us.

Watch this video about our actions and sign up to attend a demonstration near you:

Click here to join: http://www.TakeBackTheEconomy.org

The outrage doesn't stop at the bonuses. We finally found out how AIG has spent its bailout funds - it gave billions of dollars to other bailed out banks, including banks like Bank of America and Citigroup that are actively organizing against change for working families.

Just last week it was revealed that Citigroup organized a call to "build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act." Bank of America did the same thing just days after it received its first bailout from the government.

We have major banks and financial institutions taking government money with one hand, and slapping working people in the face with the other. The very same people who destroyed our economy are now actively working to prevent its recovery.

Enough. Join our demonstration against corporate excess on Thursday.

http://www.TakeBackTheEconomy.org

It's up to us to take back our economy. We hope you'll join our efforts.

Today, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in Congress. Want some great reasons to support this bill that you've been hearing so much about? Here's five. (And if you already support it, please contact your Members of Congress and ask them to do the same.)

1. Because more jobs should be good jobs.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last year, it's no surprise that millions of Americans are out of work, losing their health care or their retirement money, or are otherwise in financial straits. Times are tough. And who's taking this economic crisis on the chin? Well, we are, of course.

Four million people have lost their jobs since the recession began in December 2007. It's not for lack of trying. In terms of productivity, people are working harder than ever-- but American workers still haven't gotten a raise. And while jobs and wages are down, the cost of living continues to rise: The average cost of family health insurance plan will go up to $24,000 by 2016. $24,000!

The Employee Free Choice Act says that workers should have the ability to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits--like affordable quality health care.

2. It's good for the economy.

One of the biggest reasons for our current economic crisis? People literally don't have the cash they need to buy goods and services--which would in turn help the economy. Higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. According to a February report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, unionization could pump more than $49 billion into the economy.

But don't take it just from us. Last month, forty leading economists, including three Nobel prize winners, took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post offering their reasons for supporting the bill. In the ad, they argued that one of the main reasons for our economic slump is the "erosion of workers' ability to form unions and bargain collectively," that shifted the wealth of our country from "broadly-shared prosperity" to "growing inequality."

3. Barack Obama loves it, and so do most of you.

Not to mention Joe Biden, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and majorities in both houses of Congress. And according to recent polling, 73% of the public supports it. Just last week, speaking in front of a labor gathering, President Obama vowed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, stating,

"I have every confidence that if we are willing to do the difficult work that must be done, we will emerge from these trials stronger and more prosperous than we were before. And as we confront this crisis and work to provide health care to every American, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, move toward a clean energy economy, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, I want you to know that you will always have a seat at the table."

What's not to love about that?

4. Because CEOs should be helping workers, not hurting them.

Want to get really depressed about your paycheck? Compare it to a CEO's. As a testament to the growing income disparity between CEOs and the workers they employ, look no further than Wal-Mart's former CEO, Lee Scott. Scott earned $15,000 an hour in 2007 while Wal-Mart workers earned just $10.68 an hour. On average, CEOs earn 344 times what their typical employee makes.

And yet, when Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in Wall St. bailout funds, they turned around and spent $6.5 billion on bonuses! If the Employee Free Choice Act passed, workers would have more of an opportunity to share in the prosperity they helped create.

5. Because the other side is really scary.

Or at least, they're trying their hardest to scare us. The corporate interests opposing the Employee Free Choice Act have warned of everything from rioting in the streets to, literally, Armageddon if the bill passes. For a sense of just how extreme the other side has gotten, check out our "scary movie" video here:

Corporate interests are bent on lying about the Employee Free Choice Act - they'd have you believe that the bill means the end of the secret ballot - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives employees the choice to join unions - not the employers. Right now, workers can join unions through majority sign-up or a secret ballot election, and they can do so under the Employee Free Choice Act, too. The only difference is it will be the employees' choice, not the employers.

But don't take it from me - watch Rachel Maddow destruct this argument:

If you're as fired up as we are, go to SEIU.org and sign up to help. It's time for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Crossposted from the Huffington Post here.

A group of SEIU members are on the Hill this morning, calling on Congress to prevent companies that are receiving massive taxpayer subsidies from spending money on lobbying that may pit their corporate interests, and the interests of highly compensated CEOs, against taxpayers' interests.

While taking taxpayer money, bailout recipients like Bank of America & Merrill Lynch have continued to lobby--through their trade association memberships--to block consumer protection measures, predatory lending regulations, and the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that would ensure workers the freedom to form a union for a voice for improved wages, benefits, and working conditions. Beyond the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), some bailout recipients--who fail to provide affordable healthcare or a living wage to their employees--are dipping into additional federal coffers, forcing thousands of employees to seek healthcare through taxpayer funded programs like Medicaid and food stamps.

Watch the C-SPAN live hearing as CEOs from eight major banks that received $125 billion in taxpayer bailout funds are called before Congress to account for their use of the funds.

UPDATE, @5PM: The hearing is over now, but you can still watch the testimony of the CEOs whose companies received the first TARP funds explain how they used the bailout money before the House Financial Services Committee.
> Watch the TARP hearing's morning session here and the afternoon hearing session here.