May 3, 2024

Europe Tells Its Banks to Raise New Capital

Under proposals outlined by the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, banks would be required to temporarily bolster their protection against losses as part of a plan to restore waning confidence.

Mr. Barroso also called on the 17 European Union members that use the euro to maximize the capacity of their 440 billion euro ($600 billion) bailout fund — a clear hint that he favors leveraging the rescue fund to increase its firepower to as much as 2 trillion euros ($2.8 trillion).

Leveraging the fund was advocated by the United States treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to ensure that troubled European countries had access to affordable financing as they tried to reduce their debt.

The Treasury Department pressed that point on Wednesday during a briefing ahead of a meeting of finance ministers of the Group of 20 on Friday and Saturday in Paris, which Mr. Geithner will attend.

Europe needs “a firewall that has the resources and capacity” to ensure that the crisis that started in Greece does not spread to bigger countries, Lael Brainard, the Treasury under secretary for international affairs, said at the briefing. The euro zone is entering a critical countdown, with investors in financial markets expecting European officials at a summit meeting on Oct. 23 and leaders of the Group of 20 at on Nov. 3 to endorse plans to resolve the region’s debt crisis.

On Wednesday, Slovakia reversed course and struck a political deal that should ensure approval of the bailout fund, the 17th and last vote required. European officials, who had been watching closely, greeted the breakthrough with a mixture of relief and frustration and were able to turn their attention to the banks.

Extra capital for European banks should be raised first from the private sector, then from national governments, according to the proposal. Only when those avenues have been exhausted should a euro zone bailout fund be tapped, it said.

Banks should not be allowed to pay dividends or bonuses until they have raised the additional capital, according to the proposal.

The plan put forward Wednesday did not put a figure on the capital reserves that would be required. That omission contrasted with the more specific plans circulating in France and among European banking regulators for a minimum capital reserve of 9 percent of assets.

Internally, the European commissioner responsible for financial services, Michel Barnier, argued that the new floor for capital should be set by the European Banking Authority, not the commission, said one European official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the government discussions.

On Tuesday, Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, told the French National Assembly that several leading French banks that were deeply exposed to the sovereign debt of Greece and other Southern European countries — like BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole and Société Générale — would move to increase their capital reserves, initially by using their own revenue or through the financial markets. Money from the government would be drawn upon only as “a last resort,” he said, according to Reuters.

Mr. Juppé said the move, which was agreed upon with Germany during talks Sunday, meant that the banks’ best buffer against losses, known as core Tier 1 capital, would increase to 9 percent or more by 2013, from 7 percent now.

The European Banking Authority has also suggested a 9 percent floor, according to European Union officials. The agency declined to comment on the figure Wednesday.

The document released Wednesday by the European Commission called for “a temporary significantly higher capital ratio of highest-quality capital after accounting for exposure” to sovereign debt in systemically important banks.

One European official said that the recapitalization proposal essentially meant that banks were likely to have to meet the requirements laid down under the so-called Basel III international standards for banks more quickly than first expected, although temporarily. Instead of reaching the specified level of capital by 2019, these goals will have to be reached “within months,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ms. Brainard of the United States Treasury Department said that while Europe had finally come around to the idea that its banks need more capital in case the crisis worsened, “it’s still one piece of several actions that need to happen as part of a comprehensive plan” to prevent contagion from a Greek default or worse.

After Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008, the United States took swift action to ensure its banks had a strong cushion of capital, a move that Ms. Brainard said restored confidence and helped the banks turn around relatively quickly.

“At the time, it was seen as a risky endeavor, but it turned out to be just the medicine the market needed,” she said. “The same logic lies behind Europe’s efforts.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Barroso argued for the quick release of 8 billion euros in loans to Greece from international lenders, without which the government in Athens could default within weeks.

With the euro zone’s temporary bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, set to gain new powers to help recapitalize banks, the issue of whether to use it has divided France and Germany. Mr. Barroso called for the early introduction — next year if possible — of the permanent euro zone bailout fund that is to replace the facility in 2013.

France fears that it could lose its triple-A credit rating if it has to inject billions of euros in taxpayer money into its banks. That would be a huge political setback for President Nicolas Sarkozy, who faces a re-election campaign next year.

But Berlin is reluctant to use European funds to recapitalize banks that compete with its own financial institutions.

Liz Alderman contributed reporting from Paris.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/business/global/eu-set-to-tell-banks-to-garner-bigger-reserves.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Fed Oversight of Nonbanks Is Weighed

The Financial Stability Oversight Council voted unanimously to seek public comment on a proposed rule that laid out the standards by which insurance companies, hedge funds, asset managers and the like could fall under stricter regulation.

Many companies and trade groups lobbied hard for months in hopes that their companies would not fall under the purview of the law, fearing increased regulation. Treasury Department officials declined to estimate how many nonbank financial companies might meet the proposed standards. There are approximately 30 banks in the United States with more than $50 billion in assets.

Several companies are obvious candidates, and a number of them have already submitted comments to the council or had meetings with Treasury Department officials on earlier drafts of the proposed rule.

Among those companies are big insurers like the Mass Mutual Financial Group and Zurich Financial Services; hedge funds like Citadel and Paulson Company; and asset management and mutual fund companies like BlackRock, Fidelity Investments and the Pacific Investment Management Company.

The new standards and the creation of the oversight council stem from the Dodd-Frank regulatory act, which, in response to the financial crisis, expanded the ability of financial regulators to oversee big companies that could prove to be a threat to the financial system. The council comprises the heads of the major regulatory agencies and other financial industry representatives.

Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary and chairman of the council, said the ability to designate so-called nonbank financial companies for heightened supervision was “one of the most important things that the Dodd-Frank Act did.”

“The United States in the decades before the crisis allowed a large amount of risk to build up in a wide variety of institutions outside the formal banking system,” Mr. Geithner said. “When the storm hit,” he said, “that put enormous pressure on that parallel financial system, causing a lot of tension and trauma across financial markets, amplifying the pressure on the formal banking system and adding to the broader damage to the economy as a whole.”

Several of the large financial companies that posed the biggest threats during the financial crisis — like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and A.I.G. — were not supervised by a single agency charged with monitoring their financial stability.

Those companies would most likely fall under the newly proposed rules. In addition to applying only to financial companies holding at least $50 billion in assets, the rules would require companies to also meet one of several other characteristics.

These would include having $20 billion in debt, $3.5 billion in derivative liabilities, a 15-to-1 leverage ratio of total assets to total equity, short-term debt measuring 10 percent of total assets or credit-default swaps written against the company with at least $30 billion in notional value.

Companies that meet those standards will then go through another evaluation, where the council will analyze a broad range of industry-specific measures to determine whether significant financial distress at the company could pose a threat to the country’s overall financial stability.

If a company passes the first two hurdles, it would then be considered for heightened regulation and be given a chance to rebut the assertions. Finally, two-thirds of the oversight council, including its chairman, must vote to designate the company as systemically important, a finding that must be renewed annually.

Some insurance trade groups, which have lobbied aggressively against having their members subject to more stringent federal oversight, made the case again on Tuesday that they did not threaten the financial system.

“Property casualty insurers are not highly leveraged or interconnected and have a fundamentally different business model than banks, a fact that warrants different regulatory treatment,” said Ben McKay, a lobbyist for the Property Casualty Insurers Association, a group that counts giants like Ameriprise, Liberty Mutual and Geico as members.

Treasury Department officials, who briefed news reporters on the condition of anonymity after the council’s meeting, said the council would be particularly interested in comments on how to treat asset managers who invested money on behalf of others. The comment period will last 60 days.

BlackRock, for example, manages roughly $3.5 trillion for institutional and individual clients. But in a letter filed in February with regulators, it argued that, as an asset manager, it did not own those assets. They are not on its balance sheet, and the company does not employ significant leverage that magnifies the risk of its investments.

The Treasury Department officials said a decision about whether or not companies fell under its proposed rules would be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the council to assess 10 considerations when evaluating a nonbank financial company, and the proposed rule anticipates grouping those into six categories.

Three of those are meant to assess the potential impact of a company’s financial trouble on the broad economy. They are size; substitutability, or the degree to which other companies could provide the same service if a firm left the market; and interconnectedness, or linkages that might magnify a company’s financial distress and cause that distress to spread through the financial system.

The other three categories seek to measure the vulnerability of a company to financial distress: leverage, or level of borrowing; liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, or its ability to meet short-term cash needs; and existing regulatory scrutiny.

Eric Dash contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f0782a287885635e9ea3fc1bd42d263f

E-Mail Shows Senior Energy Official Pushed Solyndra Loan

The official, Steven J. Spinner, then a senior member of the Energy Department’s loan guarantee oversight office and a 2008 Obama fund-raiser, inquired frequently about the progress of the Solyndra loan, urging the White House budget office to move more quickly on approving it.

He also communicated directly with Solyndra officials who were anxiously awaiting word from Washington that their loan would be approved.

“Any word on O.M.B.?” he asked another Energy Department loan officer. “I have the O.V.P. and W.H. breathing down my neck on this,” referring to the office of the vice president and the White House.

The new e-mails provide further evidence of high-level cheerleading on behalf of Solyndra, a maker of innovative tubular rooftop solar panels that declared bankruptcy last month and laid off 1,100 workers.

But even as Solyndra was being promoted as a model of new technology, administration officials were raising concerns about its viability, the legality of a later restructuring and whether the government was sufficiently protected should the business fail.

The company was the first recipient of a federally guaranteed loan for alternative energy projects, but now is being investigated by the Justice Department over whether it provided misleading financial information to federal authorities. Congressional investigators are also looking at whether the Obama administration adequately oversaw the granting of the loan.

The latest e-mails also show that senior White House and Treasury Department officials voiced concerns at several stages of the ill-fated loan guarantee. At one point, they show that the White House considered making a bigger public event than previously known of the formal approval of the company’s financing package.

Top officials, including Rahm Emanuel, then the White House chief of staff, weighed whether President Obama would visit the company to formally announce the loan guarantee, which occurred in September 2009. Ultimately, Mr. Obama did not participate in the event. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did by video teleconference and Energy Secretary Steven Chu attended. Earlier, Carol Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy, met with an investor in the company.

Still, the e-mails reveal that some White House officials were concerned about the company’s health and the haste with which the loan guarantees were moving, while others were eager to hurry it along to make a public relations splash.

They also show that days before the Obama administration gave conditional approval to the loan guarantee, a major investor behind the deal met with Ms. Browner. The investor, David J. Prend, a co-founder of Rockport Capital, a high-technology venture capital firm, met with Ms. Browner in late February 2009 and brought up Solyndra, whose application was then pending.

Solyndra’s chief executive at the time, Chris Gronet, then wrote to the White House on March 6 to describe the company’s plans, after being contacted by Mr. Prend and told to follow up with the White House. “We just need to complete the D.O.E. process and raise the equity portion of the project!” Mr. Gronet wrote, referring to the Department of Energy. “The company is ramping up production to meet a very strong demand.”

Greg Nelson, a midlevel White House staff member, wrote back to Mr. Gronet on March 8, 2009: “It looks like a great product, and the plans for Fab 2 are inspiring,” referring to the manufacturing plant that the federal government would finance. Within days, the Energy Department’s credit committee voted to approve the conditional $535 million loan. It was publicly announced on March 21.

Energy Department documents indicate that Mr. Spinner was a senior member of the team involved in vetting the loans and was instrumental in the Solyndra package. His wife, Allison B. Spinner, is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, a Palo Alto, Calif., law firm that represents dozens of Silicon Valley technology firms.

Through her office, Ms. Spinner declined to comment. Mr. Spinner, who has since left the government, did not respond to a message left at his wife’s office.

An Energy Department spokesman, Damien LaVera, said the initial terms of the Solyndra loan guarantee were issued before Mr. Spinner joined the staff. Mr. LaVera added that because Ms. Spinner agreed not to participate in or receive any financial compensation from her law firm for work concerning Solyndra, Mr. Spinner was allowed by government ethics officials to oversee the company’s applications. He did not make decisions on the Solyndra transaction.

“As agreed, I will recuse myself from any active participation in any of these applications,” Mr. Spinner wrote in September 2009, after sending dozens of e-mails in August to the head of the Energy Department loan program and other energy and Obama administration officials asking about the Solyndra project.

At that time, officials from the White House budget office were complaining of being rushed to approve a deal about which they had significant concerns.

Administration officials said Friday that while Mr. Spinner was involved in helping coordinate the final steps necessary to clear up disputes so that the administration could commit the money to Solyndra, it does not mean he violated his agreement not to play a role in formally evaluating the loan application.

Despite the eagerness of Mr. Spinner and other Energy Department officials to see the loan approved, other administration officials continued to raise flags about the company’s viability and the completeness of the loan application package.

A Treasury Department official objected to the decision by the Energy Department that allowed company investors to get first in line among creditors, instead of the federal government, for part of their investment.

“Our legal counsel believes that the statute and the D.O.E. regulations both require that the guaranteed loan should not be subordinate to any loan or other debt obligation,” said an Aug. 17, 2011, e-mail from a Treasury official to Jeffrey D. Zients, a top official at the White House budget office.

An administration official said Friday that the Energy Department disagreed and believed that it did have the legal authority to give priority to private investors, to secure additional financing.

Helene Cooper contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8b8e5fe079ac1c0d317a42c107fefa17

F.B.I. Raids Solar Firm That Got U.S. Loans

The F.B.I. on Thursday raided the office of a California solar company that borrowed $528 million from the federal government before filing for bankruptcy, as House Republicans announced that they would call two top Obama administration officials to testify about the case next week.

The federal agents, acting in a joint investigation with the inspector general of the Department of Energy, served search warrants on Solyndra, which announced last week that it was filing for bankruptcy protection. The search was part of an investigation into the loans Solyndra received from the Treasury Department that were guaranteed by the Department of Energy under a highly promoted federal stimulus program.

“The F.B.I. is here,” said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman. “We don’t know the specifics. It is in connection with the loan guarantee, but other than that we don’t know.”

The administration’s handling of the loan guarantee program, which has already secured $18 billion in loans for energy projects, has come under increasing criticism from Congress.

Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said Thursday that they would call Jeffrey Zients, the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Jonathan Silver, the director of the Energy Department’s loan office, to testify about the program next Wednesday. The panel also plans to ask two top executives of Solyndra to testify at the hearing.

Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said that about $10 billion in additional loan guarantees could still be awarded before the program expired on Sept. 30. “The last thing we can afford from the Obama administration are more of the same sloppy, poor investments in the final rush to get the cash out the door,” he said in a statement.

Solyndra’s approach has been controversial in the solar industry. Rather than conventional, flat solar panels, the company made tube-shaped modules that could harvest early morning light and evening sunsets for electricity. Its arrays were lighter and easier to install.

Critics have noted that Solyndra’s modules cost far more than conventional panels. The modules cost $2 a watt to produce, according to Shyam Mehta of GTM Research. Chinese crystalline solar module makers can produce modules for $1.10 a watt, and the price continues to fall.

Some industry specialists say that the decision to offer Solyndra the loan guarantees may have looked better two years ago, when prices for cells were higher and the price of silicon, which is used in most cells but not in Solyndra’s, was very high.

A likely area of inquiry by investigators, though, is a decision early this year by the Energy Department to allow Solyndra, which was in a cash-flow crisis, to borrow an additional $69 million from private investors that would be repaid before the government’s loans if the company went bankrupt. Solyndra then drew down about $67 million more in government loans.

“This restructuring gave Solyndra and its workers the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan,” the department said in a statement on Thursday.

Venture capitalists and others had invested more than $1 billion in Solyndra. Last year President Obama toured Solyndra’s factory in Fremont, Calif., and the company became a symbol of his push to promote “green” jobs.

Solyndra said it had sold more than $250 million worth of modules, but it has had product delays and management changes.

Last week, Solyndra shut its doors and laid off all of its 1,100 employees, a prelude to this week’s formal bankruptcy filing.

Solyndra was a leading beneficiary of the Energy Department’s programs to promote alternative energy, which were expanded as part of the 2009 economic stimulus legislation.

George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire, is one of the largest investors in Solyndra through Argonaut Ventures and a family foundation, and he was also a donor to Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign. The company had begun preparing its federal loan application well before the election.

A buyer could emerge for all or part of the company.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=71fe264247dbdc566e42e39bc8ac8c8d

Solar Company Is Searched by F.B.I.

F.B.I. agents on Thursday served search warrants on Solyndra, the large manufacturer of solar arrays that announced last week that it was filing for bankruptcy protection. The search was part of an investigation into $527 million worth of loans the company received from the Treasury Department that were guaranteed by the Department of Energy under a highly touted federal stimulus program.

“The F.B.I. is here. We don’t know the specifics,” said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman. “It is in connection with the loan guarantee, but other than that we don’t know.”

The warrants are part of a joint investigation between the F.B.I. and the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General, according to Alicia Sensibaugh, a spokeswoman for the F.B.I., who declined to elaborate further.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has also scheduled a Sept. 14 hearing into the loans.

Solyndra has been a subject of controversy for years within the solar industry. Rather than produce conventional, flat solar panels, the company made tube-shaped panels that can harvest early morning light and evening sunsets for electricity.

Critics, though, have pointed out that Solyndra’s panels cost far more than standard panels. Solyndra’s panels cost $2 a watt to produce, according to Shyam Mehta of GTM Research. Chinese crystalline solar module makers currently can produce modules for $1.10 a watt and the price continues to go down.

Venture capitalists and others had invested more than $1 billion in the company. President Obama last year toured the company’s Fremont factory, and it became a symbol of the president’s push to promote more “green” jobs.

Solyndra has sold more than $140 million worth of panels, but it has also suffered from product delays and management changes. Last year, the co-founder Chris Gronet was replaced as chief executive by Brian Harrison.

Last week, Solyndra shut its doors and laid off all of its employees, a prelude to this week’s formal bankruptcy filing.

Solyndra was one of the leading beneficiaries of the Department of Energy’s programs to promote alternative energy, which were expanded as part of the 2009 economic stimulus legislation. The Energy Department granted the company a loan guarantee of up to $535 million, dependent on it receiving certain benchmarks. The company had tapped $527 million of the guarantee as of its bankruptcy filing.

Although loans through the program are typically made by private banks, in Solyndra’s case, it borrowed the money from the Federal Financing Bank, an arm of the Treasury Department.

George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire, is one of the largest investors in Solyndra through Argonaut Ventures and a family foundation, and he was also a donor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. However, the company had begun preparing its federal loan application well before the election.

The Energy Department and the company have previously expressed hope that a buyer would emerge for all or part of the company.

But Alain Harrus, a partner at Crosslink Capital who has invested in the Solyndra competitor Solopower, was skeptical that another company would be interested in Solyndra’s technology.

“Why would you add the extra complexity of making a cylinder? Flat-plate solar panels are so cheap,” he said. “It is quite unlikely that somebody would want to purchase the entire factory. It would be quite expensive to retool it and use it for another solar cell format.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=71fe264247dbdc566e42e39bc8ac8c8d

Geithner Will Stay for Now, the Treasury Department Says

“Secretary Geithner has let the president know that he plans to stay on in his position at Treasury,” Jenni R. LeCompte, a Treasury spokeswoman, said in a written statement. “He looks forward to the important work ahead on the challenges facing our great country.”

Mr. Geithner, 49, said a month ago that he would decide on his future after the administration and Congress reached a deal to increase the nation’s debt limit, raising the possibility that he would step down. Mr. Obama signed the debt ceiling legislation into law last Tuesday.

But the White House pressed Mr. Geithner to stay, citing a need for stability in Mr. Obama’s economic team and a desire to avoid another confrontation with Senate Republicans, who have used the filibuster to delay or prevent votes on many of Mr. Obama’s nominees to important executive branch positions.

By late last week, administration officials were saying privately that it appeared Mr. Geithner would stay through the end of Mr. Obama’s term, although he had not yet told the White House his final decision, pending conversations with his family.

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said in a statement on Sunday, “The president asked Secretary Geithner to stay on at Treasury and welcomes his decision.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f46204da7e18be3f3a7e70f15ff190f3

House Passes Deal to Avert Debt Crisis

Despite the tension and uncertainty that has surrounded efforts to raise the debt ceiling, the vote of 269 to 161 was relatively strong in support of the plan, which would cut more than $2.1 trillion in government spending over 10 years while extending the borrowing authority of the Treasury Department. It would also create a powerful new joint Congressional committee to recommend broad changes in spending — and possibly in tax policy — to reduce the deficit.

Scores of Democrats initially held back from voting, to force Republicans to register their positions first. Then, as the time for voting wound down, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, returned to the floor for the first time since being shot in January and voted for the bill to jubilant applause and embraces from her colleagues. It provided an unexpected, unifying ending to a fierce standoff in the House.

The Senate, where approval is considered likely, is scheduled to vote at noon on Tuesday and then send the measure to Mr. Obama less than 12 hours before the time when the Treasury Department has said it could become unable to meet all of its financial obligations.

The deal sets in motion a substantial shift in fiscal policy at a moment when the economic recovery appears especially fragile. Although the actual spending cuts in the next year or two would be relatively modest in the context of a $3.7 trillion federal budget, they would represent the beginning of a new era of restraint at a time when unemployment remains above 9 percent, growth is slowing and there are few good policy options for giving the economy a stimulative kick.

The precise impact on the economy is a matter of debate. Proponents of spending restraint say that the economy will benefit in the long run from getting the deficit and the accumulated national debt under control, and that failure to act now would risk long-term decline in the nation’s economic might. Others say that by foreclosing the option of using government spending to counteract economic weakness, the country is increasing the risk of persistently high unemployment and even another recession.

The negotiations exposed deep fissures within both parties. In the end, 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats backed the deal, and 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it. But Republicans and Democrats alike made clear they were not happy swallowing the agreement, which was struck late Sunday between the bipartisan leadership of Congress and President Obama.

Top lawmakers characterized the bill as a must-pass measure needed to prevent a potentially crippling blow to the struggling economy.

“The default of the United States is not an option,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat.

Mr. Hoyer urged lawmakers to vote not as members of either party, but as “Americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their country, about the confidence that people around the world have in the American dollar.”

Republicans, while expressing dissatisfaction that the measure did not provide more savings, said it was a modest but useful first step in reversing the government’s spending course and claimed they had prevailed by keeping the agreement free of new revenue and offsetting the increase in the debt limit with spending cuts.

“I would like to say this bill solves our problems,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a prominent fiscal hawk in the Republican leadership. “It doesn’t. It is a solid  first step.”

Worried about defections by conservatives and liberals alike, leaders of both parties gathered their members for briefings to explain the proposal. Speaker John A. Boehner met specially with Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, an important voting bloc whose members were raising alarms about potential spending cuts for the Pentagon.

Democrats, many disgruntled over what they saw as a White House-negotiated giveaway to Republicans, heard from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who told House and Senate members in separate meetings that the administration had to cut the deal with uncompromising Republicans to avoid a default.

Mr. Biden spent hours behind closed doors in the Capitol. According to participants in the meetings, he mixed listening and gentle persuasion, urging Democrats to back the plan.

Administration officials fanned out to make a case that the deal’s structure — with a trigger that could force deep cuts in military spending as well as in domestic programs if the two parties cannot agree on how to reduce the deficit further — provided Democrats with more leverage to push for higher tax revenue as part of the solution rather than relying totally on spending cuts.

But many Democrats said they saw it as a deal negotiated on the backs of poor and working-class Americans, with no sacrifice by the rich in the form of tax increases.

“I wouldn’t call it anger, but we are perplexed that it has turned out like it has,” said Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, grimacing as he left the Biden meeting. “But we’ve run out of options and we know the consequences. I’ve heard horror stories from the Great Depression. I don’t want my fingerprints on that.”

Jeff Zeleny and Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=01b40c80364f098b80b75c80ada4fa68

White House Memo: President on Sidelines in Critical Battle Over Debt Ceiling

He spoke repeatedly but without specifics of private conversations and nonstop meetings involving administration officials “up to the highest levels” — White House shorthand for the president. Finally, exasperated, he asked whether reporters expected “a President Bartlet moment” — say, a march up Capitol Hill to whip Congress in line, à la fictional president in “The West Wing” television series.

“Yes,” one reporter replied.

Reality is not so simple. The two parties remain seemingly further apart than just days before the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline for raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit, threatening a financial crisis that could ripple through the economy. But with the collapse last week of Mr. Obama’s back-channel talks with House Speaker John A. Boehner, the action has shifted to Congress.

Having already deployed the heavy weapons from the presidential arsenal, including a national address on Monday night and a veto threat, Mr. Obama is in danger of seeming a spectator at one of the most critical moments of his presidency. Having been unable to get the grand bargain he wanted — a debt limit increase and up to $4 trillion in debt-reduction through spending cuts and taxes — Mr. Obama’s challenge now is to reassert himself in a way that produces the next-best outcome, or at least one that does no harm to his re-election hopes.

Behind the scenes, administration officials led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, and Mr. Obama’s budget director, Jacob J. Lew, are scrambling via telephone, e-mails and trips to the Capitol to try to shape the emerging legislation as Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want. Their goal is a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit that would extend the government’s borrowing authority past the 2012 election campaign, not the shorter increase the Republicans now want, and also provide a similar amount in deficit reduction over the decade.

On a parallel track the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, is “omnipresent” at the White House, by one official’s description, leading the effort with Mr. Lew to plan for emergency actions by the government and the financial system should Congress and Mr. Obama fail to reach an agreement.

No measure can pass without the president’s signature, so Mr. Obama is far from irrelevant. But his limited ability in a divided government to affect the legislation and his inability before now to shape a compromise with House Republicans, many of them dedicated to never compromising with him, is proving the most significant test to date of his campaign promise to bridge the two parties and make Washington work.

Worse, with the health of a still-fragile recovery resting on the outcome, a bad ending could leave Mr. Obama more vulnerable politically than he is now, with 9 percent unemployment, on the issue that is likely to define the 2012 elections — his handling of the economy.

“I don’t think a president is ever completely helpless, but having said that, my interpretation of the nationally televised address that he gave was that he had no arrows left in his quiver,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton administration official and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research organization. “If he’d had another card to play, that was surely the time to play it. He’s the ultimate decider but, on the other hand, I think his capacity to shape what gets to his desk has been substantially reduced” as Republicans stand their ground, Mr. Galston said. Even Mr. Boehner has found it hard this week to get an agreement with the Republicans he ostensibly leads, he added.

Vin Weber, a Republican strategist and former congressman, said Mr. Obama could be hurt by the summer’s saga even though his position in the debt-limit debate — for a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increase — is more popular than Republicans’ demands for deep spending cuts only, and a reshaping of Medicare and Medicaid.

“I think that his position on the issue is more broadly shared than Republicans would like to think, but he is damaging his leadership image because people don’t see him solving the problem,” Mr. Weber said.

“I’m not saying the president has an easy task ahead of him and he can do it at the snap of his fingers,” Mr. Weber added, in reference to Congressional Republicans’ hard line. “I’m just saying in the end the failure to solve this problem is going to weigh more heavily on him than on anybody in Congress.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=227aa8daf3732b29276c5e448afb19e1

The Caucus: Debt Ceiling Date Does Not Budge

The Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline is holding firm. The Treasury Department said Friday morning that its latest estimates still show that’s the date the government will exhaust its ability to pay all of its bills, unless Congress agrees to raise the total amount that the United States can borrow.

“Secretary Geithner urges Congress to avoid the catastrophic economic and market consequences of a default crisis by raising the statutory debt limit in a timely manner,” the department said in a statement issued in the name of Mary Miller, the assistant secretary for financial markets.

Congressional Republicans say they will increase the borrowing limit only if Democrats agree to a plan to reduce the federal deficit. Democrats say any such plan must include revenue increases. The two sides have been locked in a stand-off for several months. The White House now is warning that a deal must be reached by mid-July to leave enough time for the necessary legislation to be written and passed into law.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2be4e96fe0810aae6fbe2ee124ad659a

Ex-Citigroup VP Accused of Stealing $19 Million

Gary Foster, 35, was arrested on Sunday at New York’s Kennedy airport on a flight arriving from Bangkok, prosecutors said. He was scheduled to make his initial appearance Monday afternoon in Brooklyn federal court, where he would plead not guilty to the charges, according to his attorney, Isabelle Kirshner.

Between May 2009 and December 2010, prosecutors said, Foster transferred $19.2 million from Citigroup debt-adjustment and interest-expense accounts to his own personal bank account at JPMorgan Chase.

Foster put fake contract and deal account numbers in the wire-transfer instructions to make them seem like they were supporting an existing contract, before diverting them first into the bank’s cash accounts and then into his own accounts in as many as eight separate transfers, prosecutors alleged.

“The defendant allegedly used his knowledge of bank operations to commit the ultimate inside job,” said U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch.

The alleged fraud went unnoticed until a recent internal audit of Citigroup’s internal treasury department. A Citigroup investigator immediately informed the authorities, according to an affidavit from Thomas D’Amico, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

A representative for Citigroup said the bank was “outraged” by Foster’s alleged actions.

“Citi informed law enforcement immediately upon discovery of the suspicious transactions and we are cooperating fully to ensure Mr. Foster is prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” the bank said in a statement.

(Reporting by Jessica Dye; Editing by Gunna Dickson and Steve Orlofsky)

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=799b1a95dca6ceaf6456fc3a6b37a640