Keepingitreal

Obama tells nation's top bankers of their duty to taxpayers, economy

Reporting from Washington - Even as another major bank announced it was repaying its bailout money, President Obama today told executives from the nation's largest financial institutions to return the taxpayer's largesse in an additional way -- increase lending to small businesses to help the economy create more jobs. "My main message in today's meeting was very simple: that America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry, and now that they're back on their feet we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy," Obama said after a White House meeting today that he described as "candid and productive." 
That sort of pay-it-forward duty "starts with finding ways to help creditworthy small and medium-sized businesses get the loans that they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs," the president said. "Now, no one wants banks making the kinds of risky loans that got us into this situation in the first place, and it's true that regulators are requiring them to hold more of their capital as a hedge against the kind of problems that we saw last year," he continued. "But given the difficulty businesspeople are having as lending has declined, and given the exceptional assistance banks receive to get them through a difficult time, we expect them to explore every responsible way to help get our economy moving again."Obama said the executives told them they were hiring more people to help with small business loans and raising their goals for such lending. But he said administration officials "expect some results" after hearing complaints from creditworthy small businesses that they still can't get loans. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Richard Davis, chief executive of US Bancorp, said the banks wanted to make more loans but were careful about not taking too much risk. SOURCE: LATIMES.COM

Marijuana critics, and our brilliant plan to save the San Francisco 'Chronic'-le

The decline in newspaper advertising and an upswing in medical marijuana sales are happening simultaneously. And if viewed together, they present an illuminating opportunity for a few daily papers, should their publishers take advantage of the opportunity. The two industries are moving in opposite directions. We all know what's happening to newspaper ad sales: The Audit Bureau of Circulations released precipitous circulation figures on Monday, with a shocking average decline of close to 11 percent over the past six months for daily papers. Weed's having better luck. The Justice Department announced last week that it will no longer prosecute medical marijuana users, and instead leave enforcement up to individual states (only 13 of which permit marijuana as legal pain relief). Let's look at a market where these two trends collide: San Francisco. Circulation at the ailing San Francisco Chronicle, at a limp 252,000 copies a day, slid a horrifying 25.8 percent between April 1 and Sept. 30 over that period a year earlier. Readership of The Chronicle, long the second biggest newspaper on the West Coast, after The Los Angeles Times (circulation down 11 percent), has been falling steadily for years. The paper reported in February that its owner, the Hearst Corp., was looking for a buyer; fears of layoffs, or a total shutdown of the paper, are still echoing around the Bay Area. The Chronicle's death spiral became more dizzying in 2006, when the publisher reacted to poor circulation numbers by decreasing its local coverage and instead publishing more wire stories. In hindsight, that strategy looks completely backward. The Chronicle needs to engage with its local readers to become relevant. And one way to do that is to cover marijuana. CONTINUE READING...

Schwarzenegger to television makers: Go green or stay out of California

First it was the makers of gas-guzzling autos. Next, the Governator came down hard on coal-fired power plants. Now, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has multinational electronics makers in his executive crosshairs. His mission? To rid the Golden State of big, energy-hogging televisions that suck up so much juice in brown-out prone California. As the Golden State goes, so might go the nation. With what is effectively the eighth-largest economy in the world, California policies can force compliance in consumer electronics manufacturing and drive a green energy agenda like no other state of the union.Written by the California Energy Commission (CEC), the proposed California regulation could pass as early as Nov. 4, according to The Los Angeles Times. It would put in place a set of energy efficiency mandates for large-screen TVs that would effectively ban the current generation of plasma TVs with screens over 40 inches. The law would require a 33 percent improvement in energy efficiency for all TVs sold starting Jan. 1, 2011, and a whopping 50 percent improvement for sets sold starting Jan. 1, 2013. The numbers behind the proposal are eye-opening. According the Commission's website, "In California, televisions (along with DVRs, DVD players, and cable/satellite boxes) now consume about 10 percent of a home's electricity. Increasing sales of flat screen televisions, larger screen sizes, the growing number of TVs per household, and increased daily use of televisions all contribute to greater electricity consumption." There are at present 35 million TVs in California, by most estimates. Surprisingly, a law that could literally tell red-blooded sports fans what type of TV they can buy has caused little public uproar. Perhaps Californians, battered by a 12 percent unemployment rate and massive state budget cuts, aren't feeling like buying a big screen these days? CONTINUE READING...

‘Clunkers’ Auto Rebate Plan So Popular That It’s Broke

WASHINGTON — New-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress appropriated for the “cash for clunkers” program, leading the Transportation Department to tell auto dealers Thursday night to stop offering the rebates.But a White House official said the program had not been suspended, creating confusion about its status. The program offers $3,500 to $4,500 for people who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy. In a statement issued Thursday evening, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said: “We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program. Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid CARS transactions that have taken place to date will be honored.” The program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, was scheduled to be offered until Nov. 1, or as long as the money was available. But the program was so successful that it has exhausted all the money allocated within the first week. Dealers have submitted applications on behalf of consumers seeking rebates on about a quarter-million vehicles. The National Automobile Dealers Association surveyed its members in recent days and warned the Transportation Department on Thursday that it had a very large backlog of applications, said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the association. Late in the day, the group said the Transportation Department had responded by telling it to stop taking applications at midnight. The government and the dealers were concerned that buyers would close trade-in deals to buy new cars assuming they had a big rebate coming only to discover later that money was not available. CONTINUE READING...

Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted, 13 to 6, on Tuesday to endorse the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, easing her path to likely confirmation as the first Hispanic member of the tribunals expected, all 12 Democrats on the judiciary panel voted for Judge Sotomayor, after praising her intellect, character and inspiring personal history. But among the seven Republicans on the committee, only Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor.  The committee action sends the nomination to the full Senate, where her confirmation by a comfortable margin seems to be assured. Some committee members who are far apart on the political spectrum agreed on one thing: In recent years, Supreme Court nominees have embraced the strategy of saying as little as possible about their views on issues, so as not to antagonize the senators. In casting his vote, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee, said that when he was a trial lawyer, he always hoped to be in front of a judge who would “make up his or her mind based on the law, not on who the litigants are.” “And having reviewed her record, I know that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been that kind of judge,” Mr. Leahy said. “I have every confidence that she’ll be that kind of justice.” Republican critics of the judge expressed displeasure with her rulings as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as well as with some of her public comments. The rulings and comments show that she is a judge who is too “activist” and liberal and has too little commitment to the rights of gun owners, the critics complained. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s leading Republican, said just before the vote that he was compelled to oppose the nomination because in some important cases the judge’s decisions were “unacceptably short” and showed a “liberal, pro-government ideology against the individuals asserting their constitutional rights.” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Sessions’ questioning of the nominee had been “sharp but fair.” Still, Mr. Schumer said, he was perplexed that anyone could accuse the nominee of being a liberal activist, since an examination of her record shows her to be a moderate. SOURCE: NYTIMES.COM

Jackson Assets Draw the Gaze of Wall Street

As the world sorts through the pieces of Michael Jackson’s life one month after his death, so, too, does Wall Street.

A handful of major financial firms have made inquiries into buying the Jackson estate’s 50 percent share of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the company that controls most of the Beatles song catalog, according to people briefed on the matter. Among them are Colony Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Plainfield Asset Management and the media mogul Haim Saban, these people said.

Sony/ATV is by far the most valuable asset in Mr. Jackson’s estate, and his 50 percent stake could be worth as much a $500 million. Mr. Jackson bought the majority of the Beatles catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million, after an informal chat with Paul McCartney about the wisdom of buying song catalogs.

Since then, Sony/ATV — formed from a 1995 partnership with Sony — has bought up the rights to thousands of songs from artists, including Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Beck and Taylor Swift. In recent years, it made a big push into TV production, helping to balance out its radio business.

“Sony/ATV’s really started to gain greater value in recent years,” said Barry Massarsky, a music industry consultant who has done work for Sony/ATV and its rivals. “I’m very bullish on its prospects.”

John G. Branca, the entertainment lawyer who structured Mr. Jackson’s initial purchase of the Beatles catalog and is now one of two executors of his estate, declined to comment by e-mail on Sunday, saying only that the Jackson stake in Sony/ATV “is not for sale.” SOURCE:NYTIMES.COM

10 Large Banks Allowed to Exit U.S. Aid Program

EXCERPT FROM NYTIMES.COM ~ The Obama administration marked with little fanfare a major milestone in its bank rescue effort — its decision on Tuesday to let 10 big banks repay federal aid that had sustained them through the worst of the crisis — as policy makers and industry executives focused on the challenges still before them.“This is not a sign that our troubles are over,” President Obama said. “Far from it.”While the announcement had been expected for weeks, the official word put the administration’s imprimatur on a corps of big banks considered healthy enough to extricate themselves from Washington’s grip.The bank holding companies, among them American Express, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, plan to return a combined $68.3 billion. That represents more than a quarter of the federal bailout money that the nation’s banks have received since last October, when many feared that failures might cascade through the industry.But the decision to allow the banks to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, also ushered in a new, and potentially risky, phase of the banking crisis. Letting the lenders out now — earlier than many had envisioned, and without the industry reforms some consider necessary to prevent future crises — raises many sobering questions for policy makers, bankers and taxpayers.The program was aimed at purchasing assets and equity from banks to strengthen them and encourage them to expand lending during a tightening credit squeeze. But after banks return the TARP money, the administration will forfeit much of its leverage over them. With that loss goes a rare opportunity to overhaul the industry. The administration’s ability to push institutions to purge themselves quickly of bad assets and do more to help hard-pressed homeowners will be diminished.Of even deeper concern is the running trouble inside the banking industry. Despite tentative signs of revival, many banks remain fragile. Four of the nation’s five largest lenders, including Citigroup and Bank of America, were not allowed to return their bailout funds. Some analysts worry that financial institutions that repay bailout money now may turn to Washington again if the economy worsens and losses overwhelm banks. One of the most vexing problems of the credit crisis — how to rid banks of their troubled mortgage investments — remains unresolved. CONTINUE READING...

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

from NYTIMES ~ There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt. Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing. CONTINUE READING..

Dr Boyce Watkins: Barack Obama's Credit Card Bill - What You Need to Know

 Maybe you love your job so much you brush off hints that the company's wheels are starting to come off. Or maybe you despise your job enough that you pay no attention to anything other than getting through a full day. Maybe you don't think you have any reason to watch for signs you might be headed for a job loss. But maybe you should. Even if you're doing well and things seem peachy in the workplace, it's never a bad idea to pay attention to hints that your job may be in jeopardy. Stay one step ahead of a layoff by heeding these warning signs.

Internal Problems: Things You Control

Sometimes we ignore obvious signs that the other shoe is going to drop, attributing negative signals to a bad phase that will quickly pass. Unfortunately, ignoring these signs can threaten your job security.

Watch out if:

• You Got a Bad Review or a Warning.How was your last performance review? Did you get a decent raise? Were you given any warnings or put on probation for anything? It's a bad sign if nothing positive was said during your review.
• Your Boss Looks over Your Shoulder.Has your boss recently put you on a short leash, when he used to trust you to work independently? Maybe he's been giving you subtle warnings that your work is not up to snuff even though you think otherwise, and he finally got tired of you missing his signals.
• You Get the Cold Shoulder.Do colleagues you used to eat lunch or talk with avoid you lately? Do they skirt discussions about future projects? Are you being left out of meetings you used to be part of? Think there's a reason?

External Problems: Management Changes Beyond Your Control

Keeping an eye on the company, its health and the ripple effects of high-level decisions can clue you into the true status of your job security. Be wary if:

• You Get a New Boss.For five years, you worked in harmony with your boss, who was suddenly replaced by a rattlesnake. This is no time to be complacent; prep for a job search before you have to. Line up a reference from HR since the new boss probably won't give you a good one.
• Management Makes Changes at the Top.The company's leader and figurehead suddenly disappears, and the entire mood of the company shifts. Long-time employees are heard grumbling and complaining about the new direction. This can actually help you. Ask yourself: How do I handle change? If you're averse to making a big move, you'll probably hate the new procedures that go along with the transition to a new leader. On the other hand, how will you handle the changes associated with getting a new job? Will you find those challenges any easier? Weigh the consequences of both scenarios.
• There Are Rumors of Restructuring or Layoffs.Sometimes rumors carry a grain of truth. If there is talk about restructuring the office, be prepared. If you don't do a full-out job search, at least dust off your resume so if you're cut, you'll have that chore out of the way.
• New Hires Don't Fit the Mold.Sometimes a new colleague is hired who can do no wrong with all of the managers but treats you and other employees like dirt. If you've complained and documented your gripes but management doesn't confront the bad apple, you must assess what this person is doing to your outlook on work. Sometimes morale can get so low that there's no choice but to leave.

Overall, it's important to know the difference between something that truly threatens your job security and something that may actually turn out to be a bad week or month.

The government has told Bank of America it needs $33.9 billion in capital to withstand any worsening of the economic downturn, according to an executive at the bank.If the bank is unable to raise the capital cushion by selling assets or stock, it would have to rely on the government, which has provided $45 billion in capital through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.It could satisfy regulators’ demands simply by converting non-voting preferred shares it gave the government in return for the capital, into common stock.But that would make the government one of the bank’s largest shareholders.Executives at the bank, one of the largest being examined, sparred with the government over the amount, which is higher than executives believed the bank needed.But J. Steele Alphin, the bank’s chief administrative officer, said Bank of America would have plenty of options to raise the capital on its own before it would have to convert any of the taxpayer money into common stock.“We’re not happy about it because it’s still a big number,” Mr. Alphin said. “We think it should be a bit less at the end of the day.”The government’s determination that Bank of America doesn’t need as much capital as it has already received from taxpayers is an indication that even some of the most troubled banks may not need more government money than has been allocated to them.The Treasury Department declined to comment on Tuesday evening.Citigroup, by contrast, has already decided to allow the government to convert some of its investment into common stock.Under the arrangement worked out between the Treasury and Citigroup earlier this year, the Treasury will receive mandatory convertible preferred shares, meaning preferred shares that can be converted to voting shares of common stock at the will of the government.If Bank of America relied on that conversion for the majority of the capital it needs to maintain, the government would become one of the bank’s largest shareholders.Regulators have told the banks that the common shares would bolster their “tangible common equity,” a measure of capital that places greater emphasis on the resources that a bank has at its disposal than the more traditional measure of “Tier 1” capital. CONTINUE READING...

WASHINGTON — Seizing on the growing unpopularity of credit card companies, President Obama on Thursday threw his support behind legislation moving swiftly through Congress that would restrict the ability of banks to impose higher fees and interest rates on consumers. In a White House meeting with credit card industry executives, Mr. Obama sought to jawbone the companies into accepting changes — some voluntarily, some through legislation — that could cut heavily into profits at a financially difficult time. In recent days, the White House, which had been largely disengaged from the issue, has suddenly become more involved. Presidential aides this week submitted proposed changes to legislation that has been moving rapidly on Capitol Hill. The legislation, which will most likely be approved by the House as early as next week and then be debated in the Senate soon after, has faced significant opposition among Senate Republicans who are strong supporters of the credit card issuers. Democratic leaders said they were mindful of polls showing widespread disapproval of credit card companies, particularly as rates and penalties charged to consumers have been climbing steeply, even though the companies’ cost of borrowing is at a historic low. That has put pressure on Congress to move swiftly. Following up on pledges he made during the election campaign to curtail the high fees and rates, the president called the top executives from the nation’s largest credit card companies to the White House to pressure them to take steps that officials say would reduce abusive practices. Most of the banks have also received government assistance as part of the federal bailout, putting the government in an awkward position. As a shareholder, it profits from the banks’ improved earnings. At the same time, the administration is trying to take steps that, while helpful to consumers, could cut into the institutions’ profitability. Participants described the half-hour meeting in the Roosevelt Room as cordial and not confrontational. They said Mr. Obama told the executives that he recognized the importance of credit cards as a source of liquidity and convenience, but that he had concerns about certain card policies. He said some of those concerns had been addressed in new regulations that the Federal Reserve recently adopted and that will take effect next year, but that he thought the government needed to go further. “I know you feel that anything beyond what the Fed has done would be overkill,” the president was quoted by one participant as saying. “I just disagree.” He called on the companies to produce statements that are clearly written and do not have any confusing terms and conditions. He also proposed that every company issue a “plain-vanilla, easy-to-understand, simplest-terms possible credit card” to make it easier for the average consumer. CONTINUE READING..

The company match for employee 401(k)s is disappearing - just at the point where we need it most. The Pension Rights Center has been keeping track of the phenomena. As of early March, 138 of the nation's largest and most prominent companies have ditched the 401(k) match.  That's too bad because not only do matches put more money in employees' pockets, they also motivate us to save more. Fidelity Investments, which is the country's largest provider of workplace retirement savings plans, released a study last month that said matching up to 3 percent of a workers' salary increased worker participation in retirement savings plans by nearly 10%.  In the long run, large companies have a vested interest in helping employees save for retirement. Otherwise, they may lose their older customers who without pensions will spend their golden years living in cardboard boxes - never buying much of anything. Continue reading 25 things vanishing in America, part 2: 401(k) company matches

Better move fast if you want to beat Wednesday's state sales tax increase. Eric Edenfield of San Francisco did just that when he purchased a water heater last weekend for the duplex he rents out in Guerneville. The new water-saving "on demand" heater might be good for the environment, but at $3,000, it's tough on the wallet. "I bit the bullet and I ordered it," said Edenfield, 45, who was considering buying a second water heater for his other unit before Wednesday. "I didn't need it until the end of the year, but I thought, why not save (some money) now?" A temporary, statewide, 1 percent sales tax increase goes into effect on Wednesday. It is designed to add revenue to California's coffers, but could worsen what is already a tough time for consumers and retailers in a recessionary economy. The new sales tax is set to expire July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2012, depending on whether voters approve a constitutional amendment, Proposition 1A or the Budget Stabilization Act, in a statewide election to be held May 19. The increase means that the sales tax in California will range from 8.25 percent in some areas - among them Humboldt, Monterey and Shasta counties - to as high as 10.25 percent in Pico Rivera and South Gate, both in Los Angeles County. That's because voters in some cities and counties approved local sales tax increases that also go into effect Wednesday. In the Bay Area, voters in Sonoma and Marin counties approved an increased tax to fund rail transit, bumping the rate to 9 percent there. In Santa Rosa - where Edenfield bought his water heater - the rate will be 9.25 percent due to the city's current district tax. Effective Wednesday, the sales tax in San Francisco will be 9.5 percent. The tax will be 9.75 percent in Alameda County, 9.25 percent in San Mateo County and 9.25 percent in Contra Costa County, with the exception of Richmond, Pinole and El Cerrito, where it will be 9.75  percent. Some consumers said they increasingly are turning to the Internet, where often they can skirt state taxes if retailers fail to add those charges to the total sales costs. SOURCE:SFGATE.COM

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve sharply stepped up its efforts to bolster the economy on Wednesday, announcing that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities.Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed’s measures in the last year.The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.Investors responded with surprise and enthusiasm. The Dow Jones industrial average, which had been down about 50 points just before the announcement, jumped immediately and ended the day up almost 91 points at 7,486.58. Yields on long-term Treasury bonds dropped markedly, and analysts predicted that interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages would soon drop below 5 percent.But there were also clear indications that the Fed was taking risks that could dilute the value of the dollar and set the stage for future inflation. Gold prices rose $26.60 an ounce, hitting $942, a sign of declining confidence in the dollar. The dollar, which had been losing value in recent weeks to the euro and the yen, dropped sharply again on Wednesday.In its announcement, the central bank said that the United States remained in a severe recession and listed its continuing woes, from job losses and lost housing wealth to falling exports as a result of the worldwide economic slowdown.“In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability,” the central bank said.As expected, policy makers decided to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate on overnight loans in a range between zero and 0.25 percent. SOURCE:NYT.COM

WASHINGTON — The House overwhelmingly approved on Thursday a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to employees of the American International Group and other firms that have accepted large amounts of federal bailout funds, rattling Wall Street as lawmakers rushed to respond to populist anger.Despite questions about the legality of the retroactive 90 percent levy, Democrats and some Republicans said the tax on bonuses for traders, executives and bankers earning more than $250,000 was the quickest way to show angry Americans that Congress intended to recoup the extra dollars. Even backers of the measure noted it was an extraordinary step.The House vote sent some employees into a panic about the prospect of, in effect, having to give up money they might already have spent. And it had regulators fearing it could undermine the Treasury’s efforts to stabilize the financial system if banks tried to flee the bailout program or if other firms refused to participate in coming rescue operations to protect their bonuses, some executives said.Vikram S. Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup, lobbied against the legislation in a meeting Thursday with the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, according to an industry official.But the rush to curb the bonuses by lawmakers, many of whom have previously been torn about limiting executive compensation, reflected Congressional anxiety about heightened public dismay over the bailout. The Senate is expected to consider a similar tax on bonuses but has some differences with the House, which could slow final action.In a statement, President Obama suggested he was supportive of the legislation, urging Congress to deliver a “final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”In an appearance later on “The Tonight Show” on NBC, Mr. Obama was measured in his reaction, saying he understood that Congress was “responding, I think, to everybody’s anger” but that the best way to handle the situation was “to make sure you’ve closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn.”The legislation would apply to bonuses paid to executives at companies holding at least $5 billion in bailout money and would essentially wipe out the phenomenal paydays that have been a tradition on Wall Street, at least until the firms reduce the amount they owe taxpayers to less than $5 billion. According to a tally by The New York Times of bailout recipients, employees at 11 institutions — including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase — would face restrictions immediately. CONTINUE READING...

Amid rising pressure from Congress and taxpayers, the American International Group on Sunday released the names of dozens of financial institutions that benefited from the Federal Reserve’s decision last fall to save the giant insurer from collapse with a huge rescue loan. Financial companies that received multibillion-dollar payments owed by A.I.G. include Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion), Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion), Citigroup ($2.3 billion) and Wachovia ($1.5 billion). Big foreign banks also received large sums from the rescue, including Société Générale of France and Deutsche Bank of Germany, which each received nearly $12 billion; Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion); and UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion). A.I.G. also named the 20 largest states, starting with California, that stood to lose billions last fall because A.I.G. was holding money they had raised with bond sales. In total, A.I.G. named nearly 80 companies and municipalities that benefited most from the Fed rescue, though many more that received smaller payments were left out. The list, long sought by lawmakers, was released a day after the disclosure that A.I.G. was paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at the A.I.G. division where the company’s crisis originated. That drew anger from Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike on Sunday and left the Obama administration scrambling to distance itself from A.I.G. “There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. is the most outrageous,” Lawrence H. Summers, an economic adviser to President Obama who was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, said Sun. But some members of Congress expressed outrage over the bonuses. Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Democrat of Maryland who had demanded more information about the bonuses last December, accused the company’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, of rewarding reckless business practices. CONTINUE READING..

Other than a one-time payment of $250 to disabled veterans and making it easier for employers to hire vets, the federal government's economic stimulus package won't give much immediate help to the estimated 24 million veterans in the United States.Most of the just under $4 billion for veterans in "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" will be spent on services or buildings that vets use. Specific sites are still unknown, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has no information on its Web site on how it will implement the act.The "shovel ready" jobs talked about often in the stimulus package will increase jobs for veterans by giving them a preference in being hired, just as they already are under a federal law that mandates 3% of government contracts must go to disabled vets or a veteran-owned business.The main reason why vets will see most of the stimulus in services is because it's difficult to keep track of them, and most don't use the Veterans Administration for assistance, said Tom Tarantino, policy associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, or IAVA, a nonprofit with 125,000 members that lobbies Washington, D.C.About $50 million will be spent on giving one-time $250 disability checks to disabled vets, who are statistically more likely to have a lower income and more likely to spend the money, Tarantino said."The best way to stimulate the economy is to inject cash into the pocket of the people who can spend it," he said. "It's not about increasing the economic status of the person, but infusing money so they can buy food to eat."Giving employers tax incentives to hire vets is another immediate fix, adding tax credit for hiring part-time workers who are veterans. Businesses can claim a work opportunity tax credit equal to 40% of the first $6,000 in wages paid to a newly hired veteran. READ MORE...

The New York Times leads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that the White House will be sending two senior officials to Syria this weekend. The move is seen as a first step in the Obama administration's expected effort to revive relations with a key player in the Middle East that hasn't had a U.S. ambassador for more than four years. The Washington Post leads with the administration's efforts to boost confidence in the economy as well as the government's moves to tackle the ongoing crisis. A day after the stock markets reached new lows, White House officials seemed to be on a mission to instill hope in the American people that things will get better as the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department launched a program to finance new lending for consumers and businesses.All the optimistic talk in the world couldn't stop more grim statistics from coming down the pipeline. USA Today leads with news that automakers had a horrible February. Many thought it couldn't get any worse than January, but last month sales were down 41.4 percent. If the rate expands throughout the whole year it would translate into a mere 9.1 million new sales, the worst number since 1981. The Wall Street Journal's worldwide newsbox leads with a new poll that shows Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of President Obama and his agenda. Although 70 percent are very dissatisfied with the economy, Obama still enjoys a 60 percent approval rating and around two-thirds of American say they feel "hopeful" about his presidency. Most surprising is that 41 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, a huge increase from the 26 percent who said the same thing in mid-January. The Los Angeles Times leads with local elections. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was reelected and will serve a second four-year term.To continue reading, click here.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post lead with, and the Wall Street Journal banners, yet another horrible Monday for stock markets around the world. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 4.2 percent to 6,763, marking the first time the index closed below 7,000 since April 1997. The Dow has now fallen almost 20 percent in January and February, "the worst first two months of the year in its 113-year history," points out the LAT. The worldwide selloff began in Asia and hit Europe particularly hard. Britain's main stock index lost more than 5 percent and the Italian one plunged 6 percent. The dollar continued to rise, "as investors concluded that, for all the problems in the U.S. economy, it looks better than the rest of the world," notes the Post. USA Today gives big front-page play to the stock markets, but devotes its lead spot to increasing evidence that flu viruses are growing more resistant to the drug Tamiflu. In an analysis of Tamiflu resistance researchers found that around 12 percent of the people infected with one of the three most common flu strains had caught a resistant virus. This year, Tamiflu resistance in that strain has reached almost 100 percent. To continue reading, click here.

Get Clued into Layoff Warning Signs

 Maybe you love your job so much you brush off hints that the company's wheels are starting to come off. Or maybe you despise your job enough that you pay no attention to anything other than getting through a full day. Maybe you don't think you have any reason to watch for signs you might be headed for a job loss. But maybe you should. Even if you're doing well and things seem peachy in the workplace, it's never a bad idea to pay attention to hints that your job may be in jeopardy. Stay one step ahead of a layoff by heeding these warning signs.

Internal Problems: Things You Control

Sometimes we ignore obvious signs that the other shoe is going to drop, attributing negative signals to a bad phase that will quickly pass. Unfortunately, ignoring these signs can threaten your job security.

Watch out if:

• You Got a Bad Review or a Warning.How was your last performance review? Did you get a decent raise? Were you given any warnings or put on probation for anything? It's a bad sign if nothing positive was said during your review.
• Your Boss Looks over Your Shoulder.Has your boss recently put you on a short leash, when he used to trust you to work independently? Maybe he's been giving you subtle warnings that your work is not up to snuff even though you think otherwise, and he finally got tired of you missing his signals.
• You Get the Cold Shoulder.Do colleagues you used to eat lunch or talk with avoid you lately? Do they skirt discussions about future projects? Are you being left out of meetings you used to be part of? Think there's a reason?

External Problems: Management Changes Beyond Your Control

Keeping an eye on the company, its health and the ripple effects of high-level decisions can clue you into the true status of your job security. Be wary if:

• You Get a New Boss.For five years, you worked in harmony with your boss, who was suddenly replaced by a rattlesnake. This is no time to be complacent; prep for a job search before you have to. Line up a reference from HR since the new boss probably won't give you a good one.
• Management Makes Changes at the Top.The company's leader and figurehead suddenly disappears, and the entire mood of the company shifts. Long-time employees are heard grumbling and complaining about the new direction. This can actually help you. Ask yourself: How do I handle change? If you're averse to making a big move, you'll probably hate the new procedures that go along with the transition to a new leader. On the other hand, how will you handle the changes associated with getting a new job? Will you find those challenges any easier? Weigh the consequences of both scenarios.
• There Are Rumors of Restructuring or Layoffs.Sometimes rumors carry a grain of truth. If there is talk about restructuring the office, be prepared. If you don't do a full-out job search, at least dust off your resume so if you're cut, you'll have that chore out of the way.
• New Hires Don't Fit the Mold.Sometimes a new colleague is hired who can do no wrong with all of the managers but treats you and other employees like dirt. If you've complained and documented your gripes but management doesn't confront the bad apple, you must assess what this person is doing to your outlook on work. Sometimes morale can get so low that there's no choice but to leave.

Overall, it's important to know the difference between something that truly threatens your job security and something that may actually turn out to be a bad week or month.

U.S. Says Bank of America Needs $33.9 Billion Cushion

The government has told Bank of America it needs $33.9 billion in capital to withstand any worsening of the economic downturn, according to an executive at the bank.If the bank is unable to raise the capital cushion by selling assets or stock, it would have to rely on the government, which has provided $45 billion in capital through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.It could satisfy regulators’ demands simply by converting non-voting preferred shares it gave the government in return for the capital, into common stock.But that would make the government one of the bank’s largest shareholders.Executives at the bank, one of the largest being examined, sparred with the government over the amount, which is higher than executives believed the bank needed.But J. Steele Alphin, the bank’s chief administrative officer, said Bank of America would have plenty of options to raise the capital on its own before it would have to convert any of the taxpayer money into common stock.“We’re not happy about it because it’s still a big number,” Mr. Alphin said. “We think it should be a bit less at the end of the day.”The government’s determination that Bank of America doesn’t need as much capital as it has already received from taxpayers is an indication that even some of the most troubled banks may not need more government money than has been allocated to them.The Treasury Department declined to comment on Tuesday evening.Citigroup, by contrast, has already decided to allow the government to convert some of its investment into common stock.Under the arrangement worked out between the Treasury and Citigroup earlier this year, the Treasury will receive mandatory convertible preferred shares, meaning preferred shares that can be converted to voting shares of common stock at the will of the government.If Bank of America relied on that conversion for the majority of the capital it needs to maintain, the government would become one of the bank’s largest shareholders.Regulators have told the banks that the common shares would bolster their “tangible common equity,” a measure of capital that places greater emphasis on the resources that a bank has at its disposal than the more traditional measure of “Tier 1” capital. CONTINUE READING...

Obama Pressures Credit Card Issuers on Rates

WASHINGTON — Seizing on the growing unpopularity of credit card companies, President Obama on Thursday threw his support behind legislation moving swiftly through Congress that would restrict the ability of banks to impose higher fees and interest rates on consumers. In a White House meeting with credit card industry executives, Mr. Obama sought to jawbone the companies into accepting changes — some voluntarily, some through legislation — that could cut heavily into profits at a financially difficult time. In recent days, the White House, which had been largely disengaged from the issue, has suddenly become more involved. Presidential aides this week submitted proposed changes to legislation that has been moving rapidly on Capitol Hill. The legislation, which will most likely be approved by the House as early as next week and then be debated in the Senate soon after, has faced significant opposition among Senate Republicans who are strong supporters of the credit card issuers. Democratic leaders said they were mindful of polls showing widespread disapproval of credit card companies, particularly as rates and penalties charged to consumers have been climbing steeply, even though the companies’ cost of borrowing is at a historic low. That has put pressure on Congress to move swiftly. Following up on pledges he made during the election campaign to curtail the high fees and rates, the president called the top executives from the nation’s largest credit card companies to the White House to pressure them to take steps that officials say would reduce abusive practices. Most of the banks have also received government assistance as part of the federal bailout, putting the government in an awkward position. As a shareholder, it profits from the banks’ improved earnings. At the same time, the administration is trying to take steps that, while helpful to consumers, could cut into the institutions’ profitability. Participants described the half-hour meeting in the Roosevelt Room as cordial and not confrontational. They said Mr. Obama told the executives that he recognized the importance of credit cards as a source of liquidity and convenience, but that he had concerns about certain card policies. He said some of those concerns had been addressed in new regulations that the Federal Reserve recently adopted and that will take effect next year, but that he thought the government needed to go further. “I know you feel that anything beyond what the Fed has done would be overkill,” the president was quoted by one participant as saying. “I just disagree.” He called on the companies to produce statements that are clearly written and do not have any confusing terms and conditions. He also proposed that every company issue a “plain-vanilla, easy-to-understand, simplest-terms possible credit card” to make it easier for the average consumer. CONTINUE READING..

25 things vanishing in America, part 2: 401(k) company matches

The company match for employee 401(k)s is disappearing - just at the point where we need it most. The Pension Rights Center has been keeping track of the phenomena. As of early March, 138 of the nation's largest and most prominent companies have ditched the 401(k) match.  That's too bad because not only do matches put more money in employees' pockets, they also motivate us to save more. Fidelity Investments, which is the country's largest provider of workplace retirement savings plans, released a study last month that said matching up to 3 percent of a workers' salary increased worker participation in retirement savings plans by nearly 10%.  In the long run, large companies have a vested interest in helping employees save for retirement. Otherwise, they may lose their older customers who without pensions will spend their golden years living in cardboard boxes - never buying much of anything. Continue reading 25 things vanishing in America, part 2: 401(k) company matches

A few shoppers splurge before sales tax goes up

Better move fast if you want to beat Wednesday's state sales tax increase. Eric Edenfield of San Francisco did just that when he purchased a water heater last weekend for the duplex he rents out in Guerneville. The new water-saving "on demand" heater might be good for the environment, but at $3,000, it's tough on the wallet. "I bit the bullet and I ordered it," said Edenfield, 45, who was considering buying a second water heater for his other unit before Wednesday. "I didn't need it until the end of the year, but I thought, why not save (some money) now?" A temporary, statewide, 1 percent sales tax increase goes into effect on Wednesday. It is designed to add revenue to California's coffers, but could worsen what is already a tough time for consumers and retailers in a recessionary economy. The new sales tax is set to expire July 1, 2011, or July 1, 2012, depending on whether voters approve a constitutional amendment, Proposition 1A or the Budget Stabilization Act, in a statewide election to be held May 19. The increase means that the sales tax in California will range from 8.25 percent in some areas - among them Humboldt, Monterey and Shasta counties - to as high as 10.25 percent in Pico Rivera and South Gate, both in Los Angeles County. That's because voters in some cities and counties approved local sales tax increases that also go into effect Wednesday. In the Bay Area, voters in Sonoma and Marin counties approved an increased tax to fund rail transit, bumping the rate to 9 percent there. In Santa Rosa - where Edenfield bought his water heater - the rate will be 9.25 percent due to the city's current district tax. Effective Wednesday, the sales tax in San Francisco will be 9.5 percent. The tax will be 9.75 percent in Alameda County, 9.25 percent in San Mateo County and 9.25 percent in Contra Costa County, with the exception of Richmond, Pinole and El Cerrito, where it will be 9.75  percent. Some consumers said they increasingly are turning to the Internet, where often they can skirt state taxes if retailers fail to add those charges to the total sales costs. SOURCE:SFGATE.COM

Fed Plans to Inject Another $1 Trillion to Aid the Economy

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve sharply stepped up its efforts to bolster the economy on Wednesday, announcing that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities.Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed’s measures in the last year.The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.Investors responded with surprise and enthusiasm. The Dow Jones industrial average, which had been down about 50 points just before the announcement, jumped immediately and ended the day up almost 91 points at 7,486.58. Yields on long-term Treasury bonds dropped markedly, and analysts predicted that interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages would soon drop below 5 percent.But there were also clear indications that the Fed was taking risks that could dilute the value of the dollar and set the stage for future inflation. Gold prices rose $26.60 an ounce, hitting $942, a sign of declining confidence in the dollar. The dollar, which had been losing value in recent weeks to the euro and the yen, dropped sharply again on Wednesday.In its announcement, the central bank said that the United States remained in a severe recession and listed its continuing woes, from job losses and lost housing wealth to falling exports as a result of the worldwide economic slowdown.“In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability,” the central bank said.As expected, policy makers decided to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate on overnight loans in a range between zero and 0.25 percent. SOURCE:NYT.COM

House Passes Heavy Tax on Bonuses at Rescued Firms

WASHINGTON — The House overwhelmingly approved on Thursday a near total tax on bonuses paid this year to employees of the American International Group and other firms that have accepted large amounts of federal bailout funds, rattling Wall Street as lawmakers rushed to respond to populist anger.Despite questions about the legality of the retroactive 90 percent levy, Democrats and some Republicans said the tax on bonuses for traders, executives and bankers earning more than $250,000 was the quickest way to show angry Americans that Congress intended to recoup the extra dollars. Even backers of the measure noted it was an extraordinary step.The House vote sent some employees into a panic about the prospect of, in effect, having to give up money they might already have spent. And it had regulators fearing it could undermine the Treasury’s efforts to stabilize the financial system if banks tried to flee the bailout program or if other firms refused to participate in coming rescue operations to protect their bonuses, some executives said.Vikram S. Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup, lobbied against the legislation in a meeting Thursday with the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, according to an industry official.But the rush to curb the bonuses by lawmakers, many of whom have previously been torn about limiting executive compensation, reflected Congressional anxiety about heightened public dismay over the bailout. The Senate is expected to consider a similar tax on bonuses but has some differences with the House, which could slow final action.In a statement, President Obama suggested he was supportive of the legislation, urging Congress to deliver a “final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.”In an appearance later on “The Tonight Show” on NBC, Mr. Obama was measured in his reaction, saying he understood that Congress was “responding, I think, to everybody’s anger” but that the best way to handle the situation was “to make sure you’ve closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn.”The legislation would apply to bonuses paid to executives at companies holding at least $5 billion in bailout money and would essentially wipe out the phenomenal paydays that have been a tradition on Wall Street, at least until the firms reduce the amount they owe taxpayers to less than $5 billion. According to a tally by The New York Times of bailout recipients, employees at 11 institutions — including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase — would face restrictions immediately. CONTINUE READING...

A.I.G. Lists Banks It Paid With U.S. Bailout Funds

Amid rising pressure from Congress and taxpayers, the American International Group on Sunday released the names of dozens of financial institutions that benefited from the Federal Reserve’s decision last fall to save the giant insurer from collapse with a huge rescue loan. Financial companies that received multibillion-dollar payments owed by A.I.G. include Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion), Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion), Bank of America ($5.2 billion), Citigroup ($2.3 billion) and Wachovia ($1.5 billion). Big foreign banks also received large sums from the rescue, including Société Générale of France and Deutsche Bank of Germany, which each received nearly $12 billion; Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion); and UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion). A.I.G. also named the 20 largest states, starting with California, that stood to lose billions last fall because A.I.G. was holding money they had raised with bond sales. In total, A.I.G. named nearly 80 companies and municipalities that benefited most from the Fed rescue, though many more that received smaller payments were left out. The list, long sought by lawmakers, was released a day after the disclosure that A.I.G. was paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at the A.I.G. division where the company’s crisis originated. That drew anger from Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike on Sunday and left the Obama administration scrambling to distance itself from A.I.G. “There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. is the most outrageous,” Lawrence H. Summers, an economic adviser to President Obama who was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, said Sun. But some members of Congress expressed outrage over the bonuses. Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Democrat of Maryland who had demanded more information about the bonuses last December, accused the company’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, of rewarding reckless business practices. CONTINUE READING..

Stimulate US: How veterans will benefit

Other than a one-time payment of $250 to disabled veterans and making it easier for employers to hire vets, the federal government's economic stimulus package won't give much immediate help to the estimated 24 million veterans in the United States.Most of the just under $4 billion for veterans in "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" will be spent on services or buildings that vets use. Specific sites are still unknown, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has no information on its Web site on how it will implement the act.The "shovel ready" jobs talked about often in the stimulus package will increase jobs for veterans by giving them a preference in being hired, just as they already are under a federal law that mandates 3% of government contracts must go to disabled vets or a veteran-owned business.The main reason why vets will see most of the stimulus in services is because it's difficult to keep track of them, and most don't use the Veterans Administration for assistance, said Tom Tarantino, policy associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, or IAVA, a nonprofit with 125,000 members that lobbies Washington, D.C.About $50 million will be spent on giving one-time $250 disability checks to disabled vets, who are statistically more likely to have a lower income and more likely to spend the money, Tarantino said."The best way to stimulate the economy is to inject cash into the pocket of the people who can spend it," he said. "It's not about increasing the economic status of the person, but infusing money so they can buy food to eat."Giving employers tax incentives to hire vets is another immediate fix, adding tax credit for hiring part-time workers who are veterans. Businesses can claim a work opportunity tax credit equal to 40% of the first $6,000 in wages paid to a newly hired veteran. READ MORE...

Today's Papers: Obama Puts on a Happy Face

The New York Times leads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that the White House will be sending two senior officials to Syria this weekend. The move is seen as a first step in the Obama administration's expected effort to revive relations with a key player in the Middle East that hasn't had a U.S. ambassador for more than four years. The Washington Post leads with the administration's efforts to boost confidence in the economy as well as the government's moves to tackle the ongoing crisis. A day after the stock markets reached new lows, White House officials seemed to be on a mission to instill hope in the American people that things will get better as the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department launched a program to finance new lending for consumers and businesses.All the optimistic talk in the world couldn't stop more grim statistics from coming down the pipeline. USA Today leads with news that automakers had a horrible February. Many thought it couldn't get any worse than January, but last month sales were down 41.4 percent. If the rate expands throughout the whole year it would translate into a mere 9.1 million new sales, the worst number since 1981. The Wall Street Journal's worldwide newsbox leads with a new poll that shows Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of President Obama and his agenda. Although 70 percent are very dissatisfied with the economy, Obama still enjoys a 60 percent approval rating and around two-thirds of American say they feel "hopeful" about his presidency. Most surprising is that 41 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, a huge increase from the 26 percent who said the same thing in mid-January. The Los Angeles Times leads with local elections. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was reelected and will serve a second four-year term.To continue reading, click here.

Today's Papers: Investors Throw in the Towel

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post lead with, and the Wall Street Journal banners, yet another horrible Monday for stock markets around the world. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 4.2 percent to 6,763, marking the first time the index closed below 7,000 since April 1997. The Dow has now fallen almost 20 percent in January and February, "the worst first two months of the year in its 113-year history," points out the LAT. The worldwide selloff began in Asia and hit Europe particularly hard. Britain's main stock index lost more than 5 percent and the Italian one plunged 6 percent. The dollar continued to rise, "as investors concluded that, for all the problems in the U.S. economy, it looks better than the rest of the world," notes the Post. USA Today gives big front-page play to the stock markets, but devotes its lead spot to increasing evidence that flu viruses are growing more resistant to the drug Tamiflu. In an analysis of Tamiflu resistance researchers found that around 12 percent of the people infected with one of the three most common flu strains had caught a resistant virus. This year, Tamiflu resistance in that strain has reached almost 100 percent. To continue reading, click here.