About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox & Friends off on proposed bank tax by a factor of 100

January 15, 2010 8:42 am ET — 22 Comments

On January 15, Fox & Friends falsely reported that President Obama promoted "a 15 percent tax on the banks" for the purpose of recouping taxpayer losses resulting from Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) investments. In fact, the fee Obama proposed would be "assessed at approximately 15 basis points (0.15 percent) of covered liabilities per year" for financial companies with more than $50 billion in assets.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Fox & Friends falsely reported Obama proposed "15 percent tax" on banks

Kilmeade: Obama "promoting a 15 percent tax on the banks." During the January 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade stated: "The big banks are set to pay out a record $145 billion in bonuses for 2009. Some Americans outraged by this. President Obama looking to ease some of that anger, promoting a 15 percent tax on the banks that remained or have remained or have returned to profitability."

Fox & Friends on-screen text: Obama "Wants 15% fee assessed against banks." During the segment, Fox & Friends aired the following on-screen text:

banktax

In fact, fee is set at 0.15 percent

White House: "Fee Assessed at Approximately 15 Basis Points (0.15 Percent)." A White House fact sheet on the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" states, "Fee Assessed at Approximately 15 Basis Points (0.15 Percent) of Covered Liabilities Per Year."

Kilmeade falsely claimed fee is "only against the banks that have already paid back" TARP money

Kilmeade claimed fee is "only" for banks that have repaid TARP funds, "not the weak ones ... like for example, Citibank." Kilmeade stated: "The responsibility fee is what they're calling it. It's being assessed only against the banks that have already paid back with interest the TARP money they got. So essentially they're paying back for the banks, they're paying back for Fannie and Freddie, who are not paying -- paying back for the cars, rather. Not the weak ones still in the red which continue to be a drain on the Treasury, like for example, Citibank."

In fact, fee applies to "Largest and Most Highly Levered Firms," reportedly including Citibank

Fee "levied on the debts of financial firms with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets," regardless of TARP participation. The White House fact sheet states, "The fee the President is proposing would be levied on the debts of financial firms with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets, providing a deterrent against excessive leverage for the largest financial firms." Bloomberg reported that "[e]ven companies that didn't receive TARP funds would face the fee. The administration is using the argument that that every major financial firm in the U.S. is a beneficiary of government steps to bolster the industry."

WSJ: Citibank would be subject to tax. The Wall Street Journal reported, "The 10-year assessment on bank liabilities-dubbed the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee-would fall most heavily on the nation's top six banking companies: Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo & Co. Each would likely face an annual bill of $1 billion or more, with Citigroup and J.P. Morgan facing the largest liabilities, likely more than $2.4 billion apiece." The article further reported that "[a] provision inserted in the legislation authorizing the Troubled Asset Relief Program required the administration to come up with a way to recover money spent to save the financial system."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (January 15, 2010 8:49 am ET)
      4  
      With Fox & Friends as your Buddies, who needs Enemies.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 15, 2010 8:53 am ET)
      3  
      "Never attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity."

      This is part of my personal philopsophy.

      Unfortunately, implying THIS LEVEL OF STUPIDITY in someone would constitute an act of malice on my part.

      --------------------------------------------------------------
      Conservtaives can only be either evil or stupid: Some lie, the rest buy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (January 15, 2010 8:56 am ET)
      5  
      Oh, come one...I'm sure FOX&Friends will promptly issue a correction and an apology. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (January 15, 2010 10:04 am ET)
        4  
        Yeah, this will be a great chance to enforce their new "zero tolerance" policy for on-air errors.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 15, 2010 9:12 am ET)
      2  
      I speak economic-ese rather than financial-ese, and I did my best to find what would fall under the category of "covered liabilities" for the eligible banks, but couldn't. Would mortgage loans, for instance, be in this category? If so, wouldn't this fee stifle lending? If not, what sort of items are covered? Investments? Swaps?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by punkin (January 15, 2010 9:29 am ET)
      4  
      one might think that Fair and Balanced (snickering) is blatantly lying again..... but I'm not so sure. They probably have no idea what "basis points" means, they hear the number 15 and ASSuME it means a straight 15%
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 15, 2010 10:00 am ET)
        1  
        And you know what they say about that method of coming to a conclusion...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 15, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
        2  
        I assume it could have been an honest mistake. We'll know if it was one when they issue a correction. Without that correction, I'll never believe it wasn't intentional.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sdlnkicker4551 (January 15, 2010 9:44 am ET)
        2
      Dexter,
      Thanks for the excellent question. Does anybody have any answers?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TX (January 15, 2010 10:19 am ET)
        2
      Fee "levied on the debts of financial firms with more than $50 billion in consolidated assets," regardless of TARP participation.

      why would banks that DID NOT take tarp money be taxed??
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 15, 2010 10:29 am ET)
        1  
        It's a "too big to fail" prevention tax.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 15, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
        3  
        If you'd read MMFA's piece, you'd know the answer to that question.

        Why should we treat you like a baby?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (January 15, 2010 10:31 am ET)
      1 6
      This has to be one of the dumbest things I think this Administration has ever done. Even if a bank did not need TARP money they will be punished for doing good business. What industry is next? Medical Companies, Oil Companies, Communication Companies? These are private companies, the government does not have the right to just levee a fine cause they do not like how much they pay their employees.

      Then you get this side deal for the Unions not having to pay a tax on a Cadillac plans for min till 2018, really so a company gives there employees a nice health plan but since they are not in a Union they get taxed, this government is out of control. How much more corruption will you except, side deals, under the table deals, no transparency.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 15, 2010 10:34 am ET)
        1  
        1. It only applies to banks with over $50 billion in assets (read: "too big to fail."

        2. It can be avoided by having less liabilities.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 16, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
             
          These too big to fail banks should never have been allowed to become the monstrosity they are today. Get your money out of the big banks until they are regulated and/or broken up. They are the enemy of a vibrant economy.

          I was in the banking industry for eight years. I got out when the small, community bank I worked for began taking on some of the larger banks' tricks of taking money from their working class customers. "Free checking", "Free overdraft protection" that is required with any account. These were all scams to rip off the bank's own customers. When we instituted "free checking" with "free overdraft protection" our revenues climbed almost 9% because of all the fees we were piling on to our own customers.

          This is not what banks should exist for. There is a service for them to provide. Finding tricky ways to levy fees against their own customers is not that service. Leveraging themselves at 35-1 in order to make money off of bogus monetary transactions is not that service.

          Regulation has been sorely lacking in the banking industry since the early 90s. The entire thing imploded and it appears to me that we are still not going to give regulation any teeth. I have no love for these charlatans and if we are going to tax them, I will not feel bad. But, taxing them is not the answer. Regulating them is the answer. It was done correctly before and we can get there again.

          Credit card companies need to be regulated more closely. Banks need to be regulated more closely. And payday loan companies need to be put out of business. Let the loan sharks handle that business, they were much more honest anyways.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (January 15, 2010 11:19 am ET)
        1  
        What would be wrong with instituting similar fees on medical/oil/communications companies?

        Or would you like to see an even larger Exxon Corporation? How about Blue Cross/Blue Shield doubling in size? What might that do to your health insurance rates?

        There was a time not long ago when limiting the colossal growth of businesses was considered good for consumers and for our economy.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 15, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
          2  
          The fee isn't a penalty from an administration that just doesn't like "big" businesses. The banks, holders of mortgages, savings & checking, investments and capital can do massive damage to the economy if they flounder...so the fee is there to discourage them from bringing on onerous liability.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (January 15, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
            1  
            Thanks for boiling it down, Dex. Unfortunately, those masochistic types who reflexively jump to the defense of the entities who would love to eat them alive may not be swayed by that sort of common sense.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (January 15, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
              2
            Dex, FYI, the Government also hold mortages (Freddie & Fannie) Investments, Capital as well. They are more in debt then any bank right now and do not pay such fees. Sounds like to me it is time for the Government to get out of all of these types of holdings and let the private sector take over. The whole reason the banks had issues in the first place, is the government put pressure on them to lend to those that did not have the means to pay back the money they borrowed.

            This Fee (TAX) is simply saying these companies make too much money, they pay the top folks too much money and it is not fair. Well here is a bit if news to you all, life is not fair.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by sjw (January 15, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
              1  
              Sorry, the BS indicator is going off. As someone who works in the investment arena, it's a known fact that banks borrowed at very cheap short term rates, and loaned out at higher long term rates. In other words, the banks leveraged the heck out of their balance sheets. When a bank is 30% leveraged, it only takes a 3% default rate to bring down the house of cards. And when the real estate bubble burst, we saw what happened. And to blame this on govt pressure to lend, is just plain lunacy. It was greed - pure and simple.

              The banks are smart people - they knew they could drive up the short term profits, get paid, and let someone else pick up the tab. Deregulation was THE biggest contributing factor - only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question. What about all those commercial real estate ventures - those were private deals and had nothing to do with lending to the poor.

              So please, get your facts straight before posting. If a bank is deemed to big to fail (i.e - the tax), then they need to pony up the money to make sure it doesn't happen.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 16, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
                1  
                You are correct, sjw. But, mark never brings any facts and he is never correct. Even when proven wrong, he never admits anything. He just moves onto the next line of bull.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 15, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
        3  
        All big banks benefitted from some banks getting rescued with TARP money.

        So all big banks will be taxed.

        This is not rocket science.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.