Sunday, May 23, 2010

EPA May Not Force BP to Change Dispersants

A day after the Environmental Protection Agency gave BP 72 hours to start using a "less toxic" dispersant to help control the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the agency told ABC News today it may allow BP to keep using the same chemicals.

The oil company is accused of dishonesty and use of a toxic chemical dispersant.

The EPA on Thursday gave BP 24 hours to find a better dispersant and 72 hours to begin using it.

The EPA said testing had determined that the use of the dispersant Corexit had killed up to 25 percent of all organisms living at 500 feet below the surface in areas where the dispersant was used. A top BP executive defended the use of Corexit on "Good Morning America" today.

"The EPA had to approve and the Unified Command and the Coast Guard had to approve the use of that product. It is approved and in fact we've been using it and it has been effective," BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles told "Good Morning America" today. "It's making a difference in this fight to try and keep this stuff from coming to shore."

Though Suttles said BP will continue to search for a better alternative, he said "right now we cannot identify another product that is available that's better than [dispersant] Corexit."

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy told ABC News today, "It's not that Corexit is banned. It's not that they have to stop using it because they're using it right now. But it's just that they need to switch over."

If the 72-hour window passes without a suitable alternative found, the EPA will demand BP prove it investigated a number of alternatives and explain why they were not chosen, according to Thursday's statement. Beyond that, the EPA would not comment on consequences of a missed deadline.

EPA made its demand for a "less toxic" dispersant Thursday after criticism grew over the effects of Corexit.

"Any living organism that contacts this stuff, particularly the mixture of dispersant and oil, is at significant risk of acute mortality," said marine biologist Rick Steiner.

Suttles said he had not seen any evidence of the toll the dispersant is taking on marine life, he admitted that using the chemicals involves "tradeoffs."

"I haven't seen any evidence to show that," Suttles said today. "We're doing extensive monitoring as is NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the EPA."

FDIC: 'Problem' Banks at 775

WASHINGTON—A total of 775 banks, or one-tenth of all U.S. banks, were on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s list of "problem" institutions in the first quarter, as bad loans in the commercial real-estate market weighed on bank balance sheets.

Poor loan performance in other sectors also continued to hurt banks, with the total number of loans at least three months past due climbing for the 16th consecutive quarter, FDIC officials said in a briefing on Thursday.

"The banking system still has many problems to work through, and we cannot ignore the possibility of more financial market volatility," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said.

There were 702 on the FDIC's "problem" bank list at the end of 2009 and 252 at the end of 2008.

FDIC officials said they expected the number of failed banks to peak this year after climbing steadily over the past three years. Regulators have shut 72 banks so far this year, more than double the number closed by this time last year. Ms. Bair said regulators were preparing for a steady pace of additional closures through the end of the year. A total of 237 banks have failed since the beginning of 2008.

The failures continue to strain the FDIC's fund to protect consumer deposits, although officials signaled they were confident they had enough cash on hand to deal with the expected spate of failures, without having to assess new fees on the banking industry. The agency's deposit insurance fund stood at negative-$20.7 billion at the end of the first quarter, a slight improvement from the end of 2009.

"We have the necessary industry-funded resources to complete the cleanup," Ms. Bair said, in a reference to the fees that the agency assesses on banks for insuring their deposits.

Banks, squeezed by problem loans and the continued recession, responded by reducing their lending. The industry's total loan balances grew by 3% during the quarter, but the increase was due to accounting changes that required banks to bring securitized assets back onto their balance sheets. Without taking into account these accounting changes, lending would have declined for the seventh straight quarter, as banks cut back across most major lending categories.

"There is a lot of credit distress still in the mortgage-portfolio area," FDIC Chief Economist Richard Brown said at the FDIC briefing.

FDIC officials said they saw some signs for optimism. The total $18 billion, first-quarter profit reported by U.S. banks and thrifts was the highest since the first three months of 2008 and more than triple the profit recorded in the first quarter of last year. More than half of insured banks reported growth in net income during the quarter—the highest level in more than three years—and firms set aside less money to reserve for future losses.

The FDIC data suggested that the largest U.S. banks were faring better than their smaller rivals. The former enjoyed the largest year-over-year increase in earnings and saw the biggest reduction in loan-loss reserves, or the money they must set aside to account for future, expected losses on loans. Ms. Bair said the rate of decline in lending by larger banks also slowed in each of the past two quarters.

Courts quash cuts, add to state's budget woes

(05-22) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - -- Courts in recent years have crushed attempts by California to cut spending by billions of dollars and have forced the state to spend hundreds of millions more than planned.

Designated cuts to health and human services that were rejected by federal courts alone have resulted in $4.5 billion in lost savings over the past three years, according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration.

Prison health care costs have doubled to more than $1.9 billion since 2006, when a federal judge ordered a federal receiver to take control of prison health services.

"The judicial branch is now a full player in the budget because the decisions they are making have an impact on what the governor and Legislature can or cannot do," said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance. "The judiciary does not have to deal with the fiscal consequence of the rulings - they say you can't do a spending reduction, but we have to come up with another $100 million in cuts somewhere else."

This year, the Republican governor is blaming the courts for some of the most controversial cuts contained in his budget proposal for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. He says judges' mandates left him no option but to propose the wholesale elimination of programs, including welfare.

The governor is also seeking relief from the nation's highest court. On May 13, Schwarzenegger announced that 22 states joined California to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review court decisions that blocked states from reducing public services. The states want a ruling barring suits by private parties against cuts to programs that are funded jointly by the state and federal government.

Among the court cases California lost this year is one in which federal judges blocked the planned reduction of Adult Day Health Care services, a Medi-Cal program that provides nearly 37,000 elderly and mentally infirm Californians with daytime care and supervision. Schwarzenegger wanted to reduce eligibility and limit the number of days the program is provided to save the state more than $35 million over three years.

Some of the groups that filed the lawsuits said they had no choice because elected officials failed to do their jobs or took actions that were blatantly illegal.

Change needed

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento - who supported an unsuccessful suit to fight Schwarzenegger's line-item veto cuts last year - said the "myriad of lawsuits speak to how desperately this structure of government needs to be changed."

"The things we can do under this broken system are stitches and Band-Aids, and that's why this year we're out of those options," Steinberg said. "The (court orders affecting prisons) are symptomatic of a larger problem - the desire for more but an unwillingness to confront the costs of providing more."

The problem won't be going away any time soon, even if reforms to the budget process are made.

Numerous court cases are still pending, including more than two dozen lawsuits challenging Schwarzenegger's furloughs of more than 200,000 state workers. Those cases threaten to punch even bigger holes in the state budget in the future. In the furlough case, a judge has warned that the workers might be entitled to back pay.

On Thursday, school districts and parents announced a lawsuit against the state arguing that elected officials have failed in their constitutional obligation to adequately fund public schools. The suit could take years to adjudicate, but if successful, could completely change how much money California must pump into public education. Longtime observers say there's nothing new about the budget being carved up by lawsuits. Court challenges tend to increase during tough budget times, said Santa Clara University law school Professor Gerald Uelmen.

"I don't think this is a new phenomenon - budget cuts frequently result in lawsuits," he said.

Some suits necessary

Some suits are necessary because there's a lack of political will to pour funding into certain areas, said Jeanne Woodford, a former director of the California Department of Corrections who worked for the department for more than 25 years. She said that a number of lawsuits filed by the nonprofit Prison Law Office on behalf of California inmates have resulted in necessary reforms, including the federal receivership overseeing health care and the oversight of mental health and dental programs.

The receivership was created in 2006 after a judge ruled that inadequate care was causing the premature deaths of about 50 inmates a year. "Sometimes it really takes a lawsuit to make things happen, for a variety of reasons, the primary one being it's not politically correct to spend money on prisons," said Woodford.

Don Specter, director of the Prison Law Center, said state prison officials agreed that changes made as a result of one suit were "helpful and necessary" and would not have happened without a court order.

AIG Executives Won't Face Criminal Charges

Federal prosecutors will not bring criminal charges against current and former American International Group Inc. executives for their role surrounding financial contracts that nearly brought down the insurer about two years ago, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision brings to a close a criminal investigation that, while mostly under wraps, was widely followed. The September 2008 bailout of AIG was one of the biggest and most shocking of the financial crisis, as trading by a noninsurance unit brought down one of the most iconic financial companies world-wide.

The probe focused on Joseph Cassano, who headed a London-based unit of AIG called Financial Products, people familiar with the matter have said. Other executives at the unit, Andrew Forster and Tom Athan, also were targets of the investigation, these people said.

"The system worked," said lawyers F. Joseph Warin and Jim Walden of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who represent Mr. Cassano, in a statement on Friday. "The large group of federal agents and prosecutors was diligent and professional throughout the investigation, and our client is grateful that they did their jobs by following the facts to the end."

David M. Brodsky and Richard Owens of Latham & Watkins LLP, who represented Mr. Forster, said Friday that "the facts were stronger than the emotions surrounding AIG's problems," and that they knew they could convince prosecutors "that our client at all times acted in good faith."

A lawyer for Mr. Athan wasn't reached to comment, nor were representatives for the Justice Department and AIG.

The probe focused on whether the executives deceived investors and the firm's outside auditor about AIG's financial exposure from contracts known as credit-default swaps that were tied in part to mortgages, the people familiar with the matter said.

As of last fall, the Justice Department had been planning to ask a grand jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., to consider indicting Mr. Cassano, people familiar with the matter have said. But after a series of meetings with the targets of their probe, prosecutors obtained information about Mr. Cassano's disclosures to AIG senior executives and AIG's outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. That changed the course of the investigation, these people said. PricewaterhouseCoopers said it wouldn't comment on client matters.

Mr. Cassano, who lives in London, is no longer at AIG. Mr. Forster still works at the firm. Mr. Athan until recently has been at AIG but his status wasn't confirmed Friday night.

The Securities and Exchange Commission hasn't ruled out bringing a civil-fraud lawsuit for securities violations, people familiar with the matter said.

About 15 government representatives have been involved in the investigation, including prosecutors from the Justice Department's fraud section in Washington and the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn; lawyers from the Securities and Exchange Commission; and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, people familiar with the matter said.

AIG Financial Products entered into insurance-like contracts with other financial institutions that ended up being financially disastrous for AIG. When the mortgage market imploded, AIG had to hand over tens of billions of dollars worth of collateral to financial institutions that had entered into the contracts, known as credit-default swaps, with AIG. These collateral calls nearly felled the company and led to a massive government bailout that has generated intense public outrage and political scrutiny.

The Justice Department so far has had little success proving there was criminal wrongdoing at financial companies amid the financial crisis. In the first and only securities-fraud case against Wall Street executives in the wake of the credit crisis, two former hedge-fund managers at Bear Stearns were acquitted at trial after being accused of misleading their investors before their funds collapsed.

But efforts continue. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are currently probing whether any large Wall Street firms misled investors about complex, mortgage-related derivatives, people familiar with the matter have said.

Sell in May and Run Away . . . Fast

There is an old phrase regarding stock market investing: "Sell in May and go away." Recent markets have reinforced that saying.

Stock markets all over the world are falling. The first market to begin falling was China's. It peaked in early August of 2009. It struggled back, though not to its August peak, but is now falling. The decline is accelerating. It is down by about 25% in 2010. See the chart here.

The American stock market has been hit hard this month. So have European stock markets. They are plummeting. The charts are here.

Commodity prices are falling – not like a stone, but falling. The peak was in the first week of January. The chart is here.

Consumer prices are falling, just barely, and only if you accept the CPI: down 0.1% in April. If you use the Median CPI, as I do, it was unchanged over the previous two months: flat. More important, the rate of price increases, year to year, is decelerating. In November and December, the Median CPI was up 1.2%. In January, it was up 1%. In April, it was up 0.5%. The figures are here.

Gold is down. Silver is down. Oil is down. The euro is down. Mortgage rates are down. Mortgage applications are down.

The main thing that is up is mortgage payment skipping. At least 10% of American households missed a monthly mortgage payment during the first three months of 2010. This is an all-time high in the post-World War II era. The rate was 9.1% in the first quarter of 2009. It rose to 9.5% in the final quarter. The trend is ominous. Americans will stop making payments on every other category of debt before they skip a mortgage payment. The fact that they are skipping mortgage payments indicates that they are in very tight straits.

What is happening? This is not consistent with Keynesianism. Keynesians did not predict the 2008–9 recession, either. The other schools of economic thought that also did not predict the recession cannot explain why these signs of a secondary recession are taking place today, despite a huge increase in both the monetary base and government deficits.

One school of opinion did predict the 2008–9 recession: the Austrian School. Can Austrian theory explain this new situation?

THE BUSINESS CYCLE

The Austrian theory of the business cycle, developed by Ludwig von Mises in 1912, teaches that when central banks inflate, in order to hold down interest rates, this creates false price signals. Specifically, it creates false signals regarding the price and availability of capital. This in turn leads entrepreneurs to borrow money and invest in new projects. When the central bank ceases to inflate, these projects are revealed as unprofitable ventures.

Around the world in late 2008, central banks inflated massively to save the financial structure. They bought government bonds. They loaned money to commercial banks. The Federal Reserve swapped assets with the largest banks, giving them T-bills at face value and taking back toxic assets without any market for them. This was like trading the family silver for crushed beer cans. Congress said nothing. Keynesian economists cheered Bernanke's brilliance.

The collapse of the largest banks was delayed. Their survival enabled them to swallow the busted giants like Wachovia. The central bank bought bad assets and time. The assets are still bad, and the clock is ticking.

Had commercial banks lent out the money they were legally allowed to lend, we would be in hyperinflation today. I define hyperinflation as price increases above 30% per annum. The FED doubled its balance sheet and therefore monetary base.

Commercial banks are legally allowed to double their loans, which would double the money supply. The bankers are so terrified of this economy that they have refused to lend. They have run up excess reserves at the FED of $1.2 trillion, thereby offsetting the FED's comparable run-up of the monetary base.

The deficits of all major nations are massive today. The governments are borrowing money to bail out their economies. But the money is being wasted. It is going for politically acceptable boondoggles and payoffs to special interests. It is not funding projects to meet consumer demand.

These policies of monetary inflation, government debt, and political boondoggles are the essence of Keynesianism. They are known politically as kick the can. The essence of Keynesianism is for governments to borrow massively in order to solve the problems created by previous less massive borrowing by governments, entrepreneurs, and consumers.

The economic recovery is based on the idea that it is productive to substitute government borrowing and spending for private borrowing and spending. The Keynesian believes that the private sector will not borrow until entrepreneurs perceive future customer demand. Keynesians believe that politicians are capable of restoring economic growth by spending money on pet projects.

Whenever entrepreneurs who have their own money or borrowed money on the line conclude that the likelihood of losing it is just too high until production goods and labor get cheaper, Keynesians call on government to borrow, central banks to inflate, and consumers to spend, spend, spend. Why? In order to keep production goods from getting cheaper and labor from get cheaper. Why? Because when production goods get cheaper, corporate donations to the opposition party's PACs increase. When labor gets cheaper, voters vote for the opposition party.

All over the world, politicians are using borrowed money and newly created money to keep the prices of production goods from falling. This worked until early January. It is no longer working. Commodity prices are falling. They will continue to fall. Why? Because commercial bankers are not lending, and businesses are not borrowing. The American labor market is still crippled. With unemployment in the 10% range, delayed mortgage payments are in the 10% range. Will wonders never cease?

JIM VS. JIM

Jim Rogers is bullish on China. Jim Chanos is bearish on China's real estate market. Jim Rogers is bullish on commodities. Jim Chanos has sold short companies that export to China's real estate sector.

Jim Rogers says he is no market timer. Jim Chanos is a supreme market timer, for he sells short. He sold Enron short.

I'm with Chanos. That's because I came to the same conclusion regarding China's real estate bubble before Chanos announced his position. Chanos agrees with me, so of course I'm with Chanos.

China's economy is the ultimate schizophrenic monster. It has free choice for individuals to buy and sell. People can move. It has a Communist elite, which is committed to maintaining power, no matter what. It has a central bank that is under the thumb of the central government, which inflates constantly. It has corruption on a massive scale at the local political level. It has a traditional family structure, despite Marxism/Maoism, whose members see the preservation of family capital as a central goal.

This has combined to create the mother of all real estate bubbles. Tiny condos in Beijing and Shanghai sell at $400 per square foot. Who is buying these condos? Newlyweds whose combined income is under $6,000 a year. How is this possible? Because newly rich parents and grandparents are putting up the money. These investments are senseless as third-party loans, but inside the families, these wealth transfers are considered rational.

All over China, there has been massive building of apartments and condos. The central bank lends money to banks, which in turn lend to politically favored developers at low rates. The municipal authorities sell land at high prices to developers.

This has created a bubble. This bubble is consistent with Austrian economic theory. Central bank inflation leads to commercial bank lending to fund uneconomic projects. Low interest rates lure in entrepreneurs. They invest capital.

This drives up the costs of construction. When the central bank finally ceases to expand the monetary base, the boom will turn into a bust. The fact that condo buyers do not borrow money from local banks is economically irrelevant. What matters is that developers borrow to build them. The newlyweds borrow from their families.

Investors are buying multiple condos. They then hold them off the market, on the assumption that a new condo will appreciate faster. So, these condos' pricing is not based on their ability to produce a stream of long-term revenue. They are purchased as pure speculations. The mania is in full force. This is the classic mark of the final stage of a real estate bubble. Those caught up in it cannot see that it cannot go on. They think this is the last train out. They borrow from their relatives to buy a ticket.

Chanos has seen that this cannot go on much longer.

RECOVERY OR ILLUSION?

The decline in commodity prices since January is consistent with the re-trenching of entrepreneurs. They are convinced that prices of final goods will hit a brick wall next year. They do not trust the economy. They see consumer prices going flat. They see that they will be trapped if they expand their operations.

The recovery in manufacturing in the United States is real. The producers are expanding output. But the fall in commodities indicates that this optimism is not worldwide. Commodity prices should be rising, as manufacturers around the world bid up prices in an attempt to secure greater quantities in order to convert them into final products. The opposite is happening. Commodity prices are falling.

Investors must decide. Should they buy commodities, as Jim Rogers recommends, or should they short them? Chanos has shorted some of them – those related to China's real estate boom.

I do not trust this recovery. That is why I did not recommend buying commodities in 2009. I think that until commercial bankers regain their confidence and begin lending, this recovery will hit a brick wall. This will be a wall of resistance by final buyers. I look at what has happened to consumer prices, and I conclude that my skepticism a year ago was correct.

There can be mass inflation. It is assured when commercial bankers pull their excess reserves out of the FED and begin to lend. The doubled monetary base will become a doubled M1 and a rising money multiplier. The FED in this sense has created a time bomb for the economy. It is still ticking, because of the pessimism of commercial bankers. They are not lending, especially to small businesses, which historically do most of the new hiring.

The decline in commodity prices is consistent with the decline of the rate of increase in the price indexes. Consumer prices have decelerated. The CPI and Median CPI are flat. The increase in commodity prices that took place in 2009 in expectation of a V-shaped recovery ended in early January. When you see this for the year, you can see when optimism collapsed.

The entrepreneurs who make their money by forecasting prices, and therefore final demand for the goods produced by commodities, decided in January that this recovery could not be trusted to provide increasing demand. They began selling commodity futures. At the margin, they decided that it was wiser to be short than long.

Maybe they were wrong. Maybe the worldwide recovery will continue. But if it does, it will be marked by low or no price inflation. It is not that the fall in commodity prices will create falling consumer prices. It is that falling commodity prices fell because entrepreneurs saw low or no price inflation coming in 2010. They quite bidding to buy.

CONCLUSION

The expansion of central bank money, used to buy bad assets and save companies that should have been allowed to fail, was a frantic response to a looming breakdown of large New York banks and financial institutions. The capital markets were vetoing central bank policies, and the central bank's bureaucrats fought back with fiat money.

The toxic debt has replaced Treasury debt on the FED's balance sheet. With a $1.5 trillion Federal deficit scheduled for this year, the FED has been content to stop inflating and let the private sector fund the deficit. This money could have gone into the private sector. That it did not is an indicator of the fragility of the recovery.

The world's capital markets are vetoing the central bankers' policies and the politicians' policies. This may change. Confidence may return. But the fiasco that is the Greek government has triggered the response of frantic and terrified politicians in the north of Europe. They did the Keynesian thing. They promised a huge bailout. It is clear that they will do it again if required. It will be required.

To call this recovery fragile is facing facts. This week, fear is dominant. What the central bankers and the politicians can do to restore confidence is not clear. Europe has shot its fiscal wad. Another round will send a message: "Bailouts forever." The same dilemma faces Bernanke.

Politicians play kick the can. Commercial bankers will force Bernanke's hand when they start lending. So far, markets say they won't. The experts are saying this recovery is unlikely to last. They are saying that consumers are tapped out. That is bad news for Keynesians. With tapped-out consumers, the Keynesians must recommend another round of huge deficits. I thought $1.5 trillion was a lot of annual deficit. Apparently, I'm too conservative.

Scandals The Looting of Greece

Greeks were exhilarated in 1981 when Andreas Papandreou and his Socialist Party swept to power. Their enthusiasm has long since turned to bitterness and disbelief as the worst financial and political scandal in four decades engulfs Greece. The press, the Bank of Greece, a magistrate and Parliament are delving into charges of corruption, seeking to uncover how more than $210 million disappeared from the Bank of Crete. Charges of embezzlement, kickbacks and bribery, of banknotes stuffed into briefcases, have been leveled against high officials.

The scandal has scorched the Socialist Party (PASOK), and public cynicism has increasingly focused on the party's leader, Papandreou himself. The Prime Minister last September was already the target of snickering and outrage as he conducted a highly public extramarital liaison with airline flight steward Dimitra Liani, 34. As the parliamentary investigations dug through testimony, the question loomed: Was the Prime Minister aware of the crime all along?

Papandreou has not testified before investigators, though he vehemently denies any involvement in what he calls a "conspiracy aiming to hurt Greece." But investigators have yet to hear from the central figure in the case, George Koskotas, 34, a onetime New York house painter who vaulted to power as the multimillionaire owner of the Bank of Crete. Now jailed in Massachusetts on a variety of charges leveled just before he fled Greece last November, Koskotas is facing extradition to answer accusations of looting his own bank.

Amid more than a dozen lawsuits, much has come out about the vast scandal, but most Greeks believe there is far more to be revealed -- by one man in particular. Given his central role in the affair, Koskotas' version of the dirty dealings could prove to be an imperfect account. Apparently nothing will be resolved until the public has weighed his tale. "At this point," says a frustrated former PASOK member, "we are all waiting to hear what Koskotas has to say."

A plump man with steady dark eyes and a soft voice, Koskotas is no common embezzler. In addition to the Bank of Crete, he owned Grammi, a flourishing publishing empire that operated five magazines, three newspapers and a radio station. He bankrolled big hotels. A year ago, he bought Greece's wildly popular soccer team, Olympiakos. He created one of the world's most advanced printing plants. And until he fled Greece, Koskotas consorted freely with the country's ruling Socialist leaders. At 34, George Koskotas, the Greek wunderkind, had achieved a dazzling reputation in his own land.

Now inside a Salem, Mass., prison, Koskotas has finally decided to talk. His chief motivation, he explains, is a fear that once extradited to Greece he will disappear behind bars -- or be murdered and declared a suicide and thus be unable to present his own version of what happened. He figures his fate in Greece will be worse if Papandreou remains in power; so his motive for speaking may also be to wound the government.

The Koskotas accusations are extraordinary, though difficult to verify. In six lengthy prison interviews with TIME, the banker describes a Socialist government riddled by extortion and criminality. Koskotas charges that millions of dollars missing from his bank were actually payoffs that went directly to the head of the government, Andreas Papandreou, and PASOK officials. The Prime Minister, says the banker, personally authorized the plan to loot the Bank of Crete. Koskotas describes as well his own illegal complicity in the huge swindle, one that involves enormous sums hard to account for adequately.

The plot was an audacious one. To create the pool of crooked money, PASOK leaders had for three years ordered state-managed corporations such as the Post Office, the Organization of Urban Transportation and the State Pharmaceutical Co. to transfer large bank deposits -- the country's money, in effect -- out of the big national banks into the Bank of Crete, then the / smallest private bank in the country. There, Koskotas says, he arranged for the government deposits to draw an exceptionally low rate of interest, only 2% or 3%. Bank savings accounts in Greece routinely draw 15% interest. The excess interest earned on the government deposits was siphoned off and went straight to the politicians, he says. In addition, protected and encouraged by Papandreou, Koskotas secretly plowed Bank of Crete funds into his magazines and newspapers.

In the past year, says Koskotas, some 40 shipments of money, in blue briefcases stuffed with 5,000-drachma notes, were carted out of the Bank of Crete and taken first to his own residence. There the banker handed the money over to a Papandreou confidant, Georgios Louvaris, who Koskotas says made the deliveries to the Prime Minister. Pickups occurred weekly and amounted over the year to more than 3 billion drachmas ($20 million at today's rates). In addition, Koskotas claims he personally carried a total of half a billion drachmas ($3.3 million) to the home of a Deputy Prime Minister, Menios Koutsogiorgas. At the Bank of Crete half a dozen other PASOK leaders twice a month received briefcases filled with money totaling 1.5 billion drachmas ($10 million).

There was little danger of interference. Fifty different national audits of the Bank of Crete that might have uncovered the scheme were squelched over the years by PASOK officials, says Koskotas, twice by direct calls from Papandreou. In the summer of 1988, the government muscled through a special Secrecy Act that had the effect of guaranteeing its overdrawn banker financial confidentiality. Koskotas says he was directed to pay an additional $2 million to then Deputy Prime Minister Koutsogiorgas as a reward for managing the legislation.

The dank atmosphere that nurtured this tangle of alleged corruption began after the Socialists' re-election in 1985. Papandreou was eager to tighten his grip on the country. He found a perfect match in the ambitious young publisher and banker Koskotas, who saw in PASOK a means to build an empire.

Now, sitting in the library of the Salem prison, Koskotas recalled the beginnings of a relationship that led to his ruin. He wore a blue pullover sport shirt and blue jeans, white leather sneakers on his feet. Koskotas had squeezed his big waist into a one-armed desk chair.

In his lap he balanced a pile of tape transcripts and letters he had carried out of Greece as evidence. From time to time he ran his finger across the * pages of his old appointment book, picking out entries of meetings with the Prime Minister and other key government officials.

He remembers the meetings with Papandreou vividly, five times alone in the Prime Minister's home at Kastri, once at the home of a Papandreou intimate, Michalis Ziangas. At the first meeting in early 1986, Koskotas recalls, the Prime Minister had a proposal: Koskotas should start a daily newspaper to provide positive coverage of the Papandreou family. Koskotas later put up the money, and the first issue of the paper, called 24 Hours, appeared in February 1988.

The Prime Minister always seemed to possess inside information. Papandreou, says the banker, taps the home and business telephones of such rivals as the head of the political opposition, New Democracy's Constantine Mitsotakis, and unfriendly publishers. "I know all their plans," he proudly told Koskotas.

Papandreou came to assume that Grammi's national magazines and newspapers really served him. Certain Papandreou favorites were hired as editors. Says Koskotas: "All our editors were instructed never to criticize the Prime Minister personally, not even a single cartoon." Papandreou urged Koskotas to neutralize hostile newspapers by buying them up gradually. At their second meeting in early 1987, Papandreou pressed Koskotas to buy Kathimerini, the country's most respected paper; he did, using Bank of Crete funds.

Another time Papandreou had an unexpected idea: Koskotas should purchase the Olympiakos football team. Papandreou, according to Koskotas, wanted the banker to build up the team, so that just before the 1989 election the government would agree to build Olympiakos a new stadium, an announcement certain to be highly popular. Koskotas laid out 4 billion drachmas for the plan.

Koskotas' first ambition, he says, was to enlarge the Bank of Crete. Private banks routinely had to wait at least a year for authorization to open a single branch. But the Bank of Crete opened about 50 branches in four years, and licenses were granted for an additional 20. Sure of his political shield, Koskotas was unafraid to violate banking laws and withdraw huge sums of cash at will. If Koskotas worried aloud about audits, Papandreou was always reassuring. "So long as I am here," Koskotas says Papandreou told him, "you never have to worry."

Koskotas said little of his early years, but he was a young man drawn to risk. Born in 1954 in Greece, he came to America with his parents in 1970. "George was very ambitious," says his wife Kathy, whom he married in 1973. "His mind was always working."

At New York University, that overactive mind seemed to be hunting for angles. Koskotas ordered a batch of N.Y.U. and Fordham University stationery from a printer. He said he wanted to send reprimanding letters to some student friends as a prank. The university believed he intended to create fake transcripts. He was arrested, fined $200 and asked to leave school.

Not satisfied with all his claimed wealth, he continued to indulge his compulsion for risk taking, and it backfired badly. Koskotas obtained fake Social Security numbers for several of his painters who were illegal aliens -- federal prosecutors charge that he created fictitious names -- and then used them in efforts to collect unemployment insurance claims and income tax refunds. In 1979, before Koskotas was indicted by the U.S. Attorney, he returned to Greece with his wife and four children. A year later, in 1980, the U.S. formally charged him with stealing $40,000. In the years that followed, Koskotas traveled back and forth numerous times to America, always unaware he was under indictment, he claims. Long after, the incident would rise up to haunt him.

Back in Greece, still only 25, he landed a job as an administrative officer at the Bank of Crete. Five years later, in late 1984 when the Bank of Crete came up for purchase at $9 million, Koskotas somehow produced a bankroll big enough to buy it. He knew exactly where he wanted to go. The Socialists were immersed in an election and Koskotas was determined to curry favor. Within a few months he hired as bank general manager a PASOK veteran, Panayotis Vakalis, whom he knew to be a longtime friend of Andreas Papandreou's. The connection eventually brought the young banker and the Prime Minister together. The great swindle was under way.

For two years, says Koskotas, payoffs went to the party, none to Papandreou himself. Then a pivotal event occurred. In October 1987, Koskotas traveled to Washington to attend a White House luncheon at which Vice President George Bush was the host. Secret Service agents, checking invitations, were surprised to discover that the guest from Greece was under a six-year-old federal indictment. They arrested Koskotas at his Washington hotel. The banker posted bail of $1 million. A few days later, to get home, Koskotas lied to Greek embassy officials and obtained a travel document.

Only three weeks later, Koskotas says, he was summoned by Papandreou. It was apparent to Koskotas that something was wrong. Sternly the Prime Minister warned that because of the passport violation, Koskotas might have to go to jail. Eventually Papandreou declared Koskotas need not worry. But there were certain requirements. An election was coming, the Prime Minister stressed, and PASOK needed 5 billion drachmas ($33 million). Thereupon, says Koskotas, Papandreou bluntly described a much expanded plan for kicking back interest payments. Koskotas, he directed, should work out the details with Deputy Prime Minister Koutsogiorgas. Says Koskotas, sounding surprisingly disingenuous: "I realized it was outright blackmail." Until then he had rationalized that the stolen interest payments to PASOK were simply the political cost of doing business in Greece.

Two weeks later, Koskotas says, the first direct request for money came by telephone from Papandreou. The Prime Minister wanted 200 million drachmas ($1.3 million), purportedly to pay the expenses for a PASOK youth festival. Georgios Louvaris would drop by. In the following months, says Koskotas, Papandreou made two other personal calls for cash, each for 150 million drachmas ($1 million), for what he described as PASOK events. Otherwise the Prime Minister received a weekly delivery of around 75 million drachmas.

Soon Koskotas found the requests from Papandreou and Koutsogiorgas bolder -- and more personal. Papandreou wanted to squelch a critical memoir by his first wife, Christine, a psychiatrist. Through foreign book agents, Koskotas paid out $90,000 and tied up world rights to the book. Papandreou raised another problem. The Prime Minister, then 69, was keeping company with Dimitra Liani, a buxom airline hostess half his age. The weekly newspaper Evdomi, Papandreou complained, kept turning up nude photographs of Dimitra. Within a month Koskotas had bought Evdomi, and three months later he shut it down. Then there was Margaret, the second wife Papandreou wanted to divorce. He said that Margaret, absurdly, wanted a settlement of $100 million. Koskotas heard himself say he could over a period of time put together $10 million to $20 million as a start.

In August 1988 the Prime Minister suddenly flew to London for triple-bypass heart surgery. The day before Papandreou left, Koskotas says, Louvaris came to pick up the customary cash, a suitcase of 90 million drachmas ($600,000). After the surgery, Papandreou for the first time made public what many already knew: his relationship with Liani. That further undermined his slipping political standing. Rumors of the Koskotas money connection were also circulating; now opponents called for a reckoning.

The governor of the Bank of Greece started to press for a special audit of the Bank of Crete. Koutsogiorgas told Koskotas that the investigation could not be stopped. Fearing abandonment, Koskotas made a last threat. "If I am destroyed," he says he told Koutsogiorgas, "we'll all be destroyed. You know what they will find at the bank."

Soon 40 secret service agents were keeping a discreet surveillance over Koskotas. He began to think he might be killed. One day a friend in Greek intelligence told him he would be arrested by 6:30 that evening; Koskotas fled. He slipped out of his printing plant unseen, hidden in the back of one of his newspaper delivery trucks, to start a desperate journey across three continents. Three weeks later he fetched up in the U.S., where he was apprehended.

Locked in the Salem prison and fighting extradition, George Koskotas started to get advice to keep quiet from old accomplices. One of them, Yannis Mantzouranis, former secretary to the Greek Cabinet, sounded especially anxious to learn if the prisoner was going to talk. Mantzouranis, Koskotas says, was still holding a $2 million payoff to Koutsogiorgas in a Swiss bank account. The existence of the account would implicate him.

Hoping to entrap Mantzouranis, Koskotas instructed his wife to make tape recordings of the phone calls from Athens. The objective was to goad the unwitting Cabinet secretary into telling more about PASOK corruption. Mantzouranis warns of the consequences of saying too much. "I know them better than George," he says of his PASOK colleagues. "They wouldn't hesitate to do anything."

Mantzouranis relates how his own life has changed drastically. "You must understand that I am in danger," he says. "I do not circulate at night. I no longer live at my house."

In jail, listening to the cassette, Koskotas heard the fright in the caller's voice. It was an echo of his own fears. Mantzouranis had an important message to pass on: Koutsogiorgas wants to be certain the prisoner knows what he is doing. "Menios says," the voice from Greece emphasized, "that George should not betray the only people who can help him now." Koskotas pondered silently and for a second felt a twinge of his old power. Then he dismissed the warning. He wanted to talk.

Throughout last week TIME sought comments and answers from government officials -- including Prime Minister Papandreou -- on the accusations in this story. When all refused to be interviewed, a list of questions was submitted to them. TIME did not disclose that it had interviewed Koskotas, but made clear that it was publishing a major story that contained serious and damaging allegations. Papandreou did address the affair in a Feb. 14 memorandum to investigators. He said he met Koskotas only three times, at the banker's initiative, between March 4, 1987, and June 30, 1988, during which the two discussed only Koskotas' business and, later, the accusations against him.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Chart by Joe Lertola

CAPTION: KOSKOTAS' TALE OF CORRUPTION. HE ALLEGES:

THE SCAM

THE PAYOFF

THE INFLUENCE

THE SCANDAL

Severe Poverty Growing Rapidly

The percentage of Americans living in severe poverty – with incomes less than half of the federal poverty line – has reached a 32-year peak. A recent analysis of 2005 census data by McClatchy Newspapers found nearly 16 million Americans living in deep or severe poverty, defined as a family of four with income of $9,903 a year or less and an individual living on less than $5,080 a year.

The analysis found that the number of severely poor people increased by 26 percent between 2000 and 2005, more than 56 percent faster than the rise of poverty in the overall population during those years. Significant increases in severe poverty were found in 28 states and 65 of the country’s 215 largest counties

Washington, D.C. had the highest rate of severely poor people at 10.8 percent, followed by Mississippi and Louisiana at 9.3 and 8.3 percent respectively. Severe poverty was also prevalent along the Mexican border. In raw numbers, California had 1.9 million severely poor people, followed by Texas with 1.6 million, and New York with 1.2 million

Demographically, one out of three severely poor people is under age 17 and almost two out of three are female. A large share of the severely poor consists of female-headed households with children. Nearly two-thirds (10.3 million) of the severely poor are white.

The McClatchy report noted that despite economic expansion and increased worker productivity, corporate profits so outstripped wages and salaries that household income for working families declined every year in the five-year period studied. “These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation’s 37 million poor people into deep poverty – the highest rate since at least 1975,” the newspaper group reported. With the exception of Mexico and Russia, the U.S. directs the smallest portion of its gross domestic product to federal anti-poverty programs than any other country in the world.

Consequently, one in three Americans will experience a year of extreme poverty during his or her adult life, said Mark Rank, a University of Wisconsin at Madison professor who has done long-term research on poverty. “It would appear that for most Americans the question is no longer if, but rather when, they will experience poverty,” said Rank. “In short, poverty has become a routine and unfortunate part of the American life course," Rank wrote in a recent study. "Whether these patterns will continue throughout the first decade of 2000 and beyond is difficult to say ... but there is little reason to think that this trend will reverse itself any time soon."