Add new comment

Hi, I'm trying to understand how it's fair or sensible for the City of Philadelphia to make a deal with JP Morgan Chase to cover the city's cash flow crisis which was caused by the failure of Wall Street in the first place. I feel this loan is exploitative even though the 3% interest rate, that could escalate to 8% in a few months, is less than consumers pay for mortgages, car loans, or credit cards. I feel it's a talking-point detail about JPMC paying back TARP and reality is that taxpayers continue to make multiple gifts to the banks in many different and expensive ways. How can an average person evaluate this decision? The budget saga has been on-going for a year and by now it's very difficult to understand what's fair, incompetent, or corrupt. I personally believe this confusion is by design. What do you think? http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20090902_Nutter_says_loan_to_ease_financial_pinch_is_near.html "JPMorgan, one of the most solvent large U.S. banks, has been offering itself as a friend to a number of states and cities in need, having repaid $25 billion in federal Troubled Asset Recovery Program funds. "We're giving state capitols what they need most - capital," JPMorgan said in an ad that ran earlier this week in national and regional newspapers. The bank approached Philadelphia, which had contacted at least two other banks that declined. Under the loan plan, the city would repay the money at interest rates of 3 percent until Nov. 30 and 8 percent afterward. But Nutter said he expected to refinance the loan before the rate increased. The bills pending before the General Assembly would give the city $700 million in revenue. The unusual borrowing was prompted by the lack of a state budget, which prevents the city from getting more than $100 million in anticipated revenue. Pending legislation would temporarily raise the city sales tax and allow Philadelphia to defer pension payments for two years. City officials opted for the bank loan because they figured Philadelphia couldn't attract investors to fund a "tax-revenue-anticipation note," which last year carried a 2 percent interest rate."