Edvenson Consulting

There are times when it is hard to believe the pathetic employment reality for non-native-Norwegian professionals in Norway. One can be Norwegian-American; it simply does no good: not only will Norwegians not hire well-qualified professionals who immigrate to Norway - that is, into positions consistent with their existing education, experience and general qualifications; if a Norwegian 'can' do the job,' a Norwegian will do the job!

However, apparently, it is perfectly alright to hire Norwegians who are not qualified for jobs – and while doing so, avoid confronting those Norwegians who do take high offices with, er, questions about their own education, experience and specific qualifications for those jobs.

Case in point, and a prefatory remark. I make this case-in-point primarily because, frankly, I am a very well qualified candidate to replace the, er, fraud, Norwegian, Liv Løberg. Thus,

"Dear Interim Director of the Statens Autorisasjonskontor for Helsepersonell (SAFH),( the Norwegian State Office charged with establishing whether health personell are properly authorized to accept specific certifications and eligibility for specific jobs in Norway),

Please accept this blog as an expression of my sincere interest in working as administrasjonssjef of SAFH. I am presently available for full-time employment, and am a candidate well-suited to this position. I have an extensive background in health planning and worked as an administrative law judge in the U.S. I have higher education in law, as well as several years of auditing and management experience. I have been in Norway for over 11 years, took Norwegian classes, and have a good knowledge of Norwegian. I have been working on contract due to underemployment in fields of my past experience, but have many years of appropriate government service for such a position." You get my point.

Remarkably, Liv Løberg held the position noted above, while consistently mis-representing herself to those who have employed her. (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10002237) And the Google versions of her pre-problem CV/resume are now pulled offline. Among the degrees Løberg claimed to have acquired legitimately: a certified nurse, a 3-4 year medical bachelor's degree program; a sivil økonom, a 4-year university business-economics degree from the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH); a master's degree from the London School of Economics; and a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the Queen Mary College in London. (http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00814/falskCV_814089a.jpg) Did she have any of these? No.

Liv Løberg is presently chargable under several laws in Norway, including:

• Document falsification

• Falsification of inquiry by a public authority

• Bedrageri: ie. fraud, swindling.

She has, according to yesterday's Aftenposten, retracted her participation and membership in the FrP political party, Norway's most conservative party. Please, Aftenposten: how hard it is to tell the truth? She was forced out, and everyone knows it. Fact is, Kari Kjønaas Kjos, leader of the Akershus county Frp party, was kind enough to let them put it that way. "Dear Kari, I'd love to get involved in Akershus Frp, too."

But is the case going to be prosecuted? It's not yet clear. Norway has its own rules for democracy, which have something to do with the commonly practiced and well-respected, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

Some are suggesting that Ms. Løberg go to jail. I think this would be highly unfair. After all, once she is in jail, she will have a nice room, a roof over her head, three square meals a day, and possibly even qualify to stay at an open-door, island prison. Perhaps even a 'prison' in a southern Spain paradise.

As to her future, I challenge the government to come up with an especially appropriate response, one that has all of the new judicial concern for 'giving back' to the community that is found to be so appropriate in modern cases of abuse of public trust.

Granted, she will probably claim she can no longer be employed, due to her crushed emotional state. After all, she is now 60, and has been taking everyone for everything she got for all these years. She will, as most Norwegians do, get disability income. She may also be eligible for unemployment income, which as a contractor, I cannot get and never have been able to get, despite my 11 years of under-employment in Norway.

No, there is one thing that Liv Løberg can do that she is qualified to do. She is an authorized CNA (the American title for it). She is authorized and educated as a Certified Nurse Assistant. This is the person, below a nurse, who changes bed-pans, and is permitted to shift the patient's sheets, etcetera. Their role in our society is critical, and, as a good Norwegian knows, no job is a small job nor an unimportant job. In fact, I believe that Liv Løberg should be ordered to work as a Certified Nurse Assistant until her retirement, at which time she can go to jail. She can join the many hundreds of Somali refugees that Norway has been kind enough to import and educate for such life-time jobs. During those years, she can be placed into wage garnishment - for re-payment for her years of fraudulently working at jobs she was not only not qualifed for but no good at.

Once she gets to retirement age, she should be eligible only for those pension points she made while being employed at a legitimate level, not those she accrued while lying about her work qualifications all her life. At this time, all pension credits she gained while being employed at jobs for which she falsely represented herself should be stricken from her record. In all fairness, I would be happy to take those pension points, since I cannot earn any when I am not employed full-time in Norway. I would consider this quite a fair exchange with the State. This would assure that Liv Løberg qualifies for a minimal Norwegian pension. Just what she so richly deserves.

Not too long ago, I was watching BBC World television in Norway. It was a few days after the terrible accident that continues to spill oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Sounding like this was some very difficult issue to understand, the BBC World reporter asked a British Petroleum executive the question on everyone's minds: "What effect will this have on the size of dividends BP shareholders rely on?" He assured her it was not a problem. I was more stunned by the question than the answer. These Brits had obviously never seen the Gulf of Mexico. They had never considered the complex and fragile role this huge bay plays in the global glory of sea life on Earth.

A few days later, I found myself, luckily, admiring some of the Gulf's stunning Florida beaches, pristine, filled with turtle nestings, feeding birds of many species, fish and sea life of every variety. I then heard that President Obama was interested in all ideas related to what to do. Immediately I thought of the lesson my favorite supervisor of all time, Kevin Carhill, taught me, as we audited government operations, management and programs: "Follow the money." This was always excellent advice. I knew what my suggestion to the President would be: Freeze BP's assets now.

And have they been? No. Well, we can assume that, with every passing oil-spilling day, BP is scrambling ever more frantically over their . . . um, money. Let's take a look at what I can find, just up to today, which, frankly, isn't much; I simply don't have the resources; much more investigative effort should be placed on BP financial activity just right now.

That said, 40% of BP is share-owned by UK owners, 33% of that by UK institutions and 7% by UK individuals. Surprisingly, and sadly, 39% of BP is share-owned by US sources, 25% by US institutions and 14% by US individuals. In 2008, BP had replacement cost profit before interest and tax of 26.4 billion USD, down from 2007's 35.2 billion USD. The usual tax rate runs about 28-33%, resulting in a conservative estimated after-tax profit of 17.7 billion USD. For 2009, BP claims after-tax profits of 14 billion USD.

What is BP's impact in the U.K.? Let's see. According to BBC News, BP employs 10,105 people in the UK, and paid taxes to the UK totaling 5.8 billion GBP in 2009, or 8.5 billion dollars. I think we can safely say that BP runs the UK. BP is responsible or paying 1 out of every 7 pounds entering UK pension funds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10282777.stm ) On June 10th, Anthony Reuben reported for BBC that Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the US has told BBC, "The government must put down a marker with the US administration that the survival and long-term prosperity of BP is a vital British interest." I find that quotation remarkably political – and remarkably unclear. Don't you? I mean, really. It could be as weak as: Tough guy demands wimpy national cheer. Still, I love that word, "marker." That's right, UK: Guarantee BP's debt over this – including ALL of what are, unfortunately, being called "ripple" effects. (Metaphors should be protected from abuse, too.)

But speaking of dividends, BP is feeling chipper, as they say in the UK. BP is getting ready to pay one of the highest quarterly dividends to shareholders in recent memory. On June 21st, BP will be paying their ordinary shareholders 10.6187 pence on the share. This amounts to 15.44 cents on the share. BP last paid this much in the first quarter of 2009 and last quarter of 2008, although generally, quarterly share dividend payments in CY 2008 averaged 8.9 pence per share, and in CY 2007, 6.26 pence per share.

Cutting to the chase, BP has, in the first quarter of 2010, 18,784,361,000 shares in issue. This means they are getting ready to pay a quarterly dividend of (18,784,361,000 x 15.44 cents)... 29 million dollars. Yes, BP is getting ready to pay 29 million dollars in dividends to their ordinary shareholders on June 21st, while the oil spill continues to ruin a global estuary of unimaginable and nearly incomprehensible importance.

Dividend payments should also be stopped. Granted, this hurts institutional investors - and individual investors. The institutional investors are probably supporting pension funds. In any case, ordinary people (maybe even 'rich people') are going to be hurt if BP's assets are frozen. Still, as Abraham Lincoln, said, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” I realize I'm lifting Old Abe out of context, but don't you agree?

And BP's cash is disappearing before their eyes. Are you watching also? BP's price per share is plummeting just now, from a late April high of 660 pence per share to its present rate of about 390 pence per share. (http://www.bp.com/onefeedsection.do?categoryId=152&contentId=2002499 )

Have I said enough? Is anyone listening? That's my part. I do what I can do.

Here are some outside references asking for the same action:

Here is a blog directly on point, also criticizing statements made by related federal administration officials: from Greg Hunter, with 9 years of experience as an investigative correspondent, for the ABC network and later for CNN: "Freeze BP's Assets Now!": http://usawatchdog.com/freeze-bp%E2%80%99s-assets-now/

'Wooglet Voot,' a Top Contributor to Yahoo's Answers service, agrees: Freeze BP's assets now. He adds several small points, "Capitalism will not work if they are able to shift the costs of drilling for oil to innocent victims. If BP cannot pay, they should be forced into bankruptcy as a warning to other operators that may want to cut corners. There was better technology available that they use in the north sea and they chose not to use it in the Gulf." According to Voot, the President of BP also indicated clearly he would not be responsible for all "ripple effects." The source for this was a Public Broadcasting Service interview. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june10/oil1_05-03.html ) The videotape for that interview has since been pulled, production date, May 3. Voot's remarks are found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100504214232AA2pKva

In the same PBS report, President Obama was reported as stating, "BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill."

Change.org: This blog-based signature/response website now has a petition, "Freeze all of BP's assets, before it is too late" As of today's date, it has 208 signatures, some with additional actions taken. This should be millions of signatures. Millions upon millions. (http://www.change.org/petitions/view/freeze_all_of_bps_assets_before_it_is_too_late )

Facebook has several Freeze BP assets groups, none of which sports a high membership yet.

Jason Turflinger, of the American Chamber of Commerce in Norway, was kind enough to call me this summer at the one-room cabin on the fjord, noting the American tax deadline of September something, 2009, and the question and alarm of some callers to their office. Being the thoroughly modern Millie I am, I turned to the coffee-table-desk-station and Googled the tidbits.

This turns out to be a reference to the U.S. deadline for Americans with money in foreign banks - or financial interests in the money that is in foreign banks - to report some general information about that money to the United States government. Since we're in the acronym age, let's call it like it is: It is FBAR. I will think of that as the letter F, followed by the word, BAR. You can decide what the F stands for if it does not stand for Federal, by the way, as this is what most Americans, hard-working overseas, probably think of this requirement.

I, meanwhile, have been simply bowled over with responsibilities since this inquiry, which has caused the delay of some superb blog entries (still forthcoming), and the complete re-painting of the main-home kitchen, among other things such as swimming, working, teaching courses and helping students. But now is the time to ring the bells.

Time to report on the FBAR! Americans, Awake! Time to report!

Not just American citizens but all those subject to filing with the IRS, including, for example the categories identified as non-resident aliens with U.S. income and those holding green cards while temporarily living and working overseas who wish to keep those cards active. 

The United States, besides being one of the only countries in the world to tax its citizens when they live abroad and make money from foreign sources only (geez), is also interested now in catching up with those who have stashed money in foreign banks - and, by the way, securities. They want to know the names of the banks, the account numbers, and the amounts in those accounts.

Conceptually, we recognize the new reality as a great Grisham novel: Here's the American company CEO with a foreign bank account, into which he somehow stashes some money that he does not claim for U.S. taxes. We get it. The rub, however, is that, conceptually, it is also this person: the American overseas who simply lives overseas and has a bank account of their own - and/or 'interests' in another person's bank account. This would include, for example, in a Norway example, an American woman married to a Norwegian man who has the right to inherit from him, and then how much does he have in his banks, whereever they are in the world? Well, how much? The U.S. government would like to know.

The authorities are kind enough to excuse those of us who do not report if the amount is under $10,000. Be any better off than that, and you're just the sucker that the Federal Treasury department wants to hear from - BEFORE September 23rd. This is called a "Voluntary Disclosure" deadline, after which one may or may not be eligible for an exception from penalties imposed by someone.

How does this affect you? Maybe not much, depending on how cash-poor you are, that is. There is the general $10,000 dollar minimum. Surely this is one of the only moments at which I find myself glad to be married to a man who is relatively cash-poor, as am I. In Norwegian kroner right now (September 11, 2009), that $10,000 dollar amount over which reporting is required is a mere 59,189.51 NOK! Darn it!  The kroner is so strong.

Here is how clearly the IRS tells us about this:

" The purpose for the voluntary disclosure practice is to provide a way for taxpayers who did not report taxable income in the past to voluntarily come forward and resolve their tax matters. Thus, If you reported and paid tax on all taxable income but did not file FBARs, do not use the voluntary disclosure process." -IRS website.  This means that those of you who have been filing IRS tax forms - and paying taxes when you are supposed to - should not use the voluntary disclosure process, for some reason? whatever that is?

The IRS continues, "For taxpayers who reported and paid tax on all their taxable income for prior years but did not file FBARs, you should file the delinquent FBAR reports according to the instructions (send to Department of Treasury, Post Office Box 32621, Detroit, MI 48232-0621) and attach a statement explaining why the reports are filed late. Send copies of the delinquent FBARs, together with copies of tax returns for all relevant years, by September 23, 2009, to the Philadelphia Offshore Identification Unit at:

Internal Revenue Service

11501 Roosevelt Blvd.

South Bldg., Room 2002

Philadelphia, PA 19154

Attn: Charlie Judge, Offshore Unit, DP S-611" - IRS website.

We take this to mean that you better send in an FBAR to DOT in Detroit as soon as you can. This simplifies things, don't you think?

I can hardly bring myself to list some links, they are similarly somewhat confusing. However, I have seen the FBAR form and it is really quite straightforward. Here is a copy attached as a link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f90221.pdf.  (Just fill out the pages that apply to you and your 'interests.') 

 And don't ask me how the Treasury or IRS plan to follow-up on this routine. Let's just say, it will be interesting to see who the BIG fish are who get caught having been living the good life in the U.S. of A. while stashing their cash in other countries. I will welcome all the stories, just like the good collectivists and egalitarians that most Norwegians are.

But as for poor Mrs. American-in-Norway, if you fall into this category, little lady, you better list up your and your hubby's accounts and totals. The U.S. government will be watching for it. And if you have been smart enough to keep your personal income low, but the financial interests lie in corporate or security accounts, or savings, well, you don't get a 'free pass.' In Monopoly terms, the government wants you to know that you could get the 'go to jail' card for not reporting, okay? So take the Nike road: "Just Do It."

For those interested in finding more information online:

Who must file? http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=209418,00.html  

FAQs regarding the FBAR filing requirement: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=210252,00.html  

The excuse notice on the September 23rd deadline: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=210174,00.html

Recently:  The word "nationalize" has now been uttered.

Take:  Poetic justice is served here.

I enjoyed reading Joe Nocera's article, "Chorus grows: Nationalize the banks," in the Feb. 14th International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/business/wbjoe14.php.  This issue included a further article, visiting not only Nocera's 'Kitchen Cabinet' of economic experts, but even more great experts, "U.S. Treasury may need bolder approach on banks" in the Paris edition, also here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/business/13insolvent.php .  What these articles suggest is that a plan modeled on aspects of nationalization, combined with the selling-off of bank portions in a fashion similar to that done during the savings and loan bail-out of the 1980's, could and would result in the sort of effective cost-saving action that should be contemplated and put into place now.  And yet, according to Nocera, Timothy Geitner, the new U.S. Treasury secretary, is "avoiding the most straightforward, obvious path out of the crisis."  (IHT, Feb. 14, 2009).

I have a solution: Make it easy to understand, and make it quippy.  As an American attorney with multiple degrees in law and literature, too much snow on the roof, and too little incentive to shovel it off, I have created something with the smack of modern vivacity, originality and, let's admit it, rhythm, which is just the thing to get us going, climbing out of the hole that over-confident consumerism, greed and sheer financial debauchery have gotten some people into.  It would not be the first time that a quippy phrase – or two – saved the day, or the company.  After all, Things go better with . . . banks.  And banks . . . gotta lot to give. So, let's pour it on.  Additionally, one has to admit that nationalizing banks is not as difficult as nationalizing oil, both of which would improve the average American's life tremendously, and both of which have been done, to one degree or another, in many advanced quality-of-life civilizations now admired around the world (er...including Norway).

I have reviewed the outlines of the suggested resolutions made by the esteemed experts noted in these aforementioned articles, and have arrived at two poetic solutions.  Each provides its own rationale, logical order and internal rhyming perfection, in addition to including the important use of numbers:

1.      Drop

2.      Crop

3.      Prop

This particular poem, Part One, covers the bases:  Get rid of the losers, crop the bad debts out of those questionable in-betweeners, and prop up banks with government ownership that can be re-sold to the private sector at a later date – like, year – when and if they promise to behave themselves and run a better show. My second poem has similar strengths, so one can select it, purely on the basis of enjoying the roundness of its tones, as opposed to the clipped personality of Part One.

1. Tell
2. Swell
3. Sell

This poem, Part Two, also covers the bases:  Tell these idiot banks what you are going to do, (ie: then do it), swell the revenue available for good loans under new rules, and then sell off the banks you've been majority-owning and managing, again, when and if they promise to behave themselves and run a better show.  That show should include banking rules preventing shenanigans of this sort in the future. After all, a real tree is a much better real tree than the promise of a real tree. I can see those trees of banks bearing voluminous and beautiful fat fruit already.

Ahh, it's nice to have things solved, isn't it?  Timothy?  It's just all those details that can become so complicated.  But then that is what we look towards our financial and economic wizards, and our Treasury, Fed, and SEC, to do with their time and talents.  One would think they would rather shovel snow off their roofs.