Has the world gone mad? Or is it just the US Senate? One month after Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley pushed their amendment through the Senate making it tough for TARP recipients to hire H-1B* or L1 visa holders, we use the same TARP cash to pay retention bonuses to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. We could create many, many more jobs with that bonus cash than we’d ever had “saved” by blocking a small minority of H1-B applicants.
The original intent of the Sanders/Grassley amendment barred all recipients of TARP funding from hiring any H-1B workers. However, the amendment was
modified on 13th February this year so that employers who receive TARP funding can petition for new H-1B workers, provided they follow the rules prescribed for “H-1B Dependent Employers”, which require employers to:
(1) Attest that they have made good-faith attempts to hire U.S. workers at prevailing wages (or industry-standard wages);
(2) Attest that their hiring of H-1B employees does not displace U.S. workers who have sought those same jobs; and
(3) Maintain records showing that they have complied with wage and other work condition standards.
The bottom line is that the Sanders/Grassley amendment will make it much more difficult for employers who receive TARP funds to file new H-1B petitions because it will be hard for them to survive the enhanced recruiting requirements in this economy.
It’s been a while since the old H-1B visa debate reared its head, but it appears that the original Durbin/Grassley bill to reform the H-1B visa program will soon be reintroduced in the Senate on the tail of Sanders/Grassley, which will effectively attempt to drive similar restrictions across all H-1B and L1 temporary workers.
Durbin/Grassley will have a negative impact on US businesses
This bill, if passed through the Senate, would significantly derail outsourcing engagements where there is a need to bring a handful of foreign staff into the US to help manage their offshore/nearshore compatriots. Moreover, areas where there are significant skill shortages, for example, IT programming, IT sourcing management and business process transformation, will be impacted.
While a couple of years’ ago, there was a coherent argument that IT firms and banks were exploiting the H-1B visa process to exploit low-cost imported IT talent, this is increasingly losing weight in an industry where there is a clear lack of skilled application development and business process engineering talent onshore, and a very apparent lack of staff with expertise managing offshore staff in a global sourcing environment. In many cases today, H-1B staff are bringing skills into the country that are shared with onshore IT and operations staff to create a stronger learning environment for the host business. Noone complains when we bring in temporary workers with academic or scientific knowledge, so what's wrong with talent which can help our businesses be more efficient and competitive on a global level?
Moreover, with the majority of FORTUNE 1000 organizations now involved with offshore IT and business process initiatives, they need to balance their offshore resources with experienced staff with knowledge of managing offshore cultures. For example, having somebody that can act as a liaison in the US that understands the culture and workings of the offshore location facilitates, increases communication and continuity between the two groups.
We need to avoid isolationism, or businesses will move backward
As an increasing number of organizations come to the realization that their dated IT operations and/or business processes are becoming a serious impediment to transforming their business, their need to access third-party skills is often critical to their success. And in an economy where cost-containment is a survival mechanism for many businesses, impeding the capability for IT and BPO service providers to bring talent into the country is only contriving to make US business struggle even further with dated IT and business support operations resistant and fearful of change, combined with bloated costs. Isolating businesses from global talent at this time will only take them further backwards, when they need to be finding new avenues for innovations and growth, in order to survive.
Protecting the US worker is important, however, empowering US businesses will create more opportunities for US workers to develop their skills and expertise. The biggest problem facing US corporate development today is the lethagy of many workers to re-train and re-educate themselves to develop their skills. Isolating them from these opportunites will only make these problems worse. The US has been instrumental in creating – and funding – this globally-integrated economic monster. It now needs to get with this change and help the economy recover globally, not isolate itself and allow new economic powers to step in and become the new US.
*The H-1B program allows American companies to employ foreign guest workers, with the equivalent of an American bachelor's degree, to work in a specialty occupation, for example research, consulting, academia or IT. H-1B visas for IT are capped at a total of 65,000 and allow guest workers to remain in the US for three years with provisions for an extension of three more years. This cap can be changed annually
If you can make it to Eastern Europe, it would be great to have you part of the show and take part in the debate. And if you can't make it in person, log-on and blog your questions live to the panel.
We’ve been debating the opportunities for Latin American countries to take on BPO work for a while now, and spending a few days in Guatemala has confirmed – beyond doubt – the potential of the region.
I had the pleasure of visiting Capgemini’s facility, which is quickly ramping up customer-facing F&A work for Coca-Cola Enterprises (which we picked up on here). I am going to write more about this engagement in due course, but the hybrid nearshore/offshore operating model for Finance and Accounting and Procurement is showing strong signs of being the way forward for the industry. This is also the case for many global strategic sourcing, supply management and HR BPO engagements. For example, Coca-Cola Enterprises is sourcing neashore work to Capgemini’s centers in Guatemala and Krakow, and using its Chennai operation to support these centers with non-customer facing processes.
Guatemala’s population itself is only 13.7m people, with 40% based in urban areas, however, it is the largest Central American hub with strong potential to source activities to neighboring countries, such as El Salvador and Nicaragua (see graph below) to compliment serices and keep costs low. What impressed me most meeting many operations agents and managers was the easy-to-understand English intonation, the obsession with process, the youthful energy and the discipline.
One of the major delivery centers has already made Six Sigma yellow-belt certification as a stipulation for employment among all its agents, and puts many on the green and black-belt courses on the job. The challenge for US onshore centers in the future is not only to compete on cost, but also on quality.
Key sourcing facts about Guat:
4.1m of its total population is “economically active”
80% of its population is under 30
80% are taught English from the age of 5
86% literacy rate in Guatemala City
University-level population of over 200,000 students
Robust telecoms infrastructure (their commerce minister was sporting three blackberries)
20 yeas of democracy
5200 feet above sea-level and 60-85 degrees all-year-round
Strong base of investment from multi-national corporations – for example P&G, Walmart, Scotiabank, Capgemini and ACS
Investing in windfarm projects with the Mexican government
Manufacturing represents its major industry, but increasing exports of coffee, bananas and green tomatoes are driving economic growth
Source: Celade
The core issue behind future growth is going to be where to source the customer/partner/employee facing work versus the non-employee processes. While Philippines and India have proven themselves to be competent with voice work, the time zone differences make it difficult with complex work that requires a lot of management attention (especially during the early engagement years). As one senior sourcing executive said to me, “Guatemala is a 3 hour flight…Manila is 20”.
The business challenge for today’s enterprises is the trade-off between operating costs, times zones and overall quality. For example, if Indian costs for a set of processes are half those of Guatemala, how much more will you spend on management travel to the region? How many more FTEs will you require to compensate for exhaustive night-shifts?
The Coca-Cola Enterprises model is an example of bridging the benefits of nearshore with the low-cost advantages of offshore. They are finding a balance between all the elements that are core to their business: maintaining business relationships, lowering costs while enhancing quality and taking advantage of global sourcing to redefine their process and technology.
Guatemala: Great potential, but beware of strange foreign visitors
Many Americans in the global sourcing industry will attest that they never did quite separate themselves from their old colonial masters (but we let them think they did…). One such example has been the UK’s very own David Poole, imported by European outsourcing giant Capgemini to spearhead its Americas BPO business. Upon his arrival at these shores two years’ ago, David even adorned the title “Deputy”, in the hope he could quickly assimilate himself with the Wild West, installing himself and his family in Chicago, where he could steer them of clear of crime and corruption.
David, today,David has firmly established himself as a veteran of the BPO industry, leading Capgemini to some major new global F&A BPO client wins that have firmly established the firm’s global delivery footprint across the Americas, Europe and Asia (including major operations in China and India). He joined Capgemini in 2004, from PwC in London where he was a partner and a founding member of the firm’s global BPO business prior to IBM acquiring their operations. He’s made a significant contribution to the development of the global BPO industry, helping to craft several major global engagements since the early ‘90s. David is also a qualified management accountant and can wax-lyrical for hours about operational excellence with invoice processing. Enough said – over you Deputy Poole for your take on what outsourcing means to businesses today…
Outsourcing is not for wimps
I spend a lot of time talking about why outsourcing is a smart idea – I talk to clients, at public forums, in meetings, to my staff, heck I’ve even bent the ear of my dog on occasion. So, when Phil asked for volunteers to contribute to this blog, I naturally jumped on the soapbox. I couldn’t resist another chance to make my case, which is this: When the going gets tough, the tough outsource.
Some people think outsourcing is a sign of weakness, but actually just the opposite is true. It takes a strong organization to admit that someone else can do a process or function better, faster, and cheaper.
There’s a good reason the word “outsourcing” has “source” at its heart: sources are good things.
For example if you’re a cop or a journalist, a “source” has “insider” information; the value of the source depends on credibility, reliability, and trust. Same goes in business, where sources are fundamental to success. Where do you get your raw materials? Your talent? Your information? Without good sources, your business would go bust.
When the idea of outsourcing started to gain traction in the 1980s, it seemed like a brand new idea. Companies could off-load non-core processes to a “source” that could do them more efficiently and effectively. But in many ways, outsourcing was ? and is ? just plain sourcing on steroids: a ratcheted-up version of finding the best resources (people, processes, knowledge, and technology) for the job.
And that’s exactly why outsourcing continues to be a great business strategy, not despite tough times but because of tough times. What could make more and better sense in today’s troubled, global economy?
At its most basic, outsourcing is a perfect choice today: it’s still the best way to perform back-office processes more efficiently. Since most businesses do not gain an advantage with administrative activities, why waste any time and money trying to make them unique? An outsourcer can establish a standardized process; the best ones do this quickly with a “speed to value” model that delivers savings faster.
While cost cutting alone justifies outsourcing, that’s not the whole picture.
The real test of outsourcing is the value delivered. Today, many (maybe most) companies are thinking only of reducing expenditures. But a few are actually looking for ways to innovate, and they’re the ones likely to come out of these doldrums with a real, meaningful advantage.
What can be done with the savings that come from outsourcing? How should savings be invested back into the business to support growth? Where are opportunities for continuous improvement? When an outsourcer provides business intelligence to answer questions like those, it becomes a true, collaborative partnership. A good outsourcing partner has ambition to explore, special knowledge to apply, a technological edge to exploit, and unbending ethics to guide its behavior in relationships and in the world.
I’ve been working in business process outsourcing for 15 years and, in that time, I’ve seen outsourcing help companies reach the top of their game, even when the economy was unsteady.
Here are some truths about outsourcing that I’m glad to share.
• Outsourcing can make a company better at what it does.
• Outsourcing can be self-funding.
• The faster a company gets to the benefits of outsourcing, the better.
• The best outsourcers deliver measurable “value” beyond cost reduction.
• Outsourcing is a bold strategy for growth.
The world’s political and business leaders are trying to tackle some tough, global economic problems. I like to think that outsourcing is part of a smart solution – one way for a company to get stronger. The right outsourcing relationship can provide the momentum needed for positive change.
And isn’t that exactly what everyone’s looking for right now?
David Poole (pictured) is CEO of Americas Business Process Outsourcing for Capgemini
While many firms are hunkering down tryng to ride out this turbulent year, we're also seeing an increasing number of multi-national companies use this time to develop business support infrastructures that can scale quickly with the needs of the business. It's not all about cost-reduction – it's about being nimble, and having a firmer handle on accessing critical data on your staff at a global level. You can view the full post over at Think Global.
Being an analyst, you get a broad view of all the entities competing for the same service provider dollar. You also get a good perspective on how service providers can get the best bang for their marketing buck. And being a blogger, you also pick up a strong sense for the effectiveness of media outreach, but I'll save that discussion for another time.
There is no one-stop support shop for vendors to find and attract new clients, and influence the market – they need to gauge where they need to build influence, using both direct tactical measures – i.e. speaking at conferences or advertising, and indirect measures – i.e. influencing influencers or subliminal branding. The current pull-back in discretionary spending from vendor marketing budgets is seriously exposing the bloated array of firms feeding off the vendor marketing-dime, and with a lot less to go round, we're going to see some firms exit the market, some market consolidation, and others simply going out of business. We'll also see some boutiques linger around the industry because their owner has no idea what else to do, and his only costs are living and travel expenses, and maintaining a website. Desperate times call for desperate behavior and none more so than for many of those entities forging their living selling to IT services and BPO firms.
And spare a thought for the outsourcing vendor - it has to tackle razor-thin margins with being the smartest, the most innovative and the most operationally efficient; while having a great brand, a great corporate culture, a credible Green strategy, an advisor relations strategy, great analyst write-ups, spotless client references; while being incredibly visible to business decision-makers… and be able to do this with smart media outreach with its market-makers speaking at the best conferences.
Long gone are the astronomical sales and marketing spending-sprees of yesteryear. Now, every expenditure is scrutinized, and vendors have to demonstrate actual lead-generation attribution for every dollar that flows out of the organization – especially with firms with whom they do not have an existing relationship. Moreover, those vendors which can successfully manage the right marketing-ecosystem within a reasonable budget outlay are likely to be emerge from this slump in a much stronger market position than those who are incapable of changing their ways and learning how to tackle their market-management. So let's take a look at the current marketing ecosystem facing vendors in the outsourcing industry:
Today's marketing ecosystem for the outsourcing vendor
Marketing, Branding & PR: There are a few discreet firms which specialize in marketing strategy and tactical PR outreach. Vendors need to make tough
decisions whether to retain much of this work inhouse, or slim down its internal marketing function to use a third-party. Most vendors will not be able to afford both. With some vendors, they are going to benefit far more from a third-party marketing firm that has a deep understanding of the industry and can execute programs and campaigns that are measurable and actionable. My advice is to put prospective marketing agencies to the test and challenge them on how exactly they can bring both direct and indirect influence and visibility to the organization. Many vendors could actually save money outsourcing many of their marketing activities to a nimble marketing agency, but they need to ensure they handpick the right marketeers who can drive their marketing agenda in this climate.
Information Providers: In the past, some vendors have spent a lot of money on research firms (some call themselves "analysts", but they are really in the information-provision business). In this market, much of the information vendors need on their market and their competitors is freely available. If you have a couple of smart inhouse analysts, you can do a lot of the information gathering you need inhouse and avoid spending a lot on expensive information that you could have pulled off the web yourself. Besides, are your competitors really dumb enough to expose their competitive secrets to firms which produce publicly available competitive profiles? Like the former category, vendors should decide whether to retain this work internally, or use a third-party firm. Having both is likely to be wasted money.
Industry Analysts: Like it or not, some industry analysts have a significant amount of influence over your prospects and customers. Most of the FORTUNE 1000 relies heavily on analyst validation – they trust their advice. Analysts can be a very influential indirect channel. However, that means you need to focus on analysts that spend a lot of time with buyers, and have a lot of buyer-clients. The more you can convince them you are the real deal, and the more happy clients you can deliver up to bear all about their experience with you, the more assured analysts will be of your delivery excellence. However, that means you need to conduct some due-diligence on which analysts are actually influencing, before investing a lot of executive time with them. Some branded analyst firms only have vendors as their clients; they are not really influencing anyone, besides you and your competitors. They will really struggle in this recession, as their only real value to you is market insight, which might be superb, but is – at the end of the day – a discretionary cost. My advice: invest in analysts who influence your prospects and clients. And one easy rule-of-thumb: if they fail to impress you, they probably also fail to impress your clients…
Sourcing Advisors: As we have discussed here on several occasions, some sourcing advisors can play a pivotal role in managing outsourcing evaluations and escorting clients through to a contract. Investing in a couple of executives to mine relationships with some of the key advisors in a no-brainer: you need to ensure you are on the radar-screen of advisors when they send out an RFP. In addition, you have probably also noticed that most of them are now targeting vendor marketing dollars to supplement their revenue streams in this market, with services that can help your marketing and sales strategies. However, my advice is not to confuse investing money with sourcing advisors with influencing their "favor" with a deal they may be running – it doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. Project directors in advisors who run individual deals are highly unlikely to pay any attention to (or have any knowledge of) the fact you have invested funds in one of their training, marketing or research programs. Judge their vendor-offerings on face-value: if they provide you with critical support, then evaluate them like any other third-party service offering, like those described above.
Media: Gaining visibility with decision-makers has never been so challenging in today's information-cluttered market place. However, in cost-constrained times, not everyone can afford sporting-heros or prime-time commercials. Moreover, broad-sheet business media (the most read by C-suite execs) is still very expensive, and the cost of buying up mindshare in the Journal is going to significantly eat into other areas of your marketing budget. Laser-focused targeting is required to capture mindshare through the media. My advice is to use micro-targeting to pinpoint specialist media that has the readership you want (which may be a step or two down from the C-suite) and also research which social media is impacting your client base (i.e. LinkedIn / Google / popular blogs). Again, evaluate niche marketing boutiques that can take on this task for you – they should know exactly where you should invest, and have the negotiation experience to get you some good media sponsorship deals.
Conferences: This is a tough year for the conference circuit. Many vendors are opting to pay entry fees to network with clients and prospects and avoid buying up expensive booth-space or paid speaking spots. This is a time to get a good discount from your conference provider. However, having the right prospect see you present could net you millions of dollars. Tough times these may be, but being at the right conferences is still a great way to meet people. Just take time to ask around which conferences will get you the client access you need. Avoid mass-marketed trade shows which tend to only attract other vendors and junior folk from clients in this market. Moreover, a good conference should still get you access to multiple advisors/analysts/clients that you can schmooze in one quick-hit, so these are still a good use of your time and money. In addition, really ramp up your webcasts this year – clients are much more accustomed to desk-based discussion is this market, and the cost-effectiveness of driving a compelling presentation and Q&A to a few hundred prospects is the best bang you will get, provided you promote it right and have interesting stuff to talk about.
Industry Associations: Some are good, some are jaded, some were jaded and have bounced-back, and some never were any good in the first place (but never seem to go away). I'm not going to "out" any on here, but ask around the industry to find out which associations still attract new members, have good leadership with passion and energy, and are respected throughout the community at large. You may be surprised…
Client Hospitality: Investing in your loyal clients and hot prospects in this market is money well-spent. It's time to get tighter with what you have, in addition to going after new business. Investing good money in entertaining your clients, have them network with each other, and meet other industry experts who can offer insight and value is very smart. I've been to several vendor-client dinners this year and can honestly say the goodwill gained from the host vendor easily outweighed the cost of the shmancy restaurant bill. Plus, who turns down good food and booze in this economy?
Direct Sales: You can't fault the old fashioned way of bringing in business, but you can't just call up firms and ask to "talk with whoever is in charge of outsourcing". Save your money and send your market-makers to the right conferences where they can talk to those "outsourcing executives".
I've been getting an increasing number of service providers talking up the growth of Legal Process Outsourcing (with the mind-blowing acronym "LPO"). Personally I'm a bigger fan of PPO (Political Process Outsourcing), but it seems like we could have some onshore/offshore complications with that one, so let's talk about LPO.
Having had a few discussions with clients and service providers in this space, it's clearly an area for major cost-efficiences for businesses. I've even had one service provider bragging he was making a killing doing liquidation administration offshore. Bottom-line, several of the fat law firms are already offshoring their own legal support work to low-cost locations, whilst still billing their clients top-whack rates, so smart corporate legal buyers are focusing on engaging with LPOs, as opposed to highly-expensive law firms, for a lot of legal work, while retaining expensive lawyers for critical activies that require deep experience. And did you know Mahatma Gandhi was a barrister? I'd use him anyday overDenny Craine 🙂
I've recently had the pleasure of interacting with the industry's one full-time LPO advisor (if there are others, here's your chance to make yourself known), so I asked him if he can educate us more regarding what LPO's all about. Step up Matt Sullivan who lived in Pune, India, for two years, where he managed the risk management & regulatory compliance practice for a global IT outsourcing company as part of a 20 year career in services and outsourcing. He now plies his trade atRed Bridge Strategy, where he's teamed up with some very smart and friendly consultants who focus on global sourcing issues. Over to you Matt:
Changes Ahead in Sourcing U.S. Legal Services in 2009
Businesses have traditionally relied on a combination of in-house legal departments and outside law firms for all of their legal work. During the past few years, maturing processes, technologies, and legal-services-delivery-perspectives have created an environment where corporations now have a spectrum of choices from which to source legal services.
General Counsels can globalize in-house legal departments by consolidating legal staffers in low-cost jurisdictions or outsource legal work to Legal Process Outsourcing firms (LPOs) at significantly lower costs than traditional U.S. law firms can offer.
The delivery of legal services from offshore locations, primarily India, has grown dramatically in the last few years, and will continue in 2009. While LPOs are compelling, they are not the only option. Whether delivered through globalized in-house functions (international, legal, shared services functions) or LPO firms, mature legal processes now make it possible to deliver high quality work from across the globe despite the unique legal challenges of privilege, supervision and conflicts. Some large law firms have created their own “captive” units to offer lower cost legal services to their clients.
Why Now?
The availability of global legal processes has arrived. During the past five years Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) vendors have provided human resources and accounting services, and as a result, shown that many types of professional services can be successfully outsourced. More recently, the recession in the U.S. has forced a more vigorous evaluation of legal costs than ever before, while, the volume of legal work, particularly e-discovery, has been soaring. The American Bar Association (ABA Formal Op. 08-451) and several regional bar authorities have implicitly authorized legal outsourcing. Finally, major BPO players such as Infosys and Wipro have entered the LPO market and the major independent LPOs (Pangea3, Mindcrest, Quislex, UnitedLex, and the Clutch Group) have announced significant growth plans for 2009. Given the clear economic drivers, the removal of previous barriers, and the stated intentions of many of the major service providers, globalization of legal services will certainly quicken in 2009.
Implications for Corporations
To take advantage of the relatively new legal services sourcing options, corporations must organize and optimize legal services like any other shared corporate services. For example, a corporation that operates in the U.S., the U.K. and India, may need attorneys in each of these jurisdictions, but may choose to concentrate the bulk of its legal team in India instead of London or New York; thereby taking advantage of resources that cost 50% to 80% less. Multinational corporations, such as Accenture, DuPont, GE and Oracle, have already taken advantage of their global presence to consolidate some of their common legal functions in lower cost jurisdictions like India.
Some organizations may not have sufficient legal work or sufficiently predictable volumes of certain types of work to warrant global shared legal services. These organizations have traditionally retained outside law firms when they become parties to litigation or acquisitions. These situations, that create sudden, large volumes of documents to review, are exactly the circumstances for which LPO vendors are well suited. Many LPOs have the ability to quickly deploy large teams of young lawyers using the latest technologies to assess the responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality of litigation-related documents or to review the assignment and termination clauses of acquisition-related contracts. Indian LPOs can typically deliver these services for $20 to $50 per hour as compared to $60 to $100 or more for legal temps in the U.S. Low cost legal services sources are also emerging in such places as Israel, the Philippines, South Africa and Costa Rica.
For many corporate legal departments, the prospect implementing and managing a global legal operation can be a daunting. Combining the practice of corporate law with business process redesign and outsourced vendor management requires a new set of skills. Working across cultures and time zones with a business in India or other distant countries adds to the complexities. There will be both stories of success and tales of woe, but the advantages of moving to new legal sourcing models are compelling, and the trend towards both corporate global shared services models and legal process outsourcing will increase significantly in 2009.
Matthew Sullivan (pictured) is a founder and principal at Red Bridge Strategy, Inc., a management consulting firm that helps organizations design and implement global strategies to reduce costs and improve performance. Matt has more than 20 years of business consulting experience, and lived in Pune, India for two years. He is also a member of the Massachusetts Bar.
As the sheer magnitude of the unfettered lending and borrowing that has taken place over the last few years continues to unfold, I am hearing more and more calls to put banking and government executives who failed to prevent this (or knowingly encouraged this) on trial. I am inclined to agree with them. The BBC's Robert Peston just put out an excellent analysis of HBOS's final earnings report as a discreet entity:
This corporate division generated losses of £6.8bn in 2008 from loans and advances to businesses of £116bn. It has had to write off an average of 47% of those loans in this area that have gone bad. Almost 12% of all its corporate loans are now classified as impaired or damaged. And as a percentage of the total corporate lending book, the impairment charge is just under 6%. On the basis of those statistics, HBOS appears to have left a big bag of money open on the pavement with a sign saying "borrow what you want".
How can you give out over $100 billion in bad loans? In Spain, for example, their banking system, which has been one of the least affected by the crisis, operates using dynamic provisioning, where each loan mustbe underwritten with capital in the banks' reserves.But what has transpired in the US and UK banks is tantamount to executives knowingly driving their businesses into the ground at the expensive of getting fat and happy themselves. It's like hundreds of these executives were riding tigers without knowing when to get off. If I hear one more jingoistic anti-offshoring argument about the fact that a whole industry should be tarnished because a single service-provider was caught cooking the books… how about a whole industry cooking its books?
Has the world gone mad? Or is it just the US Senate? One month after Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley pushed their amendment through the Senate making it tough for TARP recipients to hire H-1B* or L1 visa holders, we use the same TARP cash to pay retention bonuses to the very people who got us into this mess in the first place. We could create many, many more jobs with that bonus cash than we’d ever had “saved” by blocking a small minority of H1-B applicants.
As the sheer magnitude of the unfettered lending and borrowing that has taken place over the last few years continues to unfold, I am hearing more and more calls to put banking and government executives who failed to prevent this (or knowingly encouraged this) on trial. I am inclined to agree with them. The BBC's Robert Peston just put out an 
