The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Now we can take a peek at Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), as before I will provide you with the information but you will have to decide for yourself who you believe because there is a lot of misinformation, political maneuvering, and outright fabrication of material information going on.

Basic info on Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted 2002-07-30), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 334-90 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."[1]

The legislation establishes new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management, and public accounting firms. It does not apply to privately held companies. The Act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional Corporate Board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law.

Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Supporters contend that the legislation was necessary and has played a useful role in restoring public confidence in the nation's capital markets by, among other things, strengthening corporate accounting controls. Opponents of the bill claim that it has reduced America's international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, claiming that SOX has introduced an overly complex and regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets.[2]

The Act establishes a new quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which is charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The Act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.

Overview
Sarbanes-Oxley contains 11 titles that describe specific mandates and requirements for financial reporting. Each title consists of several sections, summarized below.

1) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
Title I consists of nine sections and establishes the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, to provide independent oversight of public accounting firms providing audit services ("auditors"). It also creates a central oversight board tasked with registering auditors, defining the specific processes and procedures for compliance audits, inspecting and policing conduct and quality control, and enforcing compliance with the specific mandates of SOX.

2) Auditor Independence
Title II consists of nine sections and establishes standards for external auditor independence, to limit conflicts of interest. It also addresses new auditor approval requirements, audit partner rotation, and auditor reporting requirements. It restricts auditing companies from providing non-audit services (e.g., consulting) for the same clients.

3) Corporate Responsibility
Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company's "principal officers" (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly.

4) Enhanced Financial Disclosures
Title IV consists of nine sections. It describes enhanced reporting requirements for financial transactions, including off-balance-sheet transactions, pro-forma figures and stock transactions of corporate officers. It requires internal controls for assuring the accuracy of financial reports and disclosures, and mandates both audits and reports on those controls. It also requires timely reporting of material changes in financial condition and specific enhanced reviews by the SEC or its agents of corporate reports.
5) Analyst Conflicts of Interest
Title V consists of only one section, which includes measures designed to help restore investor confidence in the reporting of securities analysts. It defines the codes of conduct for securities analysts and requires disclosure of knowable conflicts of interest.

6) Commission Resources and Authority
Title VI consists of four sections and defines practices to restore investor confidence in securities analysts. It also defines the SEC’s authority to censure or bar securities professionals from practice and defines conditions under which a person can be barred from practicing as a broker, adviser or dealer.

7) Studies and Reports
Title VII consists of five sections and are concerned with conducting research for enforcing actions against violations by the SEC registrants (companies) and auditors. Studies and reports include the effects of consolidation of public accounting firms, the role of credit rating agencies in the operation of securities markets, securities violations and enforcement actions, and whether investment banks assisted Enron, Global Crossing and others to manipulate earnings and obfuscate true financial conditions.

8) Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability
Title VIII consists of seven sections and it also referred to as the “Corporate and Criminal Fraud Act of 2002”. It describes specific criminal penalties for fraud by manipulation, destruction or alteration of financial records or other interference with investigations, while providing certain protections for whistle-blowers.

9) White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement
Title IX consists of two sections. This section is also called the “White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002.” This section increases the criminal penalties associated with white-collar crimes and conspiracies. It recommends stronger sentencing guidelines and specifically adds failure to certify corporate financial reports as a criminal offense.

10) Corporate Tax Returns
Title X consists of one section. Section 1001 states that the Chief Executive Officer should sign the company tax return.

11) Corporate Fraud Accountability
Title XI consists of seven sections. Section 1101 recommends a name for this title as “Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002”. It identifies corporate fraud and records tampering as criminal offenses and joins those offenses to specific penalties. It also revises sentencing guidelines and strengthens their penalties. This enables the SEC to temporarily freeze large or unusual payments.

History & context: events contributing to the adoption of SOX

A variety of complex factors created the conditions and culture in which a series of large corporate frauds occurred between 2000-2002. The spectacular, highly-publicized frauds at Enron (see Enron scandal), WorldCom, and Tyco exposed significant problems with conflicts of interest and incentive compensation practices. The analysis of their complex and contentious root causes contributed to the passage of SOX in 2002.[3] In a 2004 interview, Senator Paul Sarbanes stated:

“The Senate Banking Committee undertook a series of hearings on the problems in the markets that had led to a loss of hundreds and hundreds of billions, indeed trillions of dollars in market value. The hearings set out to lay the foundation for legislation. We scheduled 10 hearings over a six-week period, during which we brought in some of the best people in the country to testify...The hearings produced remarkable consensus on the nature of the problems: inadequate oversight of accountants, lack of auditor independence, weak corporate governance procedures, stock analysts' conflict of interests, inadequate disclosure provisions, and grossly inadequate funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission.[4]”

Auditor conflicts of interest:
Prior to SOX, auditing firms, the primary financial "watchdogs" for investors, were self-regulated. They also performed significant non-audit or consulting work for the companies they audited. Many of these consulting agreements were far more lucrative than the auditing engagement. This presented at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. For example, challenging the company's accounting approach might damage a client relationship, conceivably placing a significant consulting arrangement at risk, damaging the auditing firm's bottom line.

Boardroom failures:
Boards of Directors, specifically Audit Committees, are charged with establishing oversight mechanisms for financial reporting in U.S. corporations on the behalf of investors. These scandals identified Board members who either did not exercise their responsibilities or did not have the expertise to understand the complexities of the businesses. In many cases, Audit Committee members were not truly independent of management.

Securities analysts' conflicts of interest:
The roles of securities analysts, who make buy and sell recommendations on company stocks and bonds, and investment bankers, who help provide companies loans or handle mergers and acquisitions, provide opportunities for conflicts. Similar to the auditor conflict, issuing a buy or sell recommendation on a stock while providing lucrative investment banking services creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Inadequate funding of the SEC:
The SEC budget has steadily increased to nearly double the pre-SOX level.[5]In the interview cited above, Sarbanes indicated that enforcement and rule-making are more effective post-SOX.

Banking practices:
Lending to a firm sends signals to investors regarding the firm's risk. In the case of Enron, several major banks provided large loans to the company without understanding, or while ignoring, the risks of the company. Investors of these banks and their clients were hurt by such bad loans, resulting in large settlement payments by the banks. Others interpreted the willingness of banks to lend money to the company as an indication of its health and integrity, and were led to invest in Enron as a result. These investors were hurt as well.

Internet bubble:
Investors had been stung in 2000 by the sharp declines in technology stocks and to a lesser extent, by declines in the overall market. Certain mutual fund managers were alleged to have advocated the purchasing of particular technology stocks, while quietly selling them. The losses sustained also helped create a general anger among investors.

Executive compensation:
Stock option and bonus practices, combined with volatility in stock prices for even small earnings "misses," resulted in pressures to manage earnings.[6] Stock options were not treated as compensation expense by companies, encouraging this form of compensation. With a large stock-based bonus at risk, managers were pressured to meet their targets.

Analyzing the cost-benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley
A significant body of academic research and opinion exists regarding the costs and benefits of SOX, with significant differences in conclusions. This is due in part to the difficulty of isolating the impact of SOX from other variables affecting the stock market and corporate earnings.[8][9] Conclusions from several of these studies and related criticism are summarized below:

FEI Survey (Annual):
Finance Executives International (FEI) provides an annual survey on SOX Section 404 costs. These costs have continued to decline relative to revenues since 2004. The 2007 study indicated that, for 168 companies with average revenues of $4.7 billion, the average compliance costs were $1.7 million (.036% of revenue).[10] The 2006 study indicated that, for 200 companies with average revenues of $6.8 billion, the average compliance costs were $2.9 million (.043% of revenue), down 23% from 2005. Cost for decentralized companies (i.e., those with multiple segments or divisions) were considerably more than centralized companies. Survey scores related to the positive effect of SOX on investor confidence, reliability of financial statements, and fraud prevention continue to rise. However, when asked in 2006 whether the benefits of compliance with Section 404 have exceeded costs in 2006, only 22 percent agreed.[11]

Foley & Lardner Survey (2007):
This annual study focused on changes in the total costs of being a U.S. public company, which were significantly affected by SOX. Such costs include external auditor fees, directors and officers (D&O) insurance, board compensation, lost productivity, and legal costs. Each of these cost categories increased significantly between FY2001-FY2006. Nearly 70% of survey respondents indicated public companies with revenues under $250 million should be exempt from SOX Section 404.[12]

Butler/Ribstein (2006):
Their book proposed a comprehensive overhaul or repeal of SOX and a variety of other reforms. For example, they indicate that investors could diversify their stock investments, efficiently managing the risk of a few catastrophic corporate failures, whether due to fraud or competition. However, if each company is required to spend a significant amount of money and resources on SOX compliance, this cost is borne across all publicly traded companies and therefore cannot be diversified away by the investor.[13]

Institute of Internal Auditors (2005):
The research paper indicates that corporations have improved their internal controls and that financial statements are perceived to be more reliable.[14]

Skaife/Collins/Kinney/Lefond (2006):
This research paper indicates that borrowing costs are lower for companies that improved their internal control, by between 50 and 150 basis points (.5 to 1.5 percentage points).[15]

Zhang (2005):
This research paper estimated SOX compliance costs as high as $1.4 trillion, by measuring changes in market value around key SOX legislative "events." This number is based on the assumption that SOX was the cause of related short-duration market value changes, which the author acknowledges as a drawback of the study.[16]

Iliev (2007):
This research paper indicated that SOX 404 indeed led to conservative reported earnings, but also reduced -- rightly or wrongly -- stock valuations of small firms.[17] Lower earnings often cause the share price to decrease.

Lord & Benoit Report (2006):
This study included a population of nearly 2,500 companies and indicated that companies with no material weaknesses in their internal controls, or companies that corrected them in a timely manner, experienced much greater increases in share prices than companies that did not.[18][19] The report indicated that the benefits to a compliant company in share price (10% above Russell 3000 index) were greater than their SOX Section 404 costs.

The effect of SOX on non-US companies
Some have asserted that Sarbanes-Oxley legislation has helped displace business from New York to London, where the Financial Services Authority regulates the financial sector with a lighter touch. In the UK, the non-statutory Combined Code of Corporate Governance plays a somewhat similar role to SOX. However, a greater amount of resources are dedicated to enforcement of securities laws in the UK than in the US.

Howell E. Jackson & Mark J. Roe, “Public Enforcement of Securities Laws:
Preliminary Evidence,” (Working Paper January 16, 2007). The Alternative Investment Market claims that its spectacular growth in listings almost entirely coincided with the Sarbanes Oxley legislation. In December 2006 Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, and Charles Schumer, a U.S. senator, expressed their concern.[20]

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act's effect on Non-US companies cross-listed in the US is different on firms from developed and well regulated countries than on firms from less developed countries according to Kate Litvak.[21] Companies from badly regulated countries benefit from better credit ratings by complying to regulations in a highly regulated country (USA) that is higher than the cost, but companies from developed countries only incur the cost, since transparency is adequate in their home countries as well. On the other hand, the benefit of better credit rating also comes with listing on other stock exchanges such as the London Stock Exchange.

Here is a link to the source data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

Here is a link to the original legislation as it was in the Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:7:./temp/~mdbs3coNp2::

As we can plainly see by the economic meltdown of the American Economy this act did nothing to prevent it and from where I sit it is a useless piece of legislation. Looks like another bureaucratic government program that costs a ton of money and doesn't do anything to benefit the country or prevent corporations whether they be banks or stock manipulators from cooking the books and fleecing the American people.

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Well folks it was apparent to me that with all the finger pointing it would be appropriate to actually get you up to speed on what this piece of legislation was really about by allowing you to see it and read what the industry had to say about it. Forget the politicians because they have an agenda and only give you what they want you to know and hide the rest. Here you can check out what I was able to find and then make your own evaluations on who is telling you the truth and who is trying to sandbag you.

Basic information on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRC):

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations, and commercial loans to small businesses. The Act was passed in 1977 and has been subjected to important regulatory revisions since then.

Original Act
The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.[1] Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.[2] The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions after the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed restrictions on interstate banking.[3] However, until 1995 the Act was laxly enforced and banks only were required to advertise in local minority newspapers or sit on the boards of local community groups.[4] The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), and the Federal Reserve System).[citation needed]
The bill encouraged mortgage lending through two government sponsored enterprises ("GSEs"). One, the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, enables mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. The other, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, buys mortgages on the secondary market and sells them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.[5] It also charged the Federal Reserve System to implement the CRA through ensuring banks and savings and loans met their CRA obligations.[3]

Congressional Changes of 1989
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into law by President G. H. W. Bush in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. It increased public oversight of the process. It required the agencies to issue CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies' conclusions. It also required a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of "Outstanding," "Satisfactory," "Needs to Improve," or "Substantial Noncompliance."[6]

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][6]
The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."[citation needed] Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance.[citation needed] Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[4] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.[8][9]

GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[6]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [10] The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats[11]
The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks.[3] "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[10] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[6]

Controversy
The effects of the Community Reinvestment Act on the housing markets are controversial. Some economists and financial experts have wondered if the CRA was - or at least had become - essentially irrelevant, because it was not needed to force banks to make profitable loans to a variety of lenders.[12][13]

Economist Howard Husock writes that a CRA-connected community group The Woodstock Institute found in a survey in the Chicago-area that even banks not subject to CRA tended to loan in a variety of neighborhoods. He also criticized as an "amateur delivery system" community groups' involvement in marketing loans.[4]

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that an underlying assumption of the CRA – that more lending is always better for local communities – is questionable.[3]

Economist Stan Liebowitz has claimed that banks were forced to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." The chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit."[14]

On the other hand, Professor of Law Michael S. Barr in congressional testimony stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.[15]

Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act.[16]

A Wall Street Journal editorial argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed in part to the subprime crisis.[17]

A Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper by economist Luci Ellis concluded that "Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust."[18]

Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, in congressional testimony Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[15]

Center for American Progress fellow Robert Gordon[19] noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but had very little CRA involvement.[20] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[20]

Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo counters Gordon's statistic by arguing that even if half of the subprime loans were made by non-CRA companies, the CRA had still caused tens of billions in defaults on mortgages by unqualified borrowers. He further states that Gordon's statistic ignores that independent mortgage companies are middlemen who sell subprime loans to banks that are in turn regulated by the CRA.[21]

Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who also works at the New America Foundation,[22] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble.[23] She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example.[24]

Here is a link to the data source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

What the FDIC says.

The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005.

Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities.

Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.

CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions. Information on this page is related to depository institutions that are examined by the Federal Reserve, mainly state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve. CRA information on other depository institutions is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Interagency information about the CRA is available from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

Link to Federal Reserve Board. http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/default.htm


What the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC) said.

Background & Purpose
The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e. (See Regulation).

The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. (See CRA Ratings)

CRA examinations (see Exam Schedules) are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

Additional information in the form of Interagency Questions and Answers, Interagency Interpretive Letters, CRA data reporting is available.

Here is a link to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC) site. http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/default.htm

NOTE:
Because this legislation was put forth in 1977 by the 95th Congress I was unable to locate the original legislation through the Library of Congress or the Congressional Record as they only go back to the 101st Congress which was in session from 1989 to 1990.

The problem has and always will be until we get legitimate and independent oversight that these guys are political and operate like politicians and bureaucrats insted af watchdogs. We need to have the guys watching over the operation also making sure these entities they are watching aren't cooking the books and that is something that has never been incorporated into the oversight boards.

Currently the level of partisan politics in Washington is so intense that I feel that the only way to get beyond it is to run them all out of town on a rail and elect a completely new set of representatives and senators.

The Bailout & Why it Failed

Well folks once again we see what the poison of the political hatred in Washington and our bogus media have wrought us.

When John McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington to help with a rescue bill. Immediately the Democrats announced a deal that was never made in order to make it look like Mccain was grandstanding. Enter the spectre of partisan politics Democrat style. Once again Senator Barack Obama put himself before the country as he always has preferring to call in his support rather than actually trying to help find a solution. For someone who has been sold to the American people as an economic guru one begins to wonder why he is not applying his talents to solve this problem. Before John McCain arrived in Washington the fantasy bill was exposed as no deal by the Republican leadership. During the initial negotiations Nancy Pelosi had frozen the Rebublicans out of it. Not until John McCain arrived was he able to force the Democrats to admit the Republicans into the negotiations. Also it was John McCain and the Minority Leader who were able to get the Democrats to remove the Earmarks that the Democrats had embedded into the bill that gave PACs like ACORN $20 billion which they were hoping would be then funnelled into their campaigns. Immediatly Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership inserted their vile and poisonous partisan politics into the negotiations which went a long way to poison the negotiations. The Democrats are the majority party so they were supposed to bring leadership and civility into the negotiations instead they brought derision and poisonous rhetoric. Both Democrats and Republicans as well as the American people had major problems with this turkey. Thankfully both parties had major portions of their membership as well as members of the Banking Committee and leadership listen to their constituents and voted this bill down. Now they have a chance to craft a bill that will indeed resolve this issue IF they can put partisan politics aside and work together. I doubt that Nancy Pelosi will allow this to happen because she is so full of hate that she will never ever give a Republican credit for anything.

The only way that the hate and partisan politics will ever end in Washington is that if we the people vote these partisan politicians OUT of office and put in people that actually will be willing to work for the good of the country regardless of party. In 36 days we will have a chance to begin this process by unloading these poisonous snakes from our Congress and replacing them with true citizen statesmen/stateswomen. Also, we have seen by his significant absense from the scene that Barack Obama actually has no clue how to deal with this issue and is therefore not the guy we need in Washington as President of the United States in the coming term.

The Debate - Separating Fact From Fiction

At this point in time I am not interested in winners or losers of debates because we are talking about the future of this country and not a ball game. What I am concerned about is what was said and was it fact or fantasy, and beyond that what does it really mean to us as a country. I am only going to sort out the important stuff because the back and forth he said she said means exactly nothing.

1. The Iraq War was Bush's fault - This was pure fiction because every intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion as Bush did. I know because I had been on the list to receive intelligence reports from the Intelligence Oversight Committee so I was able to review the reports that were delivered to Congress (most of the info was not classified). Beyond this Bush was incredibly stupid in waiting almost a full year to build up forces on the Iraq border which gave Saddam Houssein more than enough time to move or bury any weapons he had. Yet we are supposed to believe that Senator Obama had some 6th sense that directed him to vote against the war. I am not that stupid but he thinks that you are. Is he right?
   
2. $18 billion in earmarks is not as bad as $300 billion in tax breaks for business - Fantasy of the highest magnitude because earmarks are a net loss for the economy but when you give business tax breaks they are then able to take the money they saved from the tax breaks and expand their business and hire additional employees which in turn increases the tax base and therefore adds revenue to the economy via the wages paid by the company. Increasing the tax base also reduces the unemployment numbers which is also good for the economy.
   
3. I promise to give tax rebates to 95% of Americans - This is a fact but it is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Let's take a deeper look into this statement in order to see what he is really talking about. If you make less than $40K a year then you pay little or no taxes and if you are unemployed then you pay NO taxes at all. Around 50% of the people in that 95% number pay no taxes at all and there are also a number of these people who are illegals and are using stolen Social Security Numbers so what is really going on here is that Senator Obama wants to take money out of the pockets of working people and give it in the form of a treasury check to those that don't work or pay taxes. This is socialism ... do you really want to live in a socialist society where you have no control over your own life?
   
4. Due to the current financial crisis what part of your budget to you plan to cut from your administration if you become president? Obama made no commitments to cut anything but insisted on having additional spending. McCain cited several programs that could be cut or eliminated because they were pure pork anyway.
   
5. How did the country get to this point? Neither candidate was really willing to identify the real cause but only repeated the symptoms. The problem stems from legislation passed by the Democrat Congress way back during the Carter administration that actually set the table for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then the subsequent Congresses and Presidents compounded the problem by allowing the lobbyists from those entities to buy them off via campaign contributions and perks. There actually were a few Presidents that tried to reign in spending but the Congresses in power were always able to circumvent them. That was the root cause, so if we were to repeal that initial legislation then the conditions that allowed this to happen would be effectively eliminated.
   

The most curious thing here is that when you cut through all of the rhetoric you find that the people who are saying they are going to vote for Barack Obama have no clue what his programs are or what he has done in the past, what they do know is that he has promised them free money and that is why they like him. The reality is that the President does not have the power to give away money, only the Congress has that authority. With the state of the economy there is ZERO chance that the great federal money giveaway that Obama has promised will ever happen. In fact, in his whole career Barack Obama does not have a record of helping anyone in the middle class. Onced again we see what the me first generation has brought us.

http://votesmart.org/

Retooling Industry - What the Candidates have said

This one is a very tough topic to get a handle on because each of the candidates has a different perspective on what they mean by RETOOLING. Below you will find what each candidate has said about this and in some cases how they plan to pay for it, in other cases it is not much more than a promise of what they intend to do but not anything on how they plan to do it. You will have to decide where you fall in this tangled web. I will also offer some questions you might want to ask or some observations on what is missing or potential pitfalls because of what they have left out of the statements.


What Senator Obama has said:

Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.

• Where is the $4 billion dollars coming from?
• Retool to what?
• He is also talking about being oil independent which could mean some different type of fuel or vehicle but what kind?
  

We can't afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, and the periods of drought.By 2050, famine could force more than 250 million from their homes. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.This bipartisan legislation establishes an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. It helps states, cities, and towns invest in technologies to reduce energy bills for homeowners, increase energy efficiency, construct green buildings, and expand public transit. It invests in green technology to help our automakers to retool and our fossil-fuel industries to become clean. The bill provides real financial relief to working families. Importantly, the bill restores our great nation's international leadership role, while including provisions to ensure that all major emitting nations also take serious action to solve this global problem.

• The global warming folks have been saying this for over 30 years and it has yet to manifest anything substantial to support their claims. When a hurricane hits an unpopulated area nothing is said even if it is a category 5 or several category 3, 4, etc. It is only a disaster when it hits a populated area but that doesn't mean the storms are any worse than before only that this time they hit a populated area.
• In 1980 these same claims were made that said the ice caps would melt and New York would be washed away but here is is 2008 and New York still stands and not a sign of the oceans raising even an inch.
• The last time I checked the stores were filled with food and the farms were producing plenty of food to feed us even with the periodic floods and freezes that ruin a portion of some crops. I do see that at some point in time due to the growing population of the world that we will need to expand into unoccupied areas of the planet in order to create additional farms in order to supply more food to accomodate the new population numbers. So far the only folks that are starving are the folks living in areas that are torn by war and have an ongoing genocide but that has nothing to do with global warming it has to do with greed and lust for power.
• Again there are lots of promises here but no indication of where the money is coming from in order to pay for these wide ranging programs.
• Note that this is a typical political ploy to first instill fear of something bad happening if you don't do this thing right away so the politician can sway your vote without ever telling you how he came to this conclusion or how he plans to accomplish this thing and pay for it.
• Again there is no indication here of just how this bill is going to provide aid to families, how it will be paid for or how it will improve our international standing. Someone should remind Senator Obama that he is running for President of the United States and not President of the World as this bill seems to indicate.

And so today, I'm announcing a manufacturing agenda that will lift up hardworking families, strengthen innovative companies, and foster our common prosperity. The first part of this agenda is investing in clean energy - because that isn't just how we'll get gas prices under control, combat climate change, and free ourselves from the tyranny of oil; it's also how we'll expand American manufacturing, create quality jobs, and grow our economy.That's why I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years in the green energy sector. This will create up to five million new green jobs - and those are jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. And I'll be a President who finally keeps the promise that's made year after year after year by providing domestic automakers with the funding they need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars. My own state of Illinois is home to the oldest, continually operating Ford assembly plant outside Michigan, so I understand why it's so important to bring our auto industry into the 21st Century. And that's what we'll do when I'm President.

• Again promising to invest another $150 billion dollars but no indication of where this money is coming from.
• Hmm, tyranny of oil companies ... the last time I checked the oil companies that are American owned only control about 2% to 6 % of the world's oil supply. Also, these companies are owned by the shareholders which are you and me. Your 401k is investing in these companies so you get part of those profits anytime you get a check from your 401K.
• Someone needs to remind Senator Obama that the President does not control the purse strings of the federal government, that is the province of the U.S. Congress so stating that he will fulfill all of his promises is massive misrepresentation of the facts and ment to give you a false sense of what his power actually is. I suspect that Obama does not know just what the limits of the President's powers are.
• It is not the job of the federal government to bring any industry into the 21st or any other century that is the decision for each individual company to decide for themselves.
• I am beginning to wonder if Senator Obama has ever read the Constitution or knows anything about the country he wishes to be the president of? He is beginning to sound like someone who wishes to rule and not govern at all.

There are few more important unions in this country than the UAW. You created the auto industry. You secured good-paying jobs for generations of workers. And you built the American middle class - the backbone of our economy. So I know someone once said what's good for GM is good for America. But it's time we also recognized that what's good for the UAW is good for America.We need to help you compete with workers around the world by helping the auto industry compete with car companies all over the world. Yes, that means raising our fuel standards so we can make the fuel-efficient cars that are the future of your industry. But it also means giving you the help you need to retool your plants so we can build these cars right here in America. And if we can do that, we'll create thousands and thousands of jobs in the process.

• The UAW did NOT create the auto industry, Henry Ford did when he first came up with the assembly line concept to manufacture his first car. Other intrepeneur's that came after him followed his lead and the industry was born. I think that Senator Obama needs to go back to school because he obviously knows nothing about the industrial revolution.
• The UAW also did not build the American Middle Class because they were well established long before that organization ever came into being. The only thing the UAW did was to organize the workers into a group that finally was able to pressure employers into paying them a decent wage instead of sweatshop wages and for that we all owe them a debt of grattitude but let's not go overboard here. What Obama is doing here is smoozing the UAW workers so he can get their votes and the support of the union.
• Why does the federal government need to get involved with the building and retooling of privately owned manufacturing plants?
• What you are looking at here is an attempt to subsidize another industry, we all have seen what it did to the farming industry and how much it increased the national debt. It is looking more and more like an Obama administration is looking to absorb every industry into the federal government so they will have complete control over the population so we will no longer be free to choose when and where we work, who our doctor is and when we can see them, maybe even where we are to live and what if any car we can own. This is a very dangerous path to be going down.
• Exactly what jobs is he talking about because if there is a union then you can't get hired unless you are a union member and you can't get into the union unless you have a job. The classic catch 22.
  

The first step in doing this is to phase out a carbon-based economy that's causing our changing climate. As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face. In addition to this cap, all polluters will have to pay based on the amount of pollution they release into the sky. The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution. It's time to make the cleaner way of doing business the more profitable way of doing business.There is no doubt that this transition will be costly in the short-term. To make it easier, we will provide assistance to Americans who need help with their energy bills. We'll help families make their homes more energy efficient, and we'll help workers and factories retool their facilities so they can compete and thrive in a clean energy economy. And once we make America more energy efficient and start producing more renewable energy, we will save money and bring energy costs down in the long-run. But we must act now.Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy.

• One wonders what data the Senator is using to determine that any carbon based economy is creating any climate change at all. There are an equal or greater number of scientists and studies that profoundly disagree with this whole concept.
• The President does not have the authority to set caps on anything only the Congress has that power. Once again this guy is displaying his complete lack of knowledge on what the President can and cannot do.
• Again he cannot implement anything immediately because it has to go through the legislative process in the Congress.
• Just what scientists is this guy talking about because most of the scientists in this field don't buy this global warming theory. This arguement looks to be based on the fact that he wants to spend trillions of dollars on more government programs that don't work. He would be on better ground if he just based this on health concerns instead of this global warming theory.
• The most destructive pollution does not go into the sky but seeps into our groundwater. California tried this same ploy with the Clean Air Initiative and what happened is that they beaurocracy built a multi million dollar office in Orange County with fines levied against small and medium sized businesses. The large defense plants moved out of state and left 500,000 workers unemployed and the big polluters remained untouched. Also the air in the sky is free and no one owns it. The government controls the airspace but nothing else, you cannot own the air nor the clouds in the sky.
• Once again Senator Obama is giving away money to poor folks and promising to spend billions in what appears to be an attempt to initiate some kind of control of a private industry but never attempts to tell us where the money is coming from nor does he even address the issue.
  

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate, I wanted to do whatever I could to make real progress toward energy independence. I reached across the aisle to pass a law that will give more Americans the chance to fill up their cars with clean biofuels. I passed a law that will fuel the research needed to develop a car that will get 500 miles to the gallon. I even voted for an energy bill that was far from perfect because I was able to ensure that it contained some real investments in renewable sources of energy. And I've fought to eliminate the tax giveaways to oil companies that were slipped into that bill - oil companies that have spent half a billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last ten years while their profits have risen to record highs.And I did something else. I knew that America hadn't raised the fuel standards for our cars in twenty years. Even though we had the technology on the shelf. Even though Japanese car companies that make more fuel-efficient cars are running circles around our own car companies. Even though we send hundreds of millions of dollars a day to some of the world's most dangerous regimes for their oil.So I decided to try something new. I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards that won support of lawmakers who had never supported raising fuel standards before. And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am President, there will be no more excuses - we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.

• I could find no bill that Obama created that passed nor did any of them indicate that the bill would finance research for a vehicle that would get 500 miles to the gallon of anything. The only bills he sponsored that deal with this are linked here. All of these bills are still stuck in committee. H.R.1506, S.768, S.875
• Actually oil company profits are in the 6% range which is far below what the rest of the oil industry and other industry profit margins are. In fact most of that profit is used to fight legal battles with environmental groups that are determined to prevent any drilling of any kind anywhere. Another large portion of the profit is spent in research and exploration. What is left is around 1 to 2%. The actual profit the oil companies make at the pump is around 6 cents per gallon while the government takes down around 18 cents per gallon. I would think that Senator Obama would be more angry at the high tax at the pump than he was at the profit the oil company makes which is 1/3rd what the government makes.
• Japanese cars are better at gas mileage than American cars because they are lighter and when you get in a wreck on the highway your rate of serious injury is 5 times that of an American car. Gas mileage without safety is not worth it.
• The federal government has no business paying for a private industry to retool their manufacturing plants. Is Obama also going to pay for the retooling of every other industry in this country as well?
• Where is the money coming from?
• Once the government gets their foot into the door of a private company it is only a matter of time before they start telling that company how to build their product and then what product they can build and who they can hire and then what they can pay them. This is a really BAD idea.

Provisions from S. 767, the bipartisan Fuel Economy Reform Act introduced by Senators Obama, Lugar, Biden, Specter, Bingaman, and Smith, were included in the bill approved by the Commerce Committee today. The legislation requires automakers to achieve significant annual improvements in fuel economy. The legislation also authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to establish different standards for different types of cars, providing increased flexibility to automakers and leveling the playing field for the US companies that sell a broader mix of vehicles than their foreign competitors. Senator Obama has proposed increasing fuel economy standards by 4% annually as the long-term goal. Obama has also committed to improving the health of the domestic auto industry, by providing assistance for legacy health care costs, as it produces more efficient automobiles.“I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that NHTSA discretion is carefully defined to ensure that we achieve the maximum fuel economy possible,” added Obama. “We must also address the key transition concerns of autoworkers by sustaining existing protections and establishing retooling incentives.”

• Note: This bill is still in committee and has been since 2007 – official status as follows: 3/6/2007: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2701-2703) Therefore, it means nothing unless it is signed into law. Many Senators submit thousands of bills for all manner of things but most die in committee.

We also know that, absent some assistance, the significant costs associated with retooling parts and assembly plants could be prohibitive for companies that are already struggling and shedding workers. Our goal is not to destroy the industry, but to help bring it into the 21st century. So if the auto industry is prepared to step up to its responsibilities, we should be prepared to help.That's why my proposal would provide generous tax incentives to help automakers upgrade their existing plants in order to accommodate the demands of producing more fuel-efficient vehicles.

• This is in direct contradiction to his stated goal of taxing the rich which means the folks that are responsible for upgrading their companies, hiring new employees, and expanding their markets. You can't have it both ways, you are either going to tax the people that create the jobs and bring additional revenue to the country or you aren't. So which is it Senator Obama?

The Big 3 automakers rightly argue that their retiree health care costs, expected to be $6.2 billion in 2006, hurt their ability to invest and compete.The Health Care for Hybrids Act would address the unique challenges of the U.S. auto industry and reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil at the same time. This bill would set up a voluntary program in which domestic automakers could choose to receive federal financial assistance to cover 10% of their annual legacy health care costs through 2017. The companies that participate in the program would be required to invest at least 50% of their health care savings into manufacturing fuel efficient cars, such as hybrids and advanced diesel vehicles in the United States, or helping domestic parts suppliers retool their manufacturing plants to produce advanced parts.These investments would help domestic auto manufacturers and parts suppliers meet the growing demand for fuel efficient vehicles. More American hybrid cars also ensure that there is competition in this growing market and would also help keep car prices low.

• The federal governmant has no business subsidizing the health care for an industry that has been negotiating insane deals with unions for over 20 years and for that reason they have the retirement situation they have.
• Senator, where is the culpability of the unions in this? After all they are the ones that have forced the companies to make these types of retirement plans. The union workers for these companies are paid insane wages and everyone knows it but you have already smoozed the unions to get their support so now you want to use taxpayer's money to pay for a private industry's bad contract on retirement.
• Senator Obama seems to be very generous with our money maybe someone should tell him that it's NOT HIS MONEY.
• Does this guy know anything about the manufacturing industry at all? Every company operates on JIT (Just In Time) that way they don't have to keep large inventories of spare parts on hand that could become damaged, lost, or stolen. This has saved them millions of dollars every year. These companies only keep enough spare parts on hand for emergencies and to complete existing orders.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced-technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers.

• Note: This bill like it’s predecessor is stuck in committee so it means nothing as I have stated previously. 3/6/2007: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (consideration: CR S2703-2706)
• Wher's the money coming from Senator Obama?
• More standards = bigger beaurocracy and greater waste, mismanagement, corruption, etc.

This legislation flips the current debate about increasing fuel economy standards on its head, from a debate about whether standards will be raised to presumption that they will be raised.In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, the legislation also provides generous tax incentives for companies to retool parts and assembly plants. This would strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing them to compete with foreign hybrid, E-85 and other fuel-efficient vehicles. The bill would also allow more Americans to benefit from a tax credit for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles by lifting the current cap that only makes eligible the first 60,000 buyers per manufacturer each year.If this 4 percent per year improvement is maintained for 20 years, this bill would reduce gasoline consumption by 549 billion gallons. If gasoline were just $2.50 per gallon, that means consumers would save $1.372 trillion at the pump by 2028.The Fuel Economy Reform Act would also provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

• Note: This was a resubmitted version of the previous 2 bills and suffered the same fate.
• First Obama wants to take away all the tax breaks and incentives for business then when it suits him to gain votes from another sector of the populace he says he wants to give them. Senator, you can't have it both ways so you have to make a decision, which is it going to be?
• Anytime a politician starts talking about being fair WATCH OUT because he is about to snooker someone.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs for 10 years, we would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--an astounding 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers would save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent gases.And yet, auto executives are right when they say that transitioning to more fuel-efficient automobiles would be costly at a time of sagging profits and stiff competition, and that's precisely why the Federal Government shouldn't let the industry face these challenges on their own.The Fuel Economy Act provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. But we should do more than that. We need to help the Big Three automakers with one of their largest expenses, namely, retiree health care costs, which ran almost $6.7 billion just last year. For GM, these health care costs represent $1,500 of the price of every GM car that is made, which is more than what they pay for the steel.To that end, I also have filed an amendment to this bill based on the Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced last year. That proposal would set up a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to receive Federal financial assistance towards their retiree health care costs. In return, the automakers would be required to reinvest these savings into developing fuel-efficient vehicles.

• Again this guy is talking about subsidizing an industry that pays it's janitors $50K a year. The federal government has no business mucking about in private industry. If a company makes bad decisions then it is NOT up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced-technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among all vehicle types and between manufacturers.Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

This legislation flips the current debate about increasing fuel economy standards on its head, from a debate about whether standards will be raised to presumption that they will be raised.In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, the legislation also provides generous tax incentives for companies to retool parts and assembly plants. This would strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing them to compete with foreign hybrid, E-85 and other fuel-efficient vehicles. The bill would also allow more Americans to benefit from a tax credit for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles by lifting the current cap that only makes eligible the first 60,000 buyers per manufacturer each year.If this 4 percent per year improvement is maintained for 20 years, this bill would reduce gasoline consumption by 549 billion gallons. If gasoline were just $2.50 per gallon, that means consumers would save $1.372 trillion at the pump by 2028.The Fuel Economy Reform Act would also provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

• 3/6/2007:
  Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2701-2703). 768, S.875
• Until this becomes law it is nothing more than rhetoric and this thing is not likely to be that anytime soon because it has been stuck in committee for over 2 years now.

My Thoughts:

OK, what this all boils down to is that Senator Obama has totally bought into the Global Warming theory put forth by a few radical scientists but has not been bought into by the mainstream scientific community. What the scientific community really says is that you can't take some readings and studies over a 20 year period and apply those to a planet that is 4.5 billion years old and get anything back but garbage. Also so far none of the predictions that these so called top scientists have predicted over the past 20 or 30 years have ever come true or even been close to reality. Personally I am in the camp that says if you make a prediction and it turns out you are wrong then your credibility just went down the tubes.

On the retooling thing I find it amazing that a United States Senator would actually be pushing for spending trillions of taxpayers dollars to subsidize not 1 but many private industries simply because these companies made bad deals with unions and because of the way they have been taxed and constrained by government regulations. Make sure to don't overlook the fact that all of these subsidies are based on the Global Warming theory that he has been sold on. He makes a lot of assumptions but tells us nothing about what evidence he has to support that position other than sowing fear of a calamity to the voters.

Finally, and this is the most telling part of this whole issue. Senator Obama has never specified in any of the legislation proposed, speeces, or other public statements as to what the total pricetag is or how he intends to pay for it other than just to say that the government will give, invest, etc. all this money to whichever entity or indistry. Also he has never even addressed the problem of who is going to pay to convert existing vehicles over to the new technology, what the new technology is, and how he plans to set up fueling points or how many will be available for these "hybrid" vehicles.

No matter how you cut it as it exists in his current rhetoric this plan is a train wreck waiting to happen and will end up costing us multiple trillions of dollars in the long run and make the existing national debt look like chump change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I could find in the speeches and statements from John McCain and others regarding retooling industry. He doesn’t much like the idea instead favors giving tax credits to consumers to help them purchase these vehicles, training, etc.

The auto industry and Wall Street took center stage in the presidential race Wednesday when Republican John McCain, after touring a suburban Detroit auto plant, declared in his strongest language so far that he will fight for government loans to help the U.S. auto industry retool.

McCain's support of the auto industry on Wednesday contrasts with his position last month when he visited the GM Tech Center in Warren and said he wasn't inclined to support loans for the auto industry.McCain, who also did not vote on the energy bill creating the loan program in December 2007, said then through his campaign that his proposals -- a $5,000 tax credit for consumers to buy more efficient models and a $300-million prize for battery technology -- would accomplish the same goals as the loan program. Auto industry officials said they believed that without McCain's support, the funding would get labeled a Democratic ploy. Michigan's Republican lawmakers, especially U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, are credited with convincing McCain to back the loans.

• Offering to loan a company money to help them get some upgrades or other technology developed that they normally would not be able to aquire on their own is a whole different kettle of fish then just forking over billions of dollars in taxpayer's money to do it.
• Tax credits for consumers is a nifty way to get them into a hybrid vehicle without spending billions of tax dollars to develop it then not having anyone be able to afford to buy it. This is also a good way to increase the sales of these vehicles and thus allow the industry to repay the loans they got from the government to develop it in the first place.
• Senator McCain, are you planning to offer the energy companies the same kind of a deal to develop new energy sources and to be able to convert existing gas stations to the new technology?
• I noticed that so far Senator McCain has NOT included anything to subsidize the retirement pensions the auto makers have to pay due to bad contracts negotiated with the unions.

John McCain on Tuesday proposed updating the unemployment system and retooling training programs to help people who have lost their jobs -- particularly older workers -- adapt to a changing economy."Change is hard, and while most of us gain, some industries, companies and workers are forced to struggle with very difficult choices," the Republican presidential candidate said as he espoused free-market principles in a state that leads the nation in unemployment."But it is government's job to help workers get the education and training they need for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century," McCain added. In a broad speech to Detroit Economic Club, the Arizona senator promised to rein in runaway federal spending, simplify the tax code, help U.S. industries become more competitive, and control spiraling health care costs. He also called for increasing fuel economy standards while maintaining auto safety.

• I was hoping that someone would address the retraining issue facing many displaced workers that are getting up in age and were in jobs that no longer exist. I am happy to see that mcCain is not as far out of touch as some would have us believe. It is also nice to hear thet he isn't proposing a NEW government program but instead has opted to simply upgrade the one currently in place.
• I am still waiting to hear how he plans to reign in government runaway spending, and simplify the tax code.
• I also want to hear how he plans to make companies more competitive and control spiraling health care costs without using subsidies, breaking the bank, or socializing the system.
• I am also pleased to see that he has included safety with his plan to increase the CAFE standards. I am still waiting to see how he plans to do this without subsidies.

Most of the nation's environmental laws are over 30 years old. It's time to comprehensively review them to assure they are relevant to today's needs and capabilities. That's not code for weakening our standards, it's a call for strengthening our methods for addressing the threats to human health and the environment, and for seeking ways to make them less costly. We must make regulations more flexible, emphasizing measurable results rather than means favored by bureaucrats. Flexibility will foster innovation. Our nation's clean air and water laws have improved the environment dramatically. But as far as we have come, we have serious environmental problems left to tackle. In doing so, we must resist the temptation to throw money at every problem. Rather we should build on what works, free enterprise and open markets. Rather than pork barrel programs, let's establish the necessary standards to achieve responsible goals, and then allow the private sector can harness the power of free markets to assure they are achieved as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible. As President I will give to the EPA administrator one simple battle plan: in concert with state, tribal and local officials, and the public, vigorously but flexibly enforce our vital environmental protection laws and the rules that contribute directly to the protection of human health and the environment, and retool or retire outdated regulations that serve no useful purpose toward those ends. As President, I will order a complete top to bottom review with these criteria in mind. And I will make it a priority to ensure that federal agencies abide by the laws that the government imposes on everyone else. Several years ago, mercury was discovered leaching into the ground water from, of all places, a lab operated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The federal government is the biggest polluter in the land. That's not right and it must stop.

• I am actually impressed, the Senator made no promises that are outside his power as President and knew exactly what government agencies to tap in order to initiate change without going through Congress. This is the hallmark of a leader. He also is employing the people who are experts in this field in order to get the best possible answers to the existing problems so that when he does present a bill to Congress he will have already addressed the issues they will be concerned with.
• For the first time we have a government official who is calling out a government agency as a polluter and condemning them for it. If this guy gets in he is going to shake the foundations of the status quo to their very roots and that is going to be good for the American people.

Mr. President I am please to introduce a bill intended to preserve the United States' world leadership position in technology into the coming century. This legislation is intended to assure that our scientific, mathematics, engineering and technology resources are surpassed by no one. It is intended to ensure that our most precious national resources, our people, receive the best education and training through our best national product, innovation. We must allow our most creative forces to interact to achieve improved math and science education in our schools. We must assure more highly trained college graduates in science, math, engineering and technology. And we must encourage the retooling of our country's experienced minds to address the problems and the solutions of tomorrow.Specifically, this legislation uses a portion of each H-1B visa fee to provide grants for innovative programs which will improve the math, science, engineering and technology skills of Americans so that they can fill the estimated average of 137,800 new positions expected to be created in these fields each year from now through 2006. During the interim, while the American pipeline of talent is filling, the bill lifts the caps on H-1B visas to allow our American companies to continue to grow and prosper.This legislation is necessary and beneficial to our nation. Let me explain in some detail why.First, although this country can be proud of having some of the most highly regarded colleges and universities in the world, our elementary and secondary education system is not sufficiently emphasizing science and math in the curriculum. Our students are falling behind in these areas. The results of the 1998 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) are instructive. In math, our 4th graders ranked 12th out of 26 countries. Not a stellar performance. But even more discouraging, by 12th grade, the U.S. math rank was 19th out of 21 countries. As a result, not enough American college students are majoring in the sciences, including computer science, mathematics and engineering to fill the escalating need for highly trained professionals.

Full Speech: http://votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=74417&keyword=tooling&phrase=&contain=

• Again Senator McCain has identified one of the main problems we have in this country, our educational institutions and he has also identified the problem areas that are causing us to fall behind technologically.
• I am very impressed that this time he has also given an indication of how he plans to pay for this program. This idea has a lot of potential but I want to see the actual bill first before I give a firm thumbs up on it.

My Thoughts:

When John McCain first appeared on the scene for the presidency I was very unimpressed with him. As the election cycle has progressed I wanted to look closer to see if I had missed anything. Because I am also a Vietnam Vet disabled in the War I have been in the process of giving him a personal vetting that is far more critical than I have given any other candidate. Maybe I have set much higher expectations and goals from him because of this. Just before he announced his VP selection I took the time to view his video on "Faith of my Fathers" I was very impressed and for the firsat time I began to see just how deeply her cares for this country. I don't believe I could have gone through what he did. He is a leader of the first order and that is something I thought I would never have said about him. When he picked Sarah Palin I began to question his judgement until I researched her and found that in her he has found probably the perfect political match for what he intends to do from the White House. Now that I have seen and read what he has proposed and outside of a few issues I still have with him I am convinced that he is the man at the right time in our nations history. John McCain says more in a single paragraph than most politicians say in 2 or 3 pages of political speak.

I highly recommend that you check out Project Vote Smart on the web because they are the most recognized non partisan source of information on the candidates you will ever find. LINK: http://votesmart.org/index.htm

The Financial Crisis & Who Caused It

Well folks it took me a long time to find out about this because the real cause of this started years ago but in 2005 there were 4 Senators in Washington who saw it coming and tried to get legislation in place to prevent it but the legislation never saw the light of day because it was apparently killed in the Banking Committee. I pulled up the legislation to see what it said and I also pulled out some testimony from a Senator who literally outlined exactly what has happened today but said it in 2005. Coincidentally he is also one of the people running for President this year and his name is John McCain. This bill was actually sponsored by Chuck Hagel (R) and cosponsored by Elizabeth Dole (R), John McCain (R), and John Sununu (R). The name of this bill was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S . 190. Now to be fair there was also a bill the Senator Barack Obama did cosponsor and it was named the Development Bank Reform and Authorization Act of 2005 S.1129. Here is a short description of that bill and a link to the actual bill in case you want to take a closer look at it. This bill had nothing to do with the Federal Housing issue but instead dealt with the World Bank which tells us a lot about where the priorities of Senator Obama and his colleagues were.

S . 1129
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Development Bank Reform and Authorization Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States has strong national security and humanitarian interests in alleviating poverty and promoting development around the world.
(2) The World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank leverage the resources that the United States and other donors can devote to such goals.
(3) Contributions from the United States and other donors to the multilateral development banks must be well managed so that the mission of such banks is fully realized and not undermined by corruption. Bribes can influence important bank decisions on projects and contractors and misuse of funds can inflate project costs, cause projects to fail, and undermine development effectiveness. (4) Officials of the World Bank have identified corruption as the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development. Corruption undermines development by distorting the rule of law and weakening the institutional foundation on which economic growth depends.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109gjuwHR:b74417:

Here is the bill and statement in which Senator McCain supported, apparently it was killed in committee because there are no recorded votes on it.

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - May 25, 2006)[Page: S5217] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ``illusions deliberately and systematically created'' by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S . 190 , to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The two top reciepients of money from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are Christopher Dodd the chairman of the Banking Committee and Barack Obama. John McCain also recieved a token amount from them but not near the amount the others took.

Also note that the then CEO of Fannie Mae is now the chief economic advisor for the Obama campaign. You will have to decide for yourself whether this is relevant or not.

It looks like the hatred the Dems have for the Repubs has just cost you a ton of money and probably a lot of you your homes and jobs. This is just one more illustration of how important it is for us to take our right to vote seriously and get our heads out of our collective posterior anal cavities and PAY ATTENTION! You wanna know who is at fault? Well then go look in the mirror because we are the ones who didn’t pay attention and elected these guys to high office so they could steal our money and our lives. If you look at the 4 folks who have their names on this bill you will see John McCain and a bunch of Republicans but I don’t think you will find a Democrat within 50 miles of this bill because they need you to be dependent on them for survival. Below you will find links to the actual bill, the Banking Committee that was in place during that Congress and a link to the responsibilities of that committee. I have also provided a link to the actual votes taken during that congress and there is no mention of this bill ever coming up for any kind of a vote. Yo will have to decide whether John McCain or Barack Obama are really looking out for you or are just saying what they think you want to hear so you will vote for them.

Here is a link to the actual bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.190:

This link is to the Congressional votes for that period: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm

Here is a link to the Banking Committee: These were the guys on the banking committee: http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Membership Note that Chuck Hagel was on that committee and saw the impending disaster and subsequently saught assistance in drafting a bill to try and prevent it.

Here is a link to what the Banking Committee is responsible for: http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Jurisdiction


You Democrats out there that vote straight party line have no one to blame but yourself because you are to busy to do your own thinking so you let these political hacks do it for you. You Republicans that let your anger at the Republican party so you sat the election out have no one but yourself to blame because you let the Democrats take over the House and Senate, you cut off your nose to spite your face. You Independents don't get off either because you either did the same as the Republicans or you cast your vote for a third party csandidate and called it a protest vote. Well now we all have to pay a sever price because we and no one else set up the scenario where this could happen. You folks that are losing your homes, you don't get off either because you knew when you signed that cantract that there was no way you could pay for a 200K dollar home when you were only making 25K or 30K a year and the payments were like 1500 or 2K dollars a month and your car payment was like $500.00 a month and that was before you figured in food, gas, insurance, etc. but you had a government guarantee so you figured they would step in and pay off your house and you would still have it. Well, welcome to the real world because that isn't how it works. If you don't make the payments then you lose it.

The greedy folks in those government agencies were at fault, the politicians in Congress were at fault for not doing their jobs because most of them were on the take, we the voters were at fault for putting these crooks in office, and those of us who signed contracts for houses we knew we couldn't afford were at fault so there is more than enough blame to go around. Maybe next time we will try to live in the real world instead of the fantasy one the politicians want us to live in.

If we weren't so caught up in the political hatred of this country we might have been able to avoid this. Maybe it is time to think for ourselves instead of letting others do it for us. When you become homeless because you were to bored to pay attention you won't be bored any longer.

Here are the links to a report on this issue, I hope it helps clear the air a bit. However, you will need to put your political bias aside in order to understand the report because the Democrats in Washington and Barack Obama are right in the middle of this. For those of you who prefer to justify anything the Democrats do and demonize anything the Republicans do you will simply ignore the report as if it was done by a political organization instead of some of the most trusted economic minds in our country. However, you will really have to be a dedicated Democrat and be drinking a lot of the Obama cool aide to refute the verifiable historical evidence contained in this report.

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0g0mtZyZB4
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqw9UzUtxbg
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVuG7-fsWM
Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Part Six: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2nHqJZazucPart