Remember late in September, Congress had to pass a $700 billion dollar rescue plan to keep our economy from financial ruin? Well, that emergency plan eventually passed on Oct. 2nd. It grew from its original 3 pages to 450 pages. It also grew in scope: no longer was it a $700 billion blank check, it now included lots of pork!  

In the month and a half since passage, the stock market continues to head downward. More companies, states, and cities are lining up with their hands extended for bailout cash. Every week it seems the bailout bill morphs into something other than its original purpose: (My emphasis throughout.)

Originally intended as a program to largely mop up bad debt related to the home mortgage crisis, Paulson last week redefined the program so that it focuses more direct capital injections into banks and consumer-related debt.

Watching Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson Explain[s] the Financial Crisis is not at all reassuring. (The following are some excerpts, not word for word, but pretty close to what was said. Time stamp notes that section.)

Paul Gigot asks: What can you tell taxpayers they have received for their $700 billion?

What I can tell taxpayers is that the financial system has been stabilized. We never promised that this rescue package would solve all the ills of the economy or that the govt. could push a button. ...it was passed on Oct. 2nd ...by 10 days later we had $115 billion out the door to those banks. ...the system is stabilized...

5:00 You will make an adjustment in your rescue plan to no longer buy those troubled bank assets.Those toxic assets on the balance sheets are still a problem, aren't they? 

They sure are and this was a good idea when we conceived the plan, and it is still a good idea...

By the time Congress passed the law, it was pretty clear that the situation was more severe...the best way to use these funds is to focus on capital and so we announced... to hold back more funds so they would be available for capital.

6:50 ...some of those $700 billion into consumer finance areas like, auto loans, student loans, and credit cards.

This isn't a firm proposal. In our economy 40% of consumer lending takes place outside of banking industry.
...The concept here is a federal reserve liquid pool.

[8:38 Paulson gives the example of an investor coming to the Fed. with a AAA rated student loan paper ...]

11:00 That is not the intent, it is not to be all things to all people. It is to deal with the financial situation. Perhaps that Department of Energy bill passed by congress of $25bil for auto industry, perhaps that could be modified to help.

11:32 How long is the govt. going to be a share holder in a lot of these institutions and the danger of politically directed credit. As you look at this into the next presidency, how long do you think the government should try to keep a stake in these things? 1 year, 5 years, 10, forever?

11: 50 Certainly not forever. No longer than is necessary. We've structured this program to be not obtrusive. We've structured it to not crowd out private capital. We've taken preferred shares and the warrants in common wont be voted...and hired asset managers. This is about getting capital into banks, to help the US economy and stabilize the system.  This is anything but a program to come in and nationalize or have the government be there for a longer term.  It is very different from other programs you've seen described  that have taken place in other countries around the world and some of the programs designed in Europe.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel all that assured that Paulson even knows what this bailout is supposed to be. Do I trust him that these bailouts aren't nationalizing our banks and other industries? Remember How Paulson forced bail-out on the banks?

...US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson strong-armed America's big banks into signing up for the bail-out plan.

... Why was this necessary? he [Wells Fargo's Kovacevich] asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?

Paulson, who yesterday made clear his own distaste for the bail-out plan, told the Wells Fargo chief and his fellow bank bosses that it was for their own good, and the good of the country

So who decides where the money is used, the Congress or Paulson? The bailout bill congress wrote and approved gave Paulson control of the project*. So why is the Congress discussing auto bailouts for the $700 billion if Paulson isn't in favor? 

One thing that is clear: Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is a very powerful man right now, and it seems he thinks he is king. And why wouldn't he?

We are venturing into uncharted waters right now, hang on mates, there be rough waters ahead.

*It is much the same when voters last spring gave Elmbrook $62.5 million for the referendum. We approved it, the board decides how the money is to be used. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

A picture is worth a 1,000 words. Click this National Climatic Data Center/ NOAA link to see a map United States. It shows U.S. temperature averages from January through October of this year.

The cruel joke is, now that temperatures are colder again, energy prices* are higher because of environmental protection measures! 

Another cruel joke: "State $5 billion in the red -- Governor to go to Beverly Hills"** by Rep. Jim Ott:

On the same day Governor Doyle announced that Wisconsin has a budget deficit in excess of $5 billion, the largest in state history, and talked about spending cuts, tax hikes and job cuts, he announced that he is flying to California next week for a summit on Global Warming. The summit will be held at the Beverly Hills Hilton.
... 

“Wisconsinites are facing the worst fiscal crisis in the state’s history and Governor Doyle is flying to Beverly Hills, CA “…to develop creative, collective actions to advance the global climate agreement….”that hasn’t even been negotiated yet???” asked Representative Jim Ott.

Rep. Ott added this point,

“Furthermore how does firing up your state plane – you don’t exactly have a history of flying commercial - reduce your carbon foot print? The least you could do is fly Midwest Express, support a Wisconsin company, and use some of the airline miles you must have accumulated on your September global warming trip to Germany.” 

Remember that Representative Jim Ott is also a Meteorologist--he knows his weather statistics!

Colder temperatures? State $5 billion in the hole? No matter, Gov. Doyle has his priorities. Too bad they aren't mine.
 

*We can't drill for new oil or natural gas sources, we can't build coal fired electricity plants, we can't build nuclear power plants, and we are forced to use expensive solar and wind, all because of environmental extremists. 

**I heard this on Mark Belling's show today. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember when John McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington to work on the economic crisis?

Obama just said, if you need me, call me. 

Turns out, Obama was making a few calls during that time--at least according to former president Bill Clinton.

In a Fox News piece yesterday, Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response, Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what...to do." In it, Clinton tells a few tales out of school on Barack Obama: (My emphasis)

"I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis)," Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida. "He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'" 

Clinton said when the crisis broke, Obama called his own advisers as well as those of the former two-term president, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet and others.

Clinton's comments might give some insight into why Obama didn't want to go to Washington--he didn't know what to do. Who does? We still don't know what the right thing to do was.

The disturbing part of Clinton's insights is the idea that Obama doesn't know what the right thing to do is, but if he is told, he believes he can "sell it."

And I think selling it is what Obama has been doing this entire campaign. He is packaging up his socialist ideas of spreading the wealth around and selling them as something that will help the middle class.

Obama is a master salesman. Some people are buying the idea that 95% of workers can get a tax break. They are buying the idea that Obama can take his scalpel and cut from our existing budget enough extra money to fund his billions of dollars worth of promises. Never mind there isn't enough surplus to fund even part of his wish list. 

Like most sales pitches, once the contract is signed, there is no opportunity for buyer's remorse. You get the chance to buy in or pass on November 4th. Let's hope most aren't buying.

H/T  Fairly Conservative

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

People, you have a voice. Use it!

When you speak up in volumes to corporations or to Congress, it usually has a positive affect. McDonald's recently reversed its support for gay and lesbian political and social issues. Sen. McCain is talking about drilling domestically because Americans demanded it.

Just a week ago, I told you about 2 Choice Hotels in New Jersey that offered a $50 discount to women who were in the process of having an abortion in Stay in our hotels, aborting young mothers do.  

I urged you to contact the hotel chain. I did. Evidently many people called and emailed, because yesterday I received a reply: (My emphasis)

Dear Kyle Prast:

Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about two hotels that are a part of the Choice Hotels franchise system.  We appreciate your input on this matter.  We have received several similar inquires. These two hotels, like all of our more than 4,600 franchised properties in the United States, are independently owned and operated. 

...While Choice as a franchisor develops national marketing programs, rates and promotion programs such as these are set locally.

As a result of inquiries like yours, The Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, upon reflection, has ended this practice of offering special rates to patients of the Cherry Hill Women's Center.

In addition, we have been advised by the Quality Inn in Maple Shade that any assertions of a similar discount at that hotel are false.

Thank you again for alerting us to this important issue. We hope you can now feel more comfortable about staying at our hotels.

Sincerely,

Mark Weiner
Vice President, Customer Care and Reservations, Choice Hotels International, Inc.

I emailed back a thank you. I don't know why the Quality Inn in Maple Shade, NJ was included in Family Research Council's alert, but they say they are not involved in the practice. Certainly the outpouring of negative public comment should keep other hotels in the area from offering similar discounts.

Money talks. Most businesses know they cannot afford to offend large groups of potential customers--especially in a depressed economy. Now if we could just get our government to be as responsive. It takes a lot of hammering by the public to make even the tiniest dent.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The world must not have gotten Al Gore's memo that the earth is warming. Yesterday Record cold swept over the region Wednesday in Ocala, Florida. (My emphasis throughout)

Twice the temperature dipped to freezing at the Ocala International Airport early Wednesday before it began making a gradual climb to the mid-60s.

Though there was a reading of freezing or below throughout northwest Marion County, Wednesday morning's official low temperature was 33 degrees.

It was a record for Oct. 29 and the second lowest temperature ever recorded in October since 1850...

...In almost every area of the county at daybreak Wednesday, frost - which came six weeks early - glistened on grass and rooftops.

On the other side of the pond, the Gore Effect has gone into full swing even without Mr. Gore's presence. Just discussing Global Warming legislation prompted the earliest snowfall in 86 years:  Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate, How Parliament passed the Climate Bill:

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.

In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.

The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute...

Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".

Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.

No need to worry about American jobs being outsourced to the UK after that bill!

Will our congress follow suit? Blindly following Al Gore, our Pied Piper of Global Warming, marching down the road through early freezes and snow storms to Carbon Capping economic ruin? 

Guess it depends on who is in charge: The Triumvirate of Obama,  Pelosi, and Reid or McCain balancing that Democrat controlled Congress?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Elmbrook enrollment down by 103 students, but no need to worry...now. "The state exempts districts from fluctuations in enrollment for one year."

I first learned about this delay at the April 8th school board meeting when they discussed the 2008-09 budget. There was mention that although the 4K pilot program was discontinued, Elmbrook's budget would still be based on their higher 2007-08 enrollment numbers*. It was a boon--a bit of free money.

In other words 2008-09's budget included about $165,000 in extra state aid money, because the state based their funding on approximately 196 4K kindergarten students no longer enrolled in school. (Kindergarten students count as half a student in the state aid formula since they attend half day.) This money was free in the sense that there were not teacher expenses associated with it, because the 4K program no longer existed.

If memory serves me correctly, Board member Glen Allgaier asked if that extra money should be used to offset the coming budget shortfalls. That idea was quickly dismissed. (Thanks, Glen, for trying.) 

Anyway, this year, Elmbrook School District shows a 103 student enrollment decline since last year (97 resident, 5 non-resident) not counting the 196 4K students.

This came as no surprise though to the administration. The trend toward declining enrollment was "projected:"

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the decrease was on track with projections. He believes a decrease in the birth rate and slowdown in the housing market have contributed to the decrease in students.

Next year, though, the drop will be included in a three-year rolling average that is used to calculate funding for the district. This average figures into Elmbrook’s total revenue cap, the amount it is allowed to collect in aid and taxes.

As such, a drop in enrollment can mean less state aid and higher taxes to make up the difference.

Parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools often send their children to public school in the higher grades. But even at the high school level enrollment dropped by 57 students.

Voters just approved a $62 million dollar high school referendum last spring to expand and improve facilities. Guess we needed that extra room to accommodate those 57 fewer students?

Speaking of the referendum, remember how our additional yearly tax contribution was calculated on a 2% increase in tax base? That 2% has fizzled too.

No need for Elmbrook’s administration to worry though. All budget shortfalls, whether caused by an increase in referendum expenses or declining enrollment will be made up by us, the Elmbrook taxpayers.

*I had not thought about this before: If Elmbrook can collect state aid for students no longer enrolled (because of that enrollment fluctuation delay) does this mean Elmbrook calculates their tax levy on us based on students no longer enrolled too? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers pay about $10,000 per student / per year for each resident student. I must ask about that!    

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I first heard about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ads on Mark Levin's Friday, Oct. 24th broadcast. (About at the 40 minute mark.) Mark also discussed socialism and floated the possibility that Obama somehow considers his spreading the wealth as reparations.

Mark characterized the business community as being "officially horrified" at the prospect of being under a Democrat majority House, Senate, and presidency. From the Wall Street Journal, Business Finally Fights Back The U.S. Chamber of Commerce throws its weight against a filibuster-proof Senate: (My emphasis)

Ten days to election, and they are pouring millions into ads, canvassing neighborhoods, making calls, getting out the vote, enraging Democrats -- all in an effort to turn around a dire political situation. The Republican National Committee? No. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The business community is back in politics. After years of contented political gridlock, American companies are now officially horrified at what an all-Democratic Washington intends to inflict on the U.S. economy. The Chamber is throwing its extensive resources at denying the left a filibuster-proof Senate. In doing so, it has stuck its finger in the Democratic leadership's beehive, and is facing retribution.

It says something about the momentousness of this race that the Chamber doesn't care. While the trade group has always been a force, over this decade many businesses have inched back from in-your-face politics. They felt comfortable with Republicans in charge. They felt comfortable with Democrats running Congress, since divided government rarely brings change. They felt comfortable not offending either political party, and not inviting attack by liberal activists.

They do not feel comfortable now. The Democratic Party once respected the need for a healthy U.S. business community. That was in part because business was ferocious enough to demand respect. But a resurgent labor movement has asserted control over the party. And business has been more concerned with PR than principle. This, and the recent financial crisis, has emboldened Democrats to pursue a pure antimarket agenda.

Their "card check" legislation means thuggish unionism. Their tax policies would squelch American capital. They'll reverse tort reform. Their antidote for today's financial mess is a super-Sarbanes-Oxley. Trade? What's that? Energy? What's that? Henry Waxman will start so many witch hunts, he'll need a lottery to see who goes first...

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay Weber, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Both parties' candidates just had a foreign policy briefing--a standard practice used to bring the next president up to speed. What isn't standard is a candidate shooting his mouth off after the briefing. Biden's warning: (My emphasis throughout.)

"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."

Was that just Biden being Biden? But then, he said it again! This time Biden piped up at a Seattle fundraiser: 

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." 

This part of his chat was really strange:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 

And this was the guy who was supposed to lend gravitas to the Obama ticket? He went on to give more cautions and warnings--both about the economy and international problems:

"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my ... why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years..."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

When I first heard about Biden's remarks, I immediately thought about Iran blasting Israel off the face of the earth--after all, Iran has talked about it and Obama was vague about his response. 

If you were Iran, would you be more apt to attack Israel with McCain as president or Obama?

But after looking at the last section of quotes, I'm wondering was Biden hinting about needing a military draft? Bombing Pakistan? Who knows.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is usually thought to be a deterrent to foreign aggression. The big stick being military might and cutting edge military technology. It has served us well in the past.

Biden began his warnings by comparing Obama to JFK, but Joe forgot one very important thing about his running mate: Unlike JFK, Obama has stated he wants to put a end to that military technology.

The complete IBD Editorial is worth the read or listen--the link is on this page. It is very sobering.

I'm digging out some photos you might find interesting for a future blog: Obama, JFK, technology, and the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Tuesday I got a tank full of gas for $2.69 a gallon. Sure wish gas prices were that low in August when we went to Yellowstone! Our trip cost us $549 in gasoline for 3,188 miles. If we made that trip now, we would have saved about $200. (Of course, Old Faithful Lodge is now closed for the winter season.)

The U.S dollar ended stronger than usual. One US dollar will now purchase $1.26 in Canada, .62 Pounds, and .78 Euros.  

Oil sunk to the $63 to $69 / barrel range this week. Less than half of what it was priced at its high. Since oil is priced in dollars, the stronger dollar makes the price/barrel go down. OPEC is likely to try tightening the supply in an effort to boost the price.

Wouldn't it be great if OPEC's decrease in production didn't matter?

The Congressional Democrats do not favor domestic drilling. Remember the Trojan Drilling Bill? Obama doesn't either. Republicans and McCain are in favor of drilling more offshore, utilizing oil shale, and "All of the above." Think about that when you hit the voting booth.

Post Script: Right on schedule, OPEC agrees sharp output cut  "An emergency OPEC meeting on Friday reached swift agreement to chop production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in an effort to halt a deep oil price slide." Well, oil priced in the $60s was nice while it lasted.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Daily, we are bombarded by bad news about the housing market. The media makes it seem that nothing is selling and that a mortgage is impossible to obtain. But this is not true. Take a look at our local market GOING PRICES

We had a home sell very quickly on our street that was on that price list. It seemed to sell fast too--in about 2 months. The new owners now occupy. Another home in our neighborhood on that list also sold over the summer.

A local Realtor I know says things are moving. Her daughter and husband just bought their first home--something they could not afford to do 2 years ago. This market is just what first time buyers were looking for. My Realtor in-law in New Jersey is also selling.  

Obviously with the stock market jittery, people might be hesitant right now to enter into long term debt if they don't feel their jobs are secure. But for those who have their financial house in order... interest rates at around 6% + home sellers anxious to sell = opportunity. (To put this into perspective, during the Carter administration, when we bought our first house, interest rates were around 18%!)

My own experience: Last summer, we sold the family townhouse in Shorewood. This was in August 2007 when the sub-prime mortgage troubles hit the market--no one was selling much of anything. Providentially, we were able to sell it in about 1 month.

The secret? Lots of prayer, lots of clearing out, and lots of cleaning.

We did wonder if we needed to update the decor first. But our Realtor, one of those lower commission ones, advised us that was not necessary. Instead of spending thousands of dollars updating, the olive green carpet, old kitchen, old bathroom, and outdated wallpaper stayed. (I did do a lick and a promise of a paint job at the front entrance though.)

Since I was the one who dealt with the potential buyer's Realtors who came through the property, I heard their reaction. They were impressed that the property was generally well maintained and very clean. The decor, or lack, was secondary. We settled on a price about $10,000 above the city's assessment and felt we did well.

If you have a home on the market, I wish you success, and don't underestimate the value of prayer and deep cleaning! 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Boy, that bailout bill really helped, didn't it? The Dow is now below 10,000 at the time of this writing. The rest of the world isn't faring much better.

But don't they say that every cloud has a silver lining, or it is an ill wind that blows no good?

Well, falling oil prices would be the little ray of sunshine in our black cloud of falling stocks.

Oil prices fall below $90 amid financial crisis worries: 

Oil prices briefly fell to an eight-month low below $90 a barrel Monday on speculation that the spreading financial crisis will exacerbate a global economic slowdown and cut demand for crude oil.

Significant gains by the U.S. dollar against the euro also contributed to slumping oil prices.

By midafternoon in Europe, light, sweet crude for November delivery was down $2.68 to $91.20 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session, the price fell as low as $88.89 a barrel.

Oil prices have tumbled nearly 40% since peaking in July. The Nymex front-month contract last traded this low in early February.

At least lower oil prices will help Americans with heating costs* and filling their gas tanks. That is the only good thing I can say about the falling markets right now.

But, since we are so dependent on middle east oil, don't expect this downward trend to continue back to "good ole days" prices. After all, they do control the supply side of supply and demand. More from USAToday,

Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossien Nozari said Saturday that it would be "unsuitable" for both producers and consumers for oil to dip below $100 a barrel. He called on fellow OPEC members not to pump too much oil and avoid a drop in prices.

"OPEC has signaled it may defend $80," Shum said. "There's uncertainty over what OPEC may do."

Need another reason to drill domestically and adopt an "All of the Above"** energy policy? Our economy would not be in the mess it is right now if we had adopted it years ago.

*Most will not benefit this winter from falling oil prices when it comes to heating. JSOnline: Government warns of sharp increase in winter heating costs, especially for homes using oil 

**I do not favor all of the All of the Above. So far, solar, wind, and ethanol are just too expensive and inefficient to be practical. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Last week, I was at US Bank; a CD had matured. I asked the banker, does US Bank have money to lend? Could I get a loan if I needed one? He said, Yes, it was no problem. (I have a good credit score.) 

A local car dealer last week said they had money for financing too.

So we see, not every bank is short on available cash. And now this: Wells Fargo acquiring Wachovia for $15.1 billion! (My emphasis)

 In an abrupt change, Wachovia said Friday it agreed to be acquired by San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. in a $15.1 billion all-stock deal that trumps Citigroup's plan to acquire Wachovia's banking operations and avoids government assistance.

The Citigroup deal would have been done with the help of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., but the Wells Fargo deal for Wachovia will be done without it. Shares of Wachovia and Wells rose in morning trading, while Citigroup shares fell.

Today, all eyes are on the House, seeing if the bailout bill passes there. I am hoping it doesn't since it contains too much pork and not enough reform. Loads of Pork, Little Accountability in Senate Bailout Bill: Will the House Balk?

 

The House rejected the original bill on Monday but the revised bill contains a lot of "sweeteners" designed to garner enough votes, including $100 billion in tax relief, a widening of the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 and aid to rural schools.

But the Senate bill is also laden with pork, including:

• $223M for Alaskan fisherman
• $192M for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
• $128M for auto racing
• $33M for companies operating in American Samoa
• $10M for film & TV production
• $6M for producers of wooden arrows

In the meantime, the private market is working, buying up bargains and expanding their market share. 

UPDATE: New development. Wells and Citi are fighting over who gets to buy Wachovia! Wells Fargo, Citigroup in tug of war over Wachovia 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Senate bailout plan passed Tuesday night. The bill went from the 113 page house version to 450-something pages! How could the Senators even read 450 pages?

This travesty of a bailout bill epitomizes everything wrong with Washington: Dire problem...Don't fix problem...Load on the pork...Make problem worse.

What is in there? I heard some tax breaks. The oddest was for children's wooden arrow manufacturers. I call that the good part because at least it probably does not amount to much money.

This bill is probably everything Congressman Paul Ryan feared. Certainly the Senate version did not get that month long, or even a week long committee meeting process that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner wanted. Instead they rushed this pig through.

Michelle Malkin posted 3 pieces Tuesday: Kill the baliout: The vote draws near, and The Senate votes, and Read the Senate bailout bill here, which included the bill's language. They give a flavor of the night and bill. Nays include: Brownback, Bunning, Dole, DeMint, Feingold, Inhofe, Johnson, Sanders, Sessions, Shelby, to name a few. The votes are recorded at end of Malkin's The Senate votes posting. (I will have to thank Feingold, which does not happen very often.)

Correction: Hold the phone, the following did not make it into the final bill: The bill included an amendment from Senator Sanders for a 10% income tax surcharge on incomes above $500,000, $1million for couples. That will hurt some small business owners.

It goes back to the House Thursday, with a vote possibly on Friday. If you are a praying person, pray the House would have wisdom.

The most important piece, the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act I think is still sadly lacking. Without that piece of the pie, I think we are doomed to just keep repeating the cycle.

Seems that additional 340-some pages were pure lard.

Sickening. 

We have a model that worked pretty well when the government stepped in with the Savings and Loans. Why didn't they do that?  What about the Republican model of lending institutions purchasing insurance? Another possibility comes from frugal Dave Ramsey.

Post Script bright spot: "The bill also reaffirms the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to suspend so-called mark-to-market accounting, an issue that gained surprising traction among lawmakers looking for less costly alternatives to the Bush plan. The practice, adopted in the aftermath of the savings-and-loan collapse in the 1980s, pegs the value of assets to their current market price, rather than the price paid for them.'

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Remarks Upon Becoming Speaker of the House two years ago? (Emphasis mine) 

I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and I look forward to working...

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Boehner, and the Republicans in the Congress, for the good of the American people.

... and the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.

... After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itse