Could Republicans Take Back Congress?

It's a classic scenario, Americans elect a new President in one election, and then kick a major chunk of his party's congressional delegation out two years later. Most see a President's first mid-term election as a chance to send him a message, to deflate his ego a bit (even if they don't personally think he's on an ego trip), as a referendum on his first two years in office. This is what President Obama faces next November when voters go to the polls. Will the people be in a mood to hand him a House and/or Senate controlled by the GOP? Will Mitch McConnell and John Boehner be the new leaders of the legislative branch?

Don't count on it.

While a major Democratic sweep like the ones of 2006 and 2008 is highly unlikely and Republicans will probably even make some gains in both houses, a take over of even one of the houses of congress is still unlikely. Why? Because Americans have long memories, ironically like the Republicans mascot, the elephant. People may well be dissatisfied with President Obama's performance so far and they may want to pack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a crate and send them to Timbuktu, but that doesn't mean they'll have forgotten on whose watch our economy performed a nose dive that would have earned it perfect tens if it had been competing at the Olympics.

Barack Obama may be the sitting President, but the specter of George W. Bush still looms over his party. People are not likely to suddenly put all of the blame for our country's troubles on Obama and the Democrats. And while the Dems. controlled the congress during last years economic collapse, it is not lost on many voters that the GOP controlled it when deregulation, which many blame for Wall Street's recklessness, ran rampant. Neither party is seen in all that good of a light by most Americans, but the GOP still trails the donkeies. It's become pretty much a lesser of two evils situation.

The basic truth is this, the Republican party is still in the dog house as far as most Americans are concerned. A recent poll found that just 20% of Americans consider themselves Republicans. While that certainly doesn't mean the other 80% will vote Democrat, it is still not a good sign for a party hoping to come out of the political wilderness. Then there is the lack of a leader and a clear message. In 1994 the GOP had Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" to propel them into power. Fast forward to the present day and you see that there is no one clear leader of the party, neither McConnell nor Boehner have stepped up in the way Gingrich did. RNC chairman Michael Steele, former Alaska Governor and 2008 VP nominee Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 Presidential contender Mitt Romney and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor have all been very vocal in their opposition to Obama's plans, but none of them have been able to capture the position of conservative standard bearer that Gingrich held 15 years ago.

The most likely scenario is that Republicans make marginal gains but that the Democrats stay in control. They need to pick up at least eleven Senate seats to regain control of that chamber, and the chances of that are astronomical. As for the House, at this moment they need 41 seats to regain the majority, though this number is subject to change pending the results of ongoing special elections and the possibility of more vacancies in 2010, at any rate, a 41 seat pickup is a tall order even when your party is popular, and practically a miracle if you're in as bad a position as the GOP is now. Most see the best case scenario for the Republicans as a 5 seat Senate pickup and a 20 seat House pickup, better than the last two cycles, but not enough to put them back in power.

Sources:
Steele 'not really' concerned about declining GOP support
Delaware Leaps to #1 in Senate Rankings; Is 60-Seat Majority Doomed?

Angelo Mozilo, the Housing Market Woes, Congressional Oversight Committee Hearings, and Me

I suppose you really can't blame Angelo Mozilo for the sharp down turn in the Housing Market, not that the founder and CEO of Countrywide Financial didn't make a pretty penny by selling off about $130 million worth of Countrywide stock before the stock began to tank. Oh, and don't forget to add to that the $23.8 million he will net from a pension and retirement plan. It's the kind of compensation that has the 69 year old Mozilo testifying before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Though Mozilo seem to have timed the sell off of his stock just perfectly, he told Congress today that no one could have predicted the housing industry's problems. Congress for the most part treat him with kid gloves.

Regardless of what Mozilo had to say today, the fact that the equity in my own Orlando based home has dropped by $150,000 has little to do with Mozilo, after all, we live in a free market economy and I am a big boy. I am also bright enough to crunch numbers, or at least my Engineering degree says I am, and whatever decisions I have made with regards to my home have been my own.

Five years ago I bought my property for $79 a square foot. It was a marvelous buy, mostly because the houses around it were going for $100 a square foot. At the time I remember telling my wife that the house would probably appreciate about $60,000 in the next five years. I wasn't far off, it has appreciated $75,000. What I did not foresee was the wild ride the Housing Market would take along the way. It was a ride that had the house up by about $225,000 a little over a year ago.

Today, I have my mortgage guy coming by to drop off some loan papers on my latest refinance, since I was able to lock in at a 5.25% rate on the one day that the rates dipped that low in January. At the time we had talked about keeping my $40,000 credit line open, and he said it would be no problem, after all, the last time he had looked at an appraisal my house was up $225K. Well, because of the drop in the market the new appraisal came in $150K low, and we were left to scramble to put together a smaller line of credit.

Throughout all of this I did not think of Mozilo once. I did not blame anyone for the wild ride the market went on, or for the fact that I could have sold my house at the peak of the frenzy. The one thing I did do was consider myself lucky that I had made a wise investment five years ago, and that I had kept my debt to a minimum in the five years that followed.

If after the hearing the public wants to label Angelo Mozilo the new Kenneth Lay that is their business. Perhaps it would make them feel better for errors in judgment on their part. Either way, I am sure Mr. Mozilo will not care. He will be too busy enjoying the monies received for the stocked that he cashed in. After all, isn't that the America dream everyone is entitled to the same dream?

NY Congressman Resigns Over Shirtless Photo: Fair or Not Fair

Republican Christopher Lee resigned from the U.S house on Wednesday night. The congressman resigned from office just a short time after a website reported that Lee tried to meet up with a woman on Craigslist. The congressman sent a photo of himself shirtless to the woman.

This is kind of BS, and it is BS because Christopher Lee should not have felt like he had to resigned because he sent a shirtless photo to some woman he tried to meet off of Craigslist. Sure, Lee is a married father, and maybe it was morally wrong of the congressman to try and meet another woman, but this is still no reasons at all for him to resign, and it is very unfair that this congressman left his job due to this situation. Christopher Lee is not the first politician to do something like this, and he is not the first republican to cheat or attempt to cheat, and democrats have had people in office who have also cheated. We all remember what happen with Bill Clinton when he was the president of the United States of America.

The point is that the congressman should not have had to resign over this event, as he has not broke any laws. America has a lot more important issues to deal with and democrats and republicans, all politicians in general should not worry about what some congressman did in his spare time, because he was not breaking any laws. In all of the reports that I have read, none have mentioned if Lee sent the photo while he was at work, and if he sent that photo while he was not at work then it really should not matter.

The congressman should not have felt like he had to step down, especially if no work codes were violated or any laws were broken. Him resigning due to the photos is not fair.

Proposed Congressional Cash for Clunkers Program Pays You Up to $4,500 for Old Cars with Bad Gas Mileage

Cash for Clunkers is a bipartisan initiative that proposes to pay owners of gas guzzling, polluting cars up to $4,500 in vouchers that may be turned in to pay for new cars or even newer used cars with better gas mileage. Quoting the Associated Press, GOP USA reports that consumers may also use the vouchers to pay for public transportation.

The Cash for Clunkers program has all the buzzwords needed to make it palatable. Democratic California Senator Dianne Feinstein enthuses about helping the ailing car makers that just recently held out their hands to Congress for auto industry bailout loans. Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins speaks of limiting dependence on foreign oil, doing away with greenhouse gases, and of courses giving the limping economy a leg up.

The Cash for Clunkers program is not a new idea. As far back as July of 2008, the New York Times reported on what it termed an "eco-friendly stimulus." Citing California numbers, the publication goes on to say that "cars 13 years old and older accounted for 25 percent of the miles driven but 75 percent of all pollution from cars." Anyone who has ever driven on a road behind an older wreck waiting to happen, spewing bluish smoke all across the highway, knows what they're talking about.

Unfortunately, the notion that this Cash for Clunkers program provides the kind of income distribution the poor need to get rid of their old clunkers – after all, what CEO drives a gas guzzling, polluting clunker? – fails to take into consideration three very important aspects: insurance costs, licensing fees and loan rates. A financial analysis of a poor person's budget would easily provide some insight.

As a Californian I know first hand that the "poor" who are supposed to benefit from the Cash for Clunkers program do not take advantage of the state sponsored program in droves. The reason is simple: insuring a clunker is a lot cheaper than even a newer used car. Moreover, the best part of the clunker is invisible: there is no loan attached to it. Most clunkers are already paid off and thus do not take a chunk out of the budget. What is more, just the license fee for the first year would most likely eat up the vouchers.

How will the "poor" afford to suddenly factor in a car payment – most likely at a higher interest rate because of previous credit problems – and also a higher insurance payment? The Cash for Clunkers program will work, but not for the poor. It will benefit the middle class, those who have a bit of flexibility in their budgets to factor in a car payment and also a rise in their insurance premiums, and those who just want to rid themselves of an unwanted, old yet drivable car and appreciate getting some cash quick.

News Update: 40,000 Dead; Congress Schedules Hearing on What to Do

A hearing for "Billy's Law" is scheduled before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on January 21, 2010. The bill is named after Billy Smolinski, who went missing from his Waterbury, Connecticut home on August 24, 2004. It was introduced into Congress by Congressman Chris Murphy (D-CT) and is also known as the Statute to Help Find the Missing (H.R. 3695). As presented to the House Judiciary on October 1, 2009, the bill would provide ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬$2.4 million for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (www.namus.gov).

The NamUs database is designed to help police and the public link those reported missing with the 40,000 unidentified dead in the coroner offices around the country. A match through DNA or identification by loved ones means that the missing person is one of the dead. The purpose of the database is to aid people who are looking for missing loved ones, such as Jan Smolinski of Connecticut.

Smolinski has been looking for her son Billy since he went missing. Smolinski's efforts to find her son have led her through an unbelievable bureaucratic quagmire. Her efforts to change the American system have made her something of a folk hero among many Americans. She will testify at the hearing on January 21st.

Another $10 million would go to the Attorney General for an "incentive grants program" to encourage local, state, and tribal agencies to promptly report information on missing persons and unidentified dead bodies.

Section Four (4) of the bill would provide for sharing of information between the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the NamUs database. Both databases hold information on the missing and on the unidentified dead.

The following Representatives are co-sponsoring the bill: Ted Poe (R-TX); Marcia Fudge (D-OH); Barton Gordon (D-TN); Maurice Hinchey (D-NY); Carolyn Maloney (D-NY); Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI); Walter Minnick (D-ID); Eleanor Norton (D-DC); Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH); and Edward Whitfield (R-KY).

Many questions are being asked about the 40,000 dead. Who were they? How did they die? Were they murdered? If so, who murdered them? Some of the dead bodies or remains have been held by police for decades, mysteries waiting to be solved.

There are many citizen groups that maintain databases of some of the dead or missing. One is the North American Missing Persons Network, a sister organization of the Doe Network. Most of the cases in the North American Missing Persons Network are about people who went missing after 1994, but one case dates back to 1957.

Breaking News: Analysis and Breakdown of Congressional Hearing Concerning the Mitchell Report on Steroids

On Tuesday February 15, the United States House of Representatives held a Congressional hearing on the Mitchell Report which detailed steroid use and performance enhancing drug use in professional baseball. First, Senator Mitchell testified on his baseball report which he and his staff helped put together. The 409 page document had contained player allegations of steroid use and the increasing problem of drug use in the game of baseball. The most significant players named in the report were Roger Clemens, Andy Petitte, Miguel Tejada and Barry Bonds. The trainers who helped Mitchell most with his report were baseball trainers Brian McNamee and Kirk Radomski.

After Senator Mitchell testified, Major League Baseball player's association president and union leader Donald Fehr testified in front of Congress together with baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

Both men gave their statements on the position of the Mitchell Report. Commissioner Selig seemed to be pleased with the report while Donald Fehr stated his discontent and how players were angry at the report. Fehr stated his biggest gripe with the report to be the fact that the players named in the report were not given advanced warning of what was contained in the report. Fehr stated that players named in the report should have been sent a copy of what was going to be written about them and they should have been a given a fair chance to represent themselves and a chance to clear their names before the report came out.

The issue of gene doping also came up in the Congressional hearings. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliablue had stated three years ago according to Congress, that gene doping was an enormous problem that could arise in the future. When the issue of gene doping was raised to Donald Fehr and Bud Selig, they seemed to be unaware of the problem, although Commissioner Selig managed to say that they are looking into the problem and that drug testing is "an evolutionary process."

Another big issue which Congress repeatedly asked Donald Fehr was about the player's association "wall of silence." Fehr responded to this by stating that there was no due process for players and that if they spoke to investigators from the Mitchell Report and that players knew that information given to investigators could jeopardize their job security. The issue of possible criminal charges and jail time was also brought up by player's association lawyers as they told players not to talk to investigators about their own personal or fellow player steroid or performance enhancing use.

A large group of Congressmen were involved in the hearing including Representatives John Tierney (MA), Christopher Shays (CT), Diane Watson (CA), Stephen Lynch (MA), John Yarmuth (KN), Patrick McHenry (NC), Eleanor Norton (District of Columbia) and Danny Davis (IL). Representative Henry Waxman from California chaired the Congressional hearing.

A further issue brought up by Congress was the fact that Olympic athletes are held to a higher standing of testing. Congress asked Fehr why baseball players are not held to that same Olympic standard. Fehr responded by stating that Olympic players were not represented by a union and have no rights when it comes to drug testing.

Representative Watson brought up the issue of off-season testing which didn't start until the 2007 off-season. When Watson asked about Fehr and Selig's views on off-season testing, Selig replied, "We need more testing, year round," There's no question that more testing and more off season testing would be very helpful." For this same question, Fehr did agree that there should be off-season testing but also maintained the position that his job is to represent the players and such an issue should be brought up in a labor bargaining agreement.

The issue of re-opening the labor contract between Major league baseball and the players association was something that Fehr had great discontent with, stating that a bargaining agreement was reached in good faith and that the baseball agreement negotiated was not supposed to end until the 2011 season. Congress pushed strongly that the bargaining agreement should be re-opened to fix the drug problem in baseball.

One further point that Commissioner Selig and Senator Mitchell did agree on with Congress that while steroid use is on the decline, HGH is on the rise among baseball player use.

Testing was brought up by Commissioner Selig as a problem in baseball because there is no test for HGH in either blood or union. Congressman Lynch asked Commissioner Selig if he would be open to testing all current players and storing their urine. Selig responded by saying that the idea "was not practical." Fehr responded by saying that storing urine samples has problems with fairness and brought up the example of Lance Armstrong's allegations in Olympics as being faulty.

Throughout the Congressional hearing, Bud Selig stated the need for baseball to do more in terms of drug testing. Congress did commend baseball for arriving at a tougher drug testing policy in 2005. Selig stated, "This is an evolutionary process and we cannot rest during this process."

Representative McHenry asked Fehr why the player's association opposed mandatory random drug testing, to which Fehr replied that he believed you need a reasonable cause of drug use in order to invade someone's privacy with a blood or urine test.

Selig also responded to the Mitchell report stating that he didn't want anyone to believe that Major League Baseball had something to hide.

Congresswoman Norton brought up the issue of baseball adopting the standards of the U.S. anti-doping agency so that drug testing would be completely independent. Donald Fehr was against such an idea because he stated it would be unfair to the player's association. Commissioner Selig stated that he would be open and would look into the idea.

Bud Selig also told Congress about his faith in a new baseball department that will only deal with enforcing and implementing baseball's drug policies. Selig also stated that this new department will investigate any and all performance enhancing use in baseball.

Throughout the Congressional hearing, Congressmen and women echoed the concern on kids and youth in America who look up to professional baseball and can be influenced by drug use. Both Fehr and Selig stated that they understood this concern and that by working to amend drug policies, they are working towards accomplishing this goal.

Census Numbers Indicate Congressional Seats to Shift West and South for Election and Beyond

19th century journalist Horace Greeley was prophetic when declaring “go west, young man,” as population shifts this decade reveal states in the northeast section of the country will lose a minimum of eight House of Representative seats for the 2012 election and those commonwealths in the south and west will increase their powerbase in Congress by gaining new districts and eager politicians to represent those interests in Washington, continuing a trend that began a century ago.

Census Bureau estimates just released show Utah being the fastest growing state between July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008 with its population increasing 2.5 percent. The next four states to grow at the largest percentage in that one year timeframe were Arizona, Texas, North Carolina and Colorado.

California remains the most populated state, followed by Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois.

All states reported an increase of people in the last year except Michigan which lost 46,000 residents and Rhode Island which saw two thousand of its citizens cross their border and not return.

Such changes in House representation between the states will also affect the next three presidential elections as the 538 electoral college electors choosing our chief executive are based on the 435 House seats, one hundred U. S. Senate Seats and three given to the District of Columbia even though they have no legal representation in either body of Congress.

Congress passed a law in 1929 fixing the number of House members at 435 so arbitrarily cannot increase its membership to accommodate those states losing out due to dwindling population growth. The seats are apportioned by where the country’s citizens live with each state guaranteed at least one House representative. There are currently seven states with only one congressman representing the whole commonwealth which means the other 43 states must divide the remaining 428 seats among themselves.

The only time the House ever exceeded its own maximum amount occurred in 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were given legislators once brought into the union and before reapportionment from the 1960 census could make the necessary adjustments.

The Washington based political consulting firm Election Data Services analyzes population trends affecting national elections and has concluded in their studies that a minimum of eight House seats will switch in 2012 they base on changes in population shifts during this decade.

They believe those states gaining one seat each will be Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah. Texas would receive three additional House seats based on the population numbers compiled by the census this think tank has interpreted. All of the states benefiting from these populations shifts are in the south and west and all except Utah gained at least one new House member in 2002 following the last nationwide census and apportionment.

States giving up power and long-serving politicians from the north and east would be Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last three states have been losing House seats and political power for many decades, having peaked with their largest number of representatives in the 1930’s when Franklin Roosevelt served as president.

Louisiana would also be losing a seat because of the continued decline in its population three years after Hurricane Katrina forced hundreds of thousands to move elsewhere with many of those displaced residents never to return.

One extreme scenario the EDS experts believe may happen would require Ohio losing two House seats to magnify the population decline in a state that has voted with the winner in every presidential election since 1896 except choosing Richard Nixon over John Kennedy in 1960.

To emphasize the shift in population to the west and south one only has to look at the 1908 election when there were only 46 states and a total of 483 presidential electors. New York was the most populated state a century ago and had 39 electors with Pennsylvania second with 34 electoral delegates. Texas was only apportioned 18 and California a lowly ten when the nation selected William Howard Taft to be president.

This inevitable change of political influence from east to west has been steady these last one hundred years since the final four states joined the union and the ability of the public to easily relocate to other regions of the country in search of work once long-range transportation became affordable to the masses.

Of those eight states set to relinquish one seat President-Elect Barack Obama won all but Louisiana in the November general election. Of the six states to receive seats in 2012, John McCain won four, including Texas, which would have given him six additional Electoral College electors had such changes been in effect for the just concluded contest. Only such gains wouldn’t have helped the Republican Arizona senator in his nationwide blow out loss of 365 electors to 173.

The president-elect resides in a state centrally located in the nation but Illinois only has 21 electors as compared to 27 in 1960 and 29 back in 1932 at its peak of influence and if current trends are maintained will continue to lose its political influence in Washington.

Texas will potentially increase its House membership by at three to 37 electoral votes just as it loses its unique advantage in the Executive Branch with George W. Bush going into retirement. Since 1964, seventeen of the past forty-four years have seen a Texan occupying the White House. The year Lyndon Johnson was elected the state only had 25 electoral votes so its influence has significantly grown in the last four decades when three of its native sons occupied the Oval Office.

The Lone Star State’s gain apparently comes at neighboring Louisiana’s expense if they do lose one seat since the population of New Orleans is still only half of its pre-Katrina levels, according to preliminary census reviews of the last three years in anticipation of the 2010 full count that EDS reviewed for their prediction.

The 2000 census apportionment saw eight states in the south and west gain twelve new representatives and electors for the 2004 and 2008 elections while ten states, again in the north and east, lost the equal amount with New York and Pennsylvania each vacating two seats.

Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas gained two seats in that redistricting while California, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina each picked up one. Those losing one seat in 2000 were Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.

George W. Bush won 30 states with 271 electoral votes in the 2000 contest to Al Gore’s 20 states and District of Columbia for a 267 count. When Bush was reelected in 2004 he picked up 31 states while John Kerry got 19 plus DC. Only three states switched party preferences in the rematch with Bush winning Iowa and New Mexico that second time and only losing New Hampshire. Reapportionment enabled him to collect an additional seven electors in those states in the west and south he triumphed that second time around.

Once the states are notified how many House seats they will be getting for 2012 their respective legislatures must redraw the designated number of districts to accommodate the population shifts.

And do it in a way that doesn’t appear those in control are gerrymandering the process so one political party gains an unfair advantage come election time.

That cynical term was coined in honor of Elbridge Gerry, a signer to the Declaration of Independence, and the second vice-president under James Madison to die in office two centuries ago. He was governor of Massachusetts when devising a redistricting plan ensuring a majority of his political supporters in every congressional district in the state. His attempts were exposed when opponents complained the outlines of the map resembled a salamander and the name stuck.

Why the Congressional "700 Billion Dollar Bail Out " STINKS!

If you went and borrowed money with essentially nothing down , which is what big wall street banks, were doing at 30-60 times leverage of their basic capital and then took that money to a casino hoping to make a killing then loosing all your money and then went to your congressman and senator's office and asked them for more capital so you could go back to the casino to win the money back you just lost you might think they would laugh you out of their office. Not if you are Goldman Sachs, money wizards of wall street!

Of course you could go to your local bank and ask for an interest free loan to save your business and chances are you could get a no money down mansion loan from them so you could take that back to your wall street casino. It is no wonder that banks are falling like domino's now having loaned out money that way.

So you have an IRA or a pension plan and you have to take a minimum distribution and the market is down. You have no flexibility and you have to sell or exchange shares in a down market with no flexibility because you happen to have the age where annual minimum distributions are due. The Gangs in congress would never consider giving pension plans, profit sharing plans and IRAs the flexibility to defer taxes to take money out nor the flexibility not to have to pay out minimum distributions in a tempest. Congress only appears to give a damn about oligarchs . The financial news media also favors the oligarchs. Why the fed loan window is not open to the public at the retail rate and by passing failed banks is a mystery. Why the power of the federal reserve is to be expanded to save investment bank screwed up on a monumental basis is leaving a lot of ordinary American Citizens confounded. It also seems strange that congressional gangs want to keep no money down borrowers in homes they never could afford to buy when they should have remained renters till they developed sufficient credit or savings to buy a home. Now we hear how home prices cannot go down without causing misery. So the gangs want to essentially give their special friends free houses instead of allowing prices to fall to the point where capitalism works and there is a viable market to sell the housing stock glutting the market. That is how homes traditionally became affordable in a capitalist system. Not any more. The Alice in wonderland economy is here and we had better get used to it.

Big boss Obama is heading one of the gangs in congress now that wants to re distribute the assets of America wholesale as he favors nationalizing the oil companies. McCain is almost as clueless to how the economy works as Richard Nixon but there was a ray of hope in that he did say initially that the government should not go out and save people from foreclosure situations they themselves got themselves into.

The economic relief for the common American is no where to be found in the bail out bill and Americans who can actually read knew it immediately and got mad as Hell and helped defeat it. The Oligarchs of American corporate welfare are also not very popular when Americans who owned Washington Mutual get to see
the CEO of Washington Mutual bail out just before the complete collapse where he gets a 17 million dollar severance package possibly not including a retirement package as well. A guy who turns a sound bank into a giant self consuming casino get a pass with funding and he is not even on a plane to Rio, Brazil. He did it legally! They loot the banks for their pay packages and bonuses, stock options and pensions and the gangs in congress say that that is somehow a free market or the opposite. Never looked like a free market to me. A free market would have a guy like the CEO having to own an awful lot of stock in his company and be like warren buffet growing a return on equity to get his bonuses instead of skimming money off the top of the enterprise as hired outsider.

700 billion is not as much money as it sound like it is when we have a congress spending more than 3 times that in one year! the federal budget is over 3 trillion dollars already this year. this package only raised it 23% –a lot of it is borrowed money. We all know the government gets 10 cents on the dollar in most thing they use the money so chances are the congress needs to vote for 7 trillion dollars or a bit more than two years future congressional spending to fix the casino mess they helped create!

Americans are right to have helped stop the so called bail out plan. The bail out should first go to people who saved their money and not to people who took their money and our money to an unsustainable casino for personal gain.. Foreclosures go to investors who can afford to buy them at a real market price. That does not cause a recession. Investors who are forced to sell in pensions plans should get a tax break not the failed casino banks. People who never could afford mcMansions on sub prime mortgages should go back to renting. Condo flippers who lost speculating should not get a bail out. Banks that have no money are not banks any longer. Americans see thought the media lies, Some want their dream world of socialism but the investors who can save wall street want the tax breaks and the benefits to go to them not to the failed institutions. Savers want to be rewarded for saving and not punished. Retirees do not want to take a loss just because they have minimum distributions coming due nor have to pay taxes on the losses unnecessarily taken.

Funny Business in Washington. Apparently , unbeknown to the fragile financial news media , the Democrats control the House and the Senate and could pass the bail out bill without any republican help! President Bush already said he is going to sign it immediately! So why when we turn on the TV do we see the democrats blaming the republicans when the bail out bill goes down in flames? Why when everyone in the banking and financial industry agrees doesn't the head of SEC , Cox, change the stupid marked to market rule? Barely a peep about these factors in the news media. All we hear is is has to be done no matter how bad the provisions are including giving activist groups money as part of the package. That is no emergency bill! Thats crap out of congress that never should be in an emergency package! Goons, Thugs, Oligarchs and Gangs control the Congress and Americans should be happy?

If we don't see either Obama or McCain step up and give us a bail out package that satisfies the American public Americans maybe should listen to Ron Paul and Vote Libertarian. Bob Barr for president.

Will Congress Pass Unemployment Bill Soon?

Will Congress pass the unemployment bill soon? There was finally some good news for those who have exhausted their benefits or are about to run out. It appears the bill is finally being discussed now-this after the Senate reconvened yesterday after a 10 day break. The unemployment bill, which allows the current unemployment benefits extension to continue, would aid many jobless Americans who are seeking help while they look for employment.

According to Reuters, the took up the issue today on June 8, 2010. It appears that Congress will most likely pass the unemployment bill but an answer to how long it will take is still up in the air.
What’s at stake? Many Americans are reeling from the bad job market and the unemployment rate-which is hovering near 10 percent still. That means many jobless Americans are hoping Congress will pass the unemployment bill to keep the flow of money coming to those seeking work.

According to this Reuter’s story, Senate Democratic leaders are optimistic that Congress will pass the unemployment bill. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus introduced the legislation today on June 8, 2010. Baucus has been a major positive for unemployed workers in the entire unemployment benefits extension issue.

60 votes are needed to push the unemployment bill through from the 100 member United States Senate. It seems likely that it will pass but now the clock is ticking as many have already exhausted benefits.
Congress needs to act with urgency for those unemployed workers who have abruptly lost their benefits. They can act by quickly passing the unemployment bill.