I completely dispute the opinion of NASA Chief Michael Griffin on global warming. Why do I u ask? The fact of the matter is man has never been as industrialized as we are today, spewing pollutants into the environment. Manmade pollutants are not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Furthermore, the Chief said it is “arrogant for people now to determine the current climate is optimal”. Would you agree with me in that this is an absurd statement primarily because human beings, animals, and plants are not biologically evolving alongside the rate of the warming of the Earth.
"NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."
The following are excerpts from Griffin's conversation with Steve Inskeep, edited for clarity:
It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.
Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.
Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it's worth studying, but you're not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?
Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Seeking Perspective on Iraq Death Toll
By Ted Koppel
“There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.”
"It's been a brutal month for American soldiers in Iraq; but it would be a mistake to think that it's the number of deaths alone that is creating the sense of national urgency to get out. Given the right circumstances, Americans are quite prepared to tolerate far higher casualties. Roughly 43,000 people die on our roads and highways every year.
Considerable effort is expended to bring that number down: Our vehicles are increasingly built to withstand crashes. We seem to have made real progress in persuading drivers to wear seatbelts and not to consume alcoholic beverages when they're about to get behind the wheel. Law enforcement does what it can to reduce speeding. Having said that, the number of driving fatalities every year remains stubbornly constant.
Apparently, 43,000 deaths a year is a price we are prepared to pay for the benefits that motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses provide. Those benefits are such, that no politician in recent memory has seriously suggested getting rid of all motor vehicles. It simply wouldn't happen. Our economy would come to a grinding halt. The impact on the national interest would be devastating.
In another week or so, we will have lost 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. That, of course, is over a four-year period.
So, the level of outrage and the growing opposition to the Iraq war has to be connected to something other than simply the number of those killed. After all, we lose that many people in traffic accidents every month, with barely a murmur of protest.
Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.
Certainly, the United States has a moral obligation to deal with the chaos and anarchy that were, at least partially, unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that falls into the category of something we're doing for them. The president cannot and should not expect Americans to give their open-ended support to a nation that seems overwhelmingly to regard our troops as "invaders and occupiers."
What, then? There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.
Do we know for a fact that, without U.S. troops in Iraq, that country's chaos would bleed into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; Egypt, Syria and Jordan? No. But chances are better than even that it would — and you can throw Iran into the mix.
That is not an easy political argument to make: Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you'll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you'll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future."
“There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.”
"It's been a brutal month for American soldiers in Iraq; but it would be a mistake to think that it's the number of deaths alone that is creating the sense of national urgency to get out. Given the right circumstances, Americans are quite prepared to tolerate far higher casualties. Roughly 43,000 people die on our roads and highways every year.
Considerable effort is expended to bring that number down: Our vehicles are increasingly built to withstand crashes. We seem to have made real progress in persuading drivers to wear seatbelts and not to consume alcoholic beverages when they're about to get behind the wheel. Law enforcement does what it can to reduce speeding. Having said that, the number of driving fatalities every year remains stubbornly constant.
Apparently, 43,000 deaths a year is a price we are prepared to pay for the benefits that motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses provide. Those benefits are such, that no politician in recent memory has seriously suggested getting rid of all motor vehicles. It simply wouldn't happen. Our economy would come to a grinding halt. The impact on the national interest would be devastating.
In another week or so, we will have lost 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. That, of course, is over a four-year period.
So, the level of outrage and the growing opposition to the Iraq war has to be connected to something other than simply the number of those killed. After all, we lose that many people in traffic accidents every month, with barely a murmur of protest.
Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.
Certainly, the United States has a moral obligation to deal with the chaos and anarchy that were, at least partially, unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that falls into the category of something we're doing for them. The president cannot and should not expect Americans to give their open-ended support to a nation that seems overwhelmingly to regard our troops as "invaders and occupiers."
What, then? There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.
Do we know for a fact that, without U.S. troops in Iraq, that country's chaos would bleed into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; Egypt, Syria and Jordan? No. But chances are better than even that it would — and you can throw Iran into the mix.
That is not an easy political argument to make: Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you'll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you'll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
FL U.S. Attorney post has few takers
"Source: Orlando Sentinel 05/30/2007
Wanted: Veteran attorney to oversee important cases in 35 Florida counties. Job expected to last 18 months or so. Salary: $145,400.
Sounds enticing, but so far there have been almost no takers.
In the past, lawyers clamored to be U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida -- one of the most powerful federal-prosecutor jobs in the country.
Stretching from Fort Myers to Orlando and Jacksonville, the office has prosecuted some of the nation's biggest criminal cases, from Colombian drug lord Carlos Lehder to real-estate infomercial personality William McCorkle and Soviet spy George Trofimoff.
But after U.S. Attorney Paul Perez announced March 13 that he was stepping down for a lucrative private-sector job, only one person applied for the post. So earlier this month, the job was re-advertised with an application deadline of June 15.
"It's astonishing," said Michael Seigel, the former No. 2 man in the region's U.S. Attorney's Office from 1995 to 1999, who twice was considered for the top job. "The typical number is 15 people.
"Being U.S. attorney at the end of the Bush administration -- most people would not see that as being a plus on your resume."
Current and former prosecutors say there are several reasons complicating decisions for prospective applicants.
With 18 months before the next presidential election, a change in administrations -- especially if a Democrat is elected -- would likely guarantee the U.S. attorney would be replaced. The jobs are filled by political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president.
There also would be a significant risk to any civil lawyer selected for the job who would have to leave his or her practice with little time to earn a reputation in the new role, attorneys say. Any career prosecutor who got the job could risk a smaller pension if not allowed to return to an old job when the new administration takes over.
"Everyone can sense the political winds are changing in this country, and there's a possibility a Democrat could win [the White House]," said Rick Jancha, an Orlando defense lawyer and Republican who retired in January after 21 years as a federal prosecutor. "There would be a real likelihood [the new U.S. attorney] would lose their job. So if you're a career prosecutor, why screw up your retirement for 18 months as boss?"
And once the U.S. attorney resigns or is replaced, he or she would be barred by federal law for two years from handling any criminal or civil cases investigated by the prosecutor's office.
Finally, there is the controversy and drama engulfing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, possibly for political reasons. His office and the White House are currently under scrutiny by Congress.
Seigel, a Democrat who is a University of Florida law professor, thinks the turmoil inside the Justice Department in Washington is a key factor.
"It's got to be a reflection of the low morale and the attorney general's awful performance in defending the actions the department took in firing eight U.S. attorneys. I think the politicization of the department -- a lot of people are not interested in getting in the middle of that."
Perez, 52, now a corporate lawyer in Jacksonville, said the political controversy in Washington and congressional hearings have little to do with operating the U.S. Attorney's Office in Central Florida.
"
I think that's an inside-the-beltway issue," Perez said. "That doesn't affect what's going on in the field. That shouldn't keep qualified people from applying for U.S. attorney.
"This is major league, the big show," Perez said of the district. "You're basically a mini-Department of Justice."
The job also has been a steppingstone for lawyers to become federal judges and partners in major law firms. Perez said working with 200 employees, including 94 attorneys, was the best post he has ever had.
"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, told me earlier this year it was the best job he ever had," Perez said. "Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said it was the best job he had."
Orlando business lawyer Marcos Marchena, chairman of the Middle District Conference committee that will screen candidates, said it is expected to submit at least three names to Florida's Republican U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez for review with Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. The senators will submit a candidate's name to the White House for consideration, and the nominee will be sent to the Senate for confirmation.
Screening committee members decided to postpone the May 3 deadline because they received only one application, Marchena said. He noted that only a half-dozen lawyers applied for a similar vacancy in Miami two years ago.
Since the application process was reopened, Marchena said, he has received inquiries from interested parties.
He admits political issues in Washington might complicate the process, but he is confident qualified candidates to oversee criminal and civil cases locally for the federal government will be found. Marchena also said some U.S. attorneys have been retained by successor administrations.
"It's an important position and crucial position for our society," Marchena said.
Perez said he urged the department to name his former No. 2, Jim Klindt, as the acting U.S. attorney because of the short amount of time before the election.
"When there's 18 months left," Perez said, "maybe more attention should be paid to continuity and less disruption caused by a new person coming in." "
Wanted: Veteran attorney to oversee important cases in 35 Florida counties. Job expected to last 18 months or so. Salary: $145,400.
Sounds enticing, but so far there have been almost no takers.
In the past, lawyers clamored to be U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida -- one of the most powerful federal-prosecutor jobs in the country.
Stretching from Fort Myers to Orlando and Jacksonville, the office has prosecuted some of the nation's biggest criminal cases, from Colombian drug lord Carlos Lehder to real-estate infomercial personality William McCorkle and Soviet spy George Trofimoff.
But after U.S. Attorney Paul Perez announced March 13 that he was stepping down for a lucrative private-sector job, only one person applied for the post. So earlier this month, the job was re-advertised with an application deadline of June 15.
"It's astonishing," said Michael Seigel, the former No. 2 man in the region's U.S. Attorney's Office from 1995 to 1999, who twice was considered for the top job. "The typical number is 15 people.
"Being U.S. attorney at the end of the Bush administration -- most people would not see that as being a plus on your resume."
Current and former prosecutors say there are several reasons complicating decisions for prospective applicants.
With 18 months before the next presidential election, a change in administrations -- especially if a Democrat is elected -- would likely guarantee the U.S. attorney would be replaced. The jobs are filled by political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president.
There also would be a significant risk to any civil lawyer selected for the job who would have to leave his or her practice with little time to earn a reputation in the new role, attorneys say. Any career prosecutor who got the job could risk a smaller pension if not allowed to return to an old job when the new administration takes over.
"Everyone can sense the political winds are changing in this country, and there's a possibility a Democrat could win [the White House]," said Rick Jancha, an Orlando defense lawyer and Republican who retired in January after 21 years as a federal prosecutor. "There would be a real likelihood [the new U.S. attorney] would lose their job. So if you're a career prosecutor, why screw up your retirement for 18 months as boss?"
And once the U.S. attorney resigns or is replaced, he or she would be barred by federal law for two years from handling any criminal or civil cases investigated by the prosecutor's office.
Finally, there is the controversy and drama engulfing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year, possibly for political reasons. His office and the White House are currently under scrutiny by Congress.
Seigel, a Democrat who is a University of Florida law professor, thinks the turmoil inside the Justice Department in Washington is a key factor.
"It's got to be a reflection of the low morale and the attorney general's awful performance in defending the actions the department took in firing eight U.S. attorneys. I think the politicization of the department -- a lot of people are not interested in getting in the middle of that."
Perez, 52, now a corporate lawyer in Jacksonville, said the political controversy in Washington and congressional hearings have little to do with operating the U.S. Attorney's Office in Central Florida.
"
I think that's an inside-the-beltway issue," Perez said. "That doesn't affect what's going on in the field. That shouldn't keep qualified people from applying for U.S. attorney.
"This is major league, the big show," Perez said of the district. "You're basically a mini-Department of Justice."
The job also has been a steppingstone for lawyers to become federal judges and partners in major law firms. Perez said working with 200 employees, including 94 attorneys, was the best post he has ever had.
"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, told me earlier this year it was the best job he ever had," Perez said. "Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said it was the best job he had."
Orlando business lawyer Marcos Marchena, chairman of the Middle District Conference committee that will screen candidates, said it is expected to submit at least three names to Florida's Republican U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez for review with Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. The senators will submit a candidate's name to the White House for consideration, and the nominee will be sent to the Senate for confirmation.
Screening committee members decided to postpone the May 3 deadline because they received only one application, Marchena said. He noted that only a half-dozen lawyers applied for a similar vacancy in Miami two years ago.
Since the application process was reopened, Marchena said, he has received inquiries from interested parties.
He admits political issues in Washington might complicate the process, but he is confident qualified candidates to oversee criminal and civil cases locally for the federal government will be found. Marchena also said some U.S. attorneys have been retained by successor administrations.
"It's an important position and crucial position for our society," Marchena said.
Perez said he urged the department to name his former No. 2, Jim Klindt, as the acting U.S. attorney because of the short amount of time before the election.
"When there's 18 months left," Perez said, "maybe more attention should be paid to continuity and less disruption caused by a new person coming in." "
Predatory Lending
Have you been misled, been lied too or giving false information when applying for a loan? If so, I advise you to report this and sue the crooks. Too many companies have become irresponsible in their business practices. There is a place for honesty, truth, and integrity in business. Please feel free to post information about crooked companies on this web site.
"Ameriquest Faces Lawsuit by Borrowers
by Chris Arnold
May 30, 2007 · Ameriquest was a high-flying sub-prime lender during the housing boom, and was accused of predatory lending by state prosecutors. The company now faces a class-action lawsuit from borrowers.
Chris Arnold talks to people who lost their homes after getting Ameriquest loans and to former employees who describe the hyper-aggressive sales practices.
As the nationwide real-estate boom of recent years goes bust, economists and regulators are questioning the role that mortgage lenders played in helping to create an overheated housing environment. Here, an overview of what happened:
A Rush of New Buyers
In the early 2000s, the economy was healthy, interest rates were low and consumers felt a bit flush – all of which helped push real-estate values up across the country. With values escalating, lenders felt more confident about making mortgages to customers whose poor credit histories had prevented them from buying homes in the past. (When values are rising, borrowers are less likely to default, because they can take money out of their homes if they run into trouble.)
That put more potential homebuyers in the market, helping to raise home-ownership rates to a record 69 percent in 2004 – which pushed housing prices up more. Skyrocketing prices (double-digit growth year over year was common in some areas) lured real-estate speculators, creating even more demand — and driving the cycle further.
Risky Loans Proliferated
To attract this growing pool of borrowers, lenders repurposed "creative financing" products that had previously been marketed to high-income borrowers seeking flexibility with their money. Among the most popular were variations on the adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM.
ARMs are loans whose interest rates adjust up or down periodically. The initial rate is typically fixed for a period of two or three years. The benefit is that the starter rates are lower for ARMs than for traditional, fixed-rate mortgages. That means lower monthly payments, making homeownership more affordable and allowing borrowers to qualify for a bigger loan.
Some of the creative ARM products that flourished of late included interest-only and payment-option loans. With the former, a borrower only pays the interest on the loan — not the principal balance — during the introductory period. With payment-option ARMs, borrowers get to choose how much they pay each month: enough to cover the interest plus the principal, the interest only... or less than the interest. In that last scenario, the unpaid interest is tacked on to the principal, leaving borrowers owing more than the amount of the original loan.
How prevalent were these loans? Nearly 23 percent of all mortgages taken out in 2005 were interest-only ARMs, and more than 8 percent were payment-option ARMs, according to First American LoanPerformance. In certain once-sizzling markets, the numbers were much higher: For example, 34 percent of all new mortgages in California in 2005 were interest-only.
These products made sense to borrowers who thought they'd live in their homes for a few years, then sell at a profit or refinance. But now that housing sales have stalled and prices are softening, borrowers can't do either very easily.
And many borrowers are facing painful payment hikes: According to a First American CoreLogic study, one-third of ARMs taken out between 2004 and 2006 began with "teaser" rates below 4 percent. Payments on these loans will double on average – if they haven't already done so, says study author Dr. Christopher Cagan.
Growth in Subprime Lending
And then there were the loans to borrowers with poor credit. Subprime loans expanded to 20 percent of the mortgage market in 2006, from 9 percent a decade earlier. These loans carry higher interest rates to compensate for the risk posed by borrowers. They can be traditional fixed-rate loans, but most are ARMs, according to Susan Wachter of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
Recent subprime loans were rife with risky terms — interest-only payment options, penalties for paying off the loan early (which makes it costly to refinance into a better loan), and low documentation requirements, meaning borrowers needed little paperwork to verify that they could, in fact, afford the loans. (These so-called "liar loans" accounted for about 58 percent of all loans in 2006, according to First American LoanPerformance).
Kathleen Keest of the Center for Responsible Lending says the pairing of these new loan types and new pool of borrowers was dangerous.
"They took the riskiest of products and sold them to the weakest borrowers to compound risk," Keest says.
Unethical Practices
In the old days, most homeowners obtained mortgages from their local bank or credit union, which adhered to strict lending rules. Nowadays, the lion's share of homebuyers' business (70 percent) goes to independent mortgage brokers — some of whom get bonuses for steering borrowers to higher-interest loans.
Experts say many recent borrowers were put into ARMs that are likely to cost far more over the life of the loan than if they'd chosen a fixed-rate option. Often, consumers could have locked in fixed-rate loans at low interest rates, but lenders downplayed the advantages of these loans.
Experts also cite numerous cases where borrowers say they didn't understand the loan structure — and the escalating payments; in many cases, they couldn't really afford them. Jennie Haliburton, a 77-year-old widow in Philadelphia, told NPR she refinanced into a subprime ARM that now costs her $300 more than the $800 she was originally told she'd pay. Her loan resets in May 2008. If the current interest rate holds, the monthly payments will grow to $1,218; depending on rates, they could eventually reach almost $1,700 — 95 percent of her Social Security income.
Loose Oversight
New loan products allowed more Americans to own their own homes than ever before. But regulators exercised little oversight over the booming mortgage market. The Federal Reserve and four other federal regulators did not issue guidance for nontraditional mortgages until last year. They recommended that lending institutions consider the borrowers' ability to make payments over the life of the loan before underwriting, and that they improve disclosure to consumers.
Yet many, including Federal Reserve executive Roger T. Cole, say it was too little, too late. "Given what we know now, yes, we could have done more, sooner," Cole told Congress in March.
But the loans are already out there; all that's left is to wait for the fallout. According to First American CoreLogic, this year and next, about $260 billion in prime ARMs and $376 billion in subprime ARMs will begin to reset.
So What Now?
Several lenders are taking steps to curtail the rising tide of foreclosures. Washington Mutual plans to refinance up to $2 billion in subprime loans at below-market rates. Citigroup and Bank of America are working with an advocacy group to similarly target $1 billion in subprime mortgages, focusing on cities with high foreclosure rates. Freddie Mac is fueling the market with a commitment to buy up to $20 billion in subprime loans, and Ohio is floating a $100 million bond issue to help troubled homeowners.
The new environment may also drive new solutions. Lenders now face falling home prices, large loan portfolios with no money down, and a home-foreclosure process that may cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Renegotiating loans -– lowering the interest rate or extending the payment period –- may be more attractive than foreclosing."
"Ameriquest Faces Lawsuit by Borrowers
by Chris Arnold
May 30, 2007 · Ameriquest was a high-flying sub-prime lender during the housing boom, and was accused of predatory lending by state prosecutors. The company now faces a class-action lawsuit from borrowers.
Chris Arnold talks to people who lost their homes after getting Ameriquest loans and to former employees who describe the hyper-aggressive sales practices.
As the nationwide real-estate boom of recent years goes bust, economists and regulators are questioning the role that mortgage lenders played in helping to create an overheated housing environment. Here, an overview of what happened:
A Rush of New Buyers
In the early 2000s, the economy was healthy, interest rates were low and consumers felt a bit flush – all of which helped push real-estate values up across the country. With values escalating, lenders felt more confident about making mortgages to customers whose poor credit histories had prevented them from buying homes in the past. (When values are rising, borrowers are less likely to default, because they can take money out of their homes if they run into trouble.)
That put more potential homebuyers in the market, helping to raise home-ownership rates to a record 69 percent in 2004 – which pushed housing prices up more. Skyrocketing prices (double-digit growth year over year was common in some areas) lured real-estate speculators, creating even more demand — and driving the cycle further.
Risky Loans Proliferated
To attract this growing pool of borrowers, lenders repurposed "creative financing" products that had previously been marketed to high-income borrowers seeking flexibility with their money. Among the most popular were variations on the adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM.
ARMs are loans whose interest rates adjust up or down periodically. The initial rate is typically fixed for a period of two or three years. The benefit is that the starter rates are lower for ARMs than for traditional, fixed-rate mortgages. That means lower monthly payments, making homeownership more affordable and allowing borrowers to qualify for a bigger loan.
Some of the creative ARM products that flourished of late included interest-only and payment-option loans. With the former, a borrower only pays the interest on the loan — not the principal balance — during the introductory period. With payment-option ARMs, borrowers get to choose how much they pay each month: enough to cover the interest plus the principal, the interest only... or less than the interest. In that last scenario, the unpaid interest is tacked on to the principal, leaving borrowers owing more than the amount of the original loan.
How prevalent were these loans? Nearly 23 percent of all mortgages taken out in 2005 were interest-only ARMs, and more than 8 percent were payment-option ARMs, according to First American LoanPerformance. In certain once-sizzling markets, the numbers were much higher: For example, 34 percent of all new mortgages in California in 2005 were interest-only.
These products made sense to borrowers who thought they'd live in their homes for a few years, then sell at a profit or refinance. But now that housing sales have stalled and prices are softening, borrowers can't do either very easily.
And many borrowers are facing painful payment hikes: According to a First American CoreLogic study, one-third of ARMs taken out between 2004 and 2006 began with "teaser" rates below 4 percent. Payments on these loans will double on average – if they haven't already done so, says study author Dr. Christopher Cagan.
Growth in Subprime Lending
And then there were the loans to borrowers with poor credit. Subprime loans expanded to 20 percent of the mortgage market in 2006, from 9 percent a decade earlier. These loans carry higher interest rates to compensate for the risk posed by borrowers. They can be traditional fixed-rate loans, but most are ARMs, according to Susan Wachter of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
Recent subprime loans were rife with risky terms — interest-only payment options, penalties for paying off the loan early (which makes it costly to refinance into a better loan), and low documentation requirements, meaning borrowers needed little paperwork to verify that they could, in fact, afford the loans. (These so-called "liar loans" accounted for about 58 percent of all loans in 2006, according to First American LoanPerformance).
Kathleen Keest of the Center for Responsible Lending says the pairing of these new loan types and new pool of borrowers was dangerous.
"They took the riskiest of products and sold them to the weakest borrowers to compound risk," Keest says.
Unethical Practices
In the old days, most homeowners obtained mortgages from their local bank or credit union, which adhered to strict lending rules. Nowadays, the lion's share of homebuyers' business (70 percent) goes to independent mortgage brokers — some of whom get bonuses for steering borrowers to higher-interest loans.
Experts say many recent borrowers were put into ARMs that are likely to cost far more over the life of the loan than if they'd chosen a fixed-rate option. Often, consumers could have locked in fixed-rate loans at low interest rates, but lenders downplayed the advantages of these loans.
Experts also cite numerous cases where borrowers say they didn't understand the loan structure — and the escalating payments; in many cases, they couldn't really afford them. Jennie Haliburton, a 77-year-old widow in Philadelphia, told NPR she refinanced into a subprime ARM that now costs her $300 more than the $800 she was originally told she'd pay. Her loan resets in May 2008. If the current interest rate holds, the monthly payments will grow to $1,218; depending on rates, they could eventually reach almost $1,700 — 95 percent of her Social Security income.
Loose Oversight
New loan products allowed more Americans to own their own homes than ever before. But regulators exercised little oversight over the booming mortgage market. The Federal Reserve and four other federal regulators did not issue guidance for nontraditional mortgages until last year. They recommended that lending institutions consider the borrowers' ability to make payments over the life of the loan before underwriting, and that they improve disclosure to consumers.
Yet many, including Federal Reserve executive Roger T. Cole, say it was too little, too late. "Given what we know now, yes, we could have done more, sooner," Cole told Congress in March.
But the loans are already out there; all that's left is to wait for the fallout. According to First American CoreLogic, this year and next, about $260 billion in prime ARMs and $376 billion in subprime ARMs will begin to reset.
So What Now?
Several lenders are taking steps to curtail the rising tide of foreclosures. Washington Mutual plans to refinance up to $2 billion in subprime loans at below-market rates. Citigroup and Bank of America are working with an advocacy group to similarly target $1 billion in subprime mortgages, focusing on cities with high foreclosure rates. Freddie Mac is fueling the market with a commitment to buy up to $20 billion in subprime loans, and Ohio is floating a $100 million bond issue to help troubled homeowners.
The new environment may also drive new solutions. Lenders now face falling home prices, large loan portfolios with no money down, and a home-foreclosure process that may cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Renegotiating loans -– lowering the interest rate or extending the payment period –- may be more attractive than foreclosing."
Monday, May 28, 2007
BUSINESS CALLS for CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS
"WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8—The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) announced today that it has doubled its membership to include new members American International Group (AIG), Alcan, Boston Scientific, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, General Motors Corp., Johnson & Johnson,Marsh,PepsiCo, Shell and Siemens, along with The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.
The coalition, which continues to broaden and deepen its membership, brings together key sectors
of the economy—from energy, transportation, agriculture and technology to telecommunications,
infrastructure and financial services—with environmental and conservation leaders.
This diverse group of businesses and environmental organizations stands together in calling for
the federal government to take immediate action to enact mandatory national legislation to
achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
“GM is very pleased to join USCAP to proactively address the concerns posed by climate change
and applauds its members for recognizing the important role that technology can play in
achieving an economy-wide solution,” said Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of General
Motors. “A central element as we see it is energy diversity – being able to offer consumers
vehicles that can be powered by many different energy sources and advanced propulsion systems
to help displace petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The coalition, which continues to broaden and deepen its membership, brings together key sectors
of the economy—from energy, transportation, agriculture and technology to telecommunications,
infrastructure and financial services—with environmental and conservation leaders.
This diverse group of businesses and environmental organizations stands together in calling for
the federal government to take immediate action to enact mandatory national legislation to
achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
“GM is very pleased to join USCAP to proactively address the concerns posed by climate change
and applauds its members for recognizing the important role that technology can play in
achieving an economy-wide solution,” said Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of General
Motors. “A central element as we see it is energy diversity – being able to offer consumers
vehicles that can be powered by many different energy sources and advanced propulsion systems
to help displace petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
With its new members, USCAP companies now have total revenues of $1.7 trillion, a collective
workforce of more than 2 million and operations in all 50 states; they also have a combined
market capitalization of more than $1.9 trillion. (Market capitalization, or market cap, is derived
from a company’s current stock price per share times the total number of shares outstanding.)
The non-governmental organizations have more than two million members worldwide, and
represent America’s environmental interests and its conservation traditions. The Nature
Conservancy, known for its nonpartisan, science-based approach to policy issues, believes the
climate crisis must be urgently addressed.
“Climate change will be the biggest threat by far to our mission of protecting nature and to the
many investments in lands and waters we have made over the past 60 years,” said Steve
McCormick, president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy. “One of The Nature Conservancy’s
goals is to ensure that the important role intact forests and other ecosystems play in mitigating
climate change is recognized as a vital part of any policy framework developed to address this
critical challenge.”
In January, USCAP issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the
urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. The solutions-based report, titled A Call
for Action, laid out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate
protection.
USCAP’s recommendations are based on the following six principles:
• Account for the global dimensions of climate change;
• Recognize the importance of technology;
• Be environmentally effective;
• Create economic opportunity and advantage;
• Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted; and,
• Recognize and encourage early action.
These principles and recommendations are the result of a shared goal of slowing, stopping and
reversing the growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time
reasonably achievable. Top executives from USCAP companies have driven this effort, and new
members were chosen carefully to preserve a high-level consensus approach.
The non-partisan USCAP urges policy makers to enact a policy framework for mandatory
reductions of GHG emissions from major emitting sectors, including large stationary sources and
transportation, and energy use in commercial and residential buildings. The cornerstone of this
approach would be a cap-and-trade program. The environmental goal is to reduce global
atmospheric GHG concentrations to a level that minimizes large-scale adverse impacts to humans
and the natural environment. The group recommends Congress provide leadership and establish
short- and mid-term emission reduction targets; a national program to accelerate technology
research, development and deployment; and approaches to encourage action by other countries,
including those in the developing world, as ultimately the solution must be global.
The founding members of USCAP include Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy,
DuPont, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, PG&E, and PNM Resources, along with four leading
non-governmental organizations – Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute."
Source: http://www.us-cap.org/index.asp
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Gov. Charlie Crist chops millions
The honorable Charlie Crist is hell of a governor. Let us pray that he stays on this path. Crist budgetary decisions simply make sense. His comments also show a sincere understanding for the economic concerns of Floridians. Students should especially applaud his veto of tuition increases. Kudos to Governor Charlie Crist!
"Crist chops millions, halts hike in tuition; Gov. Charlie Crist signed a $71.5 billion budget into law after slashing a record $459 million in spending. FLORIDA BUDGET
Source: The Miami Herald 05/25/2007
If the hundreds of millions in pet projects state lawmakers tucked into the budget were a test of how far they could push the new governor, the response was sharp Thursday: Not far.
Gov. Charlie Crist, striking back at legislators who refused to pay for many of his top priorities, axed a record $459 million from the state budget, which takes effect July 1.
Most significantly, he rejected a 5 percent tuition increase at state universities and community colleges, provoking the state's top education official to threaten a challenge.
''Honoring the fact that the people across the state are pinching their pennies, so are we,'' Crist said, noting what he called the ''crushing'' effects of property insurance, property taxes and gas prices on citizens and the economy. ``We're asking local governments to tighten their belts, too. We are tightening ours. We can do no less.''
The vetoes caught some lawmakers off guard. Nevertheless, legislative leaders said they will not buck the governor's decisions on the $71.5 billion budget.
In a short statement, Senate President Ken Pruitt said the work on the budget was now done and that he had ''no intention'' of supporting any effort to override Crist's vetoes.
There are questions over whether Crist overstepped his authority when he nixed the tuition hike for community colleges and universities, including Broward Community College, Miami-Dade College and Florida International University.
State University System Chancellor Mark Rosenberg said universities need the money to hire faculty and keep up with enrollment growth and predicted the governor's veto ``in all likelihood will be challenged.''
Florida's Board of Governors, the panel that oversees state universities, may consider a legal challenge at its June meeting.
''We thought [the tuition increase] was a very modest initiative by the Legislature to help us close the gap in funding to keep our doors open,'' said Rosenberg.
Crist, however, said it was the wrong time to hit families with a tuition hike.
He also said that a separate bill that authorizes higher tuition at the University of Florida, Florida State University and University of South Florida was ''doomed'' and that he will veto it as well.
''I feel for our students and I feel for their families,'' Crist said. ``They are paying higher insurance rates. They are paying higher property taxes. They are paying higher gas prices. I don't think it's right to make them pay higher tuition, too.''
Crist's vetoes cover every aspect of state government, from road projects to reading programs, to school construction, to programs that help minorities, seniors, the disabled and children. At least $24 million was cut from Miami-Dade -- which did get to keep tens of millions in the budget. Broward lost $13.9 million; Monroe $250,000.
Among the items cut: $1.3 million for streetscape improvements for Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale; $840,000 for Exponica International, a three-day Latin America cultural and trade festival in Miami, and $900,000 for a gospel music museum planned in Broward.
''I don't think there's any ink left in his veto pen,'' said Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat and House minority leader. ``This was his chance to be a fiscal conservative.''
Crist said many of the projects he killed were ''meritorious'' but that some were more appropriately funded by local governments or private charities. The governor also vetoed projects viewed as likely to benefit a single private vendor, a rationale used to cut millions that legislators set aside for pilot reading programs.
Crist did give some leeway to items sought by top legislative leaders such as Pruitt and House Speaker Marco Rubio.
Crist left intact $20 million for Jackson Memorial Hospital that was a top priority for Rubio and did not touch more than $40 million to help Florida Atlantic University take over the troubled Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.
''They are leaders in the legislative branch, and they don't ask for things unless they think they are very, very important,'' Crist said. ``I tried to honor that.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this story. "
"Crist chops millions, halts hike in tuition; Gov. Charlie Crist signed a $71.5 billion budget into law after slashing a record $459 million in spending. FLORIDA BUDGET
Source: The Miami Herald 05/25/2007
If the hundreds of millions in pet projects state lawmakers tucked into the budget were a test of how far they could push the new governor, the response was sharp Thursday: Not far.
Gov. Charlie Crist, striking back at legislators who refused to pay for many of his top priorities, axed a record $459 million from the state budget, which takes effect July 1.
Most significantly, he rejected a 5 percent tuition increase at state universities and community colleges, provoking the state's top education official to threaten a challenge.
''Honoring the fact that the people across the state are pinching their pennies, so are we,'' Crist said, noting what he called the ''crushing'' effects of property insurance, property taxes and gas prices on citizens and the economy. ``We're asking local governments to tighten their belts, too. We are tightening ours. We can do no less.''
The vetoes caught some lawmakers off guard. Nevertheless, legislative leaders said they will not buck the governor's decisions on the $71.5 billion budget.
In a short statement, Senate President Ken Pruitt said the work on the budget was now done and that he had ''no intention'' of supporting any effort to override Crist's vetoes.
There are questions over whether Crist overstepped his authority when he nixed the tuition hike for community colleges and universities, including Broward Community College, Miami-Dade College and Florida International University.
State University System Chancellor Mark Rosenberg said universities need the money to hire faculty and keep up with enrollment growth and predicted the governor's veto ``in all likelihood will be challenged.''
Florida's Board of Governors, the panel that oversees state universities, may consider a legal challenge at its June meeting.
''We thought [the tuition increase] was a very modest initiative by the Legislature to help us close the gap in funding to keep our doors open,'' said Rosenberg.
Crist, however, said it was the wrong time to hit families with a tuition hike.
He also said that a separate bill that authorizes higher tuition at the University of Florida, Florida State University and University of South Florida was ''doomed'' and that he will veto it as well.
''I feel for our students and I feel for their families,'' Crist said. ``They are paying higher insurance rates. They are paying higher property taxes. They are paying higher gas prices. I don't think it's right to make them pay higher tuition, too.''
Crist's vetoes cover every aspect of state government, from road projects to reading programs, to school construction, to programs that help minorities, seniors, the disabled and children. At least $24 million was cut from Miami-Dade -- which did get to keep tens of millions in the budget. Broward lost $13.9 million; Monroe $250,000.
Among the items cut: $1.3 million for streetscape improvements for Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale; $840,000 for Exponica International, a three-day Latin America cultural and trade festival in Miami, and $900,000 for a gospel music museum planned in Broward.
''I don't think there's any ink left in his veto pen,'' said Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat and House minority leader. ``This was his chance to be a fiscal conservative.''
Crist said many of the projects he killed were ''meritorious'' but that some were more appropriately funded by local governments or private charities. The governor also vetoed projects viewed as likely to benefit a single private vendor, a rationale used to cut millions that legislators set aside for pilot reading programs.
Crist did give some leeway to items sought by top legislative leaders such as Pruitt and House Speaker Marco Rubio.
Crist left intact $20 million for Jackson Memorial Hospital that was a top priority for Rubio and did not touch more than $40 million to help Florida Atlantic University take over the troubled Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.
''They are leaders in the legislative branch, and they don't ask for things unless they think they are very, very important,'' Crist said. ``I tried to honor that.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this story. "
Central Floridians: Sports projects low priority
"In an Orlando chamber survey -- not released to the public -- 500 Central Floridians called sports and arts projects their lowest priority. How that and other issues ranked: Violent crime 79% Water and air quality 68% Education 68% Taxes and spending 67% Political corruption 64% Economy and job growth 55% Affordable housing 50% Conservation 47% Growth management 38% Mass transit 33% UCF medical school 29% Business and government relations 26% Entertainment venues 14%
Source: Orlando Sentinel 05/25/2007
The plan to spend $1.1 billion to build sports and arts venues in downtown Orlando ranked dead last in a poll of community priorities, according to a survey conducted by business leaders who are among the biggest boosters of the projects.
The survey of 500 Central Florida voters showed they were far more interested in reducing crime, improving schools and protecting the environment. At least two-thirds of those polled ranked these as high community concerns.
Only 14 percent ranked "building world-class performing arts, sports and entertainment venues" a high priority. That was last among 16 issues surveyed, right below improving business and government relations, which 26 percent rated a "high" priority.
The survey, obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, was paid for by the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce but not released to the public.
The chamber, which includes the area's top business leaders, has been a pivotal booster of the three-venue package, which includes a new arena, performing-arts center and major Citrus Bowl upgrades. The chamber also was an architect of Project Hometown, a lobbying group that paid for radio and TV ads pushing the venues.
"It doesn't surprise me," said County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs. "It's certainly lower [venue support] than what we've been hearing from those who are advocating for them."
Chamber President Jacob Stuart said the March survey was part of a periodic polling effort business leaders use to forge policy strategies. Such results are rarely publicized, he said.
`Not a venues survey'
Stuart said the results should not be used to gauge specific support for the pending plan to build the downtown venues.
"This is not a venues survey," Stuart said.
Stuart said the fact that it's a regional poll mined from across seven Central Florida counties may confuse some respondents who thought the facilities it referred to are in their home county. Also, no project details were shared during the poll, and more venue financing features have emerged since the March 8-11 survey was conducted, he said.
David Hill of Hill Research Consultants conducted the poll. Hill said that while only 150 Orange County voters were among the 500 surveyed, their feelings mirrored sentiments of the region as a whole. Still, that pool is too small to gauge how Orange voters feel about the venues, he said.
"It would be inappropriate to say this was a poll on the venues," Hill said.
Also, Hill said that while just 14 percent rated building the venues as a high priority, only 33 percent of respondents rated the venues as a low priority, leaving 51 percent rating it as somewhere in between. "It's more of a [glass] half full or half empty thing."
On the wrong path?
Stuart said the real gist of the survey is that voters feel the community is on the wrong path. A year before, 58 percent of those answering a similar poll said the region was headed in the right direction. This latest survey saw that number dip to 42 percent, while those saying the community was on the wrong track climbed 13 percentage points to 40 percent.
"Recent prosperity has camouflaged genuine concerns in our community," Stuart said, calling it a regional "malaise."
Stuart said more recent venue-specific polls are more instructive, and reveal public support for the plan.
Yet previous public polls have carried mixed messages.
An April poll commissioned by the Sentinel found that most Orange County residents want a new performing-arts center and upgraded Florida Citrus Bowl, but say the Orlando Magic should pay a bigger share of a new arena.
When the venues are packaged together, 48 percent of Orange residents support building them, with 40 percent opposed and 12 percent undecided. The survey of 500 adults was conducted by the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research firm.
But support for both the Citrus Bowl and the arena erodes when they stand alone, that poll found. It also showed that as financing details were shared, support for the entire venue package dropped.
Magic officials said the Sentinel poll failed to reflect the team's true contribution.
A poll commissioned by the Magic found that the organization's contribution to the cost of a new arena is fair.
Nearly two out of three surveyed by the Magic's consultant -- once told details of the contribution and how it compares with other NBA teams -- say the team's offer is "fair" or "generous and more than fair."
But that survey, released soon after the Sentinel poll, failed to note public costs of the venue.
Increasing questions
Those issues have become more critical since county commissioners, who control the tourist taxes that would pay for much of the venue plan, now question whether the team is contributing enough.
City and county leaders will consider a final venue financing plan this summer. They are waiting on state lawmakers to conduct a special legislative session on property taxes next month, which could hamper the venue's public financing.
Stuart said he did not share the results with Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer or Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty, the two main elected proponents of the plan. And the venue results that emerged did not prompt him to rethink his support for the public-private venue effort.
"Did it give me pause?" Stuart said. "Absolutely not." "
Source: Orlando Sentinel 05/25/2007
The plan to spend $1.1 billion to build sports and arts venues in downtown Orlando ranked dead last in a poll of community priorities, according to a survey conducted by business leaders who are among the biggest boosters of the projects.
The survey of 500 Central Florida voters showed they were far more interested in reducing crime, improving schools and protecting the environment. At least two-thirds of those polled ranked these as high community concerns.
Only 14 percent ranked "building world-class performing arts, sports and entertainment venues" a high priority. That was last among 16 issues surveyed, right below improving business and government relations, which 26 percent rated a "high" priority.
The survey, obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, was paid for by the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce but not released to the public.
The chamber, which includes the area's top business leaders, has been a pivotal booster of the three-venue package, which includes a new arena, performing-arts center and major Citrus Bowl upgrades. The chamber also was an architect of Project Hometown, a lobbying group that paid for radio and TV ads pushing the venues.
"It doesn't surprise me," said County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs. "It's certainly lower [venue support] than what we've been hearing from those who are advocating for them."
Chamber President Jacob Stuart said the March survey was part of a periodic polling effort business leaders use to forge policy strategies. Such results are rarely publicized, he said.
`Not a venues survey'
Stuart said the results should not be used to gauge specific support for the pending plan to build the downtown venues.
"This is not a venues survey," Stuart said.
Stuart said the fact that it's a regional poll mined from across seven Central Florida counties may confuse some respondents who thought the facilities it referred to are in their home county. Also, no project details were shared during the poll, and more venue financing features have emerged since the March 8-11 survey was conducted, he said.
David Hill of Hill Research Consultants conducted the poll. Hill said that while only 150 Orange County voters were among the 500 surveyed, their feelings mirrored sentiments of the region as a whole. Still, that pool is too small to gauge how Orange voters feel about the venues, he said.
"It would be inappropriate to say this was a poll on the venues," Hill said.
Also, Hill said that while just 14 percent rated building the venues as a high priority, only 33 percent of respondents rated the venues as a low priority, leaving 51 percent rating it as somewhere in between. "It's more of a [glass] half full or half empty thing."
On the wrong path?
Stuart said the real gist of the survey is that voters feel the community is on the wrong path. A year before, 58 percent of those answering a similar poll said the region was headed in the right direction. This latest survey saw that number dip to 42 percent, while those saying the community was on the wrong track climbed 13 percentage points to 40 percent.
"Recent prosperity has camouflaged genuine concerns in our community," Stuart said, calling it a regional "malaise."
Stuart said more recent venue-specific polls are more instructive, and reveal public support for the plan.
Yet previous public polls have carried mixed messages.
An April poll commissioned by the Sentinel found that most Orange County residents want a new performing-arts center and upgraded Florida Citrus Bowl, but say the Orlando Magic should pay a bigger share of a new arena.
When the venues are packaged together, 48 percent of Orange residents support building them, with 40 percent opposed and 12 percent undecided. The survey of 500 adults was conducted by the Mason-Dixon Polling & Research firm.
But support for both the Citrus Bowl and the arena erodes when they stand alone, that poll found. It also showed that as financing details were shared, support for the entire venue package dropped.
Magic officials said the Sentinel poll failed to reflect the team's true contribution.
A poll commissioned by the Magic found that the organization's contribution to the cost of a new arena is fair.
Nearly two out of three surveyed by the Magic's consultant -- once told details of the contribution and how it compares with other NBA teams -- say the team's offer is "fair" or "generous and more than fair."
But that survey, released soon after the Sentinel poll, failed to note public costs of the venue.
Increasing questions
Those issues have become more critical since county commissioners, who control the tourist taxes that would pay for much of the venue plan, now question whether the team is contributing enough.
City and county leaders will consider a final venue financing plan this summer. They are waiting on state lawmakers to conduct a special legislative session on property taxes next month, which could hamper the venue's public financing.
Stuart said he did not share the results with Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer or Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty, the two main elected proponents of the plan. And the venue results that emerged did not prompt him to rethink his support for the public-private venue effort.
"Did it give me pause?" Stuart said. "Absolutely not." "
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Bloggers vs. Big Oil
Checks & Balances Org proudly joins MoveOn org in opposing Big Oil. Please do your part and sign this petition!
I’d like to briefly discuss this petition with you. Many folk view Moveon Org as a far left liberal organization. I have no opinion nor will I argue with this viewpoint. What I am aware of is this pressing issue. The price of gasoline has not reached a plateau. It continues to rise. The public constantly is being sold contradictory reasons for the rise in gas prices.
I did my own research. Here is the FACT. I have found the root cause of this problem is a result of arbitrary costs levied by Big Oil that has raised your price at the pump. The break down looks like this Taxes = 15%, Corporate Operations = 9%, Refining =24%, Crude Oil = 52%. Analysis: Big Oil controls 85% of the cost you pay.
Let me define what I mean by “arbitrary”. Big Oil determines the price of gas by pulling it from their ass.
Please sign this petition. Thank You.
-Anthony
Enough is enough! A bill in the House would make gasoline price gouging a federal crime, and it could pass this week! Can you help be sure it does?
http://pol.moveon.org/stoppricegouging/
I’d like to briefly discuss this petition with you. Many folk view Moveon Org as a far left liberal organization. I have no opinion nor will I argue with this viewpoint. What I am aware of is this pressing issue. The price of gasoline has not reached a plateau. It continues to rise. The public constantly is being sold contradictory reasons for the rise in gas prices.
I did my own research. Here is the FACT. I have found the root cause of this problem is a result of arbitrary costs levied by Big Oil that has raised your price at the pump. The break down looks like this Taxes = 15%, Corporate Operations = 9%, Refining =24%, Crude Oil = 52%. Analysis: Big Oil controls 85% of the cost you pay.
Let me define what I mean by “arbitrary”. Big Oil determines the price of gas by pulling it from their ass.
Please sign this petition. Thank You.
-Anthony
Enough is enough! A bill in the House would make gasoline price gouging a federal crime, and it could pass this week! Can you help be sure it does?
http://pol.moveon.org/stoppricegouging/
Source:
Jerry Falwell, evangelicals out of politics
.jpg)
In my opinion, churches should have no role in politics nor should one cent of its resources be utilized directly by any political party. Countless evangelical organizations were fooled in affiliating itself with the Republican Party. All while thousands of more “progressive” Christians were shouting in opposition. War, issues dealing with poverty, justice, community grants, the welfare of children, education, and healthcare. These topics in my opinion could be justified interest of church. However, the matter with Terri Schiavo, false claims placed against liberals on abortion, and blindly supporting President G.W. Bush simply showed the manner in which so many evangelicals were misguided.
"Source: Newsweek 05/23/2007
Jerry falwell loved his jet. in 1980, it was no small thing for a preacher to have one, even if he was a preacher with a TV show, "The Old Time Gospel Hour." The plane was a Lear, he told me as we climbed aboard on a September day in that crucial year, "specially reconfigured by an Israeli company." He saw this as providential--as if the jet had been anointed by the engine oil of the Holy Land. And it was dart-quick. His congregation, Thomas Road Baptist, was locked away in the Blue Ridge town of Lynchburg, Va. With the plane, he could roam the Bible belt, from Okeechobee to Oklahoma. This trip, the destination was Alabama.
We lifted off with a prayer in the name of Jesus, but the flight wasn't aimed at saving souls. It was about electing Ronald Reagan. With the advice and financial backing of national conservative and GOP activists, Falwell had launched a group he had the chutzpah to call the Moral Majority. The goal was to use the then-new tactics of "independent" grassroots organizing to draw evangelical and fundamentalist Christians--for decades, reluctant participants in politics--into a Republican crusade.
When we got to Birmingham, I saw what he was up to. He filled the old Boutwell Auditorium with thousands of "Gospel Hour" fans for a rally called "God Save America Again!" It was like a revival meeting--co-written by George Orwell and staged by Lynyrd Skynyrd. With lights dimmed and ominous music echoing in the hall, the stage was framed by giant photos of America's enemies (back then, the Soviet Union). In the spotlight, Falwell warned that Armageddon was at hand, unless God-fearing voters ousted Jimmy Carter (a born-again Christian himself, but never mind) and the rest of the Democrats. Hope lay in only one place: with Reagan and his GOP disciples. When the lights came up, there they were, standing and waving in the audience: not the Gipper himself, but a lineup of Alabama Republican candidates.
The rest, as they say, is history. If you had to reduce American politics of the last three decades to a headline, this is it: conservative christians enter public life and form the core of a new republican party. The edifice is cracking now, stressed by George W. Bush's failures, by disappointments with and second thoughts about playing in Caesar's game. Still, the political migration of millions--evangelicals, fundamentalists and charismatic Protestants, as well as "right to life" Roman Catholics for whom abortion is the central issue--is the biggest electoral story of our time. Falwell did not create this movement, and was never its most pivotal inside player--only its first and most visible. Wooed early and shrewdly by the late Lee Atwater, Falwell became the unofficial guardian of the Bush family's religious-right flank. A procession of would-be Bush successors, including John McCain, an erstwhile enemy, were eager to link arms with him for '08. His clout had faded, but not disappeared.
What he did for--and to--America is harder to figure. He believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, and carried that absolutist attitude into politics, which could be a dangerous and divisive thing. Gays had invited the 9/11 attack by turning our country into a Sodom and Gomorrah; the antichrist was on his way--and was a Jew. Falwell could be a bully, lacking in Christian charity.
Yet there was a benign side, too, and a worthy one. There was never an ounce of scandal in his personal life. His large congregation was devoted; Wednesday-night sermons, full of complex diagrams about events in end-times, drew thousands. A college dropout from the rougher side of the Lynchburg tracks, he doted on Liberty University, a school he founded in 1971 with the aim of making it "Notre Dame of the evangelicals." He told me not long ago that he was very proud of the science programs there. "We have kids accepted to graduate school at Harvard all the time," he said. He could be a demagogue, but he was as much a P.T. Barnum as anything else.
I ran into him not long ago in Union Station in Washington. He had no entourage, no jet. His always-florid face was fuller than ever. He had come up on the train from Lynchburg, and was having lunch before making the D.C. rounds. Falwell remained in demand as a talking head, eager to mix it up with the heathens in a city he had helped to transform. It was a long journey from Birmingham. Now Falwell is in a Better Place. I'm not sure that's true of the country. "
"Source: Newsweek 05/23/2007
Jerry falwell loved his jet. in 1980, it was no small thing for a preacher to have one, even if he was a preacher with a TV show, "The Old Time Gospel Hour." The plane was a Lear, he told me as we climbed aboard on a September day in that crucial year, "specially reconfigured by an Israeli company." He saw this as providential--as if the jet had been anointed by the engine oil of the Holy Land. And it was dart-quick. His congregation, Thomas Road Baptist, was locked away in the Blue Ridge town of Lynchburg, Va. With the plane, he could roam the Bible belt, from Okeechobee to Oklahoma. This trip, the destination was Alabama.
We lifted off with a prayer in the name of Jesus, but the flight wasn't aimed at saving souls. It was about electing Ronald Reagan. With the advice and financial backing of national conservative and GOP activists, Falwell had launched a group he had the chutzpah to call the Moral Majority. The goal was to use the then-new tactics of "independent" grassroots organizing to draw evangelical and fundamentalist Christians--for decades, reluctant participants in politics--into a Republican crusade.
When we got to Birmingham, I saw what he was up to. He filled the old Boutwell Auditorium with thousands of "Gospel Hour" fans for a rally called "God Save America Again!" It was like a revival meeting--co-written by George Orwell and staged by Lynyrd Skynyrd. With lights dimmed and ominous music echoing in the hall, the stage was framed by giant photos of America's enemies (back then, the Soviet Union). In the spotlight, Falwell warned that Armageddon was at hand, unless God-fearing voters ousted Jimmy Carter (a born-again Christian himself, but never mind) and the rest of the Democrats. Hope lay in only one place: with Reagan and his GOP disciples. When the lights came up, there they were, standing and waving in the audience: not the Gipper himself, but a lineup of Alabama Republican candidates.
The rest, as they say, is history. If you had to reduce American politics of the last three decades to a headline, this is it: conservative christians enter public life and form the core of a new republican party. The edifice is cracking now, stressed by George W. Bush's failures, by disappointments with and second thoughts about playing in Caesar's game. Still, the political migration of millions--evangelicals, fundamentalists and charismatic Protestants, as well as "right to life" Roman Catholics for whom abortion is the central issue--is the biggest electoral story of our time. Falwell did not create this movement, and was never its most pivotal inside player--only its first and most visible. Wooed early and shrewdly by the late Lee Atwater, Falwell became the unofficial guardian of the Bush family's religious-right flank. A procession of would-be Bush successors, including John McCain, an erstwhile enemy, were eager to link arms with him for '08. His clout had faded, but not disappeared.
What he did for--and to--America is harder to figure. He believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, and carried that absolutist attitude into politics, which could be a dangerous and divisive thing. Gays had invited the 9/11 attack by turning our country into a Sodom and Gomorrah; the antichrist was on his way--and was a Jew. Falwell could be a bully, lacking in Christian charity.
Yet there was a benign side, too, and a worthy one. There was never an ounce of scandal in his personal life. His large congregation was devoted; Wednesday-night sermons, full of complex diagrams about events in end-times, drew thousands. A college dropout from the rougher side of the Lynchburg tracks, he doted on Liberty University, a school he founded in 1971 with the aim of making it "Notre Dame of the evangelicals." He told me not long ago that he was very proud of the science programs there. "We have kids accepted to graduate school at Harvard all the time," he said. He could be a demagogue, but he was as much a P.T. Barnum as anything else.
I ran into him not long ago in Union Station in Washington. He had no entourage, no jet. His always-florid face was fuller than ever. He had come up on the train from Lynchburg, and was having lunch before making the D.C. rounds. Falwell remained in demand as a talking head, eager to mix it up with the heathens in a city he had helped to transform. It was a long journey from Birmingham. Now Falwell is in a Better Place. I'm not sure that's true of the country. "
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
