daytrader millionaire

National Ford Council May 26, 2011 The National Ford Council met on Thursday May 26, 2011. The first topic of business was the Equality of Sacrifice Grievance. Darryl Nolen reported that the grievance is moving forward again with both the company, and the UAW back meeting at World Headquarters. The UAW has made it very clear that this grievance will be resolved by the time contract negotiations begin. Darryl introduced William (Bill) Karges who works as a lawyer for the UAW at Solidarity House. Bill gave an overview from the beginning, and talked about how the arbitrator was named. David Grissom from the National Academy of Arbitrators was requested by the UAW and the company agreed. The UAW is very pleased with this arbitrator. Bill talked about the two dates that were requested by the UAW for information. He has stayed in contact with Steve Kulp from the Ford Legal Department discussing what the information that the UAW was requesting. During this time of communication with Mr. Kulp, he replied to one of Bill’s notes that he would no longer have the authority to make any decisions concerning the grievance, and from that pint on it would be at UAW President Bob King and Ford Executive Vice President John Fleming’s level. President King gave Mr. Karges the direction to move forward to which Mr. Kulp basically said that he did not care what direction was given to Mr. Karges, but he was directed to not make any decisions concerning the grievance or any information dealing with it as well. The Arbitrator subpoenaed the desired info from the company, and finally the company agreed to meet. The first available date was May 12, 2011. Once the meeting took place the company spent the first three hours of the meeting arguing over the confidentiality agreement. Before they could come to terms on the agreement, the financial person for the company left the meeting because he had another meeting to attend. By the time that the UAW had a chance to even look at the information there was no time to discuss any questions that the UAW had. At that point the UAW took the information to review and came up with several questions for the company. The information that the company gave was very general and the UAW has asked for more detailed facts and figures and also has asked the company for another meeting. The UAW is waiting for the company to respond on the next meeting. Currently, it is felt that we have two options. The first option is; if the company does not provide the detailed info, the UAW would take the case to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). This is not the option that the UAW really wants to go. The second option is; the UAW would sue the company for the detailed info that has not been provided as of yet. If the company provides the info then neither option will be necessary. This information brings us up to date with the grievance. The International UAW has committed that this will be resolved by contract negotiations. UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles Report- The first thing that Vice President Settles talked about was the importance of the upcoming strike vote. This brought strong support from the council. Jimmy talked about the future of the UAW, and the importance of organizing. He reminded the council that 30 years ago we were 160,000 strong. He gave a lot of credit to President Obama for what he has done for the automobile industry. He told us that it is very important for our future to keep Obama in office. At this point he talked about the upcoming negotiations and how proud he is of the National Negotiators. He has great confidence that they will do a great job for our memberships. In closing, he talked about the Equality of Sacrifice Grievance. The mentioned the crazy money that Alan Mulally has received and the sacrifices that the hourly workforce has made. He said that the company has made many delays, and the reason why is they are concerned with the grievance. He said: “they should be”. He told the council that originally the company wanted to work something out on the grievance, and VP Settles told them that he wanted Ford Motor Credit back into the Profit Sharing formula. The company refused to do it. So, Jimmy said there will be no deal! Our National Negotiators will officially begin on July 18, 2011 with the kickoff handshake on July 28, 2011

Everyone just needs to quit paying union dues until they represent everybody! We need to contact Teamsters see if they would be more fair to all members not just certain locals/select few!!!!

I want someone to explain how we are not getting at least $10000 in 2000 we received 8800 on average made less in an hourly wage (we received 5 raises since year 2000) and the company is going to make more this year then in 1999. Also there is only 42000 employees now insted of 115000 then to pull from the total profit set aside.

Well said that is around the figure I was coming up with to.

I don't know where you get your info from but its all wrong! Here is the formula, Company Benefits – Profit Sharing Plan Profit Sharing Plan The Profit Sharing Plan was first negotiated between Ford and the UAW in 1982. It provides a source of income for employees which allows them to share in the growth and success of the company resulting from: • Increased efficiency • Improved product quality • Operating competitiveness In the past 24 years: • About $5.3 billion has been paid to Ford hourly employees under the plan. • An eligible employee would have received, on average, a total of $48,439 over this period (see page 25). Eligibility Full-time U.S. hourly employees are eligible, including certain employees who are terminated during the year. Total Profit Share Determination Total profit share is paid from the first dollar of profits and is determined by summing the following: • 6% of profits up to 1.8% of sales, plus • 8% of profits between 1.8% and 2.3% of sales, plus • 10% of profits between 2.3% and 4.6% of sales, plus • 14% of profits between 4.6% and 6.9% of sales, plus • 17% of profits that exceed 6.9% of sales Profits and Sales: • Include only those applicable to defined U.S. operations. • Profits are before-tax (except Ford Credit) and before management bonuses and profit sharing. Employee's Profit Share Determination Individual profit sharing amounts are determined as follows: (1)Hourly Allocated Profit Share = Total Profit Share x Number of Eligible Hourly Employees Number of Eligible Hourly and Salaried Employees (2)Profit Sharing Percentage Factor = Hourly Allocated Profit Share / Total Eligible Pay Of All Eligible Hourly Employees (3)Employee's Profit Share = Profit Sharing Percentage Factor x Employee's Eligible Pay Distribution is made not later than two and one-half months following the end of the Plan year. Here is a article explaining how much was paid out total divided by total employees which was 160000 at the time. We have only 40589 employees on the rolls today which would divide the pot and they made more profit this year!!! T Profit-Sharing Record at Ford Special to the New York Times Published: February 22, 1988 DETROIT, Feb. 21 — The Ford Motor Company said Friday that it would distribute $635 million to its United States employees in what it said was the largest profit-sharing payout ever made by an American company. About 160,000 workers who are eligible will receive an average of $3,700 each, up from last year's record $2,100, the company said. Skilled workers with substantial overtime could receive as much as $5,000, said Tom Foote, a Ford spokesman. ''Over all, it's larger than most people expected,'' he said. Last Thursday, the company reported a net income of $4.6 billion for 1987, the largest ever for an American automobile manufacturer.

The cuv thats built on the b platform is the Ford Fiesta Trail or Ford Ecosport they already build them in BRAZIL not the kuga that is built on c platform "focus"

Looks like there will be a announcement tomorrow. Ford adding 1,200 workers to build Explorers at Torrence Ave. By: John Pletz Jan. 25, 2010 (Crain’s) — Ford Motor Co. plans to add 1,200 jobs when it begins making the Explorer sport-utility vehicle at its Far South Side factory on Torrence Avenue later this year, Crain’s has learned. Gov. Pat Quinn is due to join Ford executives when they announce the Explorer production at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the plant near 130th Street. Plans to bring the Explorer from Louisville, Ky., to the under-utilized Chicago plant were first reported by Crain’s nearly a year ago. The move was helped by recent tax credits approved by Mr. Quinn. Adding the Explorer probably will mean bringing a second shift back to the Torrence Avenue plant, which has been down to one shift for the past year. The factory now employs about 1,400 workers. Ford’s parts-stamping plant in Chicago Heights, which employs about 750 workers, also would be helped by the arrival of another vehicle at Torrence Avenue. Ford is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Illinois on launching the new Explorer model that will be built here. It has been retrofitting the plant for months. The Explorer, one of Ford’s most popular vehicles, has been redesigned for a smaller, more fuel-efficient car platform that’s produced at the Chicago plant. The new Explorer is expected to go on sale in the new model year starting in August or September and likely would be the plant’s highest-volume vehicle. It’s the latest good news involving the Torrence Avenue plant, which last year began making a redesigned Taurus. The new Taurus has been selling better than previous models, as Ford benefits from domestic buyers spooked by the bankruptcies of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler.

Ford Motor Co. could report a surprise third quarter profit when it reports earnings at the end of this month, JP Morgan analysts said today during a presentation to investors. Advertisement JP Morgan automotive analyst Himanshu Patel said today that he estimates Ford will report a profit of 16 cents per share for the three-month period ending Sept. 30. He credits improvements in pricing and sales volume in the United States, as well as gains in residual values and profits in Europe, for the forecast. However, Patel’s expectations stand in contrast to a consensus estimate from Wall Street analysts, who are expecting a loss of 24 cents per share. Patel acknowledged that his outlook is optimistic compared with other analysts but said he is confident that Ford is on track to outperform expectations. “The quarter does look really good,” Patel said. In North America, Patel said Ford is benefiting from a surge in Ford F-150 pickup truck sales and reduced incentive spending. He further forecasts that Ford is on track to report a $200 million pre-tax profit for the North American division. “This would be the first time North America is not in the red in recent memory,” Patel said.

Everyone knows that she only posts union min. going into a local election that she running in! Now that she lost you won't see any minutes until maybe 6 months before the next election, just like your typical elected official a bunch of false promises.

I think you need to do some research yourself! Here's a start for you some facts! Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago. Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration. Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s. I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily. Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited. Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long. While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Because the president appoints the board, he has primary influence over its policies. This is especially the case for chairmen of the Fed appointed by Republicans because they often have ties to Republican administrations. Chairman Ben Bernanke was originally appointed as a member of the Fed in 2002, serving until 2005, when he became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, a position that made him Bush’s chief economic adviser. As early as 2002, a majority of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board was Bush appointees, and by 2006 every member was a Bush appointee. While many critical decisions about monetary policy are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, the board’s position always prevails. The Treasury secretary also has had breakfast with the Fed chairman on a weekly basis for decades. Consequently, most economists generally believe that every administration ultimately gets the Fed policy it wants. Therefore, one must conclude that if there were errors in Fed policy that caused the current downturn, it must be because the Fed was doing what the Bush administration wanted it to do. To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere. But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison. Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession. But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton: • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much. • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected. • Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s. • During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office. • Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs. Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history. According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history. Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth. On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes. I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits. But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP. In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program. Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves. In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto. Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting. Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.

I don't care who he lied to just that he's supposed to represent us and or interests not the companys, i'm just saying that IUAW had the information about which plants are getting what and they gave us mis-information just cause they think we can't handle the truth.

Exactly looks like bob king lied too you guys!

No ford will build it and smith electric would put the electric battery/engine in it then ship to final destination. Ford does this now with econoline vans ford builds them then sends them out to be retro fitted for natural gas engines.Which is done in berea ,ohio 20 miles away from the plant. AT&T IS buying 8000 thousand of these vans these are the same as every other van that goes down the line. Ford just doesn't do the natural gas engines some outside company does,who knows why, we used to make the engines and install them back in 2001.Ford probably couldn't afford the r&d so the outsourced it just like the battery smith makes they already retrofit these in vans overseas in europe.

You ship transmissions to all ford plants, so what trannys come from overseas too, what the fuck does that have to do with shipping whole vehicles.I'm done trying to explain this I really don't care who's builds it. I was more upset that iuaw would lie to us just to get us to vote for concessions that was the whole point of the first post!!!!!! sorry if I offended you kalu that was not my intention.

Lets see the econoline gets re-fitted for multiple commercial uses and all contractors are with in 50 miles, the super duty trucks at ktp get re-fitted for commercial use all contractors are within 50 miles to cut down on shipping cost.Makes NO SENSE to ship from ohio to kc to get electric powertrain then possible back to the east coast for final destination.All you have to do is use a little common sense.

Why would they put the plant to retro-fit the vans in kc if the van was getting built in ohio makes NO SENSE!!! You can bet they put the transit connect in kc. Only time will tell,I hope your right for your sake.

Yeah it looks like the tansit connect is going to KCAP not the transit like BOB KING SAID. What a surprise IUAW LIED TO YOU GUYS IN KANSAS CITY!!!!!!!

Level is ohap getting the TRANSIT OR TRANSIT CONNECT OR BOTH???

You can always go in front of the bankruptcy judge and see if he takes everything away all retires heath-care half your pensions/jobs/ you won't have to worry about sub pay you won't be getting any!!!!!!!!! Remember what happened to LTV they lost everything just cause they played hardball. Then you have US STEEL they gave up some perks they are still around. The workers at US STEEL prospered over the last 10 years.You guys all forget that company is losing 2 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH! THE CASH THEY BORROWED WILL EVENTUALLY RUN OUT PROBABLY BY THE END OF THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You never believe this my wife is a regional manager at a very big clothing store (europe biggest clothing store ) and they are scrambling to figure out what to do in they states they said there is a huge influx of people coming in and asking if their clothes are made in the us. They tell them no and the customers are walking right out!!!! She has been summoned to chicago/new york to brainstorm on what they should do numerous times they are almost in agreement to offer a line only manufactured in the usa. Its about time people in america start investing in our-selfs and demand the goods we want are made here.

Why don't you do us a favor and use your etap money and take a economics class at your local college.so you quit embarrassing yourself about your knowledge about economics!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you know why clinton had to support it That is why the president needs to be able to have a line item vetol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ASS-CLOWN Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown. Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure. Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited - at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms - setting off a wave of merger mania. But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry - friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career - came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead - even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history. It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork - far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps - and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century." It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation contained a provision - lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm - that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.) But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security) will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill - which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers - a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed. In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became more important - and more lucrative - than the transactions themselves, Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds, notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off and they would not need the capital to support their bets." These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime meltdown," says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause." In 1998, Greenberger's division at the cftc proposed applying regulations to the burgeoning derivatives market. But, he says, "all hell broke loose. The lobbyists for major commercial banks and investment banks and hedge funds went wild. They all wanted to be trading without the government looking over their shoulder." Now, belatedly, the feds are swooping in - but not to regulate the industry, only to bail it out, as they did in engineering the March takeover of investment banking giant Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase, fearing the firm's collapse could trigger a dominoes-like crash of the entire credit derivatives market. No one in Washington apologizes for anything, so it's no surprise that Gramm has failed to issue any mea culpa. Post-Enron, says Greenberger, the senator even called him to say, "You're going around saying this was my fault - and it's not my fault. I didn't intend this." Whether or not Gramm had bothered to ponder the potential downsides of his commodities legislation, having helped set off an industry free-for-all, he reaped the rewards. In 2003, he left the Senate to take a highly lucrative job at ubs, Switzerland's largest bank, which had been able to acquire investment house PaineWebber due to his banking deregulation bill. He would soon be lobbying Congress, the Fed, and the Treasury Department for ubs on banking and mortgage matters. There was a moment of poetic justice when ubs became one of the subprime crisis' top losers, writing down $37 billion as of this spring - an amount equal to its previous four years of profits combined. In a report explaining how it had managed to mess up so grandly, ubs noted that two-thirds of its losses were the fault of collateralized debt obligations - securities backed largely by subprime instruments - and that credit default swaps had been "key to the growth" of its out-of-control cdo business. (Gramm declined to comment for this article.) Gramm's record as a reckless deregulator has not affected his rating as a Republican economic expert. Sen. John McCain has relied on him for policy advice, especially, according to the campaign, on housing matters. The two have been buddies ever since they served together in the House in the 1980s; in 1996, McCain chaired Gramm's flop of a presidential campaign. (Gramm spent $21 million and earned only 10 delegates during the gop primaries.) In 2005, McCain told a Wall Street Journal columnist that Gramm was his economic guru. Two years later, Gramm wrote a piece for the Journal extolling McCain as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, and he's hailed McCain's love of tax cuts and free trade. Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House. "If McCain gets in," frets Lynn Turner, a former chief sec accountant, "we'll have more of the same deregulatory mess. I like John McCain, but given what I know about Phil Gramm, I wouldn't vote for McCain." As a thriving bank exec and presidential adviser, Gramm has defied a prime economic principle: Bad products are driven out of the market. In John McCain, he has gained an important customer, so his stock has gone up in value. And there's no telling when the Gramm bubble will burst. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reader Comments (Register to add your comments!) Thanks Sott By Deej this stuff you serve up is much better than watching the history channel (as if you could get much truth served up watching it) Added: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:08 EDT Donate once - or every month! Click here to learn how you can help! Have a question or comment about the Signs page? Discuss it on the Signs of the Times news forum with the Signs Team. Emails sent to Signs of the Times, Ark, Laura, or Cassiopaea become the property of Quantum Future Group, Inc and may be republished without notice. Some icons appearing on this site were taken from KDE-look.org, Afterglow, Mayosoft, Everaldo, IconDrawer, VisualPharm, IconFactory, Klukeart, Icons-land, and TpdkDesign.net. Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world! Send your article suggestions to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original content copyright 2008 by Signs of the Times. See: Fair Use Policy 236 people have viewed this page since Tue, 10 Jun 2008

MCCAIN/PALIN lies lies lies lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Page by Mark Halperin at TIME.com The PagePolitics up to the Minuteby Mark Halperin | Sunday, September 14, 2008Obama Camp Memo on The Straight Talk ExpressOBAMA CAMPAIGN MEMO: Unraveling the myth of the Straight Talk Express To: Press Corps From: Obama Campaign Re: Unraveling the myth of the Straight Talk Express Since naming Governor Palin as their Vice Presidential nominee, the McCain campaign has distorted, distracted, and outright lied to the American people about her record in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that a McCain/Palin Administration would be nothing more than a continuation of the failed Bush policies of the last eight years. Indeed, today alone we learned that the McCain campaign’s claim that Governor Palin traveled to Iraq is a lie. In fact, she didn’t cross the Kuwait border. We learned that the McCain campaign is desperate enough to tell the press phony crowd numbers, which they falsely attributed to local elected officials and the United States Secret Service. And we learned that despite Senator McCain’s claim that Governor Palin is a fiscal conservative, spending actually increased during her brief tenure as Governor. Here are the facts. Governor Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere, requested hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks, never visited Iraq, increased spending as governor, increased taxes as governor, and was about as successful selling that luxury jet on eBay as the McCain campaign has been selling her reputation as a reformer. Oh yeah, and the gas pipeline she touts won’t be usable for at least a decade, if it’s completed at all. While the media is slowly starting to call the McCain campaign on their dishonest tactics, McCain’s staff boasts that they don’t care. As a McCain spokesman told the Politico, “We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.” To help you cut through their lies and spin, below are the facts you need to set the record straight. McCain Myth: Palin Visited Troops In Iraq FACT: Palin Did Not Venture Further Into Iraq Than It’s Border With Kuwait “In The Second Official Revision Of Her Only Trip Outside North America,” Palin Aides Concede That Her 2007 Visit To Iraq “Consisted Of A Brief Stop At A Border Crossing.” “Sarah Palin’s visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate’s campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America. Following her selection last month as John McCain’s running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a ‘military outpost’ inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin’s foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone. But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as ‘K-Crossing,’ on July 25, 2007.It was the second such clarification in as many weeks of the itinerary of what Palin has called ‘the trip of a lifetime.’ Earlier, the campaign acknowledged that Palin made only a refueling stop in Ireland.” [boston Globe, 9/13/08 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip?mode=PF> ] McCain Myth: McCain’s Appearance Drew Crowd of 23,000 to Event FACT: Crowd-Size Estimates Provided By Campaign Aides Not Backed By Officials. Bloomberg: “McCain-Plain Crowd-Size Estimates Not Backed By Officials.” “Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can’t substantiate the figures McCain’s aides are claiming. McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal. Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events. . The McCain campaign said 10,000 people showed up at the Consol Energy Arena in Washington, Pennsylvania, home of the Washington Wild Things baseball team. The campaign attributed that estimate, and several that followed, to U.S. Secret Service figures, based on the number of people who passed through magnetometers. ‘We didn’t provide any numbers to the campaign,’ said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service. Wiley said he would not ‘confirm or dispute’ the numbers the McCain campaign has given to reporters.” [bloomberg, 9/13/08 <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070=a1J0tfV3XJYs=politics <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics> > ] McCain Myth: Palin Is a Fiscal Conservative FACT: Palin Has Grown Government in Her Time as Executive of Both Alaska And Wasilla Boston Globe: “Fueled by Oil Taxes, Alaska Spending Soared Under Palin.” “Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has also presided over a dramatic increase in state spending in the last two years. Still, she can accurately claim that her state is in good fiscal health, thanks to an explosion of revenues from state taxes on oil industry profits. Indeed, in her 20 months in office, Palin’s toughest financial decisions involved dickering with the Legislature on creative ways to spend and salt away the billions of dollars in oil revenues pouring into the state treasury.” [boston Globe, 9/13/08 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/fueled_by_oil_taxes_alaska_spending_soared_under_palin?mode=PF> ] · In Two Budget Cycles, Palin Only Vetoed $2.6 Million In Spending Requests For Alaska’s $8.1 Billion Operating Budget - Which Has Increased 30 Percent In Two Years. “.in two budget cycles, Palin has vetoed a total of only $2.6 million in spending requests for the state’s now $8.1 billion annual operating budget, which, according to an analysis by the legislative finance office, has increased about 30 percent in two years. The increase figure includes the one-time energy rebate checks but no increases in reserve accounts or any capital expenditures. It also doesn’t include a supplemental appropriation for additional expenditures, which is routine. Last year, the supplemental budget was more than $4 billion, mostly deposits in reserve accounts when revenues continued to pour in at high levels.” [boston Globe, 9/13/08 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/fueled_by_oil_taxes_alaska_spending_soared_under_palin?mode=PF> ] Wasilla’s Total Government Expenditures Increased 63 Percent Under Palin. In fiscal 2003-the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget-the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7,046,325. In fiscal 1996-the year before Palin took control of the budget-the expenditures were $4,317,947. The increase was 63 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1] McCain Myth: Palin Has Succeeded in Signing a Deal to Build Alaska’s Long-Stalled Gas Pipeline FACTS: High Gas Prices Have Given Alaska a Huge Windfall, Passed on to Alaskans Like Sarah Palin in Huge Dividend Checks - And Palin Has Backed Shipping Alaskan Natural Gas to Asia Palin Touts Her Pipeline Deal, But It Has Not been Started, Would Take Years to Complete and Could Never Happen, Costing Taxpayers $500 Million for Nothing. “When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska took center stage at the Republican convention last week, she sought to burnish her executive credentials by telling how she had engineered the deal that jump-started a long-delayed gas pipeline project. But an examination of the pipeline project also found that Ms. Palin has overstated both the progress that has been made and the certainty of success. The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.” [New York Times, 9/13/08 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?ref=politics> ] · Republican Lawmaker Worried Alaska Bargained Away Too Much Leverage, Has No Agreement to “Lift One Shovel of Dirt or Lay Down One Inch of Steel.” “As Ms. Palin takes to the road to campaign with Mr. McCain, invoking the pipeline as a major victory, some Alaska lawmakers who initially endorsed her plan now believe it was a mistake. State Senator Bert Stedman, a Republican who is co-chairman of the finance committee, said that in its contract with the chosen developer, TransCanada, the state bargained away too much leverage with little guarantee of success. ‘There is no requirement to lift one shovel of dirt or lay down one inch of steel,’ he said.” [New York Times, 9/13/08 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?ref=politics> ] McCain Myth: Palin’s Energy Experience Will Lower Gas Prices and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil FACTS: High Gas Prices Have Given Alaska a Huge Windfall, Passed on to Alaskans Like Sarah Palin in Huge Dividend Checks - And Palin Has Backed Shipping Alaskan Natural Gas to Asia Thanks To “Soaring Oil Prices And A Higher Windfall Oil Profits Tax,” Alaska’s State Coffers Are “Overflowing With Petrodollars.” “Soaring oil prices and a higher windfall oil profits tax - an increase pushed through by Palin, now the Republican vice presidential nominee - have state coffers overflowing with petrodollars. The Alaska oil industry calculates that its annual payments to the state doubled in a single year to $10.2 billion.” [boston Globe, 9/13/08 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/fueled_by_oil_taxes_alaska_spending_soared_under_palin?mode=PF> ] · Every Alaskan Receiving $1,200 From The State, Along With Annual Check From The Permanent Fund, Which Is A Record $2,069 Per Resident This Year - Palin Family Eligible For $19,000. “And Alaska residents are getting their cut. Starting this week, every Alaskan who has lived in the state more than a year will receive $1,200 from the state, a total of about $756 million in rebates to offset high energy costs in the 49th state. That’s on top of the perennial check each will receive from the state’s oil revenue-endowed Permanent Fund, this year a record $2,069 per resident. The large Palin family is eligible to receive more than $19,000 from the combined payments.” [boston Globe, 9/13/08 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/fueled_by_oil_taxes_alaska_spending_soared_under_palin?mode=PF> ] Palin Backed A Two-Year Extension Of The Export License To Export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) To Japan And Other Asian Countries-Criticized Because Alaska’s Gas Reserves Are Declining. “Alaska producers can continue shipping gas to Asia after DOE last week approved an extension of the export license for the Kenai liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon. The companies will be allowed to export up to 98.1 Bcf to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries over a two-year period through March 31, 2011. [.] The application came under fire from local end-users, including gas distribution companies Enstar and the Chugach Electric Association, as well as fertilizer maker Agrium, all of which claimed the exports would exacerbate the problem of declining gas reserves in south-central Alaska. Agrium permanently closed its plant near Kenai due to an inability to find enough local supply for the facility that used 53 Bcf/year. In January, ConocoPhillips and Marathon reached a deal in which they agreed to step up development in the Cook Inlet region in return for the state’s support of the export license extension. The producers also agreed to divert gas from the LNG plant as needed to meet the peak winter supply needs of the local utilities. [.] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the DOE approval. “In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents. This extension will secure a future for the LNG operation and is another step toward ensuring energy supplies and energy security for Alaska,” the Republican governor said. [Platts Inside FERC, 6/9/08] McCain Palin Myth: Sarah Palin Told Congress “Thanks But No Thanks” On That Bridge to Nowhere FACT: Palin Was Before It Before She Was Against It - Kept the Money for Other Projects Politifact: Palin’s Stance On “The Bridge To Nowhere” Is “A Full Flop.” Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain said Palin has ’stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.’ Nevermind that Alaska didn’t give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.” [Politifact <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/> ] McCain Myth: Sarah Palin NEVER Sought Earmarks As Governor. FACT: Palin Sought Nearly $200 Million Earmarks For The Coming Year. AP Fact Check: McCain “Erroneously” Asserted That, As Governor, Palin Never Sought Earmarks. “John McCain continued to laud his running mate, Sarah Palin, as a budget cutter on Friday, this time erroneously asserting that as governor of Alaska she had not sought congressional earmarks for her state. In fact, while Palin has significantly reduced the state’s earmark requests, she asked for nearly $200 million in targeted spending for the 2009 fiscal year. And in an interview with ABC News aired Friday, she defended her earmark requests, emphasizing that she opposed ‘earmark abuse.’ . Appearing on the ABC television show ‘The View,’ McCain was pressed on her record of seeking such targeted money for Alaska. ‘Not as governor she didn’t,’ McCain said. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said that McCain’s remark came ‘in the middle of a conversation, the middle of a back and forth,’ and the reference was to her record of cutting spending.” [AP, 9/12/08 <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gtx_hOhOBrAMbgsXYxQAu3f_QvBwD935EU2G0> ] McCain Myth: Sarah Palin Has Taken a Tough Stance Against Earmarks FACT: As Mayor, Palin Hired a Lobbyist Tied to Ted Stevens Who Got Wasilla $27 Million in Earmarks and as Governor, Alaska Has Sought and Received More Earmarked Spending Per Person than Any Other State Lobbyist Hired By Palin Secured $27 Million In Federal Earmarks for 6,700-Person Town. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.” [Washington Post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148_pf.html> , 9/2/08] In 2008, Alaska Got More Earmarked Federal Funding Per Person Than Any Other State. “Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska - with roughly a tenth of Arizona’s population - is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks. The state of Alaska receives about three times as much as Arizona receives in actual dollars, $346 million to $119 million.” [uSA Today, 3/22/08 <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm> ] Palin’s Requests - More Per Person Than Any Other State. “Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million - more, per person, than any other state.” [seattle Times, 9/2/08 <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html> ] McCain Myth: Palin Cut Taxes FACT: Palin Raised Wasilla’s Sales Tax Palin Supported First-Ever Wasilla Sales Tax to Pay for Police Department. In 1992 “Palin, a political newcomer, was one of two supporters of the police-sales tax plan elected to the city council in Wasilla, Alaska.” [Anchorage Daily News (AK), 10/8/92] Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of building the center.Mayor Sarah Palin, who supported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02] McCain Myth: Palin Is a Reformer Who Brought Ethics Back to Alaskan Politics FACT: Palin Is Under Investigation, Faces a Separate Ethics Complaint and Signed a Weak Ethics Law Joint Legislative Council of the Legislature Voted Unanimously to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. The Alaska State Legislature’s Legislative Council voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08 <http://www.ktva.com/ci_10026165?source=most_emailed> ] Ethics Complaint Filed Against Gov. Palin Over Alleged Involvement in Hiring a Campaign Contributor. In August 2008, former state House member Andree McLeod” filed against Gov. Sarah Palin and her staff today with the Attorney General’s Office. It accuses the governor’s office of using its pull to get a Palin supporter hired to a [Department of Transportation] job in Fairbanks.” McLeod said ” ‘Executive branch employee shouldn’t be getting involved in the recruitment process unless it’s based on merit,’ said Andree McLeod, who wrote the complaint based on a series of e-mails between members of Palin’s team.The complaint accuses Palin, her acting chief of staff and others of breaking executive ethics branch and hiring rules. It centers on the hiring of surveyor Tom Lamal, who once co-hosted a Palin fundraiser, for a state right-of-way agent job in Fairbanks.” The complaint <http://community.adn.com/sites/community.adn.com/files/McLeod%20Ethics%20Complaint1.pdf> is available online. [Anchorage Daily News <http://community.adn.com/adn/node/128527> , 8/6/08; Anchorage Daily News <http://www.adn.com/front/story/486163.html> , 8/7/08] McCain Myth: Palin Traveled Abroad to Ireland FACT: Palin Stopped In Ireland To Refuel Plane. Palin’s Ireland Trip Was A Refueling Stop. Politico’s Ben Smith reported, “I wrote the other day that a Palin spokeswoman said trips to Germany, Kuwait and Ireland made up her foreign travel. Two details worth clarifying: The Ireland trip was a refueling stop on her trip to military installations in Germany and Kuwait, spokeswoman Maria Comella said. And she’s also visited Canada, another spokesman, Ben Porritt, says.” [Politico <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palins_stopover.html?showall> , 9/2/08] McCain Myth: Palin Has Experience in Foreign Affairs Because She Was Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard FACT: Palin Has No Role in National Guard’s National Defense Responsibilities or Overseas Deployments and Never Issued Any Orders to the Guard Since She Took Office Adjutant General of Alaska National Guard Said Palin Plays No Role in National Defense Activities, Even When They Involve Alaska National Guard. “Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin ‘extremely responsive and smart’ and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder. But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.” [AP, 8/31/08 <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpxv9PHwtrYyiK-btXIRE8AepmiwD92TGCQ01> ] · Palin Has Not Issued Any Orders for Guard Activity Since Becoming Their Commander in Chief. “Occasions in which Palin retains command authority over the 4,200-member Alaska National Guard are whenever the Guard responds to in-state natural disasters and civic emergencies, said Campbell, who also serves as the commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.Some examples? ‘We’ve deployed individuals in state service all over the state under Sarah Palin,’ he said. ‘We had defense men down in Seward for the (Mount) Marathon run doing security. ‘Out west and northwest we had erosion problems, and the National Guard was involved in some of the protection out there. About three days ago, the Army National Guard picked up a lady from Little Diomede (Island) . . . at the request of state troopers.’ Did Palin directly approve each of those activities? No, Campbell said. The governor has granted him the authority to act on his own in most cases, including life-or-death emergencies - when a quick response is required - and minor day-to-day operations.” [McClatchy, 9/3/08 <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51665.html> ] McCain Myth: Palin Sold the State’s Jet on eBay FACT: Palin Sold the Jet to Campaign Contributor at a Loss of $600,000 for the State Palin Did Not Sell Murkowski’s Plane on eBay - Sold it to an Alaskan Entrepreneur at a Loss of $600,000. “One of the compelling anecdotes about Sarah Palin is that she auctioned off the Alaska governor’s jet on eBay after taking office - a swift move made by a reformer hoping to clean up the excesses of her predecessor. But in fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price, according to contemporaneous news reports, including a story in the New York Times. What happened? It appears that, as promised during her bid for governor in 2006, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but that doing so was not as easy as it might have sounded. After putting it up to auction, there was one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. Still, the Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving Palin’s goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.” [Washington Post Blog, 9/5/08 <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/05/plane_not_sold_on_ebay.html> ] · Larry Reynolds Made Campaign Contributions To Palin And State Rep. John Harris, Who Is Credited With Brokering The Sale, In 2006 And 2007. “Dan Spencer, the director of administrative services for Alaska’s Public Safety Department, said that the Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, brokered the deal. Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007.” [Washington Post Blog, 9/5/08] <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/05/plane_not_sold_on_ebay.html> McCain Myth: Palin Fired the Governor’s Chef FACT: Palin Did Not Fire the Chef, Just Reassigned Her to a Different Job - She Now Cooks for the Legislature Contrary to Palin’s Claim, Governor’s Chef Wasn’t Fired, She Was Just Reassigned. “Remember the long-time executive chef who lost her job at the Mansion when Sarah decided to live mostly in Wasilla instead of Juneau? Stefani Marnon was first reassigned as a ‘constituent relations assistant’ in the governor’s office and later to the state museum. Earwigs report she’s finally landed where they really appreciate a good chef: the Legislative Lounge. Lawmakers were smacking their lips in anticipation, according to Sen. Kim Elton’s newsletter.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/9/08 <http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/288561.html> ] ### Quick Links: U.S.| World| Blogs| Business & Tech| Health & Science| Entertainment| Photos| Magazine| Specials| Archive RSS Feeds| Get TIME on your Mobile Device| Podcasts| Video| Newsletter Services: Subscribe | Customer Service|Help|Site Map|Contact Us|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use|Media Kit|Reprints & Permissions|Opinion Leaders Panel Editions: TIME Domestic|TIME Europe|TIME Asia|TIME Pacific|TIME For Kids Time.comCopyright 2008 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Powered by WordPress

BY the way if the republicans would go after the spectulators I would gladly give them there due!! But that is just not the case they don't sponsor any bills and if it makes it to bush veto's them. So who should I blame the ones that are trying to fix the problem or the republicans that are resisting. MULE WHY DONT YOU JUST GO TO THIS SITE AND READ UP AND TRY TO TELL ME THE REPUBLICANS ARE STILL TRYIN TO KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN AND WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!!!! http://capwiz.com/sosnow/issues/bills/