Starting in April, 2001, Rep. Richard Baker had a mission to reform Freddie and Fannie.

H.R. 1409 [107th]: Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises Regulatory Improvement Act

It was killed in committee.

He tried again in the next Congress, House Bill was, H.R. 2575 [108th]: Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises Regulatory Improvement Act. Sponsored again by Republican Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana, and cosponsored by 22 Republicans and 1 Democrat (Rep. David Scott of Georgia). It never seemed to make it out of committee.

Then in the 109th Congress, Rep. Richard Baker tried again and introduced H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which passed the house (Passed 331-90, with 12 not voting) on Oct 26, 2005.

It never emerged from the Senate conference. The last action noted was; "Oct 31, 2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs."

The Senate Committee had hearings on Freddie and Fannie oversight in May 2001.

It looks like what eventually emerged was a six point voluntary compliance plan.

1. Publicly disclose our independent rating.
2. Maintain a high degree of liquidity.
3. Issue subordinated debt on a semiannual basis.
4. Implement a risk-based capital stress test on an interim basis.
5. Publicly disclose a forward-looking measure of credit risk every quarter.
6. Publicly disclose interest-rate risk every month.

The mood of which was best summarized at the end of that link with a letter submitted by then Chairman of Freddie Mac, Leland C. Brendsel.

Freddie Mac's strength and vitality ensure that we are able to meet the housing finance needs of the future. Our superior risk management capabilities, strong capital position and state-of-the-art information disclosure make Freddie Mac unquestionably a safe and sound financial institution. The six commitments demonstrate our determination to stay that way, so that we can finance housing for generations to come.

... and I have some quality beach front property near Galveston I'd like to sell you...

More about Leland Brendsel and Franklin Raines, in 2004...

Scandal to Cost Ex-Fannie Mae Officers Millions
NYT -- U.S. Moves to Deny Benefits to 2 Ex-Freddie Mac Officials

The foxes are watching the chicken coops. It appears that Freddie and Fannie campaign donations bought Senate silence.

How do US Taxes compare to Scandinavia?

Sweden has made moves recently to reduce it's tax rates, so it is now only 2nd in the region in highest taxes with an effective rate of about 50 percent (Denmark is higher).

In the US, the federal effective rate is about 22 percent, and drops sharply if you earn less than 50K per household. Taxes in the US vary by local, but if you take a state like New York, they have an effective state income tax rate of 11.7 percent, and a state sales tax of 8 percent. In large counties and cities they have local sales taxes, so NYC's sales tax is 8.375 percent. Many states also have a property tax on your land and house based on value. Then, also there are special taxes on some commodities like fuel, booze, tobacco, ad infinitum...

The easiest way to measure tax burden by states is to measure total state tax per capita over avg income per capita, then add the federal burden. With progressive taxation though, the higher incomes will be pinched for more, and the lower for less (or none).

For New York, total tax income for the state in 2007 was 63,161,582,000 paid by 7,056,860 households (19,306,183 people) for an avg tax of $8950 per household ($3272 per person). Median household income for NY state residents is about $45,343. So the average tax for the average household in NY is about 19.7 percent on income. The federal effective tax rate is about 22 percent now, and will increase until 2012 when tax reduction laws sunset. (source: CBO, and US Census)

So for the average household in NY, they pay about 42 percent of there income in taxes. Those who make more would pay up to 25 percent more. For the highest 5 percent, they see a slight reduction in rate because they hit caps on things like FICA tax.

The bottom line... 42 percent is better than 50 percent, but not by much. The citizens of the US don't see the returns, since much of their taxes go to pay for wars, and very selective social programs (those over 65 years old and the very poor).

I would even say there is a valid argument that taxation in the US violates the constitution. Both the equal protection clause, and amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Income is property in the context of the document, as in life, liberty, and property. The IRS has even implemented a law that makes it illegal to not pay your taxes based on constitutional arguments.

FP mag -- McCain and Obama's worst ideas

Foreign Policy Mag's Ten worst ideas by Obama and McCain

Obama
1. Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement
2. Opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
3. Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan
4. Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
5. Pushing the Patriot Employer Act
6. Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels
7. Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Under $50,000
8. Boosting Ethanol Subsidies
9. Taxing Oil Companies Extra
10. Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

McCain
1. Creating a League of Democracies
2. Calling for a Gas-Tax Holiday
3. Requiring a Three-Fifths Majority to Raise Taxes
4. Flip-flopping on Immigration
5. Drilling Our Way Out of the Oil Crisis
6. Balancing the Budget through Victory in the War on Terror
7. Making the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
8. Supporting Abstinence-Only Education and the Global Gag Rule
9. Calling for 45 Nuclear Power Plants
10. Backing Cap-and-Trade Without a 100 Percent Auction

Campaign 2008: Lobbyists and Think Tanks

It's an evil drug that Washington has injected into its veins and become addicted. After politics its seems your career is either at a think tank, or lobbying. McCain says his former lobbyists aren't the bad type, whatever that means.

FactCheck: Obama Ad Misidentifies McCain 'Lobbyists'

It is interesting that in all the scramble to get right with the electorate, Hunter, Joe Biden's son, just quit from his lobbyist job today. Trying to fight perceptions, I guess. Or, maybe positioning the campaign to be able to better target the other without appearing the hypocrite.

Here is an article that lists many of the players, The War of the Wonks and a list from the Connect U.S. Fund. They also have a list for McCain.

I've noticed a few tendencies in Barack's advisers, they tend to be former Clinton era politico's, or professors from Harvard/Chicago, or from The Brooking's Institution, or Center for American Progress. Also, strangely many of these names are found as advisers for America Abroad Media.

Here is the good, the bad, and the ugly that I've dug up on Barack's Advisers...

Susan Rice is on leave from the Brookings Institution, and is not a lobbyist. Formerly employed at Intellibridge. She was one of Bill Clinton's best.

Tom Daschle, while not a lobbyist, is married to Linda Hall Daschle, a lobbyist for Baker, Donelson, Bearman and Caldwell.

Denis McDonough,Foreign Policy Coordinator, briefs the candidate on all foreign affairs issues.
Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle.

James (Jim) Steinberg, Dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, and former Deputy National Security Advisor. Also involved in America Abroad Media.

Robert Malley, son of Simon Malley, left Obama's team after he had secret meetings with Hamas, now a member of CALME and part of the Soros team at the International Crisis Group.

Jim Johnson, was a lobbyist and disgraced mortgage executive who misstated Fannie Mae profits to get a bigger bonus.

Ben Rhodes was one of the lead staff writers for the Iraq Study Group (a Soros endeavor), (is the brother of David Rhodes, Fox News' vice president of news)

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, was a lobbyist for the Haitian Mevs brothers.

Anthony Lake, a Clinton era NSA, was almost Director of the CIA but withdrew his nomination, then later was was investigated for his relationship to Pauline Kanchanalak. He is co-founder(with David Rothkopf) of Intellibridge.

Jeremy Rosner, is executive vice president at the consulting firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a public opinion research and strategy firm. In the US it caters to Democrats, and corporations.

Samantha Powers, who quit the Obama campaign after calling Hillary a monster, Cass Sunstein, her new husband is still an Obama adviser.

Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor. Sunstein is currently the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. One of the best lawyers in the US.

Austan Goolsbee is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He's part of a new wave called "new social economics". A very respectable fellow indeed.

Amb. Jeffrey Bader, Former President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brooking's China center.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee. Also, somewhat controversial guy.

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counter terrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, and mostly known as the guy asleep at the wheel for 9-11 who wrote a book blaming it all on Bush, but couldn't back it up.

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counter terrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant

Eric Lynn, who was a senior legislative assistant to Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.), will also serve as Obama's adviser on Middle East policy.

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brooking's senior fellow, was a member of PNAC.

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages,was raised by missionary parents in Democratic Republic of Congo and later Kenya and speaks fluent Swahili, who also accompanied Sen. Obama to Kenya when he was photographed in the traditional garb.

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP, who's CEO is John Podesta, and is allegedly also funded by Soros, also wrote the report that spawned efforts to revive the "Fairness Doctrine").

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project.

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, who's been around long enough to be controversial in many ways. He made no friends with the Clinton's during the campaign.

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (See L.J.Korb for CAP analysis).

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge

Also of interest; Newsweek, The Talent Primary

Global Warming -- Good Science or Hype?

The climate has been changing my whole life, and probably longer (forgive my dry attempt at humor). The evidence is clear that the climate is warming, some due to natural factors, and some due to man made factors.

I think what few people understand are the natural processes which shed CO2 from the atmosphere, and their exponential nature.

Snowball Earth

There is good evidence that in the Neoproterozoic period cooling resulted in a period of total global freeze. Since water vapor would have completely condensed, the lack of precipitation left the Earth's greenhouse gas buildup to go unchecked. It is theorized that at it's peak the Earth's atmosphere contained up to 10 percent CO2. Once a greenhouse gas tipping point, or some other climatic event occurred the ice melted very rapidly and violent storms over centuries washed the CO2 from the atmosphere leaving geologic evidence of a massive layer of cap carbonate rock.

My point is that we do not know yet how water vapor, which is a more significant force in global warming, will regulate CO2 absorption. It might be that this is not a runaway event, but a self limiting natural process. Certainly there were geological time periods of great volcanic activity which produced a more CO2 rich atmosphere.

But, there are others who post here who know more about climatology than I.

I understand the framework of doubt to be;

1. Do we fully understand the role of CO2 in global warming? Heinz Hug (In other words, CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20 percent of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do that much.)
2. What role do ocean have in regulating and creating an equilibrium of atmospheric CO2? Oceans?
3. What is the relationship between CO2 and water vapor, since atmospheric water vapor has more effect on global temperature. Water Vapor?
4. CO2 can only absorb 8% of radiation frequencies. Greenhouse Effect has a limit!
5. There is dispute in what role the Sun has in contributing to global warming. Sun?

The other factor to consider is that in the geologic past when temperatures increased, the carrying capacity of the Earth increased. It was during ice ages when populations global extinctions occurred. "Cold is bad, Warm is good!"

Abortion - A Libertarian Secular View

Here is my rational based entirely on a libertarian secular viewpoint. Also, as a part of this rational is the existence in most States in the US of feticide laws where the actions of a 3rd party results in unwanted death of a baby in the womb. The basis of my opinion is the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution (article 5 in the Bill of Rights), influences from John Locke, and Greek philosophy's of Natural Law.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- US Declaration of Independence

1. When sexual intercourse results in a pregnancy, the baby bears no guilt. These unwanted pregnancies are usually the result of recreational sexual intercourse resulting in an unintended consequence. The resulting baby is innocent of any wrong doing, so the "guilt" of the unwanted pregnancy falls only to the couple who initiated it. I will save for later the discussion of special considerations for those circumstances where the pregnancy is due to rape/incest, or when continuation risks the life of the mother.
2. I believe the baby has the natural right of life to be protected by law. This is demonstrated by the need for feticide laws to protect the baby in the womb from hostile 3rd parties. The decision for the government is when a baby has Constitutional rights. It is the governments responsibility to determine when citizenship begins. The same considerations used in determining the appropriateness of terminating life support systems for adults may be a way for determining when a life begins. However, there is the case for "when otherwise untampered" a new citizen will emerge from the womb.
3. Some consideration for the "use of the womb and body" should be given to the mother. Women do have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that begins with there accepting the risks of having intercourse (protected or not). At issue is that the DNA material in the womans womb is not actually a part of her body, but rather a new individual with a unique genetic code. This baby floats in an amniotic sac attached by the umbilical cord to a placenta that has grown within the womb.
4. If the society truly cherishes its new citizen, then it should be prepared to offer neonatal care for those who cannot afford it and in all other ways provide support for the pregnant women should she not have means.

Religious considerations:

• A person who is religious would need to deduce when the soul enters the baby. Because metaphysical phenomena are matters of "faith", conception would be the likely decision to err in favor of not taking a life.
  

Special Circumstances:

• When carrying a baby to term would result in the death of the mother, then terminating the pregnancy would be appropriate. Ethically, it would be up to the doctor to save the individual who is most viable, such as when Siamese twins are separated.
  
• It is likely that in cases of rape, the women would seek medical care. As a part of that care, they should seek emergency contraception (e.g. PlanB).
  
• In cases of incest, the matter would likely result in keeping the baby since evidence of pregnancy would likely be near middle or end of the first trimester. By this time, the baby by definition of heartbeat and brain activity has already become a citizen. It is unfortunate that the victim would need to undergo additional mental anguish, but suffering alone would not justify the taking of a human life.

Other Circumstances:

• Economic hardship does not justify the denial of rights of infants, or minor children. Nor should it in cases of babies in the womb.
• The attitude of a mother toward a child does not enable her to abuse, or take the lives of children outside the womb, and the same logic would apply to babies within the womb.
• There is also no justification for taking the life of a baby who has a defect that would make raising the child more difficult.
  

A reminder from Barrack Obama during the muddy season

I was thinking in this time of muck raking and character assassination of the sage advice from the young Illinois Senator.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? Barrack Obama -- 2004 DNC

Full Text of Barrack Obama's 2004 DNC speech...

Religious Freedom: Creation and Evolution

With the American election in full swing now, and the recent selection of Sarah Palin to be the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republicans, there is quite a buzz involving her belief in Creation. Frankly, I'm a bit astounded that many people think it is an issue at all, since America is still one of the more religiously grounded western nations.

So I did some checking; Pew Research Poll analysis of Creation and Evolution beliefs

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. The wording of survey questions generally makes little systematic difference in this division of opinion.

This article also speaks about other polls and why their results differ because of the way they asked the questions. One example was that Pew asked more yes and no questions, whereas some other polls questions asked them to pick from multiple mutually exclusive choices. Many people think Creation is mutually exclusive of an understanding and belief in evolution.

A 1999 Fox News poll of registered voters offered respondents the explicit option to say that both Darwin's theory of evolution and the biblical account of creation were true: 26% said both were.

My view is that schools are places where learning should occur, whether that be science or theology. I would think it best to limit science to the science classroom, and theology to a philosophy classroom. However, our spirituality, or lack of it permeates our lives. As a free people, we should be allowed to express our beliefs without repercussions. I would add, for those that might think I wish to bring religion into the biology classroom, that the theory of Intelligent Design, without corresponding scientific evidence, is still in the realm of science philosophy, just as is any other hard to prove theory such as are in the realms of cosmology, particle physics, etc. When things get too big (e.g. universe), or too small (e.g. subatomic), or too long ago (e.g. birth of the universe), science has little to offer, since it is based on observed phenomena.

I believe the true nature of God, is unfathomable for us who have a very limited perception. This is especially true for those that approach the topic of God, from the perspective of a scientist. My theory is that you don't find God with your head, you find him with your heart. Your head can help understand God by reading the Bible. I'll leave with a quote from Johannes Keppler (1571 – 1630) A Professor of Mathematics at the University of Graz, "That day is impending when people will admit the pure truth both in the book of Nature as well as in the Holy Bible and rejoice at the harmony between these two revelations."

American War and Military Operations Casualties

Of interest to many are the costs of American excursions abroad. Beyond the cost of the materials used, opportunities lost, and repairs to things destroyed, are the costs of American lives.

American War and Military Operations Casualties

{more analysis and figures to come in the future}