I am on the ticket thanks to good people like you. I am deeply honored.
Thank you!!!
Tom Love
Candidate for US Congress District 24 (Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties)
www.TomLoveforTexas.com
---------------------------
Dallas County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 107 100.00% 4, 762 100.00% 7,882 100.00% 12,883 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Democratic Party
Tom Love 107 100.00% 8,253 100.00% 10,110 100.00% 24,103 100.00%
Tarrant County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 123 100.00% 5,134 100.00% 7,626 100.00% 12,646 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 163 100.00% 10,060 100.00% 9,203 100.00% 17,619 100.00%
Denton County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 68 100.00% 2,168 100.00% 2,661 100.00% 4,829 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 68 100.00% 3, 921 100.00% 3,472 100.00% 7,393 100.00%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Marchant Total: 3 County Vote: 30,358
Tom Love Total: 3 County Vote: 49,115
Total 3 County vote: 79, 473
Love %=61.8, Marchant %=38.2
www.tomlovefortexas.com
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Safe Nurse to Patient Ratio Resolution
Let it be Resolved that we the members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s Of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their fight to:
ESTABLISHING MANDATORY HOSPITAL DIRECT CARE NURSING PRACTICE STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE PROTECTIONS TO ASSURE THAT NURSING CARE IS PROVIDED IN THE EXCLUSIVE INTERESTS OF PATIENTS
MANDATING ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE-TO-PATIENT STAFFING RATIOS BY LICENSED HOSPTIAL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR COMPETENT,SAFE AND THERAPEUTIC NURSING CARE AND FOR RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSES—
RECOGNIZING PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE DUTY AND RIGHT OF PATIENT ADVOCACY—
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR REPORTING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE CONDITIONS AND FOR REFUSING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE ASSIGNMENTS.
Let It Be So Resolved that we Members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their Fight to Pass:
Texas Hospital Patient Protection Act Of 2009
Let It Be So Resolved that we the Members Of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in asking our Elected State Legislators in Support of these Ratios:
Intensive/Critical Care 1:2;
Neonatal Intensive Care 1:2;
Operating Room 1:1;
Conscious sedation 1:1;
Post-anesthesia Recovery 1:2;
Labor and Delivery 1:1;
Ante partum 1:3;
New Born Nursery 1:2;
Postpartum couplets 1:3;
Postpartum women only 1:4;
Pediatrics 1:3;
Emergency Room 1:4;
ICU patients in the ER 1:2;
Trauma patients in the ER 1:1;
Step Down & Telemetry 1:3;
Medical/Surgical 1:4;
Other Specialty Care 1:4;
Psychiatric 1:4;
Rehabilitation Unit & Skilled Nursing Facility 1:5
__._ Dear Fellow Democrats,
I urge you and remind you to go to vote and to go
your precinct convention. I would also like you to
take this resolution I have prepared on Safe Nurse to
Patient Ratios in our hospitals to make our Hospitals
safer.
Thank you for your support and let’s turn the votes
out.
In Solidarity
Richard Stephens
http://www.calnurses.org/
ESTABLISHING MANDATORY HOSPITAL DIRECT CARE NURSING PRACTICE STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE PROTECTIONS TO ASSURE THAT NURSING CARE IS PROVIDED IN THE EXCLUSIVE INTERESTS OF PATIENTS
MANDATING ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE-TO-PATIENT STAFFING RATIOS BY LICENSED HOSPTIAL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR COMPETENT,SAFE AND THERAPEUTIC NURSING CARE AND FOR RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSES—
RECOGNIZING PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE DUTY AND RIGHT OF PATIENT ADVOCACY—
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR REPORTING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE CONDITIONS AND FOR REFUSING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE ASSIGNMENTS.
Let It Be So Resolved that we Members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their Fight to Pass:
Texas Hospital Patient Protection Act Of 2009
Let It Be So Resolved that we the Members Of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in asking our Elected State Legislators in Support of these Ratios:
The minimum direct care registered nurse-to-patient-ratios are;
Intensive/Critical Care 1:2;
Neonatal Intensive Care 1:2;
Operating Room 1:1;
Conscious sedation 1:1;
Post-anesthesia Recovery 1:2;
Labor and Delivery 1:1;
Ante partum 1:3;
New Born Nursery 1:2;
Postpartum couplets 1:3;
Postpartum women only 1:4;
Pediatrics 1:3;
Emergency Room 1:4;
ICU patients in the ER 1:2;
Trauma patients in the ER 1:1;
Step Down & Telemetry 1:3;
Medical/Surgical 1:4;
Other Specialty Care 1:4;
Psychiatric 1:4;
Rehabilitation Unit & Skilled Nursing Facility 1:5
__._ Dear Fellow Democrats,
I urge you and remind you to go to vote and to go
your precinct convention. I would also like you to
take this resolution I have prepared on Safe Nurse to
Patient Ratios in our hospitals to make our Hospitals
safer.
Thank you for your support and let’s turn the votes
out.
In Solidarity
Richard Stephens
http://www.calnurses.org/
Saturday, March 1, 2008
U.S.-Europe Team Beats Out Boeing on Big Contract
By LESLIE WAYNE
WASHINGTON — The Air Force, in a stunning upset against the Boeing Company, awarded a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers on Friday to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus, putting a critical military contract partly into the hands of a foreign company.
The contract, one of the largest at the Pentagon, is initially valued at $40 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.
Under the contract, Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. It gives a huge lift to Airbus, whose commercial aviation program has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Ala., parts would come from suppliers across the globe.
At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”
Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.
“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.
For its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was “very disappointed” in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest — something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.
In its statement, Boeing said, “We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission.” The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company “make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.”
A Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.
“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”
The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.
Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.
Representative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.
Mr. Dicks added: “Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.”
Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a telephone interview that he expected members of Congress would have a “variety of views” depending on whether their districts would be gaining or losing jobs under the deal.
Mr. Sugar said that 60 percent of the content of the new tanker would come from the United States and that it would create 2,000 jobs in Mobile and 25,000 over all in the United States.
“This is more about the capability that we will give to the kids fighting the wars and the cost to the taxpayer,” Mr. Sugar said.
Backing Mr. Sugar’s view was Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who hailed the decision as “great news for Alabama.”
The Alabama and Mississippi delegations had lobbied hard in Congress to polish the image of Airbus. In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and these politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wanted to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers.
In terms of the craft itself, the Airbus 330 is far larger than the 767 that Boeing proposed using. The Air Force said it was attracted by the plane’s larger fuel capacity, its cost and its ability to also carry cargo and passengers.
The deal is the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates to the Kennedy and Eisenhower eras. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707s and DC-10s is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world.
Replacing these tankers has been the Air Force’s top priority since 1996, when the government first proposed obtaining new planes. The first 179 tankers will be acquired at a pace of about 15 a year. But it is expected that over time, nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed, which could bring the program’s total cost to $100 billion.
For more than a decade the Air Force’s effort to modernize the fleet has been thwarted by global politics, Washington scandals and an aggressive attack by Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In the end, a procurement scandal led to the departure of Philip M. Condit, the chief executive of Boeing; the resignation of James G. Roche, the Air Force secretary; and the imprisonment of two Boeing executives, one of whom had worked on the program as a Pentagon acquisition official.
The Air Force, short on cash and wanting to acquire the planes as fast as possible, proposed an arrangement to Congress in late 2001 under which the Pentagon would lease the Boeing 767s in a sole-source contract that would keep Boeing’s aging 767 production line alive.
But just as the Air Force was about to sign that deal, it came under sharp attack from Senator McCain, a former Navy pilot. He denounced the deal as a sweetheart arrangement between Boeing and the Air Force that would shortchange the taxpayer and that was arranged with insufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Soon afterward, it was reported that the Air Force’s No. 2 weapons buyer, Darleen A. Druyun, had been promised jobs for herself, her daughter and son-in-law in return for steering the tanker contract and billions of dollars of other Air Force business to Boeing.
Soon after she joined the company in a $250,000-a-year post, Ms. Druyun and Michael M. Sears, Boeing’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty and received prison terms.
The weight of the scandal caused the Boeing deal to collapse in 2004 and opened the door to competition from Boeing’s archrival EADS, which teamed up with Northrop.
Each side spent millions to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue its case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings.
David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?exprod=myyahoo
WASHINGTON — The Air Force, in a stunning upset against the Boeing Company, awarded a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers on Friday to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus, putting a critical military contract partly into the hands of a foreign company.
The contract, one of the largest at the Pentagon, is initially valued at $40 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.
Under the contract, Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. It gives a huge lift to Airbus, whose commercial aviation program has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Ala., parts would come from suppliers across the globe.
At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”
Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.
“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.
For its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was “very disappointed” in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest — something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.
In its statement, Boeing said, “We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission.” The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company “make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.”
A Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.
“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”
The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.
Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.
Representative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.
Mr. Dicks added: “Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.”
Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a telephone interview that he expected members of Congress would have a “variety of views” depending on whether their districts would be gaining or losing jobs under the deal.
Mr. Sugar said that 60 percent of the content of the new tanker would come from the United States and that it would create 2,000 jobs in Mobile and 25,000 over all in the United States.
“This is more about the capability that we will give to the kids fighting the wars and the cost to the taxpayer,” Mr. Sugar said.
Backing Mr. Sugar’s view was Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who hailed the decision as “great news for Alabama.”
The Alabama and Mississippi delegations had lobbied hard in Congress to polish the image of Airbus. In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and these politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wanted to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers.
In terms of the craft itself, the Airbus 330 is far larger than the 767 that Boeing proposed using. The Air Force said it was attracted by the plane’s larger fuel capacity, its cost and its ability to also carry cargo and passengers.
The deal is the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates to the Kennedy and Eisenhower eras. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707s and DC-10s is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world.
Replacing these tankers has been the Air Force’s top priority since 1996, when the government first proposed obtaining new planes. The first 179 tankers will be acquired at a pace of about 15 a year. But it is expected that over time, nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed, which could bring the program’s total cost to $100 billion.
For more than a decade the Air Force’s effort to modernize the fleet has been thwarted by global politics, Washington scandals and an aggressive attack by Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In the end, a procurement scandal led to the departure of Philip M. Condit, the chief executive of Boeing; the resignation of James G. Roche, the Air Force secretary; and the imprisonment of two Boeing executives, one of whom had worked on the program as a Pentagon acquisition official.
The Air Force, short on cash and wanting to acquire the planes as fast as possible, proposed an arrangement to Congress in late 2001 under which the Pentagon would lease the Boeing 767s in a sole-source contract that would keep Boeing’s aging 767 production line alive.
But just as the Air Force was about to sign that deal, it came under sharp attack from Senator McCain, a former Navy pilot. He denounced the deal as a sweetheart arrangement between Boeing and the Air Force that would shortchange the taxpayer and that was arranged with insufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Soon afterward, it was reported that the Air Force’s No. 2 weapons buyer, Darleen A. Druyun, had been promised jobs for herself, her daughter and son-in-law in return for steering the tanker contract and billions of dollars of other Air Force business to Boeing.
Soon after she joined the company in a $250,000-a-year post, Ms. Druyun and Michael M. Sears, Boeing’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty and received prison terms.
The weight of the scandal caused the Boeing deal to collapse in 2004 and opened the door to competition from Boeing’s archrival EADS, which teamed up with Northrop.
Each side spent millions to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue its case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings.
David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?exprod=myyahoo
Sen. Reid to defy Bush on foreclosure rescue plan
Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:11pm EST
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday he planned to defy a threatened White House veto and try to win passage of a bill to curb rising home foreclosures by changing bankruptcy law.
"I have no expectation of reaching any agreement with the White House," said Reid a day after the administration warned the bill would need changes to get President George W. Bush's signature.
"I have tried for seven years" to reach agreements with Bush on a variety of issues, but have repeatedly failed, said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, at a news conference.
"So we are going to do what we think is best for the country," Reid said. "If we get 67 votes (in the 100-member Senate to override a possible Bush veto), that's great."
The Senate could turn to the housing bill in the next few days, but it must first overcome a possible Republican procedural hurdle that would take 60 votes to clear.
"I think we are going to get more than 60 votes," said Reid, whose fellow Democrats control the Senate, 51-49.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill, which is the latest congressional response to the subprime mortgage crisis that threatens to tip the economy into recession and push many Americans out of their homes.
The measure would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and provide billions of dollars to rehabilitate abandoned properties. The White House said the bill was too costly and an unacceptable bailout for lenders and speculators.
It had been expected to be taken up Tuesday by the Senate, but got pushed back for consideration of an Iraq measure.
Reid said he opposed dropping the controversial provision to modify present bankruptcy law by letting bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt. He said the bill has drawn support from community banks and credit unions.
However, "the big banks, there is nothing we can do to get them to help us," Reid said. "This bankruptcy provision is fair."
In the House of Representatives, another key Democratic lawmaker is crafting a plan to provide about $15 billion to help a million troubled borrowers, an aide said on Wednesday.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, is developing the proposal which would involve the Federal Housing Administration and government purchases of distressed mortgages.
The five-year plan would apply only to owner-occupied homes and exclude investor-owned and second homes.
Frank is also working on another plan to provide as much as $20 billion in grants and loans to buy foreclosed or abandoned homes at or below market value.
(Additional reporting by John Poirier and Kevin Drawbaugh)
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Richard Chang)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2744807220080227
Join The Discussion On The Foreclosure Prevention Act
Thanks to years of reckless and abusive lending practices, foreclosure rates around the country are skyrocketing. The nationwide housing crisis threatens many hardworking Americans.
But in the next few days, the Senate will vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. If passed, this commonsense solution will allow homeowners who are facing foreclosures to stay in their homes while they repay their debt.
Learn more by joining the discussion on AARP's blog, SHAARPsession.
Right now, many families who are unable to pay their mortgages are being forced out of their homes and into an uncertain future. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will change this, by giving homeowners the ability to work with bankruptcy judges to restructure their mortgages while staying in their homes. It would not let homeowners "off the hook" for paying their full mortgages; it would simply allow them to work with a judge to figure out how to "pay and stay." This will help keep communities stable and revive the slumping economy.
The Senate will be voting as early as Monday on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Join the online discussion today at SHAARPsession – learn more about the the Foreclosure Prevention Act and what other people are saying.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday he planned to defy a threatened White House veto and try to win passage of a bill to curb rising home foreclosures by changing bankruptcy law.
"I have no expectation of reaching any agreement with the White House," said Reid a day after the administration warned the bill would need changes to get President George W. Bush's signature.
"I have tried for seven years" to reach agreements with Bush on a variety of issues, but have repeatedly failed, said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, at a news conference.
"So we are going to do what we think is best for the country," Reid said. "If we get 67 votes (in the 100-member Senate to override a possible Bush veto), that's great."
The Senate could turn to the housing bill in the next few days, but it must first overcome a possible Republican procedural hurdle that would take 60 votes to clear.
"I think we are going to get more than 60 votes," said Reid, whose fellow Democrats control the Senate, 51-49.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill, which is the latest congressional response to the subprime mortgage crisis that threatens to tip the economy into recession and push many Americans out of their homes.
The measure would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and provide billions of dollars to rehabilitate abandoned properties. The White House said the bill was too costly and an unacceptable bailout for lenders and speculators.
It had been expected to be taken up Tuesday by the Senate, but got pushed back for consideration of an Iraq measure.
Reid said he opposed dropping the controversial provision to modify present bankruptcy law by letting bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt. He said the bill has drawn support from community banks and credit unions.
However, "the big banks, there is nothing we can do to get them to help us," Reid said. "This bankruptcy provision is fair."
In the House of Representatives, another key Democratic lawmaker is crafting a plan to provide about $15 billion to help a million troubled borrowers, an aide said on Wednesday.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, is developing the proposal which would involve the Federal Housing Administration and government purchases of distressed mortgages.
The five-year plan would apply only to owner-occupied homes and exclude investor-owned and second homes.
Frank is also working on another plan to provide as much as $20 billion in grants and loans to buy foreclosed or abandoned homes at or below market value.
(Additional reporting by John Poirier and Kevin Drawbaugh)
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Richard Chang)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2744807220080227
Join The Discussion On The Foreclosure Prevention Act
Thanks to years of reckless and abusive lending practices, foreclosure rates around the country are skyrocketing. The nationwide housing crisis threatens many hardworking Americans.
But in the next few days, the Senate will vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. If passed, this commonsense solution will allow homeowners who are facing foreclosures to stay in their homes while they repay their debt.
Learn more by joining the discussion on AARP's blog, SHAARPsession.
Right now, many families who are unable to pay their mortgages are being forced out of their homes and into an uncertain future. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will change this, by giving homeowners the ability to work with bankruptcy judges to restructure their mortgages while staying in their homes. It would not let homeowners "off the hook" for paying their full mortgages; it would simply allow them to work with a judge to figure out how to "pay and stay." This will help keep communities stable and revive the slumping economy.
The Senate will be voting as early as Monday on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Join the online discussion today at SHAARPsession – learn more about the the Foreclosure Prevention Act and what other people are saying.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
Medicare and Congress by AARP
By June 30 of this year, Congress will need to decide how to adequately reimburse physicians in the Medicare program for their services. While Congress addresses this issue, AARP believes that the solution should not be funded by raising the premiums of Medicare recipients. Premiums have already doubled since the year 2000. Older Americans – especially those with limited incomes – should not be unfairly saddled with the added cost of physician reimbursements.
Is this really too much to ask of our members of Congress? We don't think so, and we know most of you agree – you've told us through your actions and your letters.
To look at the recent history of Congressional action on these issues, the record is clear, no matter what you call it. Call it procrastination, "kicking the can", ducking the issue or punting.
Whichever term you prefer, Congress chose this path last year by temporarily delaying cuts to physicians' Medicare payments – until June of this year. They didn't solve the problem, they simply put a band-aid on it – pushed it down the road and went home.
This was, and continues to be, the wrong approach. AARP believes that Medicare beneficiaries should not endure year-to-year uncertainty about the stability of their relationship with their physician. At the same time, we also firmly believe that it is time to stop endlessly raising the premiums of seniors in Medicare.
Enough is enough.
For years, Congress has decided to put off until tomorrow what they don't want to do today. In the end, all they've done is make physicians uncertain about the Medicare program and shift program costs to Medicare enrollees.
They're in a hole and we have some advice… stop digging.
So stay tuned – you'll be hearing more about this issue in the coming months as we work to find out where Congress stands when it comes to strengthening the Medicare program.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
Is this really too much to ask of our members of Congress? We don't think so, and we know most of you agree – you've told us through your actions and your letters.
To look at the recent history of Congressional action on these issues, the record is clear, no matter what you call it. Call it procrastination, "kicking the can", ducking the issue or punting.
Whichever term you prefer, Congress chose this path last year by temporarily delaying cuts to physicians' Medicare payments – until June of this year. They didn't solve the problem, they simply put a band-aid on it – pushed it down the road and went home.
This was, and continues to be, the wrong approach. AARP believes that Medicare beneficiaries should not endure year-to-year uncertainty about the stability of their relationship with their physician. At the same time, we also firmly believe that it is time to stop endlessly raising the premiums of seniors in Medicare.
Enough is enough.
For years, Congress has decided to put off until tomorrow what they don't want to do today. In the end, all they've done is make physicians uncertain about the Medicare program and shift program costs to Medicare enrollees.
They're in a hole and we have some advice… stop digging.
So stay tuned – you'll be hearing more about this issue in the coming months as we work to find out where Congress stands when it comes to strengthening the Medicare program.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
Outsourcing of America Continues
Boeing loses out in $40bn US deal
The owner of Airbus, EADS, and US firm Northrop Grumman have won a contract to build refuelling aircraft for the US Air Force, worth up to $40bn (£20bn).
The companies put in a joint bid to compete against Boeing for the lucrative deal to build 179 new aircraft over the next 10 to 15 years.
The winning plane will be assembled in Alabama. Parts including the wings will be built in the UK by Airbus.
The deal is a huge blow to Boeing, which had been widely expected to win. America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.
'Outsourcing' of America continues
The Pentagon contract is one of its largest in recent years.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says awarding such a massive deal to a consortium that includes overseas manufacturers will be contentious in the United States and it is likely that Boeing will appeal against the decision.
It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere
Air Force Gen Duncan McNab
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company was disappointed. It will decide whether to appeal after hearing from the Air Force why it picked EADS, he said.
"We had two very competitive offers in this competition," Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition said.
"Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government," she said.
Home-grown
Boeing had been emphasising its home-grown credentials while lobbying for the contract.
"The best for America's war fighters and America's workers," Boeing claimed in advertising running in the days leading up to the announcement.
But EADS and Northrop Grumman emphasised that the assembly work would be carried out in the United States, where the project would create or support 25,000 jobs.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said.
The winners said their KC-30 plane had a "longer range", with the ability to carry 45,000 more pounds of fuel than it competitors.
"It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere," said Air Force Gen Duncan McNab.
"In this global air force business, the critical element for air bridge, global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and global strike is the tanker," he said.
The initial contract for the tanker, to be called the KC-45A, is to develop four test aircraft for $1.5bn, the US Air Force said.
"The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refuelling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s it will begin replacing," the Air Force said in a statement.
The KC-45A will be able to refuel both Air Force and Navy aircraft on the same flight, which is not possible with the existing KC-135 Stratotankers.
It will also be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously mid-flight and have defensive systems that will enable it to operate in the more dangerous environments that existing refuelling tankers have to avoid.
McCain helps Boeing lose out in $40bn US deal
For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.
Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.
In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.
But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.
Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.
Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.
Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.
The Air Force expects the new aircraft to begin testing in 2010, before going into operation in 2013.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272129.stm
The owner of Airbus, EADS, and US firm Northrop Grumman have won a contract to build refuelling aircraft for the US Air Force, worth up to $40bn (£20bn).
The companies put in a joint bid to compete against Boeing for the lucrative deal to build 179 new aircraft over the next 10 to 15 years.
The winning plane will be assembled in Alabama. Parts including the wings will be built in the UK by Airbus.
The deal is a huge blow to Boeing, which had been widely expected to win. America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.
'Outsourcing' of America continues
The Pentagon contract is one of its largest in recent years.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says awarding such a massive deal to a consortium that includes overseas manufacturers will be contentious in the United States and it is likely that Boeing will appeal against the decision.
It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere
Air Force Gen Duncan McNab
Boeing spokesman Jim Condelles said the company was disappointed. It will decide whether to appeal after hearing from the Air Force why it picked EADS, he said.
"We had two very competitive offers in this competition," Sue Payton, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition said.
"Northrop Grumman clearly provided the best value to the government," she said.
Home-grown
Boeing had been emphasising its home-grown credentials while lobbying for the contract.
"The best for America's war fighters and America's workers," Boeing claimed in advertising running in the days leading up to the announcement.
But EADS and Northrop Grumman emphasised that the assembly work would be carried out in the United States, where the project would create or support 25,000 jobs.
"They don't come along at this scale very often," Northrop Grumman Chairman and CEO Ronald Sugar said.
The winners said their KC-30 plane had a "longer range", with the ability to carry 45,000 more pounds of fuel than it competitors.
"It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalise our ageing fleet to move, supply and position assets anywhere," said Air Force Gen Duncan McNab.
"In this global air force business, the critical element for air bridge, global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and global strike is the tanker," he said.
The initial contract for the tanker, to be called the KC-45A, is to develop four test aircraft for $1.5bn, the US Air Force said.
"The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refuelling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s it will begin replacing," the Air Force said in a statement.
The KC-45A will be able to refuel both Air Force and Navy aircraft on the same flight, which is not possible with the existing KC-135 Stratotankers.
It will also be able to refuel two aircraft simultaneously mid-flight and have defensive systems that will enable it to operate in the more dangerous environments that existing refuelling tankers have to avoid.
McCain helps Boeing lose out in $40bn US deal
For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.
Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.
In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.
But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.
Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.
Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.
Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.
The Air Force expects the new aircraft to begin testing in 2010, before going into operation in 2013.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272129.stm
Troubled planemaker Airbus recently cut jobs
BBC NEWS
Troubled planemaker Airbus has revealed plans to cut 10,000 jobs at its factories across Europe over the next four years.
The company is facing a raft of problems, including delays to its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo and squabbles between its various shareholders.
Q: What changes is Airbus proposing?
Airbus wants to cut 10,000 of its 57,000 jobs over the next four years.
Its plans would see 4,300 jobs go in France and 3,700 in Germany. Up to 1,600 jobs are expected to be lost in the UK and 400 in Spain.
The changes will result in more work being transferred to the firm's headquarters and main production facility in Toulouse, France.
However, the production of wings for Airbus planes will be concentrated in the UK, while Germany will handle the bulk of cabin and fuselage manufacturing.
Airbus is reviewing the future of three of its 16 European plants - in Laupheim, Saint-Nazaire and Varel.
It is also looking for new investors to share the costs of production at three sites, including Filton in the UK, as well as outsourcing more work to other firms.
It has said there will be no compulsory redundancies and that about half of the job losses will come from either temporary workers or sub-contractors.
Q: Why are such large job cuts necessary?
Airbus says that it needs to save 5bn euros between now and 2010 and a further 2bn euros a year after that, making substantial job cuts inevitable.
It says the status quo - with its costs rising and profits falling - is "unsustainable" and that the changes will speed up production and improve quality and reliability.
The firm's financial difficulties stem from a variety of sources.
Its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo has been plagued by a series of problems and is now two years behind schedule.
Delays to the plane, resulting from wiring problems which first came to light in 2005, are set to cost the firm at least 4.8bn euros.
Airbus must pay compensation to airlines for late delivery of the A380, the first of which will be handed over later this year, while some carriers have threatened to cancel orders.
The company needs to recoup some of this lost money.
Airbus is also planning to spend 11.6bn euros on building a new mid-sized aircraft, the A350, to compete with Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
The project, finally approved in December, represents a huge investment for Airbus at a time when it admits that its own costs are "too high".
Problems with the A380 and uncertainty over the A350 have hurt the business.
Although Airbus says its future prospects are good as demand for air travel increases, it received fewer orders last year for new planes than Boeing for the first time since 2000.
The firm's balance sheet has also been hit by the decline in the value of the US dollar, the currency in which its planes are sold.
Q: How have unions and politicians reacted?
Unions have expressed disappointment and anger at the scale of the cuts and sought urgent discussions with the firm.
In the UK, the Amicus union said it had received assurances from Airbus that it would work to ensure there were no compulsory redundancies.
Asked about the job cuts, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed British workers would continue to play a "major part" in the development of Airbus planes.
Q: Why has Airbus taken so long to announce the changes?
Airbus was forced to delay the announcement of the job cuts earlier this month, following disagreements between its various national partners.
France, Germany, the UK and Spain all have a huge stake in the company's future and politicians from all countries have been lobbying furiously to try to protect jobs.
Critics of Airbus say its fragmented structure is highly inefficient and stops it from competing effectively with a revitalised Boeing.
Its relationship with its parent company, Franco-German defence firm EADS, has been strained in recent years because of political infighting and frequent changes of management.
The French government, which continues to own a 15% stake in EADS, has frequently been at odds with other shareholders, including German carmaker DaimlerChrysler.
Until recently, Airbus had two chief executives, representing German and French shareholders respectively. Critics said this arrangement hindered effective decision-making.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6405109.stmLast Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 16:20 GMT
Troubled planemaker Airbus has revealed plans to cut 10,000 jobs at its factories across Europe over the next four years.
The company is facing a raft of problems, including delays to its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo and squabbles between its various shareholders.
Q: What changes is Airbus proposing?
Airbus wants to cut 10,000 of its 57,000 jobs over the next four years.
Its plans would see 4,300 jobs go in France and 3,700 in Germany. Up to 1,600 jobs are expected to be lost in the UK and 400 in Spain.
The changes will result in more work being transferred to the firm's headquarters and main production facility in Toulouse, France.
However, the production of wings for Airbus planes will be concentrated in the UK, while Germany will handle the bulk of cabin and fuselage manufacturing.
Airbus is reviewing the future of three of its 16 European plants - in Laupheim, Saint-Nazaire and Varel.
It is also looking for new investors to share the costs of production at three sites, including Filton in the UK, as well as outsourcing more work to other firms.
It has said there will be no compulsory redundancies and that about half of the job losses will come from either temporary workers or sub-contractors.
Q: Why are such large job cuts necessary?
Airbus says that it needs to save 5bn euros between now and 2010 and a further 2bn euros a year after that, making substantial job cuts inevitable.
It says the status quo - with its costs rising and profits falling - is "unsustainable" and that the changes will speed up production and improve quality and reliability.
The firm's financial difficulties stem from a variety of sources.
Its flagship project to build the A380 superjumbo has been plagued by a series of problems and is now two years behind schedule.
Delays to the plane, resulting from wiring problems which first came to light in 2005, are set to cost the firm at least 4.8bn euros.
Airbus must pay compensation to airlines for late delivery of the A380, the first of which will be handed over later this year, while some carriers have threatened to cancel orders.
The company needs to recoup some of this lost money.
Airbus is also planning to spend 11.6bn euros on building a new mid-sized aircraft, the A350, to compete with Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.
The project, finally approved in December, represents a huge investment for Airbus at a time when it admits that its own costs are "too high".
Problems with the A380 and uncertainty over the A350 have hurt the business.
Although Airbus says its future prospects are good as demand for air travel increases, it received fewer orders last year for new planes than Boeing for the first time since 2000.
The firm's balance sheet has also been hit by the decline in the value of the US dollar, the currency in which its planes are sold.
Q: How have unions and politicians reacted?
Unions have expressed disappointment and anger at the scale of the cuts and sought urgent discussions with the firm.
In the UK, the Amicus union said it had received assurances from Airbus that it would work to ensure there were no compulsory redundancies.
Asked about the job cuts, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed British workers would continue to play a "major part" in the development of Airbus planes.
Q: Why has Airbus taken so long to announce the changes?
Airbus was forced to delay the announcement of the job cuts earlier this month, following disagreements between its various national partners.
France, Germany, the UK and Spain all have a huge stake in the company's future and politicians from all countries have been lobbying furiously to try to protect jobs.
Critics of Airbus say its fragmented structure is highly inefficient and stops it from competing effectively with a revitalised Boeing.
Its relationship with its parent company, Franco-German defence firm EADS, has been strained in recent years because of political infighting and frequent changes of management.
The French government, which continues to own a 15% stake in EADS, has frequently been at odds with other shareholders, including German carmaker DaimlerChrysler.
Until recently, Airbus had two chief executives, representing German and French shareholders respectively. Critics said this arrangement hindered effective decision-making.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6405109.stmLast Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 16:20 GMT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)