Franklin Delano Obama?
By Paul Krugman
Suddenly, everything old is New Deal again. Reagan is out; F.D.R. is in. Still, how much guidance does the Roosevelt era really offer for today’s world?
The answer is, a lot. But Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.
About the New Deal’s long-run achievements: the institutions F.D.R. built have proved both durable and essential. Indeed, those institutions remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. Imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure older Americans would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security.
Can Mr. Obama achieve something comparable? Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, has declared that “you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.” Progressives hope that the Obama administration, like the New Deal, will respond to the current economic and financial crisis by creating institutions, especially a universal health care system, that will change the shape of American society for generations to come.
But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself.
Now, there’s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it’s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.
That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the ’30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.”
This may seem hard to believe. The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. To this day we drive on W.P.A.-built roads and send our children to W.P.A.-built schools. Didn’t all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus?
Well, it wasn’t as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren’t felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level.
And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.
What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.
This history offers important lessons for the incoming administration.
The political lesson is that economic missteps can quickly undermine an electoral mandate. Democrats won big last week — but they won even bigger in 1936, only to see their gains evaporate after the recession of 1937-38. Americans don’t expect instant economic results from the incoming administration, but they do expect results, and Democrats’ euphoria will be short-lived if they don’t deliver an economic recovery.
The economic lesson is the importance of doing enough. F.D.R. thought he was being prudent by reining in his spending plans; in reality, he was taking big risks with the economy and with his legacy. My advice to the Obama people is to figure out how much help they think the economy needs, then add 50 percent. It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little.
In short, Mr. Obama’s chances of leading a new New Deal depend largely on whether his short-run economic plans are sufficiently bold. Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
----------------------------------------------------------
The Obama Agenda
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.
But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can.
Right now, many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small. Some make the case on political grounds: America, they say, is still a conservative country, and voters will punish Democrats if they move to the left. Others say that the financial and economic crisis leaves no room for action on, say, health care reform.
Let’s hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice.
About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.
Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.
Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.
This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.
What about the argument that the economic crisis will make a progressive agenda unaffordable?
Well, there’s no question that fighting the crisis will cost a lot of money. Rescuing the financial system will probably require large outlays beyond the funds already disbursed. And on top of that, we badly need a program of increased government spending to support output and employment. Could next year’s federal budget deficit reach $1 trillion? Yes.
But standard textbook economics says that it’s O.K., in fact appropriate, to run temporary deficits in the face of a depressed economy. Meanwhile, one or two years of red ink, while it would add modestly to future federal interest expenses, shouldn’t stand in the way of a health care plan that, even if quickly enacted into law, probably wouldn’t take effect until 2011.
Beyond that, the response to the economic crisis is, in itself, a chance to advance the progressive agenda.
Now, the Obama administration shouldn’t emulate the Bush administration’s habit of turning anything and everything into an argument for its preferred policies. (Recession? The economy needs help — let’s cut taxes on rich people! Recovery? Tax cuts for rich people work — let’s do some more!)
But it would be fair for the new administration to point out how conservative ideology, the belief that greed is always good, helped create this crisis. What F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address — “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” — has never rung truer.
And right now happens to be one of those times when the converse is also true, and good morals are good economics. Helping the neediest in a time of crisis, through expanded health and unemployment benefits, is the morally right thing to do; it’s also a far more effective form of economic stimulus than cutting the capital gains tax. Providing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, so that they can sustain essential public services, is important for those who depend on those services; it’s also a way to avoid job losses and limit the depth of the economy’s slump.
So a serious progressive agenda — call it a new New Deal — isn’t just economically possible, it’s exactly what the economy needs.
The bottom line, then, is that Barack Obama shouldn’t listen to the people trying to scare him into being a do-nothing president. He has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html?pagewanted=print
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Companyda
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thank You to Everyone who helped the Campaign
We got 111, 649 votes and the highest Democratic Candidate Congressional vote total in North Texas (only Eddie B Johnson & Chet Edwards got higher percentages and we spent 5.58 cents per vote). We had a dedicated team of volunteers. Thank you.
Japanese researchers make brain tissues from stem cells
Thu Nov 6, 3:36 am ET
TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers said Thursday they had created functioning human brain tissues from stem cells, a world first that has raised new hopes for the treatment of disease.
Stem cells taken from human embryos have been used to form tissues of the cerebral cortex, the supreme control tower of the brain, according to researchers at the government-backed research institute Riken.
The tissues self-organised into four distinct zones very similar to the structure seen in human foetuses, and conducted neuro-activity such as transmitting electrical signals, the institute said.
Research on stem cells is seen as having the potential to save lives by helping to find cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes or to replace damaged cells, tissues and organs.
The team's previous studies showed stem cells differentiated into distinct cells but until now they had never organised into functioning tissues.
"In regenerative therapy, only a limited number of diseases can be cured with simple cell transplants. Transplanting tissues could raise hopes for greater functional recovery," the institute said in a statement.
"Cultivated tissues are still insufficient and too small to be used to treat stroke patients. But study of in-vitro cultivation of more mature cortex tissues, such as those with six zones like in the adult human brain, will be stepped up," it said.
The tissues could also serve as "a mini organ" for use in studying the cause of the Alzheimer's disease and developing vaccines, it said.
Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying a viable embryo, a process that some people find unacceptable.
Riken said cortex tissues were also obtained from "induced pluripotent stem cells," which are similar to embryonic stem cells but artificially induced, typically from adult cells such as skin cells.
The research was led by Yoshiki Sasai at Riken Centre for Development Biology in western Japan's Kobe.
The cultivated tissues look like minature mushrooms two millimetres (0.08 inches) in diametre.
The team also succeeded in making cortex tissues from the embryonic stem cells of mice.
Using mouse tissues, scientists confirmed they had formed a network of neurons that properly respond to stimulus.
The tissues can also be selectively induced to different cortex types controlling memories, visual sensation and other tasks.
The findings of the study were published in the November 6 online journal Cell Stem Cell in the United States.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved
TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers said Thursday they had created functioning human brain tissues from stem cells, a world first that has raised new hopes for the treatment of disease.
Stem cells taken from human embryos have been used to form tissues of the cerebral cortex, the supreme control tower of the brain, according to researchers at the government-backed research institute Riken.
The tissues self-organised into four distinct zones very similar to the structure seen in human foetuses, and conducted neuro-activity such as transmitting electrical signals, the institute said.
Research on stem cells is seen as having the potential to save lives by helping to find cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes or to replace damaged cells, tissues and organs.
The team's previous studies showed stem cells differentiated into distinct cells but until now they had never organised into functioning tissues.
"In regenerative therapy, only a limited number of diseases can be cured with simple cell transplants. Transplanting tissues could raise hopes for greater functional recovery," the institute said in a statement.
"Cultivated tissues are still insufficient and too small to be used to treat stroke patients. But study of in-vitro cultivation of more mature cortex tissues, such as those with six zones like in the adult human brain, will be stepped up," it said.
The tissues could also serve as "a mini organ" for use in studying the cause of the Alzheimer's disease and developing vaccines, it said.
Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying a viable embryo, a process that some people find unacceptable.
Riken said cortex tissues were also obtained from "induced pluripotent stem cells," which are similar to embryonic stem cells but artificially induced, typically from adult cells such as skin cells.
The research was led by Yoshiki Sasai at Riken Centre for Development Biology in western Japan's Kobe.
The cultivated tissues look like minature mushrooms two millimetres (0.08 inches) in diametre.
The team also succeeded in making cortex tissues from the embryonic stem cells of mice.
Using mouse tissues, scientists confirmed they had formed a network of neurons that properly respond to stimulus.
The tissues can also be selectively induced to different cortex types controlling memories, visual sensation and other tasks.
The findings of the study were published in the November 6 online journal Cell Stem Cell in the United States.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved
Saturday, November 1, 2008
TARP; the Troubled Asset Recovery Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Troubled Asset Relief Program)
This article is about the Treasury fund. For the legislative bill and subsequent law, see Public Law 110-343. For the legislative history and the events leading to the law, see Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) managed by a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts.[1][2] The law which created the fund authorized the Treasury to draw up to $250 billion for immediate use, then requires the President to certify that an additional $100 billion in funds are needed; a final $350 billion are subject to Congressional approval.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 TARP administrative structure
2 TARP participation restrictions
3 Reorientation of TARP to bank equity investments
3.1 Similar historical federal banking investments
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
[edit] TARP administrative structure
The program is run by the Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability. According to a speech made by Neel Kashkari[4], the fund will be split into the following administrative units:
"1) Mortgage-backed securities purchase program: This team is identifying which troubled assets to purchase, from whom to buy them and which purchase mechanism will best meet our policy objectives. Here, we are designing the detailed auction protocols and will work with vendors to implement the program.
2) Whole loan purchase program: Regional banks are particularly clogged with whole residential mortgage loans. This team is working with bank regulators to identify which types of loans to purchase first, how to value them, and which purchase mechanism will best meet our policy objectives.
3) Insurance program: We are establishing a program to insure troubled assets. We have several innovative ideas on how to structure this program, including how to insure mortgage-backed securities as well as whole loans. At the same time, we recognize that there are likely other good ideas out there that we could benefit from. Accordingly, on Friday we submitted to the Federal Register a public Request for Comment to solicit the best ideas on structuring options. We are requiring responses within fourteen days so we can consider them quickly, and begin designing the program.
4) Equity purchase program: We are designing a standardized program to purchase equity in a broad array of financial institutions. As with the other programs, the equity purchase program will be voluntary and designed with attractive terms to encourage participation from healthy institutions. It will also encourage firms to raise new private capital to complement public capital.
5) Homeownership preservation: When we purchase mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, we will look for every opportunity possible to help homeowners. This goal is consistent with other programs - such as HOPE NOW - aimed at working with borrowers, counselors and servicers to keep people in their homes. In this case, we are working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to maximize these opportunities to help as many homeowners as possible, while also protecting taxpayers.
6) Executive compensation: The law sets out important requirements regarding executive compensation for firms that participate in the TARP. This team is working hard to define the requirements for financial institutions to participate in three possible scenarios: One, an auction purchase of troubled assets; two, a broad equity or direct purchase program; and three, a case of an intervention to prevent the impending failure of a systemically significant institution.
7) Compliance: The law establishes important oversight and compliance structures, including establishing an Oversight Board, on-site participation of the General Accounting Office and the creation of a Special Inspector General, with thorough reporting requirements. We welcome this oversight and have a team focused on making sure we get it right."
[edit] TARP participation restrictions
Companies that sell their bad assets to the government must provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from future growth of the companies.[3] The President is to submit a law to cover taxpayer losses on the fund, using "a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions."[3] In order to participate in the bailout program, "companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits 'golden parachutes' and requires that unearned bonuses be returned."[3] The fund has an Oversight Board so that the U.S. Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. There is also an inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse.[3]
Reorientation of TARP to bank equity investments
On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury will buy equity stakes in nine American Banks, and potentially thousands of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion dollars allotted to the program.[5]
The banks agreeing to receive equity investments from the Treasury include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. (including Merrill Lynch), Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corp.[6][7][8] The Bank of New York Mellon is to serve as master custodian overseeing the fund.[9]
Similar historical federal banking investments
The nearest parallel action the federal government has taken in the was in investments made by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in the 1930s. The RFC, agency, chartered during the Herbert Hoover adminisistration in 1932, made loans to distressed banks and bought stock in 6,000 banks, totalling $1.3 billion. In 2008 dollars, that would amount to $200 billion. When the economy had stabilized, the government sold its bank stock to private investors or the banks, and is estimated to have received approximately the same amount previously invested.[10]
In 1984, the government took an 80 percent stake in nation’s then seventh-largest bank Continental Illinois Bank and Trust. Continental Illinois made loans to oil drillers and service companies in Oklahoma and Texas. The government was estimated to have lost $1 billion because of bad loans purchased as part of the bank Continental Illinois, which ultimately became part of Bank of America.[10]
References
^ "Economic rescue swiftly signed into law". AFP (2008-10-03).
^ Gross, Daniel (2008-10-01). "How the Bailout Is Like a Hedge Fund. It's massively leveraged. It's buying distressed assets. It's taking equity stakes…". Slate.
^ a b c d e Summary of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. (Retrieved October 2, 2008)
^ http://www.accountability-central.com/single-view-default/article/treasury-update-on-implementation-of-troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp-before-institute-of-intern/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=8702938e7e
^ Landler, Mark; Eric Dash (2008-10-14). "Paulson Says Banks Must Deploy New Capital: Drama Behind a $250 Billion Banking Deal", New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ Solomon, Deborah; Damian Paletta, Jon Hilsenrath and Aaron Lucchetti (2008-10-14). "U.S. to Buy Stakes in Nation's Largest Banks: Recipients Include Citi, Bank of America, Goldman; Government Pressures All to Accept Money as Part of Broadened Rescue Effort". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ "Bailout: The Rescue Plan & The Largest Recipients", New York times (2008-10-14). Retrieved on 2008-10-14. (Graphic of proposed bank equity investments)
^ "Beneficiary Banks", New York Times (2008-10-14). Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ Dash, Eric (2008-10-14). "Bank of New York Will Oversee Bailout Fund", New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ a b Lohr, Steve (2008-10-13). "Intervention Is Bold, but Has a Basis in History". Retrieved on 2008-10-15. The article relies on the work of New York University Historian and Economist Richard Sylla for historical estimates.
External links
Zumbrun, Josh et al. (October 14, 2008). "The Ownership Society", Forbes. Analysis of the injection of Government equity capital into banks.
See also
H.R. 1424
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Liquidity crisis of September 2008
This United States government-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This economics or finance-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
eFinancial crisis of 2007–2008
Main issues Economic crisis of 2008 · Financial crisis of 2007–2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
(Redirected from Troubled Asset Relief Program)
This article is about the Treasury fund. For the legislative bill and subsequent law, see Public Law 110-343. For the legislative history and the events leading to the law, see Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) managed by a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts.[1][2] The law which created the fund authorized the Treasury to draw up to $250 billion for immediate use, then requires the President to certify that an additional $100 billion in funds are needed; a final $350 billion are subject to Congressional approval.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 TARP administrative structure
2 TARP participation restrictions
3 Reorientation of TARP to bank equity investments
3.1 Similar historical federal banking investments
4 References
5 External links
6 See also
[edit] TARP administrative structure
The program is run by the Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability. According to a speech made by Neel Kashkari[4], the fund will be split into the following administrative units:
"1) Mortgage-backed securities purchase program: This team is identifying which troubled assets to purchase, from whom to buy them and which purchase mechanism will best meet our policy objectives. Here, we are designing the detailed auction protocols and will work with vendors to implement the program.
2) Whole loan purchase program: Regional banks are particularly clogged with whole residential mortgage loans. This team is working with bank regulators to identify which types of loans to purchase first, how to value them, and which purchase mechanism will best meet our policy objectives.
3) Insurance program: We are establishing a program to insure troubled assets. We have several innovative ideas on how to structure this program, including how to insure mortgage-backed securities as well as whole loans. At the same time, we recognize that there are likely other good ideas out there that we could benefit from. Accordingly, on Friday we submitted to the Federal Register a public Request for Comment to solicit the best ideas on structuring options. We are requiring responses within fourteen days so we can consider them quickly, and begin designing the program.
4) Equity purchase program: We are designing a standardized program to purchase equity in a broad array of financial institutions. As with the other programs, the equity purchase program will be voluntary and designed with attractive terms to encourage participation from healthy institutions. It will also encourage firms to raise new private capital to complement public capital.
5) Homeownership preservation: When we purchase mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, we will look for every opportunity possible to help homeowners. This goal is consistent with other programs - such as HOPE NOW - aimed at working with borrowers, counselors and servicers to keep people in their homes. In this case, we are working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to maximize these opportunities to help as many homeowners as possible, while also protecting taxpayers.
6) Executive compensation: The law sets out important requirements regarding executive compensation for firms that participate in the TARP. This team is working hard to define the requirements for financial institutions to participate in three possible scenarios: One, an auction purchase of troubled assets; two, a broad equity or direct purchase program; and three, a case of an intervention to prevent the impending failure of a systemically significant institution.
7) Compliance: The law establishes important oversight and compliance structures, including establishing an Oversight Board, on-site participation of the General Accounting Office and the creation of a Special Inspector General, with thorough reporting requirements. We welcome this oversight and have a team focused on making sure we get it right."
[edit] TARP participation restrictions
Companies that sell their bad assets to the government must provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from future growth of the companies.[3] The President is to submit a law to cover taxpayer losses on the fund, using "a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions."[3] In order to participate in the bailout program, "companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits 'golden parachutes' and requires that unearned bonuses be returned."[3] The fund has an Oversight Board so that the U.S. Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. There is also an inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse.[3]
Reorientation of TARP to bank equity investments
On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury will buy equity stakes in nine American Banks, and potentially thousands of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion dollars allotted to the program.[5]
The banks agreeing to receive equity investments from the Treasury include Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. (including Merrill Lynch), Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corp.[6][7][8] The Bank of New York Mellon is to serve as master custodian overseeing the fund.[9]
Similar historical federal banking investments
The nearest parallel action the federal government has taken in the was in investments made by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in the 1930s. The RFC, agency, chartered during the Herbert Hoover adminisistration in 1932, made loans to distressed banks and bought stock in 6,000 banks, totalling $1.3 billion. In 2008 dollars, that would amount to $200 billion. When the economy had stabilized, the government sold its bank stock to private investors or the banks, and is estimated to have received approximately the same amount previously invested.[10]
In 1984, the government took an 80 percent stake in nation’s then seventh-largest bank Continental Illinois Bank and Trust. Continental Illinois made loans to oil drillers and service companies in Oklahoma and Texas. The government was estimated to have lost $1 billion because of bad loans purchased as part of the bank Continental Illinois, which ultimately became part of Bank of America.[10]
References
^ "Economic rescue swiftly signed into law". AFP (2008-10-03).
^ Gross, Daniel (2008-10-01). "How the Bailout Is Like a Hedge Fund. It's massively leveraged. It's buying distressed assets. It's taking equity stakes…". Slate.
^ a b c d e Summary of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. (Retrieved October 2, 2008)
^ http://www.accountability-central.com/single-view-default/article/treasury-update-on-implementation-of-troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp-before-institute-of-intern/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=8702938e7e
^ Landler, Mark; Eric Dash (2008-10-14). "Paulson Says Banks Must Deploy New Capital: Drama Behind a $250 Billion Banking Deal", New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ Solomon, Deborah; Damian Paletta, Jon Hilsenrath and Aaron Lucchetti (2008-10-14). "U.S. to Buy Stakes in Nation's Largest Banks: Recipients Include Citi, Bank of America, Goldman; Government Pressures All to Accept Money as Part of Broadened Rescue Effort". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ "Bailout: The Rescue Plan & The Largest Recipients", New York times (2008-10-14). Retrieved on 2008-10-14. (Graphic of proposed bank equity investments)
^ "Beneficiary Banks", New York Times (2008-10-14). Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ Dash, Eric (2008-10-14). "Bank of New York Will Oversee Bailout Fund", New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
^ a b Lohr, Steve (2008-10-13). "Intervention Is Bold, but Has a Basis in History". Retrieved on 2008-10-15. The article relies on the work of New York University Historian and Economist Richard Sylla for historical estimates.
External links
Zumbrun, Josh et al. (October 14, 2008). "The Ownership Society", Forbes. Analysis of the injection of Government equity capital into banks.
See also
H.R. 1424
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Liquidity crisis of September 2008
This United States government-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This economics or finance-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
eFinancial crisis of 2007–2008
Main issues Economic crisis of 2008 · Financial crisis of 2007–2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
Friday, October 31, 2008
DFW Regional Concerned Citizens Endorses Tom Love
DFW RCC
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
DFWRCC ENDORSES THREE CANDIDATES IN GENERAL ELECTION
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC- Oct. 21, 2008
DFWRCC rarely endorses candidates. However this year all three co-founders of DFWRCC voted to endorse three candidates. These individuals have been selected because of their comprehension of the complexities of public private partnership toll roads and the averse impact these project will have in the near future and for years in the future to the North Texas economy.
TOM LOVE FOR U.S. HOUSE DISTRICT 24
Tom Love is challenging incumbent Representative Kenny Marchant for U.S. House seat 24. Rep. Marchant, low on the house senority list, is tired and discouraged. He has written few bills and gotten little accomplished. His staff has not been exceptional in serving his constituents. At best, his tenure in the house can only be described as lack-luster. Rep. Marchant's "No" vote on regulating the sub-prime mortage industry contributed to the current financial melt-down. In 2007 he voted against allowing stockholder to vote on executive compensation. He voted "no" on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.
Rep. Marchant has not supported mass transit despite this region's poor air quality and transportation gridlock. In 2006 he voted "no" on adding $214M to $900M AMTRAK to previous year's funding.
In 2005 he voted "yes" on implementing CAFTA (Central American Free Trade). He also voted to make the Patriot Act permanent.
On healthcare, Rep. Marchant voted "no" on adding 2 to 4 million children to the SCHIP eligibility and voted "no" on requiring negotation for prescription prices on Medicare Part D.
Tom Love differs with Senator Marchant on all these votes. It is time to give another Texan opportunity to serve in the U.S. Congress.
All three founders of DFWRCC know challenger Tom Love. We know that his campaign rhetoric about representing the ordinary working man and woman is genuine. We know that his support for Universal Health Care predates his declaration for office. He is passionate about combating the trend of moving American manufacturing offshore. He will fight to reverse policies which reward companies for registering their businesses in off-shore tax sheltered companies.
Tom Love also understand the negative impact of tolling public highways. He will fight to bring adequate funding to the DFW Region so that we can maintain existing federally funded highways and bridges and expand capacity without tolls. We urge voters to give Tom Love opportunity to serve them in the U.S. Congress.
JERRY LEE PHILLIPS FOR TARRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PCT. 3
In Tarrant County, civic activist Jerry Lee Phillips is challenging Gary Fickes for County Commissioner. The northern part of Tarrant County suffers from discrimination by TxDOT and transportation planners at the RTC in appropriating their fair share of gas tax dollars and other public transporation financing to keeping pace with the escalation of population in that region. One of the newer members of the Tarrant County Commissioners' Court, Mr. Fickes understands the importance of combatting gridlock, but has not fought vigorously to demand cost effective public solutions to that region's transportation needs. We endorse challenger Jerry Lee Phillips because he grasps the impact of State and Tarrant County officials decisions to abandon traditional infrastructure financing for the more costly tolled alternatives.
The tolled HOV expansion of existing roads in that region will not solve the transportation problems confronting that district. The current plans are merely a bandaide -- and a very costly one to the pocketbooks of citizens who depend on state highways for commuting. Jerry Lee Phillips is one of the more intelligent candidates who has run for the Tarrant County Commissioners Court in decades. He brings business skill, educational training, and a solid grasp of public administration. He is not a "court house insider" and brings a fresh perspective to county administration. He will demand more accountability by the JPS Hospital system. Jerry Lee Phillips says: “It’s time that tough questions be asked in relationship to the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The Commissioners Court must seize the moment and ask why JPS executives are getting richer while JPS hospital staff are underpaid in relation to their dedication to patient care. Why are JPS executives getting richer while JPS hospital is in desperate need of upgrades and refurbishing?”
Jerry Lee Phillips is running one of the more vigorous challenger campaigns for public office in the DFW metroplex.
He is a sound voice who will represent residents of the district in confronting "the good ole boy engrained and entrenched fraternity" of contractors, road planners and bought and paid for politicans.
RAIN MIMMS FOR STATE SENATE
Attorney Rain Mimms is challenging Senator John Carona for Texas Senate Seat 16. Senator Carona, as chair of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, allowed citizens to speak out against the Trans Texas Corridor. Without his support, it would have been much more difficult for Texans to confront the powerful Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT. However, he did not act to defeat the exemption on the 2-year moratorium on toll roads in the DFW metroplex. Like most incumbents, he caved to Governor Perry when the "going got really tough."
His involvement with home mortgages during the financial crisis creates conflicts of interest.
Rain Mimms brings an intelligent, responsive, educated alternative for State Senate District Voters. With a few exceptions (such as Senator Lois Kolkhorst and Senator Florence Shapiro) Republican incubent Texas Senators from this region refused to represent the people's best interest by rejecting the market value priced public private toll state highway give-away promoted by Rick Perry and his Texas Transportation Commission. Some incumbent Democrats joined with Perry in the great Texas infrastructure give-away and deserve to be booted out of the Senate also. In this region, the race where there is a highly qualified challenger who sincerely represents the welfare of ordinary working men and women in this district and state is Senate District 16.
Senator Carona deserves to be thanked for the postive things he has brought to this State. Rain Mimms deserves the opportunity to serve the people. We urge voters in Senate District 16 to vote for challenger Rain Mimms.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
DFWRCC ENDORSES THREE CANDIDATES IN GENERAL ELECTION
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC- Oct. 21, 2008
DFWRCC rarely endorses candidates. However this year all three co-founders of DFWRCC voted to endorse three candidates. These individuals have been selected because of their comprehension of the complexities of public private partnership toll roads and the averse impact these project will have in the near future and for years in the future to the North Texas economy.
TOM LOVE FOR U.S. HOUSE DISTRICT 24
Tom Love is challenging incumbent Representative Kenny Marchant for U.S. House seat 24. Rep. Marchant, low on the house senority list, is tired and discouraged. He has written few bills and gotten little accomplished. His staff has not been exceptional in serving his constituents. At best, his tenure in the house can only be described as lack-luster. Rep. Marchant's "No" vote on regulating the sub-prime mortage industry contributed to the current financial melt-down. In 2007 he voted against allowing stockholder to vote on executive compensation. He voted "no" on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.
Rep. Marchant has not supported mass transit despite this region's poor air quality and transportation gridlock. In 2006 he voted "no" on adding $214M to $900M AMTRAK to previous year's funding.
In 2005 he voted "yes" on implementing CAFTA (Central American Free Trade). He also voted to make the Patriot Act permanent.
On healthcare, Rep. Marchant voted "no" on adding 2 to 4 million children to the SCHIP eligibility and voted "no" on requiring negotation for prescription prices on Medicare Part D.
Tom Love differs with Senator Marchant on all these votes. It is time to give another Texan opportunity to serve in the U.S. Congress.
All three founders of DFWRCC know challenger Tom Love. We know that his campaign rhetoric about representing the ordinary working man and woman is genuine. We know that his support for Universal Health Care predates his declaration for office. He is passionate about combating the trend of moving American manufacturing offshore. He will fight to reverse policies which reward companies for registering their businesses in off-shore tax sheltered companies.
Tom Love also understand the negative impact of tolling public highways. He will fight to bring adequate funding to the DFW Region so that we can maintain existing federally funded highways and bridges and expand capacity without tolls. We urge voters to give Tom Love opportunity to serve them in the U.S. Congress.
JERRY LEE PHILLIPS FOR TARRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PCT. 3
In Tarrant County, civic activist Jerry Lee Phillips is challenging Gary Fickes for County Commissioner. The northern part of Tarrant County suffers from discrimination by TxDOT and transportation planners at the RTC in appropriating their fair share of gas tax dollars and other public transporation financing to keeping pace with the escalation of population in that region. One of the newer members of the Tarrant County Commissioners' Court, Mr. Fickes understands the importance of combatting gridlock, but has not fought vigorously to demand cost effective public solutions to that region's transportation needs. We endorse challenger Jerry Lee Phillips because he grasps the impact of State and Tarrant County officials decisions to abandon traditional infrastructure financing for the more costly tolled alternatives.
The tolled HOV expansion of existing roads in that region will not solve the transportation problems confronting that district. The current plans are merely a bandaide -- and a very costly one to the pocketbooks of citizens who depend on state highways for commuting. Jerry Lee Phillips is one of the more intelligent candidates who has run for the Tarrant County Commissioners Court in decades. He brings business skill, educational training, and a solid grasp of public administration. He is not a "court house insider" and brings a fresh perspective to county administration. He will demand more accountability by the JPS Hospital system. Jerry Lee Phillips says: “It’s time that tough questions be asked in relationship to the stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The Commissioners Court must seize the moment and ask why JPS executives are getting richer while JPS hospital staff are underpaid in relation to their dedication to patient care. Why are JPS executives getting richer while JPS hospital is in desperate need of upgrades and refurbishing?”
Jerry Lee Phillips is running one of the more vigorous challenger campaigns for public office in the DFW metroplex.
He is a sound voice who will represent residents of the district in confronting "the good ole boy engrained and entrenched fraternity" of contractors, road planners and bought and paid for politicans.
RAIN MIMMS FOR STATE SENATE
Attorney Rain Mimms is challenging Senator John Carona for Texas Senate Seat 16. Senator Carona, as chair of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, allowed citizens to speak out against the Trans Texas Corridor. Without his support, it would have been much more difficult for Texans to confront the powerful Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT. However, he did not act to defeat the exemption on the 2-year moratorium on toll roads in the DFW metroplex. Like most incumbents, he caved to Governor Perry when the "going got really tough."
His involvement with home mortgages during the financial crisis creates conflicts of interest.
Rain Mimms brings an intelligent, responsive, educated alternative for State Senate District Voters. With a few exceptions (such as Senator Lois Kolkhorst and Senator Florence Shapiro) Republican incubent Texas Senators from this region refused to represent the people's best interest by rejecting the market value priced public private toll state highway give-away promoted by Rick Perry and his Texas Transportation Commission. Some incumbent Democrats joined with Perry in the great Texas infrastructure give-away and deserve to be booted out of the Senate also. In this region, the race where there is a highly qualified challenger who sincerely represents the welfare of ordinary working men and women in this district and state is Senate District 16.
Senator Carona deserves to be thanked for the postive things he has brought to this State. Rain Mimms deserves the opportunity to serve the people. We urge voters in Senate District 16 to vote for challenger Rain Mimms.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Women Buying Health Policies Pay a Penalty
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — Striking new evidence has emerged of a widespread gap in the cost of health insurance, as women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage, according to new data from insurance companies and online brokers.
Some insurance executives expressed surprise at the size and prevalence of the disparities, which can make a woman’s insurance cost hundreds of dollars a year more than a man’s. Women’s advocacy groups have raised concerns about the differences, and members of Congress have begun to question the justification for them.
The new findings, which are not easily explained away, come amid anxiety about the declining economy. More and more people are shopping for individual health insurance policies because they have lost jobs that provided coverage. Politicians of both parties have offered proposals that would expand the role of the individual market, giving people tax credits or other assistance to buy coverage on their own.
“Women often fare worse than men in the individual insurance market,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee.
Insurers say they have a sound reason for charging different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years.
But women still pay more than men for insurance that does not cover maternity care. In the individual market, maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium.
Crystal D. Kilpatrick, a healthy 33-year-old real estate agent in Austin, Tex., said: “I’ve delayed having a baby because my insurance policy does not cover maternity care. If I have a baby, I’ll have to pay at least $8,000 out of pocket.”
In general, insurers say, they charge women more than men of the same age because claims experience shows that women use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.
Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group that has examined hundreds of individual policies, said: “The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates.”
Without substantial changes in the individual market, Ms. Greenberger said, tax credits for the purchase of insurance will be worth less to women because they face higher premiums.
The disparities are evident in premiums charged by major insurers like Humana, UnitedHealth, Aetna and Anthem, a unit of WellPoint; in prices quoted by eHealth, a leading online source of health insurance; and in rate tables published by state high-risk pools, which offer coverage to people who cannot obtain private insurance.
Humana, for example, says its Portrait plan offers “ideal coverage for people who want benefits like those provided by big employers.” For a Portrait plan with a $2,500 deductible, a 30-year-old woman pays 31 percent more than a man of the same age in Denver or Chicago and 32 percent more in Tallahassee, Fla.
In Columbus, Ohio, a 30-year-old woman pays 49 percent more than a man of the same age for Anthem’s Blue Access Economy plan. The woman’s monthly premium is $92.87, while a man pays $62.30. At age 40, the gap is somewhat smaller, with Anthem charging women 38 percent more than men for that policy.
Todd A. Siesky, a spokesman for WellPoint, declined to comment on the Anthem rates.
Thomas T. Noland Jr., a senior vice president of Humana, said: “Premiums for our individual health insurance plans reflect claims experience — the use of medical services — which varies by gender and age. Females use more medical services than males, and this difference is most pronounced in young adults.”
In addition, Mr. Noland said, “Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.”
Most state insurance pools, for high-risk individuals, also use sex as a factor in setting rates.
Thus, for example, in Dallas or Houston, women ages 25 to 29 pay 39 percent more than men of the same age when they buy coverage from the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool.
In Nebraska, a 35-year-old woman pays 32 percent more than a man of the same age for coverage from the state insurance pool.
Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California, said that “if men could have kids,” such disparities would probably not exist.
Elizabeth J. Leif, a health insurance actuary in Denver who helps calculate rates for Nebraska and other states, said: “Under the age of 55, women tend to be higher utilizers of health care than men. I am more conscious of my health than my husband, who will avoid going to the doctor at all costs.”
“Many state insurance laws require insurance policies to cover complications of pregnancy, even if they do not cover maternity care,” Ms. Leif said. Insurers say those complications generate significant costs.
Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, asked, “How can insurers in the individual market claim to meet the needs of women if maternity coverage is so difficult to get, so inadequate and expensive?”
Cecil D. Bykerk, president of the Society of Actuaries, a professional organization, said that if male and female premiums were equalized, women would pay less but “rates for men would go up.”
Mr. Bykerk, a former executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha, said, “If maternity care is included as a benefit, it drives up rates for everybody, making the whole policy less affordable.”
The individual insurance market is notoriously unstable. Adults often find it difficult or impossible to get affordable coverage in this market. In most states, insurers can charge higher premiums or deny coverage to people with health problems.
In job-based coverage, civil rights laws prohibit sex discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says employers cannot charge higher premiums to women than to men for the same benefits, even if women as a class are more expensive. Some states, including Maine, Montana and New York, have also prohibited sex-based rates in the individual insurance market.
Mila Kofman, the insurance superintendent in Maine, said: “There’s a strong public policy reason to prohibit gender-based rates. Only women can bear children. There’s an expense to that. But having babies benefits communities and society as a whole. Women should not have to bear the entire expense.”
And that expense can be substantial.
In Iowa, a 30-year-old woman pays $49 a month more than a man of the same age for one of Wellmark’s Select Enhanced plans. Her premium, at $151, is 48 percent higher than the man’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html?em&exprod=myyahoo
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
WASHINGTON — Striking new evidence has emerged of a widespread gap in the cost of health insurance, as women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage, according to new data from insurance companies and online brokers.
Some insurance executives expressed surprise at the size and prevalence of the disparities, which can make a woman’s insurance cost hundreds of dollars a year more than a man’s. Women’s advocacy groups have raised concerns about the differences, and members of Congress have begun to question the justification for them.
The new findings, which are not easily explained away, come amid anxiety about the declining economy. More and more people are shopping for individual health insurance policies because they have lost jobs that provided coverage. Politicians of both parties have offered proposals that would expand the role of the individual market, giving people tax credits or other assistance to buy coverage on their own.
“Women often fare worse than men in the individual insurance market,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee.
Insurers say they have a sound reason for charging different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years.
But women still pay more than men for insurance that does not cover maternity care. In the individual market, maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium.
Crystal D. Kilpatrick, a healthy 33-year-old real estate agent in Austin, Tex., said: “I’ve delayed having a baby because my insurance policy does not cover maternity care. If I have a baby, I’ll have to pay at least $8,000 out of pocket.”
In general, insurers say, they charge women more than men of the same age because claims experience shows that women use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses.
Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group that has examined hundreds of individual policies, said: “The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates.”
Without substantial changes in the individual market, Ms. Greenberger said, tax credits for the purchase of insurance will be worth less to women because they face higher premiums.
The disparities are evident in premiums charged by major insurers like Humana, UnitedHealth, Aetna and Anthem, a unit of WellPoint; in prices quoted by eHealth, a leading online source of health insurance; and in rate tables published by state high-risk pools, which offer coverage to people who cannot obtain private insurance.
Humana, for example, says its Portrait plan offers “ideal coverage for people who want benefits like those provided by big employers.” For a Portrait plan with a $2,500 deductible, a 30-year-old woman pays 31 percent more than a man of the same age in Denver or Chicago and 32 percent more in Tallahassee, Fla.
In Columbus, Ohio, a 30-year-old woman pays 49 percent more than a man of the same age for Anthem’s Blue Access Economy plan. The woman’s monthly premium is $92.87, while a man pays $62.30. At age 40, the gap is somewhat smaller, with Anthem charging women 38 percent more than men for that policy.
Todd A. Siesky, a spokesman for WellPoint, declined to comment on the Anthem rates.
Thomas T. Noland Jr., a senior vice president of Humana, said: “Premiums for our individual health insurance plans reflect claims experience — the use of medical services — which varies by gender and age. Females use more medical services than males, and this difference is most pronounced in young adults.”
In addition, Mr. Noland said, “Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.”
Most state insurance pools, for high-risk individuals, also use sex as a factor in setting rates.
Thus, for example, in Dallas or Houston, women ages 25 to 29 pay 39 percent more than men of the same age when they buy coverage from the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool.
In Nebraska, a 35-year-old woman pays 32 percent more than a man of the same age for coverage from the state insurance pool.
Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California, said that “if men could have kids,” such disparities would probably not exist.
Elizabeth J. Leif, a health insurance actuary in Denver who helps calculate rates for Nebraska and other states, said: “Under the age of 55, women tend to be higher utilizers of health care than men. I am more conscious of my health than my husband, who will avoid going to the doctor at all costs.”
“Many state insurance laws require insurance policies to cover complications of pregnancy, even if they do not cover maternity care,” Ms. Leif said. Insurers say those complications generate significant costs.
Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, asked, “How can insurers in the individual market claim to meet the needs of women if maternity coverage is so difficult to get, so inadequate and expensive?”
Cecil D. Bykerk, president of the Society of Actuaries, a professional organization, said that if male and female premiums were equalized, women would pay less but “rates for men would go up.”
Mr. Bykerk, a former executive vice president of Mutual of Omaha, said, “If maternity care is included as a benefit, it drives up rates for everybody, making the whole policy less affordable.”
The individual insurance market is notoriously unstable. Adults often find it difficult or impossible to get affordable coverage in this market. In most states, insurers can charge higher premiums or deny coverage to people with health problems.
In job-based coverage, civil rights laws prohibit sex discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says employers cannot charge higher premiums to women than to men for the same benefits, even if women as a class are more expensive. Some states, including Maine, Montana and New York, have also prohibited sex-based rates in the individual insurance market.
Mila Kofman, the insurance superintendent in Maine, said: “There’s a strong public policy reason to prohibit gender-based rates. Only women can bear children. There’s an expense to that. But having babies benefits communities and society as a whole. Women should not have to bear the entire expense.”
And that expense can be substantial.
In Iowa, a 30-year-old woman pays $49 a month more than a man of the same age for one of Wellmark’s Select Enhanced plans. Her premium, at $151, is 48 percent higher than the man’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html?em&exprod=myyahoo
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
North Texas candidates for U.S. House focus on bailout, energy, health care
US Congress District 24
Kenny Marchant, ending his second term in Congress after 18 years in the Texas Legislature, faces two first-time political candidates, Democrat Tom Love of Grand Prairie and Libertarian David Casey of Bedford, for the District 24 seat.
Mr. Love, 58, said health care and the energy crisis are among his top issues.
He looks at Germany as a model for inexpensive universal health care. He advocates prevention, periodic medical screening, development of more vaccines, and encouragement for more doctors to go into general practice.
On the energy front, he said the U.S. needs to get away from foreign oil and develop green technology.
"It was harder in 1960 to put a man on the moon than it is for us to have energy independence," he said, noting he supports biofuel development.
Mr. Marchant, 57, R-Coppell, could not be reached for comment.
But he said on his Web site he believes economic growth is spurred by tax cuts for families and businesses, not on higher taxes or increased regulation by the federal government.
He also supports expanding the college student loan program; improving access to, but not controlling, the health-care system; working with the international community to stabilize Iraq; and having a long-term energy plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He has said he supports promoting wind, solar and nuclear energy.
Mr. Casey, 29, a legal clerk and student, said he decided to go into politics after spending almost nine years in nuclear propulsion, both in the military and as a defense contractor.
"It became this culture of waste," he said, comparing putting a ship in for maintenance and repairs to taking a car in for an oil change and having the transmission fall off on the way out of the shop.
"My priority would be to return to responsible spending and not just this culture of, 'We'll throw more money at every problem until it goes away,' " he said, adding that the bailout was an example of that.
The district includes part or all of Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Colleyville, Lewisville, Coppell, Southlake, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Irving, Grand Prairie, Duncanville and Cedar Hill.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/102808dnpolushousecandidates.4a3eb49.html
Kenny Marchant, ending his second term in Congress after 18 years in the Texas Legislature, faces two first-time political candidates, Democrat Tom Love of Grand Prairie and Libertarian David Casey of Bedford, for the District 24 seat.
Mr. Love, 58, said health care and the energy crisis are among his top issues.
He looks at Germany as a model for inexpensive universal health care. He advocates prevention, periodic medical screening, development of more vaccines, and encouragement for more doctors to go into general practice.
On the energy front, he said the U.S. needs to get away from foreign oil and develop green technology.
"It was harder in 1960 to put a man on the moon than it is for us to have energy independence," he said, noting he supports biofuel development.
Mr. Marchant, 57, R-Coppell, could not be reached for comment.
But he said on his Web site he believes economic growth is spurred by tax cuts for families and businesses, not on higher taxes or increased regulation by the federal government.
He also supports expanding the college student loan program; improving access to, but not controlling, the health-care system; working with the international community to stabilize Iraq; and having a long-term energy plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He has said he supports promoting wind, solar and nuclear energy.
Mr. Casey, 29, a legal clerk and student, said he decided to go into politics after spending almost nine years in nuclear propulsion, both in the military and as a defense contractor.
"It became this culture of waste," he said, comparing putting a ship in for maintenance and repairs to taking a car in for an oil change and having the transmission fall off on the way out of the shop.
"My priority would be to return to responsible spending and not just this culture of, 'We'll throw more money at every problem until it goes away,' " he said, adding that the bailout was an example of that.
The district includes part or all of Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Colleyville, Lewisville, Coppell, Southlake, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Irving, Grand Prairie, Duncanville and Cedar Hill.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/102808dnpolushousecandidates.4a3eb49.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)