( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Here's an invitation to add your thoughts on the current unraveling of the mortgage crisis. Today the Bush administration took a first step toward alleviating a worst-case, somewhat likely scenario. But some leading financial institutions don't believe today's action goes far enough:

Barclays Capital … estimates that only about 12 percent of all subprime borrowers, or 240,000 homeowners, would get relief. 

Things get intriguing below the fold: 

What's intriguing to me is how careful the administration describes the steps they are taking in order to hold off a huge economic disaster as, loosely paraphrased, “not a government bail-out for speculative investors.”  A bail out?  Isn't that when the federal government throws money at the problem?

What's intriguing is how American consumers — almost as a group — are being depicted as speculative investors who acted with fraudulence against loan providers.  As if they were savvy to the ins and outs of some of the most speculative, financially esoteric, and predatory loans that even the banks wouldn't hold as a liablity for very long.

What's intriguing is how American consumers are being attacked as if they had access to the same type of financial and lobbying power corporations and banking institutions wield on Wall Street and K Street.

Someone made an interesting comparison to the Banking & Loans bailout not so long ago, when these institutions made some very, very poor speculative decisions.  Not only did the federal government step in, they also applied American taxpayer dollars to bail out the industry.  Today's steps to negotiate with mortgage holders to freeze interest rate hikes doesn't come anywhere near in scope to this type of bail out.  That's intriguing, isn't it?

Then there's the post dot com era with corporate and accounting scandals.  The government didn't bail out Enron, but once again it was American consumers in the form of investors and employees who footed the bill for corporate chicanary.  What's intriguing about responses to today's actions includes this one:

In some ways it's worse than a taxpayer bailout,” said John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the institute. “It pressures an industry to essentially alter the terms of millions of contracts, and it's going to make investors think twice about investing in America again.”

So now the corporate think tanks are worried that an interest rate freeze is going to inflict worse investment damage than the Enron meltdown,  America's national debt, the declining dollar, or even the sudden lack of liquidity American consumers will have to invest in the stock market.  Remember, most of the real estate investment dollars that went into real estate starting in 2000 was being pulled or diverted from the stock market's burst bubble.

Yep, it's those darn American homebuyers.  They're out to wreck America once again.  The same folks holding up Home Depot, the auto industry, the insurance industry, and a good chunk of the global economy.  Don't let them off the hook because they bought into an ultra-complicated predatory home loan that even most professional finance officers would have a hard time deciphering.  

What do you think?  Is it time for American consumers to form a Wall Street corporation of their own?  And maybe a K Street lobbying firm, too.

I'll bet 220 million modest united against this kind of malarky in the form of corporate and lobbyist representation could muscle together enough money to take on big business and corporate funded policy makers.  

Open discussion.  The forum is yours.

Letters, Times Argus

November 29, 2007

I appreciated Dan Barlow’s recent article on the pending report regarding Vermont’s Current Use program. Vermont’s long tradition of supporting environmental stewardship through agriculture and forestry was institutionalized with this program’s inception 30 years ago.

While the program is one that should be highly praised for the majority of its work, there are fundamental questions about how a property owner or farmer qualifies for this program based upon 1977 criteria in a 2007 economy and real estate environment.

One such qualifier includes the gross annual revenue from sale of agricultural crops, set at either $2,000 or $5,000 depending on the amount of acreage enrolled in current use. This monetary figure never included an inflationary time-value formula and therefore sets a very low bar for the economic definition of current agricultural use.

Additionally, changes in the real estate market over 30 years could not have been foreseen by well-meaning legislators in 1977. Due to other environmental efforts from both legislation and nonprofit activity, the ways of suburban development have been tempered over the course of three decades. But over the same period of time there has been a rise of rural gentrification which creates different sets of economic and environmental issues yet to be discussed.

We now have property buyers who have no intention to develop farmlands into cul-de-sacs based on their own environmental values; who have financial and legal means to maintain and conserve their property for future generations; and who may even operate their farm as a money-losing corporation in order to reduce their overall tax liability. Like non-agricultural property owners in mid-western states who still receive tax breaks and annual farm subsidies based on outdated pork programs and national farm bills, Vermont’s own Current Use program may be susceptible to unwarranted tax relief for unintended beneficiaries if review panels do not recommend timely and appropriate changes to statute.

Nate Freeman

(Eeeeeeeenteresting… – promoted by odum)

Ironically, while American politicians and even consumers are spending critical time and resources attempting to band-aid economic and climate issues surrounding oil energy with everything from carbon offset policies to back-to-the-woods survival techniques, our counterparts in other countries — including engineers, businesspeople, and energy providers — are tackling the problem the old fashioned way by redesigning technologies and at the same time inventing new ones.

Over the holiday weekend, as I was trying to figure out new ways to lower my fuel bills, I found this really amazing hot water boiler and electricity generator invented in New Zealand by a company called WhisperGen.  As soon as I saw it, I was reminded of a television commercial from the early 1980s in which actor Lorne Green is drumming up the exciting features of a slick new sports car that had fuel efficiency of 70mpg.  But instead of ending the commercial with a "Buy one now" call to action line, Mr. Battleship Galactica closed with this punch in the gut:  "There's only one catch.  You can't buy it." 

So why is America so intent on not commercializing energy efficient products, anyway?  Below the fold:  Discover WhisperGen, but remember — you can't buy it.  Not in Amerca.

The WhisperGen apparently seems like such a promising energy appliance that New Zealand's primary electrical utility, Meridian Energy Limited, bought controlling shares of the company.  Interestingly, not only is Meridian the largest power provider in New Zealand, it also happens to be the only one in that country certified as carbon neutral by virtue of its 100% use of renewable energy resources.  While the WhisperGen as a standalone is not carbon neutral, it produces 20% less carbon than standard oil-fired boilers and has an overall efficiency rating of 95%.

Whisper Gen makes only two products:  a hot water and power generating appliance for residential use and another version of the same device for off-the-grid homes, boats, etc.  The residential unit is close in size and appearance to a standard dishwasher and it operates a little more quietly.  As a heating appliance, the WhisperGen is designed to replace an oil-fired boiler for both hot water and home heating purposes.  The residential unit kicks out about 1.2 kW AC, is wired to the grid and is generally promoted as a supplemental source of electricy for residential use.  The unit would therefore replace any emergency gas-fired  generator reserved for occasional power outages.

The engineering that went into the design of this product may be considerable, but some of the underlying technology is actually old and relatively well known.  Domestic hot water and room heating are achieved by way of a liquid propane or natural gas burner.  No big deal, right?  But in the WhisperGen, excess hot water is used run an internal power generator device known as a Stirling Engine, which was invented and patented by Robert Stirling in 1816.  Both of these technologies have been around for quite a long time. 

What makes the WhisperGen very interesting is the way company engineers were able to commercialize the Stirling Engine by converting the linear motion of the pistons housed in the Stirling Engine to a rotating motion needed to turn an alternator.  They were able to do this with a microchip and a cast iron "wobble yoke" invented for this purpose.  Significant new engineering introduced by the WhisperGen is in this globally patented wobble yoke and the algorithms stored in the Electronic Control Unit assuring smooth, low-vibration operation between the linear piston movement and rotating alternator drive.  The invention of the wobble yoke alone is likely to serve a host of other industrial applications.  In fact, according to an article in Eureka Magazine:

The curious thing about this unique design is that Whisper Tech and its technical director Don Clucas, developed the Stirling engine and wobble yoke design first, then looked for suitable applications, not generally considered the best way of bringing a product to market.

There are currently about 400 hand built WhisperGen units in the United Kingdom and Europe, with a timeline to supply and install 80,000 mass-manufactured units over the next 5 years in the United Kingdom.  The manufacturing facility will be located in Spain.  And so far, there doesn't seem to be any effort to distribute WhisperGen in the United States.  At the present time, all orders are on hold until early 2009.

At the time of this writing the US dollar is plummeting, so perhaps it's not a good time to be considering import goods due to a weaker buying position.  That being said, here is cost information for current models iin Europe.

Early handbuilt WhisperGen units run at 3000 British Pounds, converting today into $6226 US Dollars.  But price and savings will improve as manufacturing ramps up and energy costs rise.  If it were installed today it could save between $300 and $400 in fuel and elecrical bills annually.

As a consumer of oil energy paying $3.11 a gallon this heating season, when I consider upgrading my home heating system, you can bet that I'm looking around for anything that doesn't burn oil.  For my needs, the prospect of owning a WhisperGen or another device similarly efficient and economical should come sooner rather than later.  I can feasibly wait until 2009 to begin standing in line to order a unit from Europe, but it doesn't appear that the majority of Americans will either be completely unaware of this product even if wehave the opportunity to buy one.  Waiting for the WhisperGen to come to America may take as much patience as waiting for the manufacture and distribution of a reasonably priced electric car.  With the year 2012 set by international climate reports as the year everyone on the planet should be carbon neutral, it's disappointing that we may not see either the WhisperGen or the Chevy Volt until somewhere around the same time.

The engineering success of the WhisperGen should be heralded worldwide.  But there's also a somewhat disappointing side of the story as well — a disappointment that has nothing to do with oil or alternative energy technologies.  For me, a lot of national pride is at stake here.  American technology reached its symoblic peak when Armstrong first stepped on the moon.  Nothing, including recent Chinese rocketry, can take that away from our self-conception as leaders in science, innovation, and human achievement.  But the space race is over, and the next race is for energy.  

As a result, there is a significant quesiton of how quickly the United States is falling behind in the development of new energy and carbon reducing innovations. France and Japan lead the international effort to harness the power of the sun through a massive experiment in nuclear fusion and plasma technology, from which — even if it fails to reach it's goal — is likely to provide other useful, unaticipated energy appications.  The entire continent of Europe virtually owns wind technology.  And of course, the Toyota Prius has already become an iconic symbol of the American consumer's new  interest in carbon reduction.  And now it is the small, isolated, progressive island-nation of New Zealad that is delivering — and will profit generously from — the AC WhisperGen microCHP.  

As for American technology?  Well, we're still waiting for the Chevy Volt.  And even here in the once-leading-edge State of Vermont?   We're battling wind farms and returning to the hard-scrabble ways of calloused hands and wood-fired stoves.

Paradise Lost?  I think we can make that connection here in America.

Respectfully submitted, 

Nate Freeman

Baruth quips: 

  “How long, Lord, how long? How long before 9/11 is allowed to rest in peace, rather than being pressed into service by every sweaty-palmed down-ballot Republican from Boise to Bangor?”

I’m with ya, Philip.  I’ve been suffering from a severe case of post-9/11 fatigue since the ’04 campaign cycle.

And it only took three times hearing Bush say, “September the 11th,” to get really, really sick of the unnecessary participle.

More people died in Bangladesh this week than we tragically lost 6 years ago.  And the number of deaths are likely to be lost in the aftermath of Cyclone Sidr than we’ve lost in Iraq.  \

Maybe we should start talking about, “November the 15th.” 

Chevy Volt

Lyrics as if in the voice of Sheryl Crow  

by Nate Freeman

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth that's gonna be here in a hundred years.

My man earned just $12.65. Seemed a struggle just to keep our ride.
Now he's at home raising the kids. It's not what we asked for; it was my wage or his.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth high off the coast with black garden dirt.

I give my children the best to survive. I teach 'em love and how to fight.
Off to college for a Masters degree; then two years of hell to build their resumes.

Then they can buy a Chevy Volt. Then they can have a good green home.
They'll do it right: get a piece of the earth. Should only take 'em just a couple of years.

Now if my kids have their own boys and girls, there's no telling how to plan for their world.
What will it come to?  Where will it end?  A barrel of oil for an acre of land?

Will it then matter who's the President?  Will it then matter where Al Qaeda went?
Oh, stop it now, let's not dwell on it.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
I want a piece of the earth. I don't want your damn rhetoric.

I want a Chevy Volt. I want a good green home.
God dammit, just a piece of the earth. God I'm asking you for all that it's worth.

(Don’t know that it’s “the best” argument, but it’s a damned fine one. – promoted by JulieWaters)

The best written argument I have read thus far on the marriage issue.  As a Justice of the Peace recently presiding over my first marriage, this is how I read the JoP manual and understand the law. 

Enjoy one and all. 

From today's Times Argus letters: 

Civil versus religious marriage 

November 9, 2007 

Though religion is an essential component of marriage for many couples, legal marriage in this country is a secular institution. 

The required license does not mention God, faith or children. It establishes a state of legal, not holy, matrimony. It confers no divine blessings, but provides hundreds of civil rights, protections and benefits, among the greatest of which is the word “marriage” itself. Opponents of same-sex marriage would like to read capability of procreation and Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations into the civil marriage laws, but they are not there, either overtly or by implication. 

Couples who want religious wedding ceremonies of course have every right to them, but this does not mean that religious marriages may be substituted for civil ones. The state invests the clergy with the authority to sign marriage licenses and thus to perform the civil and religious marriages simultaneously. The religious ceremony may be more important to couples and their families, but it is immaterial to the state. The legal part of the marriage is the civil portion only. 

The essential point is this: a duly executed state marriage license is valid without a shred of religious ceremony or any ceremony at all; a religious marriage is not legal without a civil marriage license. 

Members of the clergy must never be compelled to perform marriages which violate their religious principles, but neither may they force their convictions on other clergy — a steadily growing number — who believe differently, or on civil marriage law, which must always remain secular. A slight change in wording will make the standard state marriage license equally applicable to same-sex and heterosexual couples. There is no defensible reason not to make the change. 

Judy and Michael Olinick  Middlebury

…here are reports today about how Chuck is landing in the lap of hedge funds in exchange for a couple of $28,500 gifts to the DSCC from two hedge fund executives. 

Let's do the math:  $57,000 for the DSCC, or closing up a 20 point tax loophole for hedge fund execs.  So that’s 20% on, say $1.7 billion on appropriately charged income to add to the common weal, or $57,000 for the DSCC.  Hmmmmm….  How much of the $57,000 is landing in Schumer’s war chest?  Heck, even if he got it all, he’d still be a really cheap date for a couple of high flying billionaires.

The bill being discussed suggests that hedge fund execs should be taxed on income, not on short term capital gains.  Short term capital gains tax is 15%. For anyone else earning over $174,850 a year, there’s a a reasonable income tax of 35%  

But if you're pulling down $1.7 billion, then Chuck is ready to give you a break. 

Just a quick question of the day:  What is with NPR’s fascination with the Hollywood writer’s strike?  It’s at the top of the hour, and follows at just after the half-hour break with an “in-depth” interview. 

I mean, with all that’s going on today for news, how does the writer’s strike float anywhere near the top? 

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support labor interests and especially creative writers.  But, geez, is America gonna melt down if we have to put up with — gasp! — reruns? 

Perhaps I live in that small corner of the world that doesn’t live or die by television and the movies.  Perhaps it really is vital to the well-being of America for entertainment to roll on in the midst of war.  (Oh yeah, there’s a war, right?)

Somehow the phrase, “opiate of the people” keeps ringing in my ears.  Maybe that’s it!  If people aren’t pleasantly distracted or lulled into trance-like apathy, they just might actually pay attention to what’s going on around them, and what their tax dollars are being used for. 

Better get them writers what the want, pronto!  For the sake of national security!

In today's column, Krugman opens up the real question about leadership in America today.  It's not about what party one is associated with, it's about how much they are influenced by economically powerful forces.  Which is the primary reason a deep chill goes down my spine when the latest poll suggests that 56% of women — all women- favor HRC.  Unlike Obama and other candidates, Clinton's war chest is full of corporate cash.  Of course, her spokespeople would reply that other candidates have corporate donations as well.  Reality would suggest a simple counter response:  yea, just not nearly so much.

I won't quote Krugman here — the whole piece is worth the time to click the link above.  But it seems that there's an underlying fear of the most wealthy people in America, who have made their fortunes in an American marketplace.  The fear is simply put, that the money will run — away from lawmakers and leaders who suggest a reasonable tax on hedge fund principals (now at a mere 15%); or off to a newly created tax exempt trust; or perhaps to Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, or even the moon.

If a handful of economically powerful people were charged to pay their fair share back into the financial system they benefited from, the result would be billions in revenue.  However, until our leadership understands how they are necessarily influenced by the financial elite, and begin to address inequities in America, then every move forward will be weighed down by the powerful resistance of wealth. 

Yea, but not in the centerfold.  You can read all about his interview in Hef's glossy.

Also, on Nov 1, the Governor rec'd a nod from Lee Iacoca: 

Unlike others on the stump, he's offering bold plans, not just pandering talk. I like his jobs plan, his healthcare and energy plan, education plan and his plan to get us out of Iraq.

He's putting out a new effort to aid Veterans, and he's receiving new money support from lobbyists in his home state.

His numbers in Iowa and NH are once again below the double-digit threshold, but look for a possible southern bump for Richardson as his campaign makes bold strides.

The Playboy interview?  Hey, he may as well go for the male audience in an overt way, seeing how Clinton is the first one to play the gender card.