Friday, June 25, 2010

National Debt.

Well it is that time to report that the national debt is increasing by 4.03 Billion Dollars a day!! the debt was currently at $ 1 3 , 0 4 1 , 8 4 7 , 0 3 3 , 1 4 6 . 3 9

And Growing with every second of the day, it is pretty scary that it is growing this fast!! For every American alive today their portion of this Debt is $42,257.69

I don't know about you, but I don't feel that I have spent this amount of money for any government issue, so how is it that the field us accountable for something that was done against my will, I didn't after all vote for the spending policies that have caused this debt in the first place...

Just wait, Yep, wait until that Helth Care Bill takes its effect on the National Debt, that will be something very scary to see!!

Now with that there was an article in "The Oval" that read as follows reference the National Debt: "Obama team makes if official: Budget deficit hits RECORD. by A LOT!


Oct 16, 2009

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

POLICE: Daughters Tortured, Bound by Dad..... Tuesday March 9, 2010 (by Sandra Stokley)

Police: Daughters tortured, bound by dad


Download story podcast

10:21 AM PST on Tuesday, March 9, 2010

RIVERSIDE--A man who was arrested after his two young daughters were found beaten, bound and gagged on a bedroom floor is due in court this morning to face charges of torture and child abuse.

Jeremiah Eugene Scott, 23, has had his arraignment postponed three times since last Wednesday.

Riverside Superior Court Judge Richard Fields was told last Wednesday that Scott had not been transported because he was in a "safety cell" at Robert Presley Detention Center. A safety cell is used to house inmates who pose a danger to themselves.

On Thursday, Scott was hospitalized for an undisclosed ailment was not in court. Fields set a March 8 arraignment. That court date was put over to this morning because a doctor had not cleared Scott to appear in court, according to the Superior Court Web site.

Deputies responding to a report of a "domestic disturbance" on Feb. 26 at an Indian Hills home, found the two girls - ages 18- and 4-months old - bound and gagged and with visible injuries around their heads and faces.

The children were taken to a local hospital for treatment. Scott, who had fled the Rockridge Road home, was later arrested in the neighborhood.

He is charged with seven felony counts, including torture, child abuse, corporal

punishment of a child and one count of cultivating marijuana.

--Sandra Stokley

sstokley@PE.com

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Czar: Education to make students 'Revolutionaries', New Princeton Lecturer Van Jones slammed non-activist students as 'worthless people'. (By Aron Klein)

BS Ranch Perspective;

Looks like Jones wants to change the government so much to a Marxist style government or Socialist style government where the people will not look to themselves and work as the way out of debt, but they will seek government to take the poverty away, and make all things Okay! President Obama has shown that he agree's with Jones with the Policies that he has put forth since becoming President of the United States... National Health Care, making your Medical Records as close to Public as Possible, by taking all Medical Records and placing them in a Government run Records Division where all doctor's, Medical Personnel, & Possible people from the Government can access these records and make it their own, for control over the people when needed, reference a Socialist Government!!


BS Ranch


Czar: Education to make students 'revolutionaries'

New Princeton lecturer Van Jones slammed non-activist students as 'worthless people'


Posted: March 01, 2010
9:17 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Van Jones
Van Jones, President Obama's former "green jobs" czar and a newly appointed Princeton lecturer, has a history of sparking protests against universities and previously slammed non-activist students as "worthless people" obtaining "worthless degrees," WND has learned.

Jones also implied a university education must help students become "revolutionaries."

Jones resigned in September from his post as adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Jones also called for "resistance" against the U.S. Jones previously stated his advocacy for green jobs was part of a broader movement to destroy the U.S. capitalist system.

Princeton last week announced Jones has been appointed a visiting fellow in the Center for African American Studies and the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the university's Wilson School.

Noliwe Rooks, associate director of the Center for African American Studies, told the Daily Princetonian Jones will also conduct research and host discussions on such subjects such as "the next phase of green jobs, environmental policy [and] environmental justice."

Jones explained in an official university statement he looks forward to "exploring solutions to our nation's toughest challenges with the students and scholars of Princeton."

"America is at a crossroads, facing economic and ecological crises," he said in the statement. "The next generation of job-creating, green solutions will be even more challenging to conceive. And they will be even more difficult to implement."

Get the real story on climate change, with "The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming" from the WND Superstore.

Jones, however, has previously led university protests and has made controversial remarks about college students.

Jones campus activism traces back to at least 1993, when he was a Yale law student. WND found a Boston Globe picture of Jones standing on the steps of a Harvard library with a caption reading he was on the seventh day of a hunger strike, urging Harvard students to protest against the Clinton administration's detention of 264 Haitian refugees with HIV at Guantanamo.

As the founder in 1999 of Bay Area Police Watch, which was accused of anti-police activities, Jones led multiple protests on California college campuses.

In April 1999, Jones helped lead more than 300 University of California-Berkeley students and community members in a protest vigil and hunger strike in support of the university's ethnic studies department, which was facing major budget cuts and the scaling back of courses.

Jones told the university's newspaper the vigil and attendant hunger strike was a critical point in the movement to defend what has been called the "systematic dismantling" of UC Berkeley's ethnic studies department.

"There are thousands of worthless people here signing off checks to the administration to get their worthless degrees," he said. "You have the sense to know that you've got to fight for what you (really want)."

"History has to be made by young people fighting for a new future," Jones continued. "You're living your history right here tonight."

Jones said budget and faculty cuts in the ethnic studies department signaled that the UC Berkeley administration is willing to do anything to "prevent you from becoming revolutionaries."

"What's at stake isn't a curriculum any more – it's a vision for a new generation," he said.

Jones in the 1990s was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. The group's official manifesto, entitled "Reclaiming Revolution," boasted "we also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation."

STORM was founded in 1994 and disbanded in 2003.

"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," read STORM's manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Zedong and Amilcar Cabral."

Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands.

WND previously reported Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.

STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.

Speaking to the East Bay Express in 2005, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.

Jones in the early 1990s also founded and led Bay Area Cop Watch, which has been accused of anti-police activities. WND previously reported Jones signed a petition calling for nationwide "resistance" against police.

Jones went on to found the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, named after a little-known civil rights firebrand and socialist activist.

In a 2005 Uprising Radio interview, Jones talked about using "green" jobs to bring down the capitalist system.

"Inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country," he said. "And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether."

Succeeding revelations about Jones by WND included:


Friday, February 19, 2010

HOPE & CHANGE--But not for Iran! By Charles Krauthammer via The New York Post! June 19, 2010

Hope and Change -- but Not for Iran

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 19, 2009

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com




Sunday, January 31, 2010

Rialto scrambles to fund new pension costs

Josh Dulaney, Staff WriterPosted: 01/23/2010 07:05:05

PM PSTRIALTO -At a time when local governments are looking to cut spending every way they can, this city is preparing to spend up to $5 million a year on upgraded pension packages for police, firefighters and other employees.Budget plans for the 2010-11 fiscal year will have to account for the new "3 at 50" pension plan, which allows firefighters and police officers with 30 years of service to retire as early as age 50 and collect up to 90 percent of their highest annual salaries for the rest of their lives.A slightly less generous improvement is also kicking in for the city's 400 general employees.The combined pensions will account for roughly 10 percent of Rialto's $52 million annual budget, when they take effect next year.City Administrator Henry Garcia had no luck in recent weeks trying to convince the workers' unions to delay implementation of the new plan because of the tough economy. The unions already gave up about $4 million in concessions to close last year's budget gap.It'll be up to the City Council to decide where the money comes from."We're going to use reserves and look for funding sources that can fund it," said Councilman Ed Scott, who was among a 3-2 council majority that voted to approve the pension two years ago.He added: "I have some faith and belief that the economy is going to turn around and we're going to find some revenue sources to deal with it."

Officials with the union representing Rialto police officers said their members have already given up plenty to help the city cope with the recession. "We have given up pay increases, holiday hours. . .We'd given up a lot in advance so it's not a hardship on the city," said Richard Royce, president of the Rialto Police Benefit Association. Representatives of the fire and general employees' unions could not be reached Friday or Saturday.

In the short term, the city will rely on its $31 million in economic reserves, a pot set aside for a rainy day.Rialto isn't alone. The 3 at 50 pensions for public safety employees are as common in San Bernardino County as the government officials who worry the pricey benefit is unsustainable."I think in general there's concern about the retirement system across the state, the retirement system that serves government as a whole," Fontana City Manager Ken Hunt said. "Fontana is a very good system and it's very expensive. The question becomes, can it be maintained."Last week, Orange County culminated years of negotiations about 3 at 50 when sheriff's deputies agreed to reduce the pensions for new hires. The move helps the county, but doesn't solve the long-term pension funding problem.

The thought of more local governments adopting new 3 at 50 plans in the current economy should be of huge concern to taxpayers, said Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach, who has long fought to roll back that county's 3 at 50 pensions."The pension contribution will be an ulcer in the budget because it will always grow and then you will have to bump other things out," he said. A divided council The 2008 effort to approve Rialto's new pensions was not unlike the debate that follows 3 at 50 proposals everywhere. Supporters argue that police officers and firefighters put their lives on the line for the residents they serve, often shortening their own lives through wear, tear and exposure to a wide range of hazards. As a result, they deserve earlier retirements and financial security."We're getting guys at 25, 26, 27 and they don't last much past 50," said Royce, the police union president. "This is a very hard career."Some police and fire departments also worry about losing good employees if they can't match the pensions being offered elsewhere.

"I supported it because it's a tool the police chief needs to recruit some talent into the city," Scott said. "We had a history of not good recruitment, and when you're surrounded by municipalities that have (it), it's hard to match that."

Mayor Grace Vargas and Councilman Joe Baca Jr., joined Scott to approve Rialto's 3 at 50 pensions by one vote. Vargas did not return a message seeking comment but Baca said the city owes it to the workers."We need to take care of our employees," he said. "They do a good job in the city and they should be awarded with a good retirement."

But critics argue the plans are far too generous, given the much more modest pensions typically found in the private sector. Another criticism is that, rather than spending their 50s playing golf, many maxed-out "retirees" take new jobs at other departments, collecting consulting fees or full salaries in addition to their 90 percent pensions."In economic terms, these people are millionaires and that's paid for by the taxpayers," said Steven Frates, senior fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.

Councilwoman Deborah Robertson and former Councilwoman Winnie Hanson voted against Rialto's 3 at 50 plans. "It was just a very expensive thing and I felt the city could not afford it and I think I was right," Hanson said last week. But voting against the interests of the police and fire unions might have carried a political price. Hanson suspects the vote might have cost her a 2008 re-election bid against Ed Palmer months later. Robertson did not return messages seeking her reasons for opposing the pensions.

It's the type of issue that can make city leaders feel as if they're in a no-win situation."Somewhere, the line between public safety, public good and public costs needs to be debated," said Garcia, the Rialto city administrator. "People want public safety. Here's the cost, you pay for it and that's the way it is."

Some seek to roll back pensions. In Montclair, city officials have trimmed services, frozen job vacancies, reduced overtime and benefits, and borrowed $2.5 million in General Fund money to ensure the retirement program is funded. And even before the current recession, they sought concessions from the unions on 3 at 50.

"Every agency is struggling right now and we all do it in different ways," said Edward Starr, deputy city manager in Montclair. "You don't want to do it on the back of the employees, but you also don't want to do it on the back of the community."

Montclair went to a two-tier system in 2005. Safety personnel hired after June 29 of that year would have a "3 at 55" benefit, while those hired before then kept 3 at 50.Montclair's experience also illustrates how pension costs can change dramatically with modest changes in the retirement age.

Starr said if all cops in Montclair were on 3 at 50, it would cost the city roughly $1.6 million a year. If all were at 3 at 55, the cost would be about $560,000 a year.

Rialto officials hope to follow suit."We're looking at that," said Scott. "When we go to negotiations, we would ask the labor unions to consider a two-tiered system."

Others want to take the discretion away from local governments.A group called California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility has crafted an initiative for the November ballot that would drastically reduce pension benefits for future public employees.

According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office, the group's initiative would amend the state Constitution to limit defined-benefit pensions and retiree health benefits for state and local government employees hired on or after July 1, 2011.The measure establishes minimum retirement ages, such as 58 for new cops and firefighters, and 60 for other public safety employees. All other new employees would submit to the full retirement age as defined by Congress, which is 67 for persons born in 1960 or after.

"It's sucking money out of our economy," said Marcia Fritz, who helped craft the initiative. "It's our money and then people start drawing on these investments and then they (retire out of state)."

Fritz estimates the measure would reduce costs statewide by $14 billion over the first six years and $533 billion over 33 years. In the meantime, Rialto officials realize they need to increase revenue. There are high hopes for a San Bernardino County expansion of the landfill here. Also on the table is a plan to lease out the city's water department and save maintenance costs. Consolidations of city departments are also being considered."Right now we're going to have to make some tough decisions," Baca said.

Some officials worry it might already be too late for some cities.Moorlach, the Orange County supervisor, pointed to the Northern California city of Vallejo, which filed for bankruptcy in 2008, in part, because of expensive retirement packages."We're all trying to figure out who files for Chapter 9 bankruptcy first," he said, "whether it's in Orange County or San Bernardino County."

___________________________________________

BS Ranch Perspective:

By reading this report it seems that the State of California is still in such a depressed state that The Rialto City Council should have not offfered or even allowed this Pension Package on the Labor Contract to begin with two years ago! Nor should any other agency in California allowed such an Outlandish Pension Plan to enter the Labor Contracts at all. The 2% at 50 years of age, was the greatest retirement plan ever!The problem that is not looked at here is that most or a larger percentage of Law Enforcement Employee's don't even make it to the current Retirement Age, and about the same do not make it even to Fifty before there is a forced Retirement Due to an Injury caused while on duty! In fact I only know of one three officers that have made it to their retirement age, and one of those were going under review, becuase he had a mild Heart Attack before his actual Retirement, so the issue of Stress was going to be looked at & his pention would be changed from a Regular Retirement, to a Medical Retirement.Riding around in a car for 8-14 hours a day takes it's toll on a body. Espeically to the lower back, and shoulders. Then when you get those calls that are considered to be a "Hot Call" it makes your Edreanalin sky rocket, which effects the the hole body, with a Raised Heart Rate, Consequently Blood Pressure gets Elevated, and you have muscles that tighten, due to the sudden stress that is felt! Now if you work Patrol this sudden Elevation in Heart/Blood/Stress Levels repeats themselves all night that you are in a seated Positon driving a car!"Man with a Gun", Family Fights with no more information, Family Fights & Gun's are involved, Armed Robbery, Rape, Children Crimes such as Physical Abuse & Molestation, Gang Fights, Drive by Shootings, this goes on all night long! this doesn't count the Burglary Alarm, and when you get there it looks okay, but then you hear a noise inside, at an open window, upon closer look the window has been pried, and you know that there is somebody inside. doing a Building Search for this suspect is stressful, and dangerous!! In fact all these mentioned calls are Dangerous, espeically the family altercations, gun calls, and any call that is reference an armed anything. Even a Rape is considered to be a Dangerous Call that causes a raise in blood pressure and heart rates, etc etc..Now if one of these calls involves an Officer Involved Shooting and you are directly involved in the incident, such as you are one of the officers that were forced to draw and fire, or an inocent Officer that the other saved via their actions to use their firearms! The stress that is felt then doesn't go away, it sometimes lasts for the whole time that you are off work. Because when you are involved in a shooting it is mandatory to take at least 72 hours off for their to be an Investigation for the shooting incident. That stress doesn't go away, because if there is somethign in that incident that might have made an officer look like he/she over reached, the District Attorney would file charges and your freedom could be taken away! Pending bail or trial you could be placed in Jail with the people that you had out there to being with!see there is a whole lot of things that goes on in that 8-14 hours a day that you are upright seated in a car betwen calls, that radio goes off and stress erupts right away. Pursuits is another call that can be down right scary!Doing this until you are sixty two, or Sixty Seven as this report stated. even waiting until you are 55 you can see that you might be at the end of the contract with working and taking the time off that you want would be great! But this stress constantly all the time is a burden that is hard to take.If you are a motorcycle officer the stress can start anytime that a person cannot negotiate a car properly and suddenly fails to stay between the lines next to you and you feel that car swerve towards you, that is sudden stress. Pursuit on a Freeway @ 16:45 hrs. while doing over sixty splitting cars to catch the stolen suspect vehicle that has gotten a pretty good jump on you is scary, because you don't know what these cars on the freeway are going to do, because they don't do what they are supposed to do by Yeilding over to the Right side of the road! Rather they either just ignore you, or they suddenly swerved at the last minute to yeild to the right, but this just happens to be when you are getting ready to pass this car.. stress!!Now that I have gone on and on to prove in some way that Law Enforcement isn't a normal job! It is a highly demanding, very very very stressful job, that causes your heart to elevate and relax approximately once every fifteen minutes. It is no wonder that there is a lot of Heart Attacks in Law Enforcement and the Fire Service alike!The fact that you are out there at the age of 50 chasing these 22-30 year old officers that have just decided to make their life more serious and get a career job. Most Officers that get into the Patrol Car are those that have not graduated Collage with the exception of their credits for graduating the Academy! It is a job that allows the lower income family to get a job that offers a good pension, with benefits and they are allowed to raise a family on a good paying job.The fact that most I say approximately half of all people that enter Law Enforcement end their career due to that back injury, or like me an Automotive accident, that Killed me. I only know of two officers that had Retired with a straight Retirment, and in that the one will probably submitt doctor's reports to change their retirement from a Regular Long term Retirment, to a Medical Retirement. The medical retirement allows the payments to the person to be Tax Free, it is a benifit that is passed to the law enforcement officer. My retirment on the other hand was also tax free but instead of getting a full retirment I got 50% of my pay tax free. I was making Just under Eighty Thouseand Dollars a year to $24 thousand a year! I don't have to tell you that it was a small adjustment, but it was huge, I am still not quite recovered from the loss of all that money each year, if I didn't have a strong family I would be bankrupt today with out a house!The fact that a large amount of Officers go onto a Medical REtirement before they are able to put in for a regular retirment system, just

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Lifting Fannie, Freddie Cap Called Policy Disaster! (News Max Wednesday, 30 December, 2009 15:55 hrs) by Julie Crawshaw

BS Ranch Perspective:

Looks like the Government is going to relieve the CAP, that was placed onto Freddie and Fannie, when the Real Estate Losses started, but since the whole thing is ruled to be passed history the Cap was lifted, If this is the case then History is bound to repeat itself!!

Also I bet that the big Banks that President Obama has Mentioned, whom have paid off their portion of the Money's that were given to them reference the bill that was designed to keep our country out of a full on depression, well they had a certain amount of time to pay them off. The Larger Banks (Bank of America, Chase, & Wells Fargo) have paid their Debt back to the Federal Government. President Obama now wants to target them again, even thought they paid off their Debt faster then they were allowed, President Obama wants more, so he has proposed a "New TAX" that is to get more money from them. The reason that this happened was the bank Honored their Employee's Employment Contracts, that stated that they were entitled to a portion of the Banks Good Fortune. These employee's are in Management, and their contract basically says that if their Bank or Department within the bank makes money, they are entitled to a portion of the Profits that were made. They are paid in the form of "Bonuses"

The Banks are currently making money and they decided to Honor their Profit Sharing portion of their Employee's Contracts and they paid the Bonuses to their Employee's! But this is something that is bad in the thoughts and mind of the President of the United States, so he as devised this new Tax to gain the Bonuses that is owed to their employee's via a Profit Share portion of their Labor Contract, So he feels that the monies paid to these DESERVING EMPLOYEE'S for their Hard Work, is not good business.

Now let me be clear that if the Bank didn't pay their employee's in this manner the Employee could go after them for breech of a labor contract. I am certainly not a Lawyer and I am not sure on this but if you are a deserving Employee and the bonus is entitled to go to you certainly you would want that money that you worked so hard for!

Once again the President has ATTACKED our Capitalist Ways and is reverting back to Socialist Terrorism against these Banks for their decision to run their MONEY MAKING Business as they see fit!! This Socialist Terrorism by the President is designed to make these companies not to recognise their good work, and give their earned bonuses to the Federal Government.

NOT GOOD!! It really makes these Strong Arming Tactics Look Like Terrorism against Capitalism!!

BS Ranch



Lifting Fannie, Freddie Cap Called Policy Disaster

By: Julie Crawshaw

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got a huge gift this Christmas: The Treasury Department removed the $400 billion spending cap from what the administration believes will be necessary to keep the huge government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, solvent.

"This action confirms that the decade-long congressional failure to more closely regulate these two government-sponsored enterprises will rank for U.S. taxpayers as one of the worst policy disasters in our history," Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute writes in The Wall Street Journal.

"Fannie and Freddie's congressional sponsors — some of whom are now leading the administration's effort to 'reform' the financial system — have a lot to answer for."

Most of the damage, Wallison notes, was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages.

However, new research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, reveals that the GSEs began buying risky loans as early as 1993.

Pinto says Fannie and Freddie routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that clearly made them subprime or Alt-A.

By the end of 2008, the two GSEs held or guaranteed approximately 10 million risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion that are now defaulting at unprecedented rates.

Since then, under government control, the two agencies have continued to buy dicey mortgages in order to stabilize housing prices.

After mortgage giant Freddie Mac reported a 13 percent drop in mortgage purchases in November, Fannie Mae said its book of business declined at an annualized rate of 6.7 percent in the same month, Housing Wire reports.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved

Monday, December 07, 2009

Energy Buyback plan means rooftop revenue for Homeowners (Press-Enterprise By David Danelski) Or Does IT?? (BS Ranch Perspective)

BS Ranch Perspective:

This law is not moving far enough to given enough incentive for those that want a solar power generation plant on their house, since you are only supposed to be generating less then or up to what you are using now, it leaves people with more of an option of paying off their mortgage first then making the huge investment in this power plant, that will not pay them enough to make a decent savings to their household!! If this power plant was to take their electric bill away from their monthly/yearly bills then there would be an incentive, but what would make and even more incentive would be to allow the homeowner to sell, power back to the State/City/or Local power Company, when they have not used as much power in their household as they have generated for that month. Sure that power that they got purchased from them would be considered to be income as a private Sales, this and only this, would lead to a way to drive people to conserve power!! Other then that if their power is reduced, yet they are still forced to pay a bill then they will take those savings and mark it as that SAVINGS, in there budget they might be easier to spend that money, but if it is marked as Earnings that would make it more likely to try to make more!! Other than that the speculation that people will try to save simply because their bill is reduced is a stupid assumption on their part!!!

BS Ranch

PS: this projected Change is bad, and the allowed buyback of power should be allowed at a profit from the homeowner!!


Energy buyback plan means rooftop revenue for homeowners


<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://cdn.robocaster.com/css/m-player-style.css">"http://cdn.robocaster.com/css/m-player-style.css"</a> /> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background:url(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cdn.robocaster.com/assets/player-controls.gif">http://cdn.robocaster.com/assets/player-controls.gif</a>);width:200;height:15px" onclick=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="javascript:window.location.href='http://pe.robocaster.com/download.mp3?http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_power06.47448de.html'">"javascript:window.location.href='http://pe.robocaster.com/download.mp3?http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_power06.47448de.html'"</a>><tr><td class="player-control"></td><td class="player-center" style="width:114px"> <a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://pe.robocaster.com/download.mp3?http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_power06.47448de.html">"http://pe.robocaster.com/download.mp3?http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_power06.47448de.html"</a>>Listen to Story</a> </td><td class="player-volume"></td></tr></table>
Download story podcast

12:09 AM PST on Sunday, December 6, 2009
By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise

California residents who install photovoltaic solar panels on their homes soon could be paid by their utilities if they produce more electricity than they use, the result of a state law that takes effect next year.

But don't expect a rush of people installing rooftop solar units, observers say. Here's why:

To be eligible for paybacks, homeowners and businesses cannot install solar systems that generate more electricity than they've been using. In other words, they can't put in extra solar panels with the intention of selling power to the local utility.

Story continues below
Terry Pierson / The Press-Enterprise
Riverside homeowner David Morgan has a 2.3-kilowatt solar system on his home, and he says laws governing utility buyback of unused residence-generated solar power are moving in the right direction.

The law does not apply to the 1.4 million electricity customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Once rooftop solar accounts for 2.5 percent of a utility's total power supply, no further buybacks are required.

The law's backers hope it will move California toward capturing a huge source of clean power that doesn't require construction of new long-distance power lines or building energy projects on hundreds of square miles of desert land that otherwise might be preserved for recreation or wildlife habitat.

Enough sunshine lands on California rooftops to potentially generate 50 gigawatts -- nearly the total electricity the state uses on a hot day in August -- according to estimates in a 2007 California Energy Commission report.

Some say the law's restrictions expose lawmakers' reluctance to truly embrace the potential of rooftop solar, despite the state's mandate that utilities obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by next year and 33 percent by 2020.

"We are getting a lot of sloganeering, but they are really just throwing us a bone, and it is not much of one," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy, an Oak Glen-based organization that raises funds to acquire wildlife habitat for permanent protection.

The bill's author, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, said the limitations were necessary to overcome opposition from large utilities, including San Diego Gas and Electric, and the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates investor-owned utilities, including Southern California Edison.

"I got the most I could get with this bill," Huffman said. "I'd like to see as much generation from as many roofs as possible, but this was a political compromise."

Opponents said the state already requires utilities to spend about $3 billion subsidizing the cost of rooftop systems through rebates. Those who benefit from the subsidies "do not need another opportunity to receive payment from the utility," according to an analysis by the Public Utilities Commission.

Damon Franz, an analyst for the commission, said in an interview that the rule limiting how much electricity people can produce will encourage people to install smaller systems, allowing the state rebate dollars to be distributed to more homeowners. Smaller solar systems also would encourage owners to reduce their electricity consumption, in order to get paid for the unused power, he said.

A MATTER OF COSTS

Bob Botkin, solar programs manager for Southern California Edison, said the company took no position on the bill. He added, though, that encouraging people to produce only the power they use helps eliminates the cost of distributing the power to other users.

Despite the bill's limits, Huffman said, it opens the door to electricity buybacks. He is hopeful that future legislation will lift the 2.5 percent cap.

Story continues below
Terry Pierson / The Press-Enterprise
David Morgan says he has enough roof space to accommodate solar panels that would supply 100 percent of the power for his household and one of his neighbor's homes.

Riverside resident David Morgan, who installed a 2.3-kilowatt solar system on his home a few years ago, said the law is moving in the right direction.

"It's on its way to be being a good thing, but it isn't going far enough," Morgan said.

Since his system provides about a third of his family's power needs, Morgan said the law gives him a financial incentive to add more solar capacity. He has enough roof space for panels that would supply 100 percent of the power for his household and one of his neighbor's homes, he said.

By the end of next year, utilities are required to set rates to reimburse customers who qualify for buybacks. Once the rate is set, residents can start earning redeemable credits for excess electricity they produce. The first checks would arrive a year later.

Huffman said under existing rules, utilities kept track of homeowners' excess electricity production. At the end of a year, if they produced more power than they used, the remaining credit was forfeited, infuriating some owners of rooftop systems.

In an e-mail to Huffman's office, San Francisco resident Douglas C. Horner Jr. wrote: "I'm not in the business of providing free power to PG&E on my dime. If they are not banking those credits, or sending me a check, then I might as well use as much power as possible ... "

INLAND ANGLE

David Wright, Riverside's utilities director, said he doesn't expect the limitations of Huffman's bill to slow rooftop solar progress in Riverside. The city is years away from seeing 2.5 percent of its power coming from rooftop solar systems, giving lawmakers time to increase the cap when necessary, he said. The city has about 107,000 meters; about 110 are connected to solar systems.

Even with local subsidies and federal tax credits, the cost of a residential solar system, depending on size, is roughly $20,000 to $50,000, akin to the cost of a new car. Consequently, few people would be inclined to build a system that produces more than their needs, Wright said.

The limitations in the law give utilities time to phase in rooftop solar and other alternative sources of electricity while paying off debts on conventional power plants, he said. Forcing the utilities to buy solar power too quickly could result in rate increases.

"It would be like paying two mortgages for two houses when you need only one house," Wright said.

Myers, of The Wildlands Conservancy, said the state needs to encourage people to invest as much as they can in rooftop solar, but instead it is setting up roadblocks that protect utility profits.

Such obstacles will result in more large-scale solar and wind energy development on previously undisturbed public land, as well as more power lines crossing public and private land to carry that energy to cities far away.

"It just doesn't make sense, when we are trying to convert to a green economy," he said. "The technology is ready and the roofs are on the grid, and no environmental impact reports are needed."

Reach David Danelski at 951-368-9471 or ddanelski@PE.com