Messages to Jim Risch

Messages to Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, and Mike Simpson

Sent from http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/home/

December 13, 2009

With no heath care reform we can expect further disaster for Idaho families. The $1 trillion American families will lose is more than the cost of health care reform. Your continued attack on health care reform is directly responsible.

For the vast majority of Americans whose income depends almost entirely on the labor market, the recession is not even one-third over. Simple estimates based on BLS data and CBO projections suggest that U.S. workers are on course to lose over $1 trillion in wages and salaries as a result of the economic crisis.

Lost wages and salaries in both 2010 and 2011 will be higher than the losses that workers have already sustained in 2009. Long after the economy has returned to positive growth, the labor market will languish, imposing costs substantially higher than those associated with current health care reform proposals, without any corresponding social benefit.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/wage-deficit-2009-12.pdf

November 21, 2009

Telling Crapo to tell the facts:

During your discussion about Medicare at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jq_RXLt_y0&feature=sdig&et=1258792447.68

you did not explain that the health care bill intends to end wasteful overpayments to insurance companies through Medicare Advantage. I don’t have Medicare Advantage and my wife doesn’t. Medicare Advantage is not a good value.

The studies you say of how people like Medicare Advantage did not ask me nor did they ask the other people who do not have Medicare Advantage.

Telling Crapo, Risch and Simpson to fix the economy.

Substantial changes to the finance industry and to the Federal Reserve are need to avoid the bubbles, recessions, and depressions that occur, under our current system.

Tom Ferguson, Sony Kapoor, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Jane D'Arista, Elizabeth Warren, and Joseph Stiglitz have analyzed the finance industry and offer solutions.

Have you analyzed the ideas of Tom Ferguson, Sony Kapoor, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Jane D'Arista, Elizabeth Warren, and Joseph Stiglitz have analyzed the finance industry and offer solutions?

November 24, 2009

Mike,

I asked you this question:

Have you analyzed the ideas of Tom Ferguson, Sony Kapoor, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Jane D'Arista, Elizabeth Warren, and Joseph Stiglitz, who have analyzed the finance industry and offer solutions?

I put this at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/GuideOurGovernment/messages_to_jim_risch_Simpson_Crapo.htm

This was the apparent answer, which is not an answer to this question. Maybe you sent me this message by mistake:

November 23, 2009

Mr Calvin Leman

305 Washington Street

Salmon, Idaho 83467-3806

Dear Calvin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to reform the way we regulate our financial system. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

As we look at our banking system in the light of the recent financial crisis, I recognize that we must make long-term changes to our nation's financial structure by reforming the way we regulate our financial services industry to ensure that the events that led to the crisis are not repeated. I also believe that we need to carefully consider how to protect consumers and taxpayers from the excesses of Wall Street.

However, I share the concern of many Idahoans about proposals that have been put forward to dramatically increase the government's role in the financial industry, consolidate the current regulatory system, or diminish or eliminate the state banking system. I am hesitant to expand the powers of regulators that were asleep at the wheel while CEOs knowingly made bad decisions that put their institutions-and the entire market-in financial peril. While I am not on the committee with jurisdiction over this issue, should it come to the House floor you can be confident that I will consider any legislation to implement sweeping reforms of our financial regulatory system very carefully and with the best interests of Idahoans in mind.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue. As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today. I also encourage you to visit my website, www.house.gov/simpson, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,

Mike Simpson

Member of Congress

August 14, 2009

The Labor Department said Tuesday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, rose at an annual rate of 6.4 percent in the April-June quarter, while unit labor costs dropped 5.8 percent..

Productivity can help boost living standards because it means companies can pay their workers more, with those wage increases financed by rising output. In this recession, companies have been using their productivity gains from layoffs and other cost cuts not to hire again but to bolster their profits. This will make the recession worse.

This has been going on for 30 years. Companies are not fixing the problem. The government should fix the problem, before the people start a revolution.

August 13, 2009

Companies telling the government what to do?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011957488227095.html
In the article it says: The companies threatened to jack up consumer
prices and lay off workers if the Agriculture Department doesn't allow
them to import ... Now connect that with the disruption by people at the
health care town hall meetings. Are these signs of a revolution starting?

August 1, 2009 to Mike Crapo.

Both Nathan Lewis and Chris Somerville show that if nuclear power is to
solve our carbon problem, we need to build one every two days for 50
years, to reach 14 tw, the world energy demand now. We need to be
realistic as to how much nuclear energy can do. Each nuclear plant can
make 1 GW. The world energy demand increases .5 GW each day.

July 29, 2009

Sent to Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, and to Mike Simpson

If the health-insurance reform package includes a government-run public option, what could be the problem? Most everybody says the government can’t do anything. It that is so, then the health insurance industry has nothing to worry about.

Are you going to vote for health insurance reform with a government-run public option? That is one way for the folks I know in Salmon to get health insurance. Without it, they will be in the place they are now: no health insurance. How else might they get health insurance?

Messages to Mike Crapo and to Mike Simpson.

This message to Mike Simpson.

June 30, 2009

Mike,

Thank you for telling me about H.R. 2454. I have studied your comments about H.R. 2454 and see that you are a sponsor of H.R. 2828.

Section 1304 of H.R. 2828 is inconsistent with an understanding of the problem. This is why:

Sec. 1304. Nuclear, hydropower, and biomass defined as renewable.

A nuclear power plant can produce about a gigawatt. Energy demand is increasing worldwide about a gigawatt every two days. If we want to stop carbon dioxide emission increase with nuclear power, we would have to build a nuclear power plant every two days. Bickering between the Republican and Democrat parties is not solving our energy or security problems.

I don’t know why you support nuclear power.

Most of H.R. 2454 and most of H.R. 2828 put the energy problem to big business and give money to big business to solve it. That is a mistake. The big-business of the corn-ethanol plants is an example of this kind of mistake that congress makes.

Part of the solution to the energy issues can be solved by ordinary people.

In Idaho, for example, ordinary people can produce ethanol and burn it in their cars. We don’t need big business. We need help getting started, about $70,000. When we succeed in Salmon, we can share what we develop with Challis, Arco, Mackay, Dubois, etc.

You have sent us help with this idea. But all you sent is cost sharing. If we had any money, we could start a business. We do not. And the people in Challis, Arco, etc. don’t have any money either.

We are not talking about starting a business. We are talking about a community working together to solve part of the energy issue.

Our ideas are on http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/GuideOurGovernment/GasInSalmon.html

And on http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/MakingGasGroup.html

We are not confused by H.R. 2454 or by H.R. 2828.

Thanks for helping,

Cal

June 26, 2009

We want to use Section 8.6, not Section 8.8.

We are trying to help Salmon be energy self-sufficient, using USDA-CSREES-SBIR-002363 Section 8.6. Because our community project includes making ethanol, Dr. Suresh Sureshwaran, National Program Leader for SBIR Rural Development at ssureshwaran@csrees.usda.go refers us to section 8.8, where Dr. William Goldner, National Program Leader for SBIR Biofuels and Biobased Products at wgoldner@csrees.usda.gov is the leader.

Section 8.8 includes:

Advanced Biofuels – New and improved technology for the economically and environmentally sustainable production and conversion of agricultural biomass material into non-ethanol biofuels, fuel additives, and other products to be used as fuel (including but not limited to fuel-hydrocarbons, hydrogen, biodiesel);

We believe that the non-ethanol stipulation is congress telling USDA to stop supporting feedstocks that can be food and stop supporting ethanol.

We believe that congress made a mistake by supporting the corn-ethanol projects and is now responding to criticism of the corn-ethanol policy. That is why non-ethanol biofuels are stipulated in section 8.8.

Congress caused the corn-ethanol problem and now is making another mistake by stopping any project in SBIR from making ethanol. Worse yet is Section 8.8 specifying fuel hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and biodiesel.

Fuel hydrocarbons mean every fuel. Hydrogen has a storage problem, an availability problem, and a technical problem that we cannot solve in Salmon. Even the DOE says that we can make only 3% of the diesel we need by making biodiesel. And biodiesel uses food crops, like soybeans that can produce only 48 gallons per acre. Sugar beets make 500-1000 gallons per acre, at 20 and 40 tons per acre.

Section 8.8 is written with little regard to science and with little regard for the solutions to our energy problem.

Bob Ford was trying to help us earlier. We thank you for that help. Now we need more help with an energy grant that we found.

We want to apply to SBIR using Section 8.6 and not use Section 8.8, which makes no sense at all.

Our intent is to show that Salmon can make its own fuel, by building a small ethanol plant that can make ethanol for about $2.00 per gallon.

Estimates by USDA and others say $2.36 is the cost of making ethanol. We believe we can make ethanol better because we are actually going to do it and can solve the problems that arise, with the expertise of workers in Salmon. USDA had no real industry to study, so their work is based on the sugar plants and corn-ethanol plants. Both of these have little to do with making ethanol from sugar beets. Four other sugar beet to ethanol projects are starting in North America. Nobody in North America is now making ethanol from sugar beets.

We want to show that we in Salmon can make our own energy. We just need help getting started. The sugar beet idea is just to get started. When making cellulosic ethanol can compete with sugar beets, we will change our front-end beet preparation to cellulosic ethanol feedstock preparation. All the fermentation, storage, distillation, and ethanol distribution with be the same.

Our work is shown at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/default.html

The SBIR links are at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/Grants.html

Thank you for helping.

Messages to Mike Crapo; look below for the messages to all three.

June 17, 2009

Mike,

At the Northwest Energy Coalition, you said nuclear energy can play a part. If the world needs 14 terawatts, then we can build one nuclear power plant every two days for the next 50 years to supply 14 terawatts. Now how much can nuclear energy solve our energy problem?

If you ask Bob Ford to study the work of Chris Somerville, you will hear this from him too. Bob can view this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1LnST3w4WQ

Dr. Somerville concludes that plants can supply 14 terawatts, using land that we don’t use now for agriculture. It takes a while to understand this, even though Chris Somerville explains it clearly, with data from industry and government. Our idea for Salmon is a step in the direction of this solution.

You are the only legislator who responded to my cry for help to set up an energy source in Salmon. Mike Simpson and Jim Risch did not even respond. And Bob Ford is still helping us. We have not found $50,000 to set up the energy facility yet, but I believe we will, if you keep helping.

Our idea is detailed at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/GuideOurGovernment/GasInSalmon.html

where you can find some of Chris Somerville’s work too.

We want to grow the feed stock in Salmon and burn the ethanol in Salmon. In fact, our facility can pay back the $50,000 in about two years, and provide the people of Salmon with fuel for their cars, trucks, and tractors at a better price than the oil companies can now. And we all expect gasoline to get even more expensive. We don’t need congress to act. We need $50,000.

We would like to talk with you, with Bob Ford, or whomever you designate. Our plan, when it succeeds, can help Challis, Mackay, Arco, Dubois—every town in Idaho—and worldwide.

It may help to hear it from us.

Messages to Mike Simpson; look below for the messages to all three.

June 12, 2009

Mike,

Just as we are trying to become energy independent in Salmon, we see that congress is working on an energy bill that wouldn't require any more wind and solar power than is already in the works.

Even worse, the bill would repeal parts of the Clean Air Act, preventing Obama from cracking down on dirty power plants. The bill does have good parts, but Big Oil and Coal severely weakened it.

What are you going to do about this bill? We want you to fix it.

Cal

May 5, 2009

We are delighted to see:

President Obama Announces Steps to Support Sustainable Energy Options, Departments of Agriculture and Energy, Environmental Protection Agency to Lead Efforts.

Can you help us use this directive to help rural communities in Idaho to produce ethanol locally, by growing biofuel crops and fermenting these crops into ethanol?

All the money associated with ethanol production stays in the rural community, like Salmon, Idaho, where we live. Horizons Community Leadership to Reduce Poverty is ongoing and could help make this ethanol project a reality. Producing ethanol locally can reduce poverty and show small communities that they can be energy independent.

Small scale ethanol production, say for a town of 3-4 thousand people, need not transport ethanol. The town’s people would burn it in the town. Money from this entire project stays in the town. We estimate that we can make ethanol at this scale for about $2.36/gallon.

April 20, 2009

You have told me that you oppose the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 because of card check. What plan do you have to help workers, if not this act? Employees who are in a union have better health care and better wages, than those who are not. How do you intend to help workers have health care and better wages?

April 19, 2009

I am trying to determine if HR 875 may be bad for small farms and good for Monsanto. Can you help me with this? Why does Monsanto want more government regulation of its business? Rosa DeLauro introduced HR 875. She is married to Stanley Greenburg, whose lobby firm represents Monsanto.

I have asked Stanley Greenburg the same question.

Here is some of what HR 875 may involve:

Under section 3 definitions, A food production facility according to HR 875 means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation. Also farms are defined as category 4 food establishments. Because of the broad wording of Category 5 food establishments, this could mean people, who home process and store the produce that they garden or buy at a farmer's market.

In section 101, a new department call the Food Safety Administration will be created. It's a political appointment and the new head called the Administrator will have total control over the administration and is the one who chooses to define dangerous food and can be used to go with whatever whim the administrator chooses.

Section 201 mandates that all factories, stores, slaughterhouses and farms register annually with the Administrator. It further requires documentation of where the food was grown, where it is going, to whom, and must have name, address, and 24 hour emergency contact for each domestic food establishment and or to whoever bought the food. This also applies to farmer's markets.

Section 204 on what constitutes a contaminant is too broad and open to interpretation. This could lead to wide abuses of power. The wrong administration could get into power and American's would have more than their worst nightmare on their hands.

Section 205 also alludes to seed cross contamination and seizing those seeds. Following precedent in this country, any time GM or patented seeds cross with a variety that isn't GM or patented, the farmer growing the heirloom variety is subject to lawsuit by the seed company. Never in the history of his country has a farmer ever won a lawsuit filed by the large Agri business corporations. Furthermore in this section, the administrator isn't allowed to disclose anything that might be deemed a trade secret to the public, but still allows for a recall of food without giving an explanation. Nor is contamination defined and can be open to whatever whim.

Section 206 allows the administrator to dictate whatever scientific methods of how to grow, harvest, use fertilizer, use of nutrients, and what other chemicals to use. In addition whatever science applies to livestock production. Again, this is way too open to interpretation and doesn't allow for farmers to opt out of using chemicals if the administrator mandates their use.

Section 207 which mandates that states also use their resources and aid in the enforcement of the new laws, also includes a clause to provide oversight at the retail level, which includes farmer's markets, which has never been the source of tainted food. The way that this oversight is sought and again doesn't state HOW, could make it impossible to run a farmer's market. The explosion of farmer's markets has saved a lot of smaller and medium sized farmers from going under and provides better quality local food generally at cheaper prices.

Section 211 allows for the utilization of private testing laboratories for to keep on testing the food under the Food Safety Administration. Let's face it, every time our government contracts something out to the private sector, it ends up becoming a joke. Not only does it cost the taxpayer's 3-300 times more, but the quality is a farce.

Section 304 will make the food industries happy as they are able to be appointed by the administrator to a panel of experts about food safety.

Section 405 any violator will be fined up to $1,000,000 per offense and may face criminal actions prosecution as well. There is no language that differentiates between willful acts and unintentional acts. So the farmer who planted her/his heirloom seeds first and gets their field contaminated by GM or patent seeds and the field is deemed contaminated will still be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution.

Thank you for helping.

Messages to Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, and Mike Simpson

May 28, 2009

Please support One-Payer health care. Max Baucus says all ideas are on the table, but then when asked, he says one-payer cannot pass, so it is not on the table. If you look at what the people want, they will say affordable health care. That is what single-payer is. Those of us who look at the health care industry, understand that the industry gives money to you for your campaign. Now, how can that not affect your vote?

You have GEHA or other health care because of where you are. What about the people who are not? In Salmon, where I live, how many people don’t have health care. If you cannot answer that question, then you don’t understand this issue.

I am not expecting a canned response. I am expecting that you ask the people in Salmon and elsewhere in Idaho, what they want for healthcare.

May 11, 2009

I have written to you about this before, asking you to stop it. Weapons research is still a substantial part of Department of Energy:

While Dr. Chu emphasized the allocations for research, a former Energy Department official, Robert Alvarez, pointed out that the budget still includes $6.4 billion for nuclear weapons and $4.4 billion for naval reactors, nuclear nonproliferation activity and safe storage of surplus plutonium. “Weapons still make up the largest single expenditure,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/science/earth/08energy.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=U.S.%20Drips%20Research%20Into%20Fuel%20Cells%20for%20Cars&st=cse

May 3, 2009

Health Care for Everybody Sent to Mike Crapo and to Jim Risch

I support quality, affordable health care for everybody. I am asking you to support the healthcare legislation. If you don't, as Mike Simpson has said, then please tell me why. You have the health insurance I had when I worked for NASA. Not everybody can work for the government. So we need a comprehensive health care policy that covers everybody. This is part of what many polls tell us: We want health care for everybody.

That means I believe everybody in America should be covered by health insurance.

Health insurance should meet my needs, with a standard, comprehensive package of benefits that I need to stay healthy.

The insurance industry should be forced to reform its bad practices, like denying sick people care or charging them more because they are a woman.

And everyone in America should have a real choice of a public health insurance option, so we’re not left at the mercy of private insurance.

April 19, 2009

We have looked at the Employee Free Choice Act and believe it will help working people. If you do not agree, please tell us why. Employees who are in a union have better health care and better wages, than those who are not. If that is not correct, please give us the documentation.

April 18, 2009

How do we reconcile the rhetoric from those in congress, who say we must provide for our troops, when funding pentagon and other defense agencies? If we are providing for our troops, then why do these reports appear?

Lightweight Armor Is Slow to Reach Troops

By THOM SHANKER

Published: April 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Army has promised to lighten the soldier’s load, and nowhere more urgently than in eastern Afghanistan, where the unforgiving terrain tests the stamina of troops whose weapons, body armor, rucksacks and survival gear can weigh 130 pounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/18military.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

April 13, 2009

Everybody should have the opportunity to go to college. Obama has a plan to help students. Now the private banks, which make loans to students, with the government guaranteeing 97% of the loan, are fighting the Obama’ plan.

These banks are the same institutions that our tax money is bailing out.

The lobbyists are using the big government argument.

We are not the only voters who understand that the bankers are looking to their best interest, not the best interest of the students.

If the current system of student loans were working to help students, we would not have so many people not getting a college education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13student.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail0=y&_r=1&emc=tnt

Please help the people of Idaho go to college.

April 9, 2009

Choices to deal with economy:

Liquidate

Receivership

Conservatorship

Subsidize

The solution to the economy must be:

Transparent: all aspects of plan must be available to everybody

Assertive: actions must be aggressive

Accountable: bad managers must be replaced

Clarity: strategy and plans must be available to everybody

590 billion of 700 from TARP and 1.3 trillion by Federal Reserve. have been spent.

Treasury and Federal Reserve have chosen to Subsidize.

Today (April 9, 2009) Larry Summers could not say when we will see recovery.

Please insist that Treasury and Federal Reserve set specific benchmarks for recovery. Insist that they describe the benchmarks to everybody. Put them on a website and in the media.

April 9, 2009

What is your plan to get us out of the mess we are in? You voted against the 2010 budet. What is your plan for energy, education, healthcare, and deficit? The separation of rich and poor is greater now than it ever has been.

April 8, 2009

We think that the TARP funds are not in the best interest of the people and are in the best interest of the bankers who caused the problem. We gather information from C-Span and from the Senate Oversight Panel, to mention just two of the sources. You can do something about this. We rely on you.

We can't trust the same people who got us into this financial mess to help lead us out. Replace the leadership at the bailed-out banks, starting with Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.

If Secretary Geithner forces him to resign, it'll send a strong message to the rest of Wall St.: The era of zero accountability is over and reckless behavior that puts our economy at risk won't be tolerated.

Of all the folks who helped bring about the recession, Lewis is one of the worst:

Shareholders say he helped drive the company into the ground. Bank of America has lost billions—and 90% of its value—in part because Lewis "hastily arranged the ill-considered acquisition" of Merrill Lynch.
Even after the crisis, he hasn't changed his ways. He ensured that high-level staff received bonuses—despite recent announcements that the bank was laying off another 35,000 employees.
On top of all this, he's fighting against more rights for workers. Three days after receiving $25 billion in bailout money, Bank of America brought together powerful banking interests to figure out how to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act
Ken Lewis has got to go. And we need to look closely at the other bailed-out banks that may need new leadership too.

Please formulate a plan and get us out of the mess we are in.

April 7, 2009

On April 6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed a bold Defense Budget that cuts spending.

I commend Secretary Gates for proposing to cut or reconfigure weapons which don't work or are based on threats that we no longer face. These systems don't make us safer, but clearly they make contractors richer.

I support the scaling back of a variety of programs including missile defense, the F-22 and the DDG-1000 destroyer. There are further cuts that could be made, but I support the effort to try to start turning the priorities around at the Pentagon.

I realize that the role of funding the military belongs to Congress, but disregarding the wishes of it's Secretary would make it quite clear who Congress is really working for.

Investing in mass transit and education creates twice as many jobs as investing in the military.

I am prepared to hear members of Congress Attacking Secretary Gates for not supporting the troops.

It is an insincere and well-worn path that will expose who is really running their campaigns on the donations of defense contractors.

I ask you to represent the people and not represent the defense contractors.

April 1, 2009

At http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-16917 Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and Mr. Dodaro, Government Accounting Office appeared before the Senate Finance Committee. The GAO report is at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09504.pdf

A clear message from all three, in their testimony and in the discussion, is that the TARP fund distribution has no stated objective, no way to measure if it does what it needs to do, and no way to see how the banks are using the TARP funds. When they ask Treasury about the TARP funds, Treasury doesn’t bother to answer them.

TARP still retains about $135 billion of the $700 billion allocated, Treasury Sec. Geithner said recently.

This is what happened: TARP funds go to a bank. That bank pays other banks with those TARP funds. Those banks do not use TARP funds to lend to business and people. Instead they pay off banks that don’t have TARP funds. How does the government know how TARP funds are used? The government can’t see what TARP banks are doing and certainly can’t see what non-TARP banks are doing with TARP money.

HR 1586 was a reaction to AIG bonuses, which accomplished nothing. 2.9 trillion dollars is at stake, according to Max Baucus, chair of the committee.

Please work with the Senate Finance Committee and any other way you can to stop sending TARP funds to banks with no accountability and no way to know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money. You may help the USA from falling into bankruptcy.

March 31, 2009

I ask that you work with Timothy Geithner to take the five largest banks into receivership. This is part of the reason that poor people are getting poorer and rich people are getting richer.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency shows why the USA has the greatest separation of poor people from rich people.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency report http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf shows:

Derivatives contracts are concentrated in a small number of institutions. The largest five banks hold 96 percent of the total notional amount of derivatives, while the largest 25 banks hold nearly 100 percent.
Credit default swaps are the dominant product in the credit derivatives market, representing 98 percent of total credit derivatives.
The number of commercial banks holding derivatives increased by 33 in the quarter to 1,010.

The largest five banks that hold 96 percent of the total notional amount of derivatives are: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, BANK OF AMERICA, CITIBANK NATIONAL ASSN, GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA, HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSN

Timothy Geither has said that his plans are a starting point. Please work with Timothy Geithner to evaluate these banks. Consider that most banks in USA are healthy. They cannot loan because of these five banks at the top.

The government should put these five banks into receivership, book them to zero in net worth, and fire the management.

At http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/pdfs/pathways/winter_2009/Berlin.pdf we see that the income distribution is going the top 1%. The management of these banks is in the top 1%.

What’s Behind Persistent Poverty?

While the U.S. poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged for 35 years, total economic

growth (as measured by gross domestic product) has tripled over the same period

(see Figure 1). So why didn’t this economic growth reduce poverty? There are four principal

explanations: (1) the returns to economic growth, which used to be shared with the

bottom half of the income distribution, are now accruing primarily to the top 1 percent;

(2) the three-decade stall in inflation-adjusted average wages and earnings has had particularly

devastating effects on workers with a high school diploma or less; (3) employment

rates among men, particularly teenagers, have declined precipitously, as have rates

of full-year, full-time work; and (4) single-parent households are increasingly common,

a result of the 40-year upward trend in divorce and a 30-year increase in out-of-wedlock

childbearing.

March 29, 2009

The richest people caused the recession. Now the poorest people are paying for it.

At the end of this recession, will the rich people be richer and will the poor people be poorer?

If Productivity is the output from production processes, per unit of input; and Labor Productivity is the output per labor-hour of input, then what is the Productivity of a bank, a hedge fund like Citadel group, private equity firm like Carlyle Group, insurance company like American International Group, or other financial business?

Even if the productivity of a financial institution is, say, the number of loans made or paid back, where is the output from these processes? Can productivity exist, if the financial institutions have no output and do not make anything?

Is money related to financial institution business? We know it is because the CEO and Boards of Directors, and others in the financial institutions make a lot of money. Is money related to production processes, like Labor Productivity? Not necessarily. For the last 30 years the money that workers earn did not change, even though workers were more productive each year.

Timothy Geithner on March 26, 2009 suggests six key elements for regulation of financial institutions to the House Financial Services Committee:

1. giving a single government entity, possibly the Federal Reserve, the power and authority to oversee the entire economy for signs of systemic risk

2. the establishment of a government mechanism to seize and dismantle large institutions whose failure threatens the nation's financial stability

3. the enacting of tougher requirements for the amount of money and assets financial institutions need to have on hand so they can withstand economic troubles

4. requiring "large private investment funds to register" with the Securities and Exchange Commission

5. the creation of a "new, comprehensive framework of regulation for derivatives, including a central clearinghouse for trades in that market

6. the development of "new, stronger requirements for money-market funds so increased withdrawals won't threaten the broader financial system.

He explained that these are a starting place and that regulation needs a lot of work so that the people do not need to bail out the financial market again.

Many of us know that the deregulation of the financial markets has been the work of both parties for at least 25 years. Many of us know that the greed of the market and excessive profits are part of the problem. Instead of using those profits to provide better service to their customers and higher wages for their workers, they created the biggest separation of poor people from rich people that this country has ever seen.

We ask that you participate in this regulation process, to find a solution. We ask that you work to stop these institutions from giving money to legislators for any reason whatever. How can a legislator accept money from the industry they are regulating?

Arguments that the free market works better with no government regulation is clearly not true. Secrecy in trading allows greed to prevail. Regulation is one way to make trading within the financial community transparent.

Arguments that say the financial institutions will find ways around the regulations is to say that the government is not as smart as the management of these financial institutions. If government is not smarter, then we are electing the wrong legislators and the wrong president.

March 27, 2009

At http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/world/27military.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

the article, U.S. Sees Chinese Military Rise, refers to

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf

Please give us your ideas of this document and the circumstances involved with it.