Obama -- Anti-Business, which equals Anti-American

What brings jobs to America? Simple. Giving businesses a stable operating environment with a productive labor supply and low corporate taxes. In other words, exactly what companies are finding in China, Korea and a number of other countries. Not here, however.

Is Obama too dumb to understand the simple fact that only people pay taxes? Is he too dumb to realize that only people with jobs pay taxes? It seems he's too dumb to realize that if he and his administration were to create a good operating environment for companies, then employment would soar. More people would have high paying jobs and they would pay taxes.

Putting it another way, let's open all US oil & gas bearing properties to energy companies. ANWR, the entire Gulf of Mexico, the waters off the East and West Coasts and lots of territory in between. The energy companies will hire a lot of people at high pay to get that oil and gas out of the ground and delivered to customers.

Let's permit US car companies build any car that buyers want. Who cares about mileage? Let the buyers make their own decision about whether to purchase a Cadillac Escalade or a Ford Escort.

It's time to restart the US nuclear power industry. France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear plants. We get 10%. We've got a Nuclear Navy that's been operating nuclear-powered surface ships and submarines for 55 years. We know how to build and run nuclear reactors.

As always, the obstacle to prosperity is government.

August 24, 2010

Intel CEO: U.S. faces looming tech decline

Intel chief executive Paul Otellini offered a depressing set of observations about the economy and the Obama administration Monday evening, coupled with a dark commentary on the future of the technology industry if nothing changes.

Otellini's remarks during dinner at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here amounted to a warning to the administration officials and assorted Capitol Hill aides in the audience: Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, "the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here."

The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe--this is the bitter truth."

Not long ago, Otellini said, "our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital... We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case."

The phenomenon of technology executives advancing dismal predictions and offering pointed critiques of Washington politicking isn't new, of course.

For instance: In 2005, midway through the Bush administration, Microsoft's Bill Gates told a Washington audience that curbs on immigration and guest workers would provide a boost to research institutions in China and India. A year earlier, then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett warned that the U.S. must dramatically improve its education system.

That never happened. Nor did politicians follow Gates' advice to rethink laws that led to foreign engineers being kicked out of the country as soon as they finish their degrees.

And now, six years later with no significant reforms, it should come as no surprise that the predictions have become more dire.

Deep in a 'Do' loop

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus -- but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

"They're in a 'Do' loop right now trying to figure out what the answer is," Otellini said.

As a result, he said, "every business in America has a list of more variables than I've ever seen in my career." If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions "the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.

The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose.

(Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but anti-business laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")

"If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here," Otellini said. But instead, it's the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest--and create jobs--than places in Europe and Asia that are "clamoring" for Intel's business.

The comments from Intel's chief executive echoed statements made a day earlier by Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO turned Republican Senate candidate.

America's skilled-worker visa system is so badly broken and anti-immigration that "we have to start from scratch," Fiorina said, adding that too many government policies push jobs overseas instead of making U.S. companies competitive against international rivals.

"Our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world," and Congress has repeatedly failed to make an R&D tax credit permanent, Fiorina told the Aspen audience. It's time to start "acknowledging the reality that companies go where they're welcome," she said. (The effective U.S. corporate income tax is 35 percent, far over the industrialized-nation average of 18.2 percent.)

Chris Marangi, associate portfolio manager at Gamco Investors in Rye, N.Y., said Tuesday: "Capital is agnostic. It doesn't have a religion. It doesn't have a philosophy. It goes where it finds the highest returns." The problem, Marangi said, is that many other "countries have a more friendly regulatory regime than we do."

Obama's War on Business

Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one.

Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

There are two steps to accomplish that.

Discourage Innovation

First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.

Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted.

These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.

A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.

Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so slow to act that even liberal economist and commentator Paul Krugman is criticizing the administration for “ditherin.” It has gotten so bad that the Intrade prediction market now has a future on whether Geithner is gone by year’s end. It currently puts the chance of that at about 20 percent.

No More Deferral

On the tax hike, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget quite ominously signaled that he intends to end or significantly amend the U.S. practice of allowing U.S. multinationals to defer U.S. taxes on income that they earn abroad.

Currently, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax on Earth. U.S. firms can compete in Europe by opening a subsidiary in a low-tax country and locating the profits there. Since the high U.S. tax applies only when the money is mailed home, and firms can let the money sit abroad for as long as they want, the big disadvantage of the high rate is muted significantly.

End that deferral opportunity and U.S. firms will no longer be able to compete, given their huge tax disadvantage. With foreign tax rates so low now, it is even possible that the end of deferral could lead to the extinction of the U.S. corporation.

If any firms are to remain, they will be festooned with massive carbon-permit expenses because of Obama’s new cap-and- trade program.

Importing Drugs

Obama’s attack on intellectual property is evident in his aggressive stance against U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the budget. He would force drug companies to pay higher “rebate” fees to Medicaid, and he included wording that suggests Americans will soon be able to import drugs from foreign countries. The stock prices of drug companies, predictably, tanked when his budget plan was released.

Obama will allow cheap and potentially counterfeit substitutes into the country and will set the U.S. price for drugs equal to the lowest price that any foreign government is able to coerce from our drugmakers.

Given this, why would anyone invest money in a risky new cancer trial, or bother inventing some other new thing that the government could expropriate as soon as it decides to?

Finally, Obama has set aside $634 billion to establish a health-reform reserve fund, a major first step in creating a universal health-care system. If you want to have health care for everyone, you have to give it to many people for free. Once we start doing that, we will never stop, at least until the government runs out of money.

It’s clear that President Obama wants the best for our country. That makes it all the more puzzling that he would legislate like a Manchurian Candidate.

Oil -- Nature's Gift to Man

Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy

We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.

During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.

Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November.

Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.
Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts.

And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.

And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.

That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.

During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal." He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions. He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs.

Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.

Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated.

But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time.

It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.

Treasury Secretary Geithner -- Master of Disaster?

Tomorrow Secretary Geithner will release some details of the Big Bank “stress test”. How will the financial doctor measure the health of the banks with more than $100 billion in assets -- the ones required to get on the treadmill? Will Secretary Geithner disappoint the markets yet again? Hopefully not. But his previous appearance was disastrous.

If we're lucky, investor concern surrounding the banks will ease a lot after details of the Geithner stress test are revealed. However, no matter what he says, the idea of a single stress test for all our largest banks is a dumb idea. Moreover, it's likely he will introduce a new capital ratio to measure bank quality, and this is another dumb idea.

Why? First, the big banks are alreadyexamined and stress-tested by their on-site examiners-in-charge. These people are in a far better position to assess each bank’s unique characteristics and evaluate each bank's inherent risk. They are on the ground with the banks and able to know and learn far more than people conducting tests from high altitudes.

Second, there's plenty to question when it comes to the new ratio Geithner might adopt. It's probably a ratio of tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets (TCE/RWA). It seems Treasury has decided to look at TCE/RWA because spooked investors are determined to view banks in the worst possible light and are obsessed with the number. As general rule, it's a bad idea for investor anxiety to drive regulatory policy.

Regulators usually avoid pulling new measures out of the air. In the 1980s, the Fed, the OCC, and the FDIC each had their own capital ratios and minimums; it took years of analysis and debate among them to decide which measures were most important. (They were Tier 1, total capital, and leverage.) It doesn’t seem to be good regulatory practice to adopt a new during the current crisis.

Thus, there's little reason to put faith in the test or the new standard Treasury plans to use. Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts:

The economic assumptions -- the “stress” in the Geithner stress test will translate into an economic forecast that includes a 10% peak in unemployment rate, a 40% decline (peak-to-trough) in U.S home prices and a recession that lasts until late this year. These are the assumptions that surfaced in the New York Times yesterday. Surprise, surprise, they are also the parameters adopted by JPMorgan Chase for its in-house stress scenario.

Maximum cumulative loss assumptions by loan category over some period -- hopefully the government will adjust these cumulative loss assumptions by institution to account for factors such as loan geography, experience, underwriting practices, pricing, and so forth. If it doesn’t, the output of the test is apt to be arbitrary.

Maximum cumulative loss forecasts will then be measured against an institution’s existing loss reserves, pre-tax, pre-provision earnings, as well as various measures of capital.

Two capital ratios will become the focus. The resulting pro forma maximum income or loss over the test period will then be used to calculate estimated stressed Tier 1 capital and TCE/RWA ratios.

The moment of judgment. For a bank to pass, it will have to show pro forma, stressed ratios above certain minimums. Those minimums are likely to be 6% for Tier 1 capital and 3% for tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets.

The fate of those that fail. If an institution fails to meet either of those two minimums, it will have to raise new capital by some deadline, perhaps April 15. It might raise new equity in a secondary offering, for example. Or, the bank might convert its existing TARP convertible- preferred into mandatory convertible preferred at an exchange ratio based on the common’s price as of a certain date. That date will be important. It's possible it will be the date Geithner first discussed the plan -- when bank stock prices were higher.

If the capital hole still unfilled, the Treasury might require an investment of new capital via a newly issued mandatory convertible preferred with even more severe operating restrictions attached. Any institution requiring the issuance of new preferred on top of the existing preferred will have to replace its CEO.

This table shows the effect that conversion of existing TARP preferred into mandatory convertible preferred would have on 2008 year-end tangible book value per share and tangible common equity to risk-weighted asset ratios of 102 large-bank TARP recipients. Obviously, a full conversion at today’s prices would deeply dilute book value per share. But for most companies, conversion would provide a big cushion to absorb losses uncovered by the stress test.

Again, assuming full conversion of the TARP preferred for all 102 companies -- which will not happen -- this group of banks would see its ratio of tangible equity to risk-weighted assets ratio settle at an average of 10.3%. The group is correctly trading at 1.1 times pro forma book values.

There's reasons for skepticism. The stress test is likely to rely too much on cumulative loss forecasts by loan category and will likely be overgeneralized and too severe. However tomorrow’s disclosure of the test’s details should be good for bank stocks. Why? Because investors are likely to gain confidence in the capital strength of our largest banks and their capacity to weather the most severe credit storms.

We shall see. We shall see. Can the disappearing Treasury Secretary reappear and undo the damage of his last national presentation? Here's hoping there are no more disappointments.

Obama, the New Screaming Ray Nagin

It's becoming painfully clear that Obama depends on fear to get his way. It's his big stick, his lever. Telling citizens the end is near. That's his game and people are falling for it.

His attitude exudes contempt for Americans, as though Americans are such hapless fools they will believe him no matter how preposterous his claims. As though he's thundering away, terrorizing ignorant villagers about the evil that has taken root in the land and in the people and that the only path to safety and health involves an exorcism that will cost more than anyone understands. He's bamboozling as fast as he's able. The Great Bamboozler. Welcome to the O-conomy of Obama.


Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'

In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%.

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s.

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.

The Savings & Loan Crisis vs Today

In short, the Savings & Loan Crisis occurred because Congress took the worst possible path when deciding how to "help" the S&L industry. In fact, the nature of the S&L mistake was remarkably similar to the mistake made by Congress that led us to our current crisis.

The S&L Crisis was set off by the repeal of Regulation Q. Quick history. S&Ls were created during the Depression to assist homeowners. They were given a legal advantage over commercial banks in the area of mortgage origination. However, as a trade-off for the advantage in mortgage origination, the S&Ls were not allowed to offer commercial loans. Okay. That worked. The concept was good for a few decades.

However, in the 1970s the securities markets changed and the government took a place in the mortgage business -- Fannie and Freddie. The era of Securitization began in 1977. Wall Street was able to package Ginnie Mae mortgages and sell GNMA securities tied to those pools. Thus, the operating environment for S&Ls changed. The secondary market for mortgage loans was created. Thus, the bank or S&L that originated a mortgage was able to sell the loan to another party. Meanwhile, interest rates were rising and the S&Ls began losing money. The S&L industry was in tough shape.

The leaders of the S&L industry went to Congress for relief. They got it. In fact, they got what they wished for. During Jimmy Carter's administration, Congress repealed Regulation Q, which was the law that defined the differences between S&Ls and commercial banks. Suddenly S&Ls could offer the same loans as banks.

However, one barrier remained. It was not possible for banks to buy S&Ls. Big mistake. Suddenly S&Ls were in the commercial loan business competing with banks. At the same time, builders realized it was easy to gain control of an S&L and then get loans for any project imaginable.

Oil prices were rising and fueling a huge building boom in the oil states. Both residential and commercial properties were under construction. The S&Ls were lending to the oil drillers and the home-buyers. When oil prices cracked in 1983, the S&L real estate bubble popped. Things went downhill from there.

However, Congress could have handled things in a different way. It could have removed the obstacles that stopped banks from acquiring S&Ls. If banks had been able to buy them, the economy would have escaped most of the damage.

By the way, another key change that magnified problems was the increase in coverage offered by deposit insurance. Carter raised the coverage offered by the FDIC and the FSLIC to $100,000, up from $40,000. Unscrupulous S&L managements realized the amount of assets available to them for speculative lending activities was multiplied two and one-half times. They had won the S&L lottery.

In the current crisis similar mistakes were made. The worst mistake was opening the door to underwriting loans that were extended to people with lousy credit scores, no downpayment money and poor job prospects. Who opened the door? Congress. The first step was the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, another time-bomb from the Carter presidency.

If anyone chooses to review that process that got us where we are, the reviewer will see that all laws were met. The documents describing the various troubled securitizations were complete and drawn up as required by the SEC. Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poors rated the securities, which were then sold to institutional investors. But it seems nobody read the prospectuses and other documents. It seems that everyone put their faith in the ratings from the Rating Agencies. Bad move.

Meanwhile, no one from the Fed, the Treasury or the SEC took a close look at these securities or the markets to which they were tied. Why? Probably because billions of dollars of tax revenue was flowing into Washington as a result, and, at the same time, home-ownership was soaring. Who would tamper with that?

Geithner Drops an O-bomb

Tim Geithner shared his plan for rescuing the banking system. However, the plan he described was not a plan. Maybe it was an outline, and maybe it contained a few worthwhile ideas, but it was not a plan.

He's Obama's man at the Treasury. He's a big force in the new O-conomy. When he carries out Obama's wishes, he drops O-bombs on the O-conomy. This first one may be devastating.

Obama repeatedly hammered the concept of giving federal Stimulus money to "shovel-ready" projects. Obama told reporters Monday night that Geithner would deliver a plan that was ready to operate -- a "shovel-ready" plan, if Obama were to speak in consistent terms.

Instead, Geithner showed his timidity and his inability to tackle the chief issue forming the core of the banking recovery -- valuing the bad assets.

Geithner was petrified at the thought of the government "overpaying" for assets. He said it would take more time to develop a pricing model. After further comments, it was obvious he had no idea how to build his pricing model. He said he wanted input from everyone. Not good.

Obama has repeatedly insisted that acting now and acting fast is the only way to save the economy from catastrophe. But Geithner has shown that the people in the administration who must devise the plans are not capable, and perhaps not willing -- and rightly so -- to spit out a plan in the first weeks after the new administration has taken charge of the government.

It appears Obama is yelling most loudly at Geithner. But not directly. Obama is appearing in cities that have had more than their fair share of financial problems in the last couple of years. He's exhorting everyone to act fast to save our collective neck.

But Geithner offered some vague talk about a government/private partnership to acquire bad assets. After some reflection, it seems this plan is nothing more than a plan of creeping nationalization of the banks.

Meanwhile, the Stimulus Bill was passed. That seems to mean we have committed ourselves to spending $790 billion on a hodge-podge of projects and some tax cuts. The list of projects seem to include funding for every pet project of every politician. But it adds up to a vast expansion of government control over many industries.

Then there is Obama's messianic character. He has begun speaking as though he is delivering sermons from the mountaintop. We are in trouble.

Obama's Inaugural Address of Insults and Oversights

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

In the first of the two preceding statements he makes a false claim. The crisis wildly misunderstood by millions. There are too many who believe the US bears the blame and is at fault for angering muslims to the point that they took the step of killing Americans -- starting with Robert Kennedy in 1968. In the second sentence he fails to name the ideology that has declared its enemy status.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

What is the meaning of the preceding? Is he stating that Congress sent the nation down a slipper slope when it mandated issuing mortgages to people with poor credit ratings, questionable employment and virtually no money for downpayments?

Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

Again he communicates in non-sequiturs. But the one thing ties his list of troubling events and realities together: Money. People were borrowing more than they were able to repay; businesses were unable to pay the wages expected; some businesses saw their revenue disappear; the cost of every aspect of healthcare has continued to rise; our schools consume billions and billions of dollars while too many students learn remarkably little; and we spend far too much importing energy supplies that are available here.

Money links all of these problems. But the source of the trouble can be tracked to government intrusion. Worse for all of us is Obama's desire to lead the government as it intrudes further in free markets.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

He descended into fear mongering when he claims confidence is gone and America is on the way down, hoping, I suppose to draw fearful people to him, the leader expected to find the path out of the woods.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

The preceding feels as though it might have been taken from The Quest for the Holy Grail or The Lord of the Rings.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

Is this to suggest we will lock arms and march resolutely into the future sharing a common goal? He seems to be suggesting a horrifying degree of group-think and a complete sacrifice of the individual for the common good. Marxism, anyone?

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

If there is anything that demonstrates the inherent superiority of our democracy, it is the in-fighting. Meanwhile, it seems Obama prefers that we fight over major grievances, true promises, answer our accusers with confessions of guilt and adopt new dogmas, such as Global Warming.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

What does he mean when he says "we remain a young nation"? Does he mean we are an immature nation? Or does he mean the United States is a nation that has existed for a small number of years? Or does he mean America has an eternally youthful spirit? Who knows? Frankly, the United States, as a polity, has existed for more years than most today's nations. Many of the nations in the world today were born or reborn in the 20th Century.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

The preceding sentence insults America and its soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines for what it does not say. Obama seems to have no regard for the sacrifices of American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention of Fallujah, and no mention of fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the Afghani mountains, or of the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Was Obama recalling the moments of US military history that he believes show America's best intentions? If so, how could he skip World War I? The Korean War? There is no mention of the battle at the Chosin Reservoir or those who landed at Inchon. Not a word. Does the freedom, prosperity and advancement of South Korea that came after we stopped the communists at the 38th parallel trouble Obama?

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

He must have gotten tired. He slipped into writing a stream of cliches to fill the preceding paragraph. We will "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to...", yeah, phrasing as old as the Bible with some inspiration from Greek mythology.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.

With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Dead Batteries

Electric-carmakers need cash today, tax credits to spur sales next year and every year thereafter and battery technology that makes electric cars perform like gasoline-powered vehicles.

Obama says he wants to hit taxpayers on this issue. Tax credits and other subsidies are part of his plan. Immediate cash is another matter. If GM, Ford and Chrysler are to get little from the Economic Stimulus plans whipped around these days, it's tough to cut makers of electric cars a slice of the pie.

Then there is the chief question: Why would someone buy a $40,000 Chevy Volt when a a dozen cars with internal-combustion engines sell for less than half the price?

Electric cars are not simple alternatives to gasoline-powered cars. If equivalent electric and internal-combustion models were available for roughly the same price, a real market would develop. But we are years from that point. Today, electric vehicles offer only a psychological advantage that matters to some people. But most car buyers do not care.

Who would pay $40,000 for a car with limited operating capabilities when lots of great all-around gasoline-powered vehicles are available for half as much? Furthermore, if the government pushes the public to accept electric vehicles, the prices of gasoline-powered cars will ease down, making them a better deal for anyone who considers the long-term cost of ownership.

There are 250 million internal-combustion vehicles registered in the US today. Consumers love their cars and they are not ready to switch to vehicles offering less for more money. Would more than a handful spend larger sums than they've ever spent on a car if the new high-priced model requires a lot of behavior modification to accomodate its limitations? No.

Personal computers stayed mainly in the hands of hobbyists, engineers, scientists and technology lovers until better software made them useful to millions of buyers. The Graphical User Interface did the trick. But the biggest accelerant was the Internet, a thing apart from the computers themselves.

Is there a similar advance ahead for electric vehicles? No. But if there were, it would appear as a battery that held a charge equal to the energy found in a tank of gas.

Or, perhaps, like gasoline, a universal battery pack might emerge. Every car can accept gas from any gas station in the country. Possibly the electric carmakers can create a universal battery pack that can be stocked at Recharging Stations and switched in minutes. Pull out the discharged pack, and drop in a fresh one. An operation that can be completed in a minute or two. But that means pricing the service for more than the cost of plugging in the car at home.

On the other hand, for anyone who barbeques on a gas grill, the consumer behavior is already in place. When the propane tank on the grill is empty, the barbeque chef takes the empty tank to Home Depot and exchanges it for a full one. Unfortunately, I doubt this idea will fly. That means we need batteries that hold a lot of energy. But those batteries are decades away from reality. In fact, given our understanding of chemistry and physics, we may never see batteries capable of powering electric vehicles like their internal-combustion alternatives.


Electric-Car Makers Struggle

Companies Face Similar Problems as Detroit Auto Makers -- And Some Others

The heads of the struggling Detroit auto makers aren't the only car makers looking for help from Washington. The electric vehicle industry has its hands out, too.

If anything, representatives of the electric and electrified vehicle business jumped ahead of the "legacy" auto industry in the transportation bailout queue that formed in the nation's capital last week.

The Future of Electric Vehicles

The electric-vehicle industry positions itself as the future of personal transportation. President-elect Barack Obama is now the industry's highest ranking advocate. He's said he wants to see one million plug-in vehicles by 2015, as part of his broader goal to end U.S. dependence on Mideast oil.


The credit crunch and the economic slump are slamming the crop of electric-vehicle companies that sprung up in recent years, fueled in part by Silicon Valley venture-capital money.

Tesla Motors LLC, once the darling of the green car movement, is now scrambling to stay afloat and is asking for a $400 million loan from the same $25 billion federal Energy Department program that Detroit's car makers are looking to tap in their own fight for survival.

Tesla is now taking some flak for seeking handouts from taxpayers, most of whom could never afford its current product, a racy electric sports car that starts at more than $100,000. Detroit's chiefs might say: Welcome to our world.

The electric-vehicle industry's need for government assistance doesn't stop with subsidized loans. Mr. Wynne says the government's existing tax credits for purchases of electrified vehicles – meaning all-electric and gas-electric hybrids – should be expanded. Currently the credits, which range from $2,500 for a plug-in hybrid vehicle with a four kilowatt per hour battery pack to as much as $7,500 for an electric vehicle weighing under 10,000 pounds.

The U.S. should also do more to promote development of advanced vehicle batteries. After access to capital, batteries are one of the biggest anxieties among U.S.-based electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturers – from the Detroit Three down to the smallest Silicon Valley EV upstart. Right now, there's no company producing advanced automotive batteries suitable for electric vehicles or hybrids in the U.S.

To the extent that such batteries are made in volume anywhere, it's in Japan, Korea or elsewhere in Asia.

Finally, U.S. electric-vehicle makers are hoping that the government can be not just the financier of last resort, but also a customer. "The federal government owns 600,000 vehicles," Mr. Wynne says. The government should be a buyer for electric vehicles – not just cars, but commercial vehicles.


Established auto makers, including Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Nissan Motor Co., all are talking about plans to field significant numbers of partially electric or fully electric vehicles over the next several years.

Not so long ago, the electric-vehicle industry's moment seemed to have arrived, after nearly a century of frustration and failure. Soaring oil prices, technology advances and the enthusiasm of deep pocketed investors appeared to be coming together to overcome the obstacles that have relegated electric vehicles to the auto market's sidelines since the days of Thomas Edison.

Now, oil prices have crashed, clouding the economic case for switching to expensive battery-boosted cars.

Affirmative Action Lending

Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign

WASHINGTON (AP) – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

McCain, R-Ariz., was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter and three weeks later signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

By the time McCain did so, however, DCI's effort had gone on for nine months and was on its way toward killing the bill.

In recent days, McCain has said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire" of the global credit crisis. McCain has accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of taking advice from former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and failing to see that the companies were heading for a meltdown.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000. In December, Freddie Mac contributed $250,000 to last month's GOP convention.

Obama has received $120,349 in political donations from employees of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; McCain $21,550.

The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.

Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.

They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.

Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.

"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.

Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."

"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."

Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

McConnell's office said members of leadership do not sign letters to the leader. McConnell was majority whip at the time.

Eight of the targeted senators did sign it: Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, George Voinovich of Ohio and David Vitter of Louisiana. Santorum, Crapo and Bunning were on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and had voted in favor of sending the bill to the full Senate.

On Thursday, Freddie Mac acknowledged that the company "did retain DCI to provide public affairs support at the state and local level." On Friday, DCI issued a four-sentence statement saying it complied with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations in representing Freddie Mac. Neither Freddie Mac nor DCI would say how much Goodyear's consulting firm was paid.

Freddie Mac paid DCI $10,000 a month for each of the targeted states, so the more states, the more money for DCI, according to the three people familiar with the program. In addition, Freddie Mac paid DCI a group retainer of $40,000 a month plus $20,000 a month for each regional manager handling the project, the three people said.

Last month, the concerns of the 26 Republican senators who signed Hagel's bill became a reality when the government seized control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae amid their near financial collapse. Federal prosecutors are investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at both companies, which own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages, roughly equivalent to half of the national debt.

Freddie Mac was so pleased with DCI's work that it retained the firm for other jobs, finally cutting DCI loose last month after the government takeover, according to the three people familiar with the situation.

Freddie Mac's problems began when Hagel's legislation won approval from the Senate committee.

Democrats did not like the harshest provision, which would have given a new regulator a mandate to shrink Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by forcing them to sell off part of their portfolios. That approach, the Democrats feared, would cut into the ability of low- and moderate-income families to buy houses.

The political backdrop to the debate "was like bizarre-o-world," said the second of three people familiar with the program. "The Republicans were pro-regulation and the Democrats were against it; it was upside down."

Sen. Richard Shelby, the committee chairman at the time, underscored that in a statement Wednesday, saying that with Democrats already on their side, it was not surprising that Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae went after Republicans. "Unfortunately," said Shelby, R-Ala., "efforts then to derail reform were successful."

In a sign of bad things to come, Freddie Mac was already having serious problems in 2005. Auditors had exposed massive accounting issues, so improved regulation was one obvious remedy.

Once Freddie Mac's in-house lobbyists failed to keep Hagel's bill bottled up in the committee, McLoughlin responded by secretly hiring DCI.

DCI never filed lobbying reports with Congress about what it was doing because the firm was relying on a long-recognized gap in the disclosure law.

Federal lobbying law only requires reporting and registration when there are contacts with a legislator or staff.

"To have it stealthy, not to let people know who is behind this, in my opinion is unethical," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University who long has taught courses about lobbying.

Goodyear is a longtime political consultant from Arizona who resigned from the Republican convention job this year after Newsweek magazine revealed he had lobbied for the repressive military junta of Myanmar.

McLoughlin, Freddie Mac's senior vice president for external relations, was assistant treasury secretary from 1989 through 1992 in the administration of President Bush's father. McLoughlin served as chief of staff to Sen. Nicholas Brady, R-N.J., in 1982 and to Rep. Millicent Fenwick, R-N.J., from 1975-79.

Seven of the 17 targeted Republican senators were in the midst of re-election campaigns in 2006, and according to one of the three people familiar with the program, Freddie Mac and DCI hoped those facing tough races would tell their Republican colleagues back in Washington that "we've got enough trouble; you're making it worse with Hagel's bill."

Five of the seven DCI targets who ran for re-election in 2006 lost, and Senate control switched to the Democrats.

A Freddie Mac e-mail on May 4, 2006 — the day before Hagel's letter — details the behind-the-scenes effort that Freddie Mac and DCI generated to hold down the number of Republicans signing Hagel's letter urging a full Senate vote. It said:

"What I'm asking is that DCI get a few of their key well-connected constituents from each state to call in to the DC office of their Republican senators and speak to the (legislative director) or (chief of staff) and urge them not to sign the letter. The following could be used as a short script."

The proposed script read: "We can all agree that Fannie's and Freddie's regulator should be strengthened but unfortunately, S.190 goes too far and could potentially have damaging effects on Georgia's — example — home buyers."

According to the third of the three people familiar with the program, "DCI was asked to help keep senators from signing; it was a big part of their effort that year and it was viewed as a success since many DCI targets did not sign the letter."

DCI's progress after the first four months of the campaign was spelled out in a 19-page document dated Dec. 12, 2005, and titled, "Freddie Mac Field Program State by State Summary Report."

A snippet of a senator-by-senator breakdown of the efforts says this about Maine's Snowe:

"Philip Harriman, former state senator, co-chair of Snowe's 2006 campaign, personal Snowe friend, major GOP donor and investment adviser, has written the senator a personal letter on this issue. Dick Morin, vice president Maine Association of Mortgage Brokers, has been in direct contact with Sen. Snowe's committee staff, has sent a letter to Snowe, and is pursuing a dozen(s) of letters from his members."

On Wednesday, Snowe's office issued a statement saying that she "literally gets hundreds of 'Dear Colleague' letters seeking support for their positions that she does not sign. Had this legislation come up for a vote in 2006, she certainly would have considered it on its merits — as she does every vote. Just last July, she voted for the housing bill that established a new, stronger regulator."

Rosario Marin, a staunch McCain supporter who spoke at the GOP convention in September, was among the people DCI used in carrying out the campaign.

Marin, the U.S. treasurer during the first term of the Bush administration, went to Missouri and to Montana, Burns' state, where she spoke out against Hagel's bill.

At the time, Burns, who ended up losing his re-election bid, was caught up in a Washington influence peddling scandal centering on disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Marin's visit triggered a local newspaper story in which the reporter contacted Burns' staff for comment. Burns' office told the newspaper the senator was not supportive of the latest version of Hagel's bill.

On Wednesday, Marin, now state consumer services secretary in California, issued a statement confirming that her trips to Missouri and Montana were in her capacity as a DCI consultant.

The December 2005 summary listing 17 Republican targets outlines the inroads DCI was making.

"On day one" of the effort, Sen. George Allen of Virginia had not addressed Hagel's bill and his legislative aide for housing was not assigned to it, the report said.

"Today," the report added, "the senator is aware of the issue and ... at the moment he is undecided." Allen's deputy chief of staff "has said that the senator will take into consideration before he decides that Freddie Mac is located in Virginia and is one of the largest Virginia employers."

"Grasstops/opinion leaders James Todd, president, the Peterson Companies wrote to both senators," the report added. "Milt Peterson, the founder and CEO of the company is one of Allen's major donors."

In the end, Allen, who lost his bid for re-election in 2006, did not sign Hagel's letter.