Enrollees in Insurance Exchanges Under the Affordable Health Care

These plans are based on your age and area you live in and only give basic medical coverage for you and your famliy. Each State will be in charge of administering these plans and making the decision of what coverage you will receive depending on the plan. One of the biggest problems today with private insurance plans is that every state offers and charges different rates. For example, in the state of California, based on my age of 46 our family pays just over $1,000 per month, which includes vision, and dental that cost about $100.00 per month. Now, if I take that same plan and go to Arizona with the same Insurance company which doesn't base there coverage on age but just the number of persons in your family the cost would be $340.00 including vision and dental. What we really need to do is open up the states and force real competition for coverage. That will save us 1.5 trillion dollars.

Subsidies and Payments at Different Income Levels Under H.R. 3962 The enclosed table focuses on enrollees who purchase a “reference” plan (the premiums forwhich equal the average of the three lowest-cost “basic” plans, as defined in the bill), becausefederal subsidies would be tied to that average. Such a plan would have an actuarial value of 70 percent, which represents the average share of costs for covered benefits that would be paid by the plan. Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan—about $5,300 for singlepolicies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016. Enrollees could purchase a moreexpensive plan or more extensive coverage for an additional, unsubsidized premium—and CBO anticipates that many enrollees would do that, so the average premiums actually paid in the exchanges would be higher (although average cost-sharing amounts could be lower than those shown in the table). The figures are presented for 2016 in order to illustrate the likely situation after the proposed changes in insurance markets were fully implemented. (A downside of that approach is that the figures are harder to compare with those observed in 2009

Obama's Democrats face defeat on three fronts

WASHINGTON: Defeat in governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey and a contest for a vacant House of Representatives seat in New York would deliver a major setback to President Barack Obama.

A rejection of Democrats in all three contests, to be held today, would be embarrassing for Mr Obama because he has invested a large amount of time campaigning extensively in the two governor races. The events come almost a year to the day since Mr Obama's win.

Mr Obama took Air Force One to New Jersey on Sunday to appear at a rally for the embattled incumbent Governor, Jon Corzine, a former Wall Street executive who has poured an estimated $US30 million ($33.1 million) of his own fortune into the fight.

Polls indicate that Mr Corzine is running neck and neck with his Republican challenger, Chris Christie. A Republican has not won a statewide election in 12 years in New Jersey.

In Virginia, Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate, is holding a double-digit lead over Creigh Deeds, the Democrat. Mr Obama won Virginia last year and helped register so many new Democratic voters that the party hoped it could hold on to the state for a decade or more.

Some Republicans are also backing Doug Hoffman, a hardliner running under the Conservative Party banner, in New York's 23rd District.

Once in Congress, he would take the Republican whip, and he has now been embraced by the party establishment.

In the aftermath of his inauguration in January, Mr Obama's approval rating soared to 70 per cent. Early on, he tested Americans' faith by diving headlong into controversial programs to rescue the economy, including bailing out sinking US car manufacturers and unveiling a $US787 billion stimulus plan.

In July, his popularity dipped below that of predecessor George W. Bush in the same period of his first term.

Since mid-October, it has hovered just above 50 per cent, a ''significant drop'' from his earlier numbers, according to Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll.

''In general, this puts Obama's current ratings slightly below average for all US presidents since World War II,'' he said.

A year after declaring that ''change has come to America'' in Chicago's Grant Park, Mr Obama has begun peppering his speeches with phrases like ''change is hard'', ''change isn't supposed to be easy'' and ''change doesn't happen overnight''.

Democrats are cautioning against reading too much into the results, saying that newly elected parties often suffer a backlash in elections one year into their term.

Republicans hope that economic discontent, which could become even more acute should unemployment top 10 per cent, and an Obama defeat on health care, could lead to large gains in next year's midterm congressional elections.
Telegraph, London;Agence France-Presse

Business Bankruptcy Filings Increased 7% in October

(WSJ)Business bankruptcy filings jumped in October, reversing two consecutive months of declining commercial filings and indicating that bankruptcies could continue to rise as the economy struggles to stabilize.
Last month, 7,771 businesses filed for bankruptcy protection, compared to 7,271 that sought shelter from creditors in September, according to new data from Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, or AACER, a private firm that tracks bankruptcy filings.
After two months of decline, the 7% rise in commercial filings shows that businesses are still struggling to access financing and are facing weak demand for their products.
"The margin for success is so thin that any financial hiccup" could cause a business to file for bankruptcy, said Jack Williams, a bankruptcy professor at the Georgia State University College of Law.
The tight credit markets since 2008 "will only be exacerbated" with small-business lender CIT Group Inc.'s (CIT) Chapter 11 filing Sunday, he said.
The hardest-hit industries continue to be real estate and retail, but weakness in those sectors trickles down to a number of other areas, including home building and manufacturing, Mr. Williams said.
On a year-to-year basis, business bankruptcies shot up 24% in October compared with the same month in 2008. Mr. Williams called that increase "substantial" and said it is a bad omen for the final months of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010.
"Bankruptcy filings are a lagging economic indicator so it's likely that we'll see bankruptcy filings increase for the next several quarters," he said.
The first part of 2010 could bring another rash of retail-related filings as disappointing holiday sales may lead shops to seek protection from creditors, Mr. Williams said.
Through the first 10 months of the year, 74,832 businesses filed for bankruptcy, a 16% increase from the same period last year.
The total number of October bankruptcies, including both personal and commercial filings, increased 20% from the same month last year. The number of filings last month, 130,199, is the most total filings since March, and the second-highest figure recorded since the beginning of 2006.

Cit Group $2.3 billion Tarp loan lost to bankruptcy

CIT group, America’s leading specialist lender to small business, filed for Chapter 11 late last night in the fifth biggest bankruptcy in US history.
The collapse of the 101-year-old Utah-based lender, which trails behind only those of Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Worldcom and General Motors in size, will leave US taxpayers with a $2.3 billion (£1.4 billion) bill.
It is believed the board of the lender, which has $71 billion of loans, approved the filing after its creditors agreed a pre-packaged plan designed to ensure it emerges from bankruptcy with the core of its business intact.
Only last year, US financial regulators judged CIT sufficiently well-capitalised to survive. While the lender was given access to $2.3 billion of funding under the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp), the Obama administration refused the bank’s subsequent pleas to give it further cash injections.
The bank’s collapse will be a blow for its million small and medium-sized customers, many in the retail sector, for whom sources of debt are scarce. Experts believe that, even if CIT can emerge intact from Chapter 11, its lending capacity could fall by 20 per cent.
The entire $2.3 billion Tarp loan is expected to be wiped out by the bankruptcy process, but the bill could have been signficantly bigger. While the US Government helped other big non-bank lenders, including GMAC, General Motor’s finance arm, it rebuffed CIT’s subsequent bailout requests in July, concluding that its demise would not threaten the broad financial system.
CIT narrowly avoided bankruptcy in the summer, but its troubles have since been exacerbated by customers who, fearing that the bank is about to go out of business, have been drawing down on credit lines, using up its remaining cash.
On Friday, the company ended a fight with Carl Ichan, the billionaire activist investor, who had previously wanted to push CIT into liquidation. Mr Icahn instead agreed to back the prepackaged bankruptcy plan and in return has been allowed to provide the company with a lucrative $1 billion loan that will help to fund it through Chapter 11. SEC filings also show that last week the company secured important agreements to aid the plan, obtaining another $4.5 billion loan from investors.
Crucially the bank also hammered out an agreement with Goldman Sachs to preserve its bank funding throughout the bankruptcy process. The investment bank will pocket a $285 million termination fee for the restructured deal, which will see CIT’s credit facility cut from $3 billion to £2.13 billion.
However, under the original deal, which was sealed in 2008, Goldman would have been entitled to an automatic $1 billion termination fee when CIT entered bankruptcy. The deal will see the unsecured bondholders cut the company’s debts by 30 per cent and in return receive shares in CIT.
Preferred shareholders, including the US Treasury, which received preference shares in return for the Tarp bailout money, will be repaid only if there is money left over after paying the bondholders; ordinary shareholders will be automatically wiped out.
In a statement the company said: "None of CIT's operating subsidiaries, including CIT Bank, will be included in the filings. As a result, all operating entities are expected to continue normal operations during the pendency of the cases."

Ford surprises with $1B profit;without goverment Intervention

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Ford, the only Detroit automaker to dodge direct government aid and bankruptcy court, surprised investors with net income of nearly $1 billion in the third quarter and forecast a "solidly profitable" 2011.
The automaker said Monday earnings were fueled by U.S. market share gains, from cost cuts. Ford's shares rose 68 cents, or 9.8 percent, to $7.68 in morning trading.
The latest results signal that Ford's turnaround is on more solid ground. The company lost more than $14.6 billion last year and hasn't posted a full-year profit since 2005. While it made a profit in the second quarter, that was mainly due to debt reductions that cut its interest payments.
Ford, based in Dearborn, Mich., reported third-quarter net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share. Its profit forecast for 2011 was a step above previous guidance of break-even or better for the year.
Ford's key North American car and truck division posted a pretax profit of $357 million, the division's first quarter in the black since early 2005. Ford cited higher pricing, lower material costs and increased market share for the improvement.
Excluding one-time items, Ford earned 26 cents per share, blowing away analysts' expectations of a loss of 12 cents.
The earnings came despite an $800 million revenue drop. But Ford said it cut costs by $1 billion during the quarter, accomplished through layoffs in North America and Europe, reduced pension and retiree health care costs and improvements in productivity and product development.
Chief financial officer Lewis Booth said the company took in $1.3 billion more than it spent in the quarter, an improvement over its $1 billion cash burn in the second quarter.
"That's a huge deal," Booth said.
Ford's plan to create demand and get better prices for its products, coupled with cost cuts, gave the company confidence that it will make money in 2011, Booth said.
But Ford still faces obstacles in its turnaround. Last week, workers overwhelmingly rejected an agreement with the United Auto Workers that would have brought Ford's labor costs in line with rivals General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Workers objected to clauses limiting their right to strike and freezing entry-level wages, and felt the company was healthy enough and didn't need further concessions.
The rejected deal also would have changed rules so skilled tradesmen such as electricians and pipefitters work in teams and perform more than one task.
Rejection of the deal isn't likely to place Ford at an immediate cost disadvantage to its crosstown rivals because savings from the concessions are longer-term, said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Neither the company nor the UAW has released any cost savings numbers.
The third-quarter profit makes it extremely unlikely that the company will push to head back to the bargaining table before the current UAW contract expires in the fall of 2011, and union leaders also are unlikely to take another deal to the membership, Chaison said.
"I think the company has no credibility asking for concessions now, and I think the leadership is quite embarrased for making a case for concessions," he said.
Chaison said Ford could make some noise about moving new vehicle production to Canada, where unionized workers on Sunday approved a package of concessions, but it's more likely that Ford will live with the current contract until 2011.
The other area where Ford has a cost disadvantage is debt. Ford reported $26.9 billion in debt, up $800 million from the second quarter.
The company avoided the same fate as rivals Chrysler and GM by mortgaging its factories and even the familiar blue oval logo to borrow $23.5 billion before credit markets froze last year.
Ford didn't quantify the impact of Cash for Clunkers, which offered buyers rebates to trade in their vehicles. The program helped Ford cut costly incentives and raise production.
It also won buyers; the fuel-efficient Ford Focus sedan and Ford Escape, a small SUV, were among the top five sellers under clunkers. Ford sales climbed 17 percent in August thanks to the program.
Ford's revenue fell $800 million for the quarter, to $30.9 billion, due mainly to its financial services arm, Ford Motor Credit, making fewer loans.
But the division still posted a pretax profit of $677 million, and revenue from auto operations rose slightly to $27.9 billion.
Ford also has benefited from consumer goodwill after it declined government bailout money and didn't go into bankruptcy over the summer as GM and Chrysler did. Ford grabbed sales from its rivals, posting the largest increase in market share of any automaker in September. Ford expects an overall gain in U.S. market share in 2009, a feat it hasn't accomplished since 1995.
(This version CORRECTS 5th graf that Ford's North American car and truck division posted the first pretax profit since the first quarter of 2005 sted company's first pretax profit since first quarter of 2005)
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

56% Say U.S. Government Policies Encourage Illegal Immigration

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Rasmussen Poll
U.S. voters want aggressive action to restrict illegal immigration, but they don’t think immigrants should bear the brunt of the enforcement efforts on their own. Most say the federal government and those hiring illegal immigrants also need to be brought into the discussion.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% say the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally. Only 27% disagree, and 17% are not sure.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly believe that federal policies encourage illegal immigration. Thirty-two percent (32%) of Democrats agree, but 41% do not.
The view that the federal government is enticing people to violate the law is consistent with earlier surveys. Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government. Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants.
Voters want the laws of the land enforced but not just against illegal immigrants.
The new survey finds that 64% believe law enforcement officers should sometimes conduct surprise raids at places where immigrants gather to find work. An even larger number (71%) say those who do the hiring also should be arrested.
Earlier surveys have shown that voters overwhelmingly believe that those who employ illegal immigrants should be punished.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has aggressively enforced laws against illegal immigration including raids of places where illegal immigrants gather to seek work. He is viewed favorably by 68% of Arizona voters, making him one of the state’s most popular political figures. Most in the state say the tough sheriff has been good for the state’s image.
However, Arpaio's activities have drawn greater scrutiny under the Obama administration. His department is now being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department for alleged racial profiling in its street sweeps for illegal immigrants. Similar profiling concerns have prompted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to limit Arpaio's ability to arrest suspected illegal immigrants under federal law. His officers will still be allowed to check the immigration status of people brought into their jail on other charges but will no longer be able to conduct street patrols specifically looking for illegal immigrants.
Only 33% of voters nationwide want the federal government to place such restrictions on local law enforcement officers. Forty-six percent (46%) do not while 21% are not sure. Part of the resistance is likely due to the fact that voters are skeptical of the federal government’s enforcement efforts. In fact, 74% say the government is not doing enough to secure the borders.
But 61% are at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.
On immigration, there has consistently been a large gap between Mainstream America and the Political Class. The biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities.
Almost always in Washington, the debate begins with a focus on how to address the status of illegal immigrants already in the country. To voters, that is a secondary concern. Controlling the borders is their top concern. That hasn’t changes since the 2006 immigration legislation collapsed when the U.S. Senate surrendered to public opinion. During that debate, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% believed illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.
What is often lost in the debate over immigration reform is that once the borders are controlled, most Americans favor a welcoming immigration policy provided it is done within the law. Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of such a policy. Overall, by a 55% to 27% margin, Americans favor a policy goal that would welcome everyone except criminals, national security threats and welfare dependants.

Hillary Clinton More Popular President Obama

These results are based on an Oct. 1-4 Gallup survey
by Jeffrey M. Jones

Princeton,NJ --Hillary Clinton Now More Popular Than Barack Obama Secretary of state viewed favorably by 62% of Americans, president by 56%. Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, but in one respect she now ranks ahead of Obama. The president's current favorable rating of 56% is down 22 percentage points since January. Over the same time span, Clinton's favorable rating has changed little, and now, at 62%, it exceeds Obama's.

"Clinton's current favorable rating ranks among her best in the 17 years Gallup has polled Americans about her."The change in the relative popularity of Clinton and Obama since January may reflect the realities of their new roles. Obama came into office as president with a 78% favorable rating, among the highest Gallup has measured since it began tracking favorability in 1992. But after nearly nine months in office in which he has made or confronted difficult decisions -- ranging from the economic stimulus package, to the auto industry bailout, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to health insurance reform, Obama's support has declined. His favorable rating now stands at 56%, and has fallen 10 points just since the last reading, in July.

The 56% favorable rating for Obama is his lowest since late 2007, when he had a 53% favorable rating, but at that time, 13% of Americans did not have an opinion of him. The current 40% unfavorable rating for Obama is his highest, and thus his most negative such rating to date.

Clinton's current favorable rating ranks among her best in the 17 years Gallup has polled Americans about her. Her highest favorable rating of 67% came in late December 1998, just after her husband, President Bill Clinton, was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Partisan Views of Clinton and Obama

Republicans' more positive views of Clinton relative to Obama mark a reversal since January, when Republican ratings of Obama (60%) were much more positive than those of Clinton (35%). Thus, Obama's favorable rating has declined 41 points among Republicans since January, while Clinton's has not moved at all.

2009 Noble Pease Prize Winner for doing nothing

BARACK OBAMA for his extraordinary efforts of using the Phrase "CHANGE" with Words of Hope and Inspiration, Apologizing to all of those around the world willing to listen to this great communicator. For talking to our enemies without any preconditions, for having the bloodiest 2009 year ever in the afghan war exceeding 300 deaths for 2009 due to the change in policy in January 2009 which was due to the obama administration caring more about Taliban so called civilian casualties in recent months, by ordering a change in tactics, including scaling back the use of air strikes and artillery fire, as well as requiring soldiers to exercise more caution when driving on Afghan roads. Giving America this great stimulus bill and not caring about the 30 million people out of work (9.8% unemployment), only focused on adding more taxes by giving the American people and illegal aliens government run Health Care and so much more.....

Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.
East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

Obama's Automotive Task Force

This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straights and federal government graciously offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM.

The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar- literally, that's what his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.

Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler had made this list of dealerships. That is not true. The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox New and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other then Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens. Remember earlier we said earlier that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down. Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government 788 had donated money, exclusively, to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you?

Steve Rattner, the guy who put the list together. Well he happens to be married to a babe named Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she would have access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation, Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky coincidence, we're certain.

Then comes another really wacky coincidence. On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happed in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one- while all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus, by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing? Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organization, this isn't being made up.

Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are truly mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Worker's union- Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry.

As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs, just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in your /our back yard. There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation on this.

Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Car Czar No More

An amazing thing happed as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York . Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation. And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation- that's ridiculous! Like CBS said, this guy just wants to spend more quality time with his family. Obama has thirty-two personally appointed "czars" that answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills," as Tim Geithner likes to say.

Provided by True Facts reader