Now we just have to wait to see what the Senate has to offer.

If you recall, the “Cash for Clunkers” program was still being offered by the government, giving people up to $4500 for their “clunker” if they traded it in toward the purchase of a qualifying vehicle. My car did not qualify for the program even though it was ten years old. This was something I knew up front and was not a motivational factor in my hunt for a new car.

I found the model car that I was looking for online advertised for $19,000 (a price significantly lower than all other advertisers) at a dealership 50 miles away from my home. For the discount, it was worth the time and distance to drive up there to buy the car. After an hour at the dealership, the salesperson and I sat down to do the paperwork to complete the purchase. I was surprised when I started seeing numbers much higher being written down on the paperwork, so I stopped the sales person and asked him where he was getting the figures.

Turned out that the advertised price assumed the Cash for Clunkers-eligible car was being traded in, even though it was not noted in the online advertisement. Needless to say, I didn’t purchase the car and drove away very frustrated and disappointed. Too bad my story doesn’t end there.

Two days after my experience with the car dealership, my car was involved in an accident a repair shop. As the mechanic was driving the car into the service bay, the car struck another vehicle. Fortunately it was a low-speed impact and nobody was hurt. Unfortunately, this was the start of a month-long headache since three separate insurance companies worked with each other to identify who was at fault and how it would be remedied.

In my state, you are required to have insurance on your car or pay a set fee for your uninsured vehicle (a requirement similar to the proposed health care insurance policy in the House Health Care Reform bill). I have carried the same insurance provider for the past two decades, and have been quite satisfied with the service they provide. While the hassle of trying to resolve the liability and costs associated with my car following the accident was frustrating, the insurance provider did explain the procedures and terms associated with my claims in this incident.

Most people who try to find an insurance provider will seek out cheap full coverage car insurance first, hoping to get the most bang for their buck. This is a good practice if only to create a baseline to compare quotes from various insurance providers. I went through this practice before settling on my current provider. And while they are not the cheapest, they are competitive compared to some of the other national insurers. I think the added costs of my plan helped with the “relatively” quick conclusion of my claim.

Though my adventure didn’t unfold the way that I thought, it did create a story that I will remember and retell for many years to come. It also reinforces two rules in life. First of all, if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Secondly, you get what you pay for. This applies even to things like the Health Care Reform proposals.

We are being told that the House plan would provide near universal coverage for all while saving the taxpayers money. I just have a difficult time accepting that Congress, who has yet to resolve the shortfalls of the existing Medicare program and Social Security, can establish a new Federal program that lowers cost. Just as when you search for an insurance policy, or as when you are given bad news by your doctor, I think we need to search out another option before we assume a new entitlement program that we cannot afford, or at least, get the most bang for our buck.

In Virginia, we are watching a rematch between Bob McDonnell (Republican) and Creigh Deeds (Democrat). In 2005, these two candidates ran against each other for the position of Attorney General, with McDonnell winning the election by 360 votes, or by just 0.02%. When Deeds won the nomination for the Democratic Party earlier in 2009, it was assumed that the wave of Democratic support in Virginia when it voted for Obama in 2008 would catapult Deeds to victory in 2009. In 2009, however, it is a whole new race.

McDonnell already had an effective image campaign and message in place while Deeds was still fighting against Moran and McAuliffe for the Democratic nomination, putting Deeds behind in the media. Then, McDonnell’s college thesis rose to the surface and dominated the public debate, with Deeds riding a wave of support and capitalizing on the controversy. It looked like that Deeds was once again in the drivers seat and become the third Democratic candidate to be elected as Governor.

In New Jersey, there is a different type of battle brewing. Embattled Governor Jon Corzine (Democrat) is competing against Christopher Christie (Republican) and Christopher Daggett (Independent) for the states’ top position. In 2005, Corzine was elected to Governor with 54% of the vote, taking over for Richard Codey (Democrat) - who was acting governor following the resignation of James McGreevey (Democrat) in 2004. Looking to repair the image of Democratic Party, Corzine sought out to stem the tax rates and corruption in the state, only to be caught up in scandal after scandal. This created an environment favorable to the competition.

Chris Christie won the Republican nomination by 55% by running on his experience and success as the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. He joined a campaign race that already included Independent Chris Daggett. Daggett, a partner at an investment firm, was seen as a non-player in the race with Christie taking an early lead in the race over the summer. As the race heated up in September with Christie and Corzine taking sharper tones towards each other, and questions over accusations of abuse of power towards Democrats by Christie as a U.S. Attorney, Christie’s lead in the polls started to slip with Daggett being the beneficiary. Some of those gains by Daggett has slipped, however, following the exposure of calls by the Democratic party encouraging Republican voters to vote for Daggett, and renewed questions on if Daggett is actually a Democratic plant in the race.

I think the “easy” election to call at the moment will be the race in Virginia. Obama won in 2008 on a strong Democratic showing, especially with a strong showing by black voters. With projections of black turnout at the polls to decrease by 10-15%, and with McDonnell gaining more black supporters in the polls compared to John McCain a year earlier, the odds are stacked up against Deeds on Tuesday. Many polls over the past week show McDonnell with at least a 10% lead.

New Jersey is a harder race to call. To me, it is still surprising that Corzine has maintained a minimum of 40% support throughout much of the race according to the polls. Though Christie topped out around 53% in July, the increasing popularity of Daggett threatens to cost Christie the win. Polls over the weekend show Daggett bringing in 10% of the vote, turning the race between Christie and Corzine into a dead heat. If I were a betting man, I would say that Christie wins the election following a recount, especially since the weather will be favorable to voters. If the weather was bad, I would feel more confident about picking Christie to win.

So what does a double-victory by the Republicans on Tuesday mean? Really, not too much on the national level other than creating a 50/50 split in state control by Party. The greatest impact will be the increase in Republican campaign donations as the party seeks a positive sign for hope in the mid-term elections next year. Sure pundits will question the effectiveness of Obama’s Administration as well as the publics’ opinion of his policies to date, but as the races tomorrow show, all politics are local.

In this ad, Deeds is proposing his “Virginia Forward Scholarship Plan.”  This plan is designed to pay half of the tuition for in-state students if they graduated high school with a “B” average or better.  While this sounds like a good deal, I questioned the campaign and asked them how it will be funded.  I was directed to their website where they discuss the plan.  The website states:

To pay for the program, Creigh will initiate a full, comprehensive review of all state surplus sales, including state land and personal property and equipment, and sell whatever is not needed to support essential state operations. Each year, Virginia sells in excess of $10 million in state owned land and buildings, plus millions more in surplus equipment. A full review will generate approximately $28 million in annual revenue from surplus property sales that will be deposited in the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund. In addition, Creigh will revamp the state’s debt collection process and redirect enhanced state debt collection, currently valued at about $12.5 million per year, to the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund. By streamlining the operations for debt collection and by more aggressively selling off state surplus property, Creigh will provide dedicated funding for the Virginia Forward Scholars Trust Fund without raising taxes.

The selling of surplus items is nothing new. In fact, California made news this Summer when Governor Schwarzenegger announced that he would post some of the state’s surplus items on eBay and Craigslist. So Deeds proposal to use the revenue generated for the surplus sales towards his plan is OK. Additionally, the redirecting of funds obtained through debt collection to the plan is also a decent proposal. But I do have a few problems with this proposal.

The selling of state land to fund a reoccurring education plan isn’t very smart. As the state’s population continues to grow, land will become more valuable (and scarce) to the state. Hawaii is a perfect example where land is a scare resource. This land should be retained where it can be used for future development projects, even if it is used as a land exchange when eminent domain transactions are necessary for key road projects or other service projects. Additionally, the quantity of land for sale will vary from year to year, so it is an unreliable source of income.

On the same note, the campaign projects that the plan will cost $40 Million. The campaign is assuming that the state will earn $28 Million from the sales of surplus land and supplies plus another $12 Million from debt collection on an annual basis. While they don’t state how many students they project for this to cover each year, it is fair to say that over time, the number of students qualifying for this plan will increase. According to their website, they cite a 4-year period - being the length of time it will take for four graduation classes to populate the university system. But what happens after four years?

If the cost of the plan rises due to increased tuition rates and eligible students, and the proposed revenue streams remain constant, there will be another source of funding required to offset the plans deficit. And if the “streamlining the operations for debt collection” becomes too efficient, then the proposed revenue from that streamlining will decrease, widening the revenue shortfall for the plan. This wouldn’t be an issue for Deeds though, since Virginia Governors are limited to a single term of four years. That means, he will be out of office when the fiscal problems begin.

Even if all of the financial models for this plan were to be true, there is one overwhelming problem that this plan doesn’t address. Virginia faces a significant bugetary shortfall in their transportation funding. Deeds has made a series of proposals to pay for this shortfall to include raising taxes to generate the needed income. According to the Deeds website, there will be a projected “$100 billion shortfall over the next two decades, or an average of $5 Billion per year. Why would you establish an open-ended “entitlement” program such as the Virginia Forward Scholarship Plan that the campaign anticipates to cost $40 Million a year when the state would need to generate an additional $5 Billion on top of that to pay for necessary road improvements?

Like most domestic proposals made during a campaign, the promises made are more about enticing people to vote the candidate. Many of these campaign promises never come to fruition, such as President Bush’s urban-recreational development projects that he cited during his 2004 campaign. But if the plans are enacted, the impacts the plans have well into the future are not a worry to the candidate since they will be out of the office when problems arise. This reckless practice leads to open-ended obligations that become bloated and a financial burden on the tax payers.

I think if Deeds were to win the election, he should get his priorities in order. A 50% educational subsidy is not an necessity to the state, especially if the transportation shortfall is the most important issue in the campaign (as stated by the Washington Post). Making campaign promises with disregard to the economic fallout associated with them is not the sign of an effective manager of the states’ budget.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson stated:

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.

Two of the greatest gifts ever passed down to us by our Founding Fathers were the Constitution and a collection of letters written by them on the various concepts included within the Constitution itself. Over the past two centuries, these two gifts have been examined, challenged, and reexamined numerous times as we continue to grow, expand, and adapt to an ever-changing world. 2009 has been no exception.

Just 8 months ago, we were discussing how the Obama Administration was squaring off head-to-head against Rush Limbaugh. If you don’t remember, Limbaugh was challenging the Obama agenda by stating he wished he would fail. This initiated a PR war between the White House and conservative talk show hosts, with people such as Glenn Beck seeing his ratings skyrocket on his new show on the FOX News network.

Knowing that his criticism of Obama would continue to propel his ratings, Beck quickly began running a series of investigations into various aspects of the Obama Administration. While most of his discussions dealt with policy and the fear of socialism, it was his series on the Czars that Beck hit a home run. Through investigations, he latched on the controversy surrounding “Green Czar” Van Jones and his associations with socialist groups.

FOX News, the leading cable news channel and home of the Glenn Beck program, covered the information uncovered by Beck, and was later picked up by other media outlets. This growing coverage and allegations led to Van Jones resigning from the Obama Administration. In retaliation, the White House expanded their criticism to the FOX News network itself. Anita Dunn, White House communications direction, stated during an interview that FOX News “is not a news network.”

As the feud between the White House and FOX News continued, the other news networks started discussing the debate, questioning the position of the Administration. Looking to strengthen their argument against FOX News, members of the Administration went on to the other news channels explaining their criticism. Rahm Emanuel stated on CNN, “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.”

But what is a legitimate news organization? Is it an organization that has dull anchors sitting behind a desk, repeating the same news all day long? Is it an organization that reports only what is positive and supportive of the government? Is it an organization that is devoid of commentary or character?

I think the fact that FOX News carries the largest number of views that the other cable news networks has to attest to the interest viewers have with the outlets presentation. And the fact that it brings in a near-equal portion of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents shows that it isn’t just the “communications arm of the Republican Party.” FOX News, however, does have a problem. While their news reporting is straight forward, most of their non-commentary programming does include commentary asides. These asides make the channel interesting to watch, but generates part of the complaints against the organization as well.

Even with the commentary, however, it doesn’t justify the Presidents desire to either isolate the news organization. As Thomas Jefferson stated, “I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” As he points out, even when the criticism is unjust, the press must be allowed to operate without the presence of undue influence by the Government. The actions by the White House against FOX News this past month has only emboldened the news outfit to continue to press the issues, and in some small part, created a martyr that the other news outfits have started to look towards. Not that CNN or MSNBC wants to stand side-by-side with FOX News every day of the week, but they have started questioning “Who’s next?”

What happens in 2012 when Obama is defeated and a Republican is elected? If the new President has issues with the press, he or she could take a similar action as Obama, especially if no one stood up to Obama and question his practices. The press is a key defender of our public because of their role in investigating and reporting on the actions of our politicians. If they were to go unchecked, we could lose individual freedoms, and on an extreme scale, we could lose the form of government that Jefferson and all of our other Founding Fathers worked so hard to create.

This is a no-win situation for the President.  Not just because this is FOX News, but any President that thinks he can successfully fight with the media and win is only deluding himself.  It is  just asking for more critical reporting as well as sowing the seeds of doubt in the public as a whole.  I feel that the President should just abandon this PR campaign without making mention of their change in plan, and allow the uproar to die in the middle of the newspapers somewhere.

Related articles:
Politico - “White House: Media shouldn’t follow FOX”
NewsBusters - “White House Says Fox Is Not A News Network”
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government - “Freedom of the Press”
The Huffington Post - “Fox Should Pay Obama for Pitching It”
Washington Examiner - “Fox News lies but so do the others”
American Thinker - “It’s Time for Obama to Get a Clue”
The Los Angeles Times - “Obama’s misguided Fox hunt”
CBS - “President Obama’s Feud with FOX News”
Midwest Voices - “Obama vs. Fox News enters dangerous phase”
NPR - “Weighing In On White House Vs. Fox News: An Apology”

HAMP was originally estimated to handle 25,000 loan modifications a week for four years, totaling 1.3 Million modifications when the program ends. Under this program, participants can work with their mortgage lender to decrease their monthly financial burden by either lowering their interest rate or extending the period of the loan. According to the Treasury Department this month, approximately 500,000 homeowners have participated in this program, coming in slightly under the 25,000 modifications-per-week estimate.

While you do not have to be missing payments on your mortgage(s) or hurting financially to participate, this is the target of the program. Unfortunately, new programs that dramatically alter the way business is done has run into two major problems. For starters, the lenders needed to be trained on how to help their borrowers under this program, and then the government rushed them because the results were not coming in as fast as anticipated. Also, some participants were having their credit reports damaged due to the way these loan modifications were being processed with codes set aside for partial payments - a negative term when FICO reviews your credit history.

The $8,000 tax credit was designed to help stimulate home sales while lowering the financial burden for first time homebuyers. It is current set to expire at the end of November, though Congress is looking at possibly extending it into 2010. Unfortunately, the cost to the government exceeds $8,000 per home sale. For starters, about 1 in 10 of the tax credit applications are deemed fraudulent by the IRS. Additionally, the cost to the government for reviewing and processing the tax credit claims runs approximately $43,000. All of this just to lower a homebuyers monthly mortgage cost by about $20.

Of these two plans, I would choose to keep the HAMP program due to the tangible impact it has on the homeowner. In a down economy, with foreclosures and unemployment at all time highs in recent years, any decrease in financial burdens for struggling families is a welcomed sight. However, I think that a federal program should not be necessary, but rather a proactive service by lenders to keep their income stream going. Home loan modification leads to stability in the housing market because the lender doesn’t have to worry about extended periods of missed payments by the borrowers, nor the hassles of going through the foreclosure process and then turning around to sell a home that they don’t want to be responsible for. Some lenders have already made this a common practice, and I hope the rest of the industry soon follows.

Related articles:
Huliq News - “Fraud alleged in tenth first time home buyer tax credit claims”
Reuters - “Builders Urge Congress to Renew Home Buyer Tax Credit to Create Jobs, Boost Economy”
Washington Examiner - “Ocwen Mortgage - the loan modification champion? Are you kidding?”
Connecticut Plus - “Dodd calls for extension of homebuyer tax credit”
Subprime Blogger - “Government Mortgage Refinance Plan - Obama’s new modification plan working?”
UPI - “Fitch: Slowdown in Mortgage Modifications Won’t Last”
New York Times - “Treasury Hails Milestone in Home Loan Modifications”
Wall Street Journal - “Digging Yourself Out of a Mortgage Mess”

Breast cancer is the second most frequent form of cancer in the United States and the world.  In the US, one-in-eight women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, or to put it in better perspective, the odds are good that someone in your extended family will suffer from this illness.  I have known three people just in the past few years that had breast cancer, with one passing away, one losing a breast, and the other recovering from treatment. 

Unlike other illnesses of such a private matter, this illness is often discussed in public as a way to encourage women (and men) to examine themselves to catch the disease early.  This discussion continues online as well, with some of our close community members discussing the topic lately.  Here is what they have had to say:

Bad Gals Radio:  (WARNING - Graphic images on page) ”Women Get With the Program, each time you shower – Grab Those Girlypartsand make sure there’s no strange new stuff going one. do it everyday, not just once a month. the cells are there and if you feel them, let somebody know QUICK. … Personally I want to encourage each of you to think of Your Body as A Temple. it’s your home while you’re here with the rest of us, so maintain it in some semblance of comfort. dont’ let it fall apart and not do anything.”

The BoBo Files:  “Taking a break from the political scene momentarily to let everyone know that I have joined the American Cancer Society this year to walk in the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer. In past I’ve only had an opportunity to donate – this year I’m doing both. Please help me out by donating whatever you can to help further research in to breast cancer, provide awareness, and education about this disease.”

Pambie:  “It’s time for the 8th annual blogger Boobie-Thon again, starting October 1st! So far the Boobie-Thon has raised $50,000.00 for Breast Cancer Research!!!”

As you can see, not only are they discussing the illness, but they are either directly impacted by it and/or taking part in ways to raise money to find a cure.  Bad Gals is sharing her personal story about her mother, BoBo is walking, and Pam is participating in the Boobie-Thon (that has raise over $13K this year so far).  As I discussed last week, my friend Andrew is participating in this years Marine Corps Marathon and is running to raise money for the cause.  I have already donated this months advertising profits to Andrew’s cause, and I will continue to promote those who are seeking to raise funds.

What are you doing?

Connecting.the.Dots: ”The Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama comes as a stunning reminder for those who elected him less than a year ago of what they expected when they put him in the White House. As the President faces another embattled day of economic and foreign policy conflict, amid falling approval ratings, a voice of universal moral authority can be heard as a rebuke to Americans who are forgetting what he represents.”

The New Clarion:  “I thought it was a joke in The Onion this morning when I read the headline, “Obama Wins 2009 Peace Prize.” For what? He has been in office for nine months and before that was a one-term United States senator. What could he have possibly accomplished so soon that merits such an award? The answer is: nothing.”

QandO:  “I can only hope this is Obamamania cresting – the man has accomplished nothing in the 9 months he’s been in office and he’s given a Nobel Peace Prize for a fantasy project? If you think his narcissism is dangerous now, just wait.”

The First Door on the Left:  “The Republicans, of course, are quite upset over this. It would seem to me that the president of your country being honored in such a manner would be a source of pride and a cause for celebration, but not for our Republicans. They are so full of hatred and bitterness right now that I believe their hatred has actually spilled over to include the country they claimed to so love just one short year ago.”

The Fireside Post:  “Some are saying the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is a direct affront to the Bush Administration. That may well be so. Consider the mood, the temperament, the vision of the future defined by George Bush and Dick Cheney. The future as defined by Bush/Cheney was one of unilateral military power to force the Bush/Cheney will on other peoples. The definition of America as a country using brute force to dictate international policy brought despair and fear to the world. Obama’s definition of America as a country working in harmony with others to bring peace to the world brings hope and optimism.”

In my view, I think the award was premature.  The “hope” for what an Obama Presidency might bring does not equal the actions taken by those already who did bring about an increased level of security and improving the world.  One such organization is the Cluster Munitions Coalition.  They have convinced over 100 nations to sign a treaty banning cluster bombs as well as actively worked towards clearing cluster bombs and land mines from war-torn regions of the world, where children continue to be hurt and killed by the hidden dangers.

But given that Obama was honored with this award, we should be proud that someone from our nation was selected for this award, especially the President.  Of the billions of the people in the world, millions of whom have good hearts and intentions, only one could be selected.  With the award comes responsibility, however, and it is up to the President to his best to promote peace around the world.  This doesn’t mean that we now have to put down our arms and remove our troops, but to ensure that people to not oppress the weak or abuse their positions of power. 

My hope is that Obama reviews the positions of his peers who were also nominated for the award and support them as practical.  Maybe we can endow $1 Million to the Cluster Munitions Coalition, for example, to show that we (as a nation) are deserving of the responsibility associated with the prize.  Or maybe we can supply more troops to Afghanistan to protect the civilian population while the Afghan Army is strong enough and large enough to defend the nation from those terroristic forces that would want to dominate them and subvert their new-found freedoms.  The President has two more years to carry out this responsibility before he is tied up with campaigning for re-election.  I hope that he does.

I’m an American Cancer Society Charity Runner athlete!

Cancer is personal to all of us. It may not be now, I hope it never will be, but unfortunately it will be. At some point, it will reach into your life, and affect you in profound ways. For some of us, that means being diagnosed with cancer, and for others it will be someone close to you: a spouse, a parent, a sibling, or even a close friend.

My mom, Fran King, was one of these people, as is my aunt Denise King. My mom was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer in 1999, and a year later it went into remission, only to metastasize to her liver, lungs, and bones less than a year after that. She lived with breast cancer for eight years, and while she passed away in 2007, she was an inspiration to others in the struggle against cancer, and continues to be an inspiration to me as I pursue my goals, including continuing to support the American Cancer Society. ACS was important to my mom - she was a co-captain of a team for the Relay for Life annual events in our area. My aunt Dee is a breast cancer survivor and I am also running in her honor.

This is the third consecutive year I’ve dedicated my training and race efforts to support the American Cancer Society. Fighting cancer will make every mile more meaningful. Help me in supporting advocacy and research for this truly worthy cause and organization. Advances are made in basic science research and cancer research but they are not possible without funding.

For me, it all boils down to hope, and putting one foot in front of another. This is my third marathon total, and my third marathon as a charity runner for the American Cancer Society. I run for those who cannot, and together we can make a difference.

Together, we are making a difference.

Like endurance race aspirations, the American Cancer Society is also attacking difficult goals, including preventing cancer and diminishing suffering from the disease. Like me, the Society is putting in a great deal of effort to make these difficult goals possible and to save more lives. I am going to meet my goal of finishing this race to help them meet their goal to end cancer.

Please support me.

In addition to the finishing the race, I am striving to raise money in support of the American Cancer Society. I know that many of you already give to several organizations, maybe even the fight against cancer, so please know that any contribution would be greatly appreciated. Every dollar truly makes a difference. Donating online is easy, and you can donate now. Please help me honor the people who have been touched by cancer, and to bring hope to those currently facing the disease.

If you are able to, please make a donation to help Andrew reach his $1,000.00 goal. Doing my part, I am donating the ad revenue received this month towards his goal. What can you provide to help those who are suffering from this international ailment?  To make a donation, please visit his donation page.