Summary

Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.

• Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

• Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.

• Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

• Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.

• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the president of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.

• Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

Analysis

Vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin met for their one and only debate Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri. The event was broadcast nationally. Gwen Ifill of PBS was the debate moderator.

We noted the following:

Palin trips up on troop levels

Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq."

The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.

Palin's false tax claims

Palin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:

Palin: Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. The resolution would not have raised taxes on its own, without additional legislation, and, as we've noted before, there is no such tax increase in Obama's tax plan. (The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said.)

Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just 7 different bills. She also claimed that Biden and Obama voted for "the largest tax increase in history." Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of the nation's economic output, or gross domestic product, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940.

Biden's false defense

Biden denied that Obama supported increasing taxes for families making $42,000 a year – but then falsely claimed that McCain had cast an identical vote.

Biden: Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes.

Biden was correct only to the extent that the resolution Obama supported would not by itself have increased taxes; it was a vote on a budget resolution that set revenue and spending targets. But he's wrong to say McCain voted the same way. The Obama campaign attempted to justify Biden's remark by pointing to a different vote, on a Senate amendment, that took place March 13. The amendment passed 99-1, with only Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold dissenting. It would have preserved some of Bush's tax cuts for lower-income people. The vote on the budget resolution in question, however, came in the wee hours of March 14 and was a mostly party-line tally, 51-44, with Obama in favor and McCain not voting.

Palin's health care hooey

Palin claimed that McCain's health care plan would be "budget-neutral," costing the government nothing.

Palin: He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything ... a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral.

The McCain campaign hasn't released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin's claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch's fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain's tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be "universal government run" health care and that health care would be "taken over by the feds." That's not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

McCain in Spain?

Biden said that McCain had refused to meet with the president of Spain, but McCain made no such definite statement.

Biden: The last point I'll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.

In a September 17 interview on Radio Caracol Miami, McCain appeared confused when asked whether he would meet with President Zapatero of Spain. He responded that "I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion," but then started talking about leaders in Latin America. He did not commit to meeting with Zapatero, but it wasn't clear he'd understood the question.

But the McCain campaign denied that their candidate was confused.

According to our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, campaign adviser Randy Scheunemann e-mailed CNN and the Washington Post the next day, saying that McCain's reluctance to commit to a meeting with Zapatero was a policy decision.

Scheunemann, September 2008: The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero — and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred. Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview.

That's not a refusal to meet with Zapatero, as Biden said. It's simply a refusal to commit himself one way or the other.

Palin's small business balderdash

Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time:

Palin: But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

As we reported June 23, it's simply untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

Defense disagreements

Biden and Palin got into a tussle about military recommendations in Afghanistan:

Biden: The fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge – the surge principles used in Iraq will not – well, let me say this again now – our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan, not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Palin: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one, and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan.

Point Biden. To start, Palin got newly appointed Gen. David D. McKiernan's name wrong when she called him McClellan. And, more important, Gen. McKiernan clearly did say that surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported:

Washington Post: "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.

However, it is worth noting that McKiernan also said that Afghanistan would need an infusion of American troops "as quickly as possible."

Killing Afghan civilians?

Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called "reckless" and "untrue."

Palin: Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.

Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians. Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: "As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party." Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was "all we're doing" is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we're "not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians," but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

Out of context?

Biden claimed a comment he made about "clean coal" was taken out of context:

Biden: My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.

Was it really taken out of context? Here’s the full exchange, which took place while Biden was shaking hands with voters along a rope line in Ohio.

Woman: Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, why are you supporting clean coal?

Biden: We’re not supporting clean coal. Guess what? China’s building two every week, two dirty coal plants, and it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.

Obama-Biden campaign spokesman David Wade later said that “Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies.”

Whatever Biden meant or didn’t mean to say on the rope line, he has supported clean coal in the past. When the McCain camp used this one remark from Biden as the basis for a TV ad saying that Obama-Biden oppose clean coal, we said the claim was false. Obama’s position in favor of clean coal has been clear, and pushing for the technology has been part of his energy policy.

McCain in the vanguard of mortgage reform?

Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

And there's more ...

A few other misleads of note:

• Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

• Biden claimed that McCain said in a magazine article that he wanted to deregulate the health care industry as the banking industry had been. That’s taking McCain’s words out of context. As we’ve said before, he was talking specifically about his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

• Biden said five times that McCain's tax plan would give oil companies a "$4 billion tax cut." As we’ve noted previously, McCain’s plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — for ALL corporations, not just oil companies. Biden uses a Democratic think tank's estimate for what the rate change is worth to the five largest U.S. oil companies.

• Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

• Biden said that Iraq had an "$80 billion surplus." The country was once projected to have as much as a $79 billion surplus, but no more. The Iraqis have $29 billion in the bank, and could have $47 billion to $59 billion by the end of the year, as we noted when Obama used the incorrect figure. A $21 billion supplemental spending bill, passed by the Iraqi legislature in August, knocked down the old projection.

• Biden said four times that McCain had voted 20 times against funding alternative energy. However, in analyzing the Obama campaign's list of votes after the first presidential debate, we found the number was actually 11. In the other instances the Obama-Biden campaign cites, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates.

Sources

Belasco, Amy. "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11." 14 July 2008. Congressional Research Service. Accessed 2 October 2008.

Pickler, Nedra. "Fact Check: Obama on Afghanistan." The Associated Press. 14 Aug. 2007.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Promises, Promises: A Fiscal Voter Guide to the 2008 Election." U.S. Budget Watch. 29 Aug. 2008.

Williams, Roberton and Howard Gleckman. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. 15 Sep. 2008.

"Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf." 2007. Energy Information Administration. 8 Aug. 2008.

Petroleum Basic Statistics. The Energy Information Administration, 3 Oct. 2008.

NPC Global Oil & Gas Study. “Topic Paper #7, Global Access to Oil and Gas,” 18 July 2007.

Clarke, David and Liriel Higa, "Blueprints Gain Narrow Adoption," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 15 March 2008.

"Iraq Index," Brookings Iraq Index.

Baldor, Lolita C, "General: Urgent need for troops in Afghanistan now," Associated Press. 2 Oct 2008.

"Bush: 8,000 Troops Coming Home By Feb," CBS/AP. 9 Sept 2008.

Tyson, Ann Scott, "Commander in Afghanistan Wants More Troops," Washington Post. 2 Oct 2008.

Barnes, Julian N., "More U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan 'quickly,' general says," Los Angeles Times. 2 Oct 2008.

Table T08-0164 "Distribution of Tax Units with Business Income by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate, Assuming Extension and Indexation of the 2007 AMT Patch, 2009" Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 20 May 2008.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It is a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. Politics, and increase public knowledge and understanding. Visit them at www.factcheck.org.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

That got me to thinking. It would be very helpful for TV public affairs shows to always put sidebars or bubbles showing the net personal worth and annual income of their various talking heads. The same would go for TV appearances by public officials, politicians and political shills of all stripes. I found myself wondering about the Fed chairman’s net worth, and then the members of the committee and the other “experts” assembled to support the administration’s request. From there my thoughts jumped to the TV commentators and pundits who are either super rich themselves or operate in those circles.

Why should we care about someone’s wealth? Every time one of these well-heeled folks says something being proposed is in “our” interest, you have to wonder whose interest they are talking about. Surely Secretary Paulson’s interest is not the same as mine as my net worth is slim to none. So, when Henry Paulson, or Donald Trump for that matter, advise that a course of action would be in “all our interests,” I’m pretty sure they are thinking of a relatively small circle of family, friends and associates whose net worth is way up there in the many millions.

So, here’s what I think about the proposed bailout. It’s crystal clear that the people who have made out big time under the current credit-debt system desperately want it to continue. And for them the bailout is a necessity. It may be that it’s a necessity for the rest of us as well, but I’m unwilling to take it on trust from the people who are pushing that line.

If I had knowledge of who had benefited from the housing and credit bubbles, I would be better positioned to assess whose interests were being served. For now, it appears to me that the “titans of wall street” and the government that serves them are using the same shock and fear approach to a power grab that has worked so well with the American people in the past — scare the hell out of them and then take what’s yours.

This of course implies that this was and is an engineered crisis. And why not? Everyone in a position of responsibility repeats the mantra that these high flying finance types are very smart people. If so, they must have seen it coming. A lot of us less brilliant people saw the handwriting on the wall a long time ago.

Of course a possible alternative explanation is that the Masters of the Universe (to use author Tom Wolfe’s phrase in the Bonfire of the Vanities) are far too arrogant and completely lacking in common sense. In that case we really ought to ignore what they say and let events take their course. I do believe that “the market” will likely produce a better outcome.

Steve Elias is an attorney and a radio show host on Lake County's community radio station, KPFZ 88.1 FM.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Sam Aanestad calls the California Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act an unnecessary “intrusion” into the doctor-patient relationship.

At Compassion and Choices, the nation’s largest end-of-life choice organization, we see things differently. We know talking about death won’t kill you. If patients aren’t ready to hear the truth, they won’t ask for it. No one should force an unwelcome conversation, but the Right to Know Act doesn’t do that. When patients do ask, they want and deserve accurate, complete information. And then, no one should keep it from them.

The Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act (AB 2747), written by Assembly members Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine, passed the California Legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature. This landmark law simply requires that when a terminally ill person asks about end-of-life options, doctors tell them about all legal choices. Aanestad asserts patients don’t need this kind of information and claims it would do more harm than good. Well, let’s allow patients to make that decision for themselves.

Compassion and Choices sponsored the Right to Know Act because we know dying patients may suffer greatly without crucial information. We also know people with end-stage cancer may suffer through rigorous, futile chemotherapy treatments weeks or even days before death because they think they have no choice. Doctors are not always straightforward about the true prognosis and offer false hope. As a result, treatments can leave patients too weak for spending quality time with loved ones, rectifying relationships or seeking spiritual peace. When patients have full information about all of their options, they are empowered to knowingly choose – or refuse – difficult treatment.

Research is on our side. The May issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology reported terminal patients who have an end-of-life discussion with their physician are more likely to receive hospice care and less likely to enter an Intensive Care Unit.

Another recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association lists study after study showing that oncologists often continue aggressive chemotherapy long after it is likely to extend life.

Aanestad seems to believe that withholding this crucial information is a humane way to deal with people who are dying. As an organization working with the dying for 28 years, we know information and counseling regarding end-of-life care options is essential to the comfort and peace of many terminally ill patients and their families. These poignant conversations help patients weigh all options and make an informed decision that reflects their values and beliefs. It gives the physician an opportunity for a heartfelt discussion of the benefits and risks of all available treatments, and it can facilitate earlier access to hospice care.

AB 2747 does all of these things. It offers peace and comfort to patients and their families who want to know more. This is why we urge Gov. Schwarzenneger to sign the bill. Knowledge won’t kill you, but cancer will. How can we withhold the information that can bring so much comfort and peace of mind to those deciding how to spend their last days on earth?

Barbara Coombs Lee is president of Compassion and Choices, a nonprofit group focused on end-of-life issues.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The first thought that comes to me when I ask this question is “Protect myself from what?” I started thinking. Usually a need for protection comes out of a sense of a lack of something – in this case a lack of security that comes from a stable financial base. But, is this true? Can we really find true protection in “stuff”?

My spiritual heritage has its roots in the Christian tradition. Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been meditating on the following verses in Matthew:

“Look at the birds of the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the filed grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

“If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

“So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat' or 'What shall we drink' or 'What shall we wear.' For the pagans run after all these things, and your Heavenly Father knows that you need them.

But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” ̶ Matthew 6:25-26; 28-33

Are you worrying about what you will eat or what you will drink or what you will wear? If you’re a person of faith in a higher power, it isn’t really useful to spend time concerned over these issues, as God already knows we need them. So, where then should the focus of our thoughts be if not on our desperate condition? On the Kingdom of God.

Right. Anybody got a road map to where this “Kingdom” is?

Well, actually, yes.

“The Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

OK. If that’s the case, how do I know what part of me is the “Kingdom” and what is not? Actually, God gave the answer to Moses after Moses asked him, “Who should I say sent me?” God’s answer? “Tell them ‘I AM’ sent you.”

The Kingdom of God is when you are connected to the “I AM.” And, what is the “I AM”? The only thing that there is – The Present Moment. The NOW.

Anytime you feel fear, anxiety, worry, guilt, anger, etc, etc., it’s because you’re living in a time-bound experience. These emotions imply a sense of time, as fear, anxiety and worry are rooted in an imagined future, while guilt and anger have their source in a remembered past. Neither is happening now (though your ego-mind would like you to think this is so).

When you’re present, you experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (does this ring a bell with you Christians as the “fruits of the spirit?”).

How do you get and stay present? A few ways:

1. Acceptance and surrender

Allow the present moment to be what it is. Completely accept the situation as it stands. This does NOT mean you cave in and do nothing about it. Quite the contrary – by not judging the conditions you find yourself in, you bring a sense of clarity to the moment. This permits you to see things in a different, less emotionally charged, light from which a better course of action can be determined.

2. Gratitude

I like to think of gratitude as the energetic opposite of “surrender.” “Surrender” to me implies an inner acceptance of what appears to be an outward experience. “Gratitude” to me is the outward expression of an inner state of being derived from surrender. Having gratitude – or thankfulness – means you are OK with what Is and is the natural result of Surrender.

3. Do not judge

(anybody got a good antonym for “judge”? I couldn’t find one!)

Ever wonder why Jesus admonished, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? I would dare say because we do not know the mind of God. What we deem to be good (or bad, or fat, or old or ugly ...) may not be so because we tend to look at the situation from our own small point of view rather than God’s bigger picture. If you can cease to label an experience, you open up yourself to a wealth of possibilities only accessible by this freedom from your inner critic.

4. Give

“Give, and it will be given to you. A large quantity, pressed together, shaken down, and running over will be put into your lap, because you will be evaluated by the same standard with which you evaluate others.” (Luke 6:38 ISV) .

Do you ever wonder why it feels so good to give? Because when we give, we are filled with a sense of abundance, not lack. And, don’t just give money – give the most valuable item you own to everyone and everything: Your attention.

You say you’re a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Muslim? All of these religions have these tenants at their heart. You’re living as a “Pagan” (read: “Non-Believer”) if you are not living in the Kingdom, and the only place you’ll find the Kingdom is by being present now.

Enjoy the peace and abundance of the Kingdom of God!

Carol Cole-Lewis is president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Lake County. Visit the church online at http://uuclc.org.

{mos_sb_discuss:5}

On Sunday, Sept. 7 at 11 a.m. the Treasury Secretary of the United States announced that the government will be taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.

The first thing to understand is that conservatorship simply means control. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also known as agencies, are the backbone of the real estate and mortgage financing markets. These agencies are responsible for making sure that there is always adequate funding for consumers to obtain mortgage financing for real estate.

Fannie and Freddie are government-sponsored agencies, which means that the government created them. However, up until Sept. 7, the government did not control them. Fannie and Freddie are public corporations.

As you have been hearing reported for the last few months, both of these agencies have been suffering financial losses in the billions of dollars. These losses are directly related to the national housing and financing crises that exists.

The record number of foreclosures, mortgage delinquencies and personal bankruptcies are destroying the value of the mortgage securities that Fannie and Freddie hold in their portfolios. Simply put, mortgage securities that are held by these tow agencies are backed by the consumers ability to pay their mortgages on time.

When consumers are not able to pay their mortgages, and the value of real estate declines, the securities that these agencies hold lose value. This results in the agencies inability to operate and ensure that additional funding will be available for future lending. In the end, they cannot survive without help.

The bottom line is that the current credit crisis has reached epidemic proportions and that the survival of Fannie and Freddie is a must. The government stepped in to take control was the only solution to ensure that funding will be available for mortgages and to provide stability to the housing market.

What does this mean in general?

Below are bullet points that explain the major aspects of the government takeover and how it will affect the market.

• The United States Treasury now has the ability to provide an unlimited amount of funding to purchase mortgage backed securities from these agencies. The ability for Fannie and Freddie to sell their securities that money will remain available for lending.

• The government control means that these companies are now backed and controlled by the government. This will almost immediately begin to create stability within the financial markets. The stabilization of the financial markets is one of the first steps to creating an economic recovery.

• The bailout of these agencies will be paid for by the taxpayers, however unlike the Bear Stearns bailout, the stockholders in Fannie and Freddie will not be rewarded. Treasury Secretary Paulson has made it very clear that prior to any stockholder receiving any dividends from either Fannie or Freddie; the taxpayers must be paid back first.

• At the present time there is no estimate as to how much the bailout will cost the taxpayers. A major factor in determining the total cost will be determined by how quickly the financial and real estate markets stabilize.

• Interest rates are expected to remain stable for mortgage financing over the next few months. Rates are significantly lower since the announcement making financing more affordable. As of Sept. 9 Jacie Casteel from Sterling Mortgage in Lakeport reported that rates have dropped to 5.875 with zero points for a 30-year fixed mortgage.

What opportunities exist for homeowners and homebuyers?

• With the stabilization of the markets, the decline in property values is expected to slow down. If you have been waiting for values to drop further, it is possible that the bottom is very near and sitting on the sidelines much longer may cause your cost of homeownership to increase. The time to act is NOW.

• Lending guidelines may get a little tougher with new government control. This potentially means that accessing funds for mortgage lending may become a little more challenging and make it harder for borrowers to qualify. Once again, if you have been waiting to purchase or refinance your home, now may be one of the most affordable times to do so.

There are many unknowns pertaining to the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the takeover was a must and the actions of the government will eventually bring badly needed stability to the markets helping to reinvigorate the battered housing market in the US.

Ray Perry is a Realtor with CPS Country Air Properties. Jacie Casteel is a loan agent with Sterling Mortgage.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

We all know that politicians exaggerate, embellish and enhance their stories. And sometimes, we suspect, they outright lie, which isn't very smart in this age of electronic record-keeping.

McCain-Palin supporters are trying to pass her off as a feminist with statements like this: "Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change." (Article at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/06/INB312NP3M.DTL&type=politics)

Being a working mother and being elected to office do not make you a feminist. Hard-working, ambitious – yes. Not necessarily a feminist. The essence of feminism is refusing to tolerate victimization of women in any area – economic, social, health, education, opportunity.

The GOP team would work to ban all abortion, "even in the case of rape," Sarah Palin said. There is no area where women have been more victimized than in rape. Rape cases are seriously under-reported because the survivors are unwilling to face the common disbelief, and the subsequent trial, when their entire life history might be put on display and questioned as if they were the person on trial.

A friend tells me that when she was raped and beaten nearly to death 30 years ago in Vallejo, the detective handling the case said to her, "A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can run with his pants down around his ankles." That's a fairly mild example of the disdain, disbelief and humiliation that women reporting rape often have to endure.

Palin did her best to increase the victimization while she was mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, from 1996 to 2002.

A story in the Mat-Su Frontiersman on May 23, 2000, reported that Wasilla was charging women who reported being raped $300 to $1,200 for the forensic exam kit used in the investigations. It was picked up by America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/wasilla-charged-rape-victims-for-their.html) a couple of days ago and has since been reported on television.

Alaska Governor Tony Knowles had signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime. The Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies covered the cost of exams, but Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon didn't agree with the new legislation. He said the new law would cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases. He was Palin's appointee, after she fired the former chief who didn't fully support the policies.

The Anchorage Daily News reported that at the time the city was paying a lobbyist, hired by Palin, $40,500 yearly to seek earmark funding in Washington, DC (www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/194505.html).

Spin me any yarn you want about what a good mother she is, how she managed to fight the Good Ol' Boys while getting their support, why she had to charge the state for overnights in her own home (a 30-mile commute from her state office in Anchorage) or why she even bothered to talk to the city librarian about banning books – just don't try to tell me she's a feminist, OK?

Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}