Congressman Doggett in a smackdown with Sec of Transp. over tolls/Trans TX Corridor

Posted on November 4, 2007 by Terri Hall

See him on YouTube here.

October 25, 2007 – House Budget Committee Holds Hearing on Surface Transportation Investment

DOGGETT:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony
and your service. I must say that I’m a bit surprised
by your use of the term “tax and spend,” because, of
course, as you know from your long career, the
tax-and-spend approach had its origin under Dwight
David Eisenhower, who felt that the National
Interstate and Defense Highways Act should be paid for
as you go, and that the pay-as-you-go approach was the
appropriate one as the Highway Revenue Act was enacted
at the same time in 1956.
It is true that in the last seven years on
everything this administration has preferred a
borrow-and-spend approach for all of our national
needs. But it would seem to me that the more fiscally
responsible one is to pay for our highways as we
determine we need them.
Now, there is an alternative model that Texas has
really been pioneering with. And as you know, we have
a governor in Texas who seems to have never met a
highway that he didn’t think he could toll. If he had
his way, we would have toll roads blossoming in Texas
like the wild flowers in the spring.
I have some concerns about the fact that the
administration in its budget proposal really seems to
want to incentivize more toll roads such as by its
proposal to tax and spend for grants for high- tech
electronic toll booths that would encourage states to
use that means of finance.
Let me ask you if you support the requirement that
no tolling occur on federal highways in the state of
Texas or anywhere else.

PETERS:
Congressman, I’d be happy to answer your question.
The answer is no, the administration does not support
that provision, and let me explain why.

DOGGETT:
Well, because my time is short, and I’ll give you
an opportunity to elaborate at the end — but do you
support prohibiting states from buying back federal
highways that the taxpayers have already paid for in
order to toll those highways?

PETERS:
Congressman, we prefer to let states make those
decisions, and I think one of the fundamental problems
that we have today is that decision-making in too many
cases has been moved away from state and local
government and decisions are being made at the federal
level.

DOGGETT:
Well, I guess the concern is that these highways
were paid for with federal tax dollars. You’re
proposing in your budget to encourage the states to
toll more highways, and you’ve just indicated by your
answers that you do not support restricting tolls on
federal taxpayer-financed highways, and that approve
of the practice of the states coming and buying back
highways taxpayers have already paid for and tolling
them.
And I find that to be very problematic and
something that I’m hearing from many people in Texas
is not the way to go.
And the partner to the tollway on every highway
that the taxpayers have already paid for in Texas is,
of course, the very controversial Trans-Texas
Corridor, where the same governor is proposing to take
swaths of land as wide as 10 miles that would separate
someone’s century-owned farm or ranch home from their
pastures and their field.
This has been a very secretive process. As you
know, the House has also passed bipartisan language
concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Is there any federal money of any type going into
the planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor at present?

PETERS:
Congressman, I will have to check on that. I know
at one time there was, but let me check on that and
get back to you.

DOGGETT:
All right. The approach of doing so much of this
in secret and treating our farmers and ranchers as
just so much road kill when it comes to participation
in the process is one that I know bothered not only me
— bothers not only me but bothers members on both
sides of the aisle here.
That’s why the House overwhelmingly approved
legislation directed to the so-called NAFTA
superhighway. I know the administration doesn’t
concede there is such a highway.
But as relates to participation in working groups
concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA
superhighway, if it’s to extend beyond Texas, does the
administration support the amendment that the House
overwhelmingly approved in that regard?

PETERS:
Congressman, I would say that we have not taken a
position on that issue yet, but let me explain…

DOGGETT:
Well, we passed it a long time ago. Do you plan to
take a position as this measure moves through
conference one way or the other? Do you object to the
restrictions that the House approved by a vote of
362-63 in July concerning this matter?

PETERS:
Congressman, we believe that state governments
should have much more latitude than they have today to
make decisions.

DOGGETT:
So it sounds to me like you want to give them the
authority to have a secretive process, to build a
10-mile-wide highway, tearing up farms and ranches and
rural communities where these people will not even be
able to access the tollway, perhaps built by a foreign
firm — that as long as that’s the state decision,
you’re content to let them do whatever they want to
do?
I think we have some responsibility with federal
tax dollars to try to safeguard property rights and
involve the public in participation in these
decisions.
Let me just close, because I can see my time is
up, and I know the vote is under way, by also
commenting about what you call your dirty little
secret on earmarks.
It is not a dirty little secret that both of the
federal transportation authorization acts were
approved by Republican Congresses with Republican
chairs, that the so-called Bridge to Nowhere was the
project — a totally Republican project.
There is not one earmark in either of these
transportation acts that would be there if this
administration and the Republican leadership had
wanted to cut them out.
Why is it that the administration has been so
quiet for so long and has not done anything about
these earmarks until the fact that we now finally have
a Democratic Congress?

PETERS:
Well, Congressman, let me take two answers. First
of all, with all respect, you misinterpreted my
comments about the Trans- Texas Corridor.
Second, there is no NAFTA superhighway. There is
no NAFTA superhighway at all. And we certainly believe
in public disclosure as projects are developed.
This administration also has a long record, a
long, long record, in speaking out against earmarks,
speaking out against using the public’s money in a way
that is not publicly disclosed.
And we will continue to stand behind that
opposition.

DOGGETT:
Just specifically on the NAFTA superhighway, then,
is there anything, since you believe in letting the
states do essentially whatever they want in this area,
to prevent the Trans-Texas Corridor, when it goes from
Mexico to the Oklahoma border, from being connected to
an Oklahoma Trans-Oklahoma Corridor, and then a Kansas
Trans-Kansas Corridor, all the way up to the Canadian
border?

PETERS:
Congressman, there are restrictions about
connecting to interstate highways, access points to
interstate highways. Any time that a road accesses or
intersects with an interstate highway, that does have
to be approved.

DOGGETT:
But you are putting money into — you have put
money in the past into the Trans-Texas Corridor.

PETERS:
As I said sir, I will research that and get back
to you.

DOGGETT:
I think you said you had done it in the past. You
weren’t sure if you were doing it now.

PETERS:
I said I thought we had, sir.

DOGGETT:
And you said that I have not correctly interpreted
your comments about the Trans-Texas Corridor. Would
you just elaborate on what your position is on the
Trans-Texas Corridor?

PETERS:
I would be happy to, sir. We believe that there
should be a full disclosure process, a process that
involves not only the potential users of a highway but
those who are affected by the highway. This is
required by the National Environmental Protection Act.

And those types of processes, those open public
processes, where the public has an opportunity to
participate in decision-making, is absolutely
something that we do support.

DOGGETT:
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Stalwart toll opponent Rep. Nathan Macias comes under attack in PUSH POLL

Posted on November 4, 2007 by Terri Hall

In a PUSH POLL trying to spread lies about one of our HEROES, State representative Nathan Macias, opponent Doug Miller a hand-picked puppet of toller and former Rep. Carter Casteel, tries to cast doubt on Macias’ solid anti-toll voting record. The poll questions show Miller’s ties to Casteel since it asks people’s opinions of Carter Casteel who doesn’t hold a public office and who ISN’T EVEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE! Seems pretty clear she plans to soon…

The survey conducted on or about October 19, 2007, included some of these questions (paraphrased):

What is your opinion of Carter Casteel?
What is your opinion of Doug Miller?
What is your opinion of Tom Craddick?
According to TX Monthly, Rep. Macias was ineffective as a legislator, passing only 25% of his bills…
Does it affect your opinion of Doug Miller to know that he has owned a business in the district for over 30 years?

An additional note: The survey attempts to cast doubt on Rep. Macias’ ardent stand against toll roads, bringing up his vote against SB 792, as one of 19 legislators to vote against. PRECISELY! We asked our reps to KILL SB 792 since it was the Governor’s bill, didn’t stop any toll projects, and UNLEASHED market value tolls where the government will now make a profit on the toll roads instead of keeping the tolls as low as possible. Now they look at the roads thinking why should we charge 10 cents a mile when we can make 20 cents?

Also of note, Texas Monthly took a jab at another one of our Legislative heroes, Rep. Joe Farias calling he and Macias ineffective. Not so, Rep. Nathan Macias was awarded Freshman of the Year by his fellow legislators. That’s hardly ineffective! In fact, both Farias and Macias took MAJOR heat for standing up against tolls. Farias was personally threatened by a road lobbyist for trying to keep 1604 from being controlled by a foreign company, and Macias had one of his bills VETOED by the Governor as retribution for his stand against Perry’s toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor.

Oil prices now mean toll roads are no longer financially viable!

Posted on November 1, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

According to Vollmer Associates in a toll feasibility study for two tollways in Austin, once oil hits the price equivalent to the crisis of 1980, the toll roads are no longer financially viable. Yesterday, oil closed at over $96 a barrel which this article says is on par with the crisis of 1980. TOLL ROADS ARE NO LONGER FINANCIALLY DO-ABLE! So let’s start the clarion call…PULL THE PLUG ON TOLL ROADS, people can no longer afford them! They’re financial LOSERS!
Oil Above $96 on Drop in US Supplies
Nov 1, 2007
BY GILLIAN WONG
Associated Press Writer

SINGAPORE (AP) – The price of oil rose to a new record above $96 a barrel Thursday after a surprise drop in U.S. crude stockpiles raised concerns about supplies for coming winter demand. Other energy futures also gained.The U.S. Federal Reserve’s move to cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point also supported prices.

It was the second week in a row the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a sharp and unexpected drop in oil inventories.

“The decline in U.S. crude oil inventories has been a key driver of oil prices,” said David Moore, commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

Light, sweet crude for December delivery rose as high as $96.24 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by late morning in Singapore. Prices later receded to $96.05 a barrel.

Crude prices have reached inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on the how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to more than $101 today.

“We are stepping into an unknown area. Nobody wants to sell (given the fear of a) further rise,” broker Ken Hasegawa of Fimat Japan told Dow Jones Newswires.

The December Nymex crude contract rose $4.15 Wednesday to a record settlement price of $94.53 a barrel.

December Brent crude futures also surged to a new trading record of $91.63 a barrel Thursday on the ICE futures exchange in London, up $1 from the previous session.

In its weekly inventory report, the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said oil supplies fell by 3.9 million barrels last week. Analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected an increase of 100,000 barrels.

“The report acted to solidify concerns about the possibility of tightening market conditions ahead of the northern winter,” Moore said.

Much of that decline was due to a big drop in crude supplies at a closely watched oil terminal in Cushing, Okla.

Cushing supplies have been under pressure in recent months due to differences in the price between front-month oil contracts and those for delivery in future months. This price difference, or spread, has given storage tank owners a financial incentive to sell their oil, rather than hold it in inventory. Analysts have also blamed falling Cushing supplies, in part, for the rally in which oil prices have jumped 35 percent since August.

The EIA also reported that refinery activity fell by 0.9 percentage point last week to 86.2 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected an increase of 0.5 percentage point.

Supplies of gasoline rose last week by 1.3 million barrels. Analysts expected a 400,000-barrel decrease.

And inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose by 800,000 barrels. Analysts had expected a 1 million barrel decrease.

Also supporting oil futures was the U.S. central bank’s move to cut interest rates.

Interest rate cuts generally support oil prices because they tend to send the U.S. dollar downward; the dollar is already at multiple- decade lows against major currencies.

Oil futures have been driven to record levels in recent months partly because they offer a hedge against a weak dollar.

Other energy futures followed oil’s lead. Nymex December heating oil rose 2.65 cents to $2.558 a gallon, while December gasoline futures added 2.64 cents to $2.5697 a gallon.

Natural gas futures advanced 7.6 cents to $8.406 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Giuliani's troubling business connections…including to Cintra, builder of Trans Texas Corridor

Posted on November 1, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

Remember that this same law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani is the sole law firm representing the Spanish company Cintra who won the rights to build the Trans Texas Corridor. His firm also advised Cintra on the US 121 privatized toll road deal in the Dallas area that was later snatched from Cintra due to the controversy of gouging citizens with high tolls to drive on public highways and losing control of our public infrastructure to foreign companies.

Giuliani Still Working at Firm He Promised to Leave
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; A06
Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination.

Giuliani’s continuing involvement with a firm catering to corporate clients makes him unique among Republican contenders. It also complicates the task of separating his firm’s assets from his campaign spending.

Several of the firm’s employees do volunteer work for his campaign. And Giuliani did not decide until mid-June, six months after he entered the race, to bill his campaign for the cost of the security detail traveling with him on campaign trips; before then, the firm paid the expense.

Aides at Giuliani Partners in New York and with his campaign confirmed that he continues working part time at the firm. They declined to answer specific questions about the nature of his efforts, his compensation or the amount of time he spends there.

“Mayor Giuliani spends the majority of his time on the campaign,” Giuliani Partners spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said, declining to be more specific.

Federal election laws prohibit Giuliani’s firm from absorbing costs or providing services that legally should be covered by political donations, campaign experts said.

“This is a lawyer’s nightmare,” said Republican political consultant Scott Reed, who ran the 1996 presidential bid of then-Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) but is not aligned with a presidential campaign in this race. “I don’t think the vulnerability is with voters on the level of his commitment to the race. The concern is really about FEC violations and whether anything this corporation does to help him essentially is making a contribution to run for president in the form of staff time, materials, travel billing or security.”

Giuliani’s aides said the firm and the campaign comply with all federal election rules and laws.

Giuliani formed the firm after he left the New York mayor’s office in 2002. He built upon the reputation he earned while helping the city recover from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to advise clients across the world on security issues.

The clients have included civic leaders in Mexico City, who sought Giuliani’s expertise on law enforcement strategies; companies that wanted to build a post-Sept. 11 security plan; and those that sought strategic advice on how to win business in the growing homeland security sector.

Giuliani’s firm has grossed more than $100 million since its formation. It has employed many of the same political insiders who worked around Giuliani during his mayoral years, such as former chief of staff Anthony V. Carbonetti, former fire chief Thomas Von Essen and former corporation counsel Michael D. Hess. It also includes former FBI executive Pasquale J. D’Amuro, a highly regarded terrorism expert.

Last year, Giuliani earned about $4.1 million from the firm, according to the presidential campaign financial disclosure report he filed in May.

Because the firm represents many security interests, some of which might have business before the federal government, Giuliani faced questions about his continuing employment there. He announced in April that he planned to leave the firm to concentrate entirely on the campaign.

“I’m largely out of it, and I’m pretty much going to be out of it at some point pretty soon,” he told reporters on April 4 while campaigning in South Carolina.

Six months later, he continues to do some work at the company.

Aides refused to discuss the exact nature of the work, but Hess, in an interview with The Washington Post earlier this year, provided some insight into Giuliani’s role in the firm since he became a candidate.

“When Rudy is here, he is hands-on,” Hess said in late April. “He does discuss all the different matters. When we get a client, sometimes they are people Rudy knows and sometimes others of us know or hear about them. Invariably, a new client will want to meet with Rudy, and this was frequent a while ago, and it has become less frequent as he is going around on his campaigning.”

Hess said Giuliani also tries to attend the firm’s strategic meetings when he is in New York, gatherings that resemble the early-morning staff meetings he held as mayor.

“Over the years since we’ve been here, we do have frequent meetings. They varied with the time Rudy has. Sometimes Rudy is in New York a lot, and sometimes he is here less,” Hess said. “They are reminiscent of staff meetings that we had in City Hall. He was somewhat famous for having the 8 a.m. meeting with about a dozen or 15 commissioners. Likewise, we have staff meetings here.”

During an interview in June with CNBC‘s Larry Kudlow, Giuliani said that he was spending no more than 10 percent of his time doing work for the firm while he was campaigning and that he planned to take a leave of absence.

“I would have thought during the general election, but it seems to me nowadays, with all these things moving up, probably sometime during the primaries,” Giuliani said about the timing of his leaving. “But right now I’d say I’m 95 percent campaigning, maybe 5 to 10 percent trying to settle up last-minute things.”

Giuliani has ended another of his more lucrative private ventures — giving paid speeches. The former mayor, popular on the motivational speaking tour, earned about $11 million in speech and book fees last year but stopped giving such speeches in February.

Giuliani falls in the middle of the presidential field when it comes to job commitments. Several candidates have full-time jobs as members of Congress, such as Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and Ron Paul (Tex.).

But the two Republicans closest to Giuliani in the polls — former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — are multimillionaires who have no private-sector jobs.

Reed said if he were managing Giuliani, another multimillionaire, he would have advised the candidate to step aside from his firm as soon as the race started.

“I think it always is wise to close down all of these other efforts . . . so that, one, you give the campaign 100 percent, and two, you don’t give your political enemies possible ammunition,” he said.

One concern among ethics experts is that Giuliani’s continuing affiliation with the firm might create a public perception that clients with business that could be affected by a Giuliani presidency might hire the firm to curry favor.

The firm’s past clients had many connections to government. They include:

• Purdue Pharma, which resolved a lengthy Drug Enforcement Administration investigation into the security of its OxyContin painkiller with only a fine, with the Giuliani firm’s help.

• A confessed drug smuggler who hired Giuliani to help ensure that his company could do security consulting business with the federal government in the post-Sept. 11 period.

• The horse-racing industry, which hired Giuliani’s firm to review the security of its betting systems after a wagering scandal shook public confidence.

• BioOne, a company that can do biological cleanups, such as its cleaning of a Florida media building after the 2001 anthrax attacks.

• Energy giant Entergy, which hired Giuliani’s firm to help tighten its security.

In addition, Giuliani’s firm created a spinoff called Giuliani Capital Advisors, which advised companies on bankruptcies and expansion in the homeland security marketplace. Giuliani sold that arm of the firm earlier this year.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

China investing in privatized toll roads/infrastructure deals…the takeover continues

Posted on October 31, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here. Considering China’s provocative military actions (militarizing space by demonstrating their ability to explode satellites, stalking our ships off the coast of Japan, stealing military secrets most recently by hacking Pentagon computers and trying to buy the company that makes the Pentagon’s software to protect it from hackers) and its aggressive push to make the U.S. dependent on its steady stream of cheap goods (hence the reason for the Trans Texas Corridor and NAFTA superhighways), it’s foolish and dangerous to allow the Communist Chinese to control our infrastructure, too! This also highlights the problem of countries (like Australia, U.S., and China) investing public pension funds in these controversial and risky infrastructure deals when gas prices have risen unabated since Katrina.

State funds and banks lead China’s hunt
By Richard McGregor in Beijing
Published: October 30 2007 22:03

China’s National Council for Social Security Fund is an unlikely candidate to buy into US private equity groups, but the disclosure in Tuesday’s Financial Times that it has held preliminary talks about buying stakes in companies such as Carlyle and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts underlines how dramatically China’s global ambitions have grown.The fund joins a number of large state institutions investing overseas, such as China Investment Corp, the newly-established sovereign fund, and China Development Bank, a specialist lender for infrastructure projects.

Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the country’s largest lender, last week struck a deal to pay $5.56bn for a stake in Standard Bank in South Africa, and Citic Securities recently bought into the troubled US firm Bear Stearns. Other big Chinese commercial banks are hunting for deals.

The sudden flood of overseas deals runs parallel with a wave of foreign equity investment by Chinese entities through mandates issued by the securities regulator.

Since September, $37bn (£17.9bn, €25.6bn) in subscriptions has been received by four funds each approved to raise $16bn. JPMorgan says it expects Beijing to approve another $20bn by mid-December and a total of up to $90bn by the end of next year.

The broad framework allowing investment overseas has been laid down gradually by the central government in the last three years or so, with a variety of policy objectives in mind.

The portfolio investment is driven by a need to gain greater returns and spread risks away from the domestic market, as well as relieve the pressure on the financial system from huge capital inflows.

CDB, meanwhile, is heading overseas with a quite different mandate – to support Chinese investment in Africa and to test its ambitions to become a force in global development finance.

The drive offshore by China’s big state banks, although under the wary eye of the regulators, is more driven by their commercial ambitions than a central government plan.

“I don’t really see [the banks] as being driven by the state pushing people out the door, overseas,” said Jonathan Anderson, of UBS, in Hong Kong. “This is primarily being driven by the corporates themselves.”

For deal-hungry global investment banks, the Chinese institutions they once chased for overseas stock market listings are now becoming valuable merger and acquisition clients.

“Chinese companies are being assiduously courted by dealmakers – and no wonder. They are cash-rich and the beneficiaries of a bull market,” said Jing Ulrich, of JPMorgan, in Hong Kong.

However, one common challenge facing the Chinese institutions is the lack of global experience, both in investing overseas and running enterprises in foreign countries.

In the case of the social security fund, its most experienced global manager, Gao Xiqing, who has extensive experience on Wall St, has been shifted in recent months to a senior post at the sovereign fund.

The fund’s talks with US firms surprised some market observers, who say they would not have expected it to tie up money in large, illiquid investments.

However, the fund might be being driven by a sense of competition with other Chinese state investors and may have pressed to be allowed access to similar investment opportunities.

For all the headlines, the wave of Chinese capital heading overseas is at an early stage and its impact on markets, perhaps aside from Hong Kong, is limited in terms of investments flows. “They are very small players at the moment,” said Mr Anderson.

Politically and psychologically, however, the impact is much larger.

Background

Established in 2000, the National Council for Social Security Fund was part of China’s strategy to fill the gaping holes left in its pension policies by the collapse of large swathes of state industry.

The NCSSF does not attempt to cover the entire country’s pension needs, but is a kind of national pension fund of last resort, with no designated members eligible for benefits. It has assets Rmb460bn ($62bn, €43bn, £30bn).

Much revenue came from the offshore initial public offerings of state companies, which had to put 10 per cent of money raised into the fund.

U.S. Dollar in free-fall; high gas prices stoke recession worries

Posted on October 30, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

Data add to gloom on US economy
By Francesco Guerrera, Jonathan Birchall and Daniel Pimlott in New York
Published: October 30, 2007

A build-up of bearish data fueled fears of a US economic slowdown on Tuesday as consumer confidence slumped to a two-year low and house prices in big cities suffered their biggest drop in 16 years.The growing evidence that the credit squeeze and housing meltdown are spreading to the rest of the domestic economy will increase pressure on the Federal Reserve to set aside concerns over rising inflation and cut interest rates on Wednesday.

Blue chips such as Procter & Gamble and US Steel added to the gloom with results that disappointed investors and contributed to a 0.7 per cent fall in the S&P 500 by the close in New York trading.

The negative reaction to earnings by two companies with global operations reflects deepening investor concerns that the weak dollar and solid global economic growth might not be enough to help corporate America offset a slowdown.

With experts warning that the next few months will bring more bad news from consumers and the housing market, investors will be looking to the monetary authorities’ decision, and their closely watched comments, to boost sentiment.

“The housing market, credit problems and high gasoline prices are casting a cloud over consumer confidence and the economy,” said Lynn Franco at the Conference Board, a research organisation. According to the board, consumer confidence fell sharply in October and was now at its lowest level since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in October 2005.

The October drop in the monthly consumer confidence index was bigger than expected and raised the prospect of a marked deterioration in business conditions in sectors such as retail and consumer goods during the holiday shopping season.

The resilience of US consumers – a key driver of economic growth in the US and in emerging markets such as China – was further tested by a downbeat report on house prices. The Case-Shiller index showed that house prices in 10 metropolitan areas were 5 per cent lower in August compared with the year before, the biggest drop since the property crash of 1991.

“The fall in home prices is showing no real signs of a slowdown or turnround,” said Robert Shiller, chief economist at MacroMarkets. “There is really no positive news in today’s report.”

P&G, the consumer product group, said its US business, which accounts for about half of its sales, had been affected by domestic economic woes.

“We did see a slight slowdown in the US market growth…and that’s had some impact on the business,” Clayt Daley, chief financial officer, said. AG Lafley, chief executive, played down the threat of a US recession and said demand for P&G’s branded products remained solid.

__________________________________________

Link to article here.AP
Dollar Hits New Lows on Economic Data
Tuesday October 30, 2007
By Tali Arbel, AP Business Writer

Dollar Sinks to 26-Year Low Vs. Pound, Record Low Against Euro As Economic Data Disappoints

NEW YORK (AP) — The dollar fell to a new record low against the euro and a 26-year low against the British pound Tuesday after lower-than-expected consumer confidence data was released and ahead of Wednesday’s Federal Reserve interest rate decision.The dollar slid against the euro throughout the afternoon, as the euro peaked at $1.4440, the latest in a string of all-time highs against the dollar, before settling at $1.4434. The euro had finished at $1.4424 in New York late Monday, the same day it hit its last record of $1.4438.

The pound rose to $2.0679 in late New York trading Tuesday — a level last seen in 1981, when Diana married Prince Charles and Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

The British currency was powered by expectations that the Bank of England will keep its benchmark interest rate at 5.75 percent next week. The pound had finished at $2.0619 in New York late Monday.

The Canadian dollar hit a new 47-year high of $1.0510 Tuesday, according to Dow Jones’ Interbank foreign exchange rates, before settling at $1.0488, down from $1.0495 in late New York trading Monday. The U.S. dollar bought 95.35 Canadian cents.

The Canadian dollar is a commodity-backed currency, benefiting when prices of its exports rise. Canada is a major producer of oil, and crude prices have risen 35 percent since August, hitting a string of record highs.

The euro and the Canadian dollar have been climbing steadily against the dollar, regularly touching new highs since August amid fears over the health of the U.S. economy — worries stoked by the subprime credit crisis and disappointing economic reports — and rising oil prices.

Tuesday saw the release of more disheartening economic data, as the Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 95.6 — its lowest level since October 2005 — from a revised 99.5 in September. It is the index’s third consecutive monthly drop and signals consumers’ insecurities over the economy and their jobs.

Other critical economic reports scheduled for the rest of week include an advance report on gross domestic product and the releases of figures on third-quarter manufacturing activity and October employment.

Markets expect the U.S. Federal Reserve to cut its key interest rate from its current level of 4.75 percent Wednesday — adding to an unexpectedly bold half-point cut last month.

Although lower interest rates can jump-start an economy, they can weaken a currency as investors transfer funds to countries where their deposits and fixed-income investments bring higher returns. Higher rates can boost a currency.

“The weakening of the dollar today came after the consumer confidence numbers came in. The market’s focusing more on economic data and what its implications are for December rather than tomorrow’s rate cut,” said Bob Sinche, head of global foreign exchange strategy at Bank of America Corp., adding that investors have already priced in a 25-basis point cut for October, and the dollar probably would not react strongly to tomorrow’s rate cut announcement.

The decline of the dollar makes U.S. exports cheaper abroad, which could boost corporate earnings and may increase tourism at home. However, prices of foreign-made goods, such as French wine and Canadian maple syrup.

In other trading, the dollar rose slightly against the Japanese currency to 114.77 yen from 114.59 yen, but fell against the Swiss franc to 1.1600, from 1.1651 Swiss francs late Monday.

Say "No" to more bond debt for wasteful spending…No on Prop 12

Posted on October 30, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here. Ms. Ross gets it right when she says bond elections should not be a blank check! She rightly states Texans shouldn’t even be considering bonds when the State has such a BIG surplus…Amen!

So Little to Show
By Tara Ross
Published: 10-30-07

Well, I never thought I’d say it, but I agree with Dennis Kucinich. His opening statement in a recent House subcommittee meeting was exactly right.

State and local governments are imprudent and wasteful in the items that they choose to finance with tax-exempt government bonds. The public finds itself deep in debt, often with little to show for it.

As Kucinich noted, a bridge in Minnesota should not collapse while the baseball team down the road gets a new publicly financed stadium. Nor should New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago have publicly financed sports stadiums when nearly 200 structurally deficient bridges can be found in or near these cities.

Everyone bears a portion of the blame. Congress has left too many loopholes in tax laws, quietly allowing frivolous and nonessential projects to be financed at public expense. Closer to home, state and local officials rely on bonds to finance all sorts of projects—whether these projects properly belong in the governmental realm or not.

These elected officials want credit for, say, curing cancer or creating a park. Let’s face it: A new Cowboys stadium makes for a snazzier campaign commercial than fixing potholes. But when it comes right down to it, voters have only themselves to blame. Virtually any time bond propositions are presented, voters seem to have an automatic “FOR” voting reflex.Sadly, this auto-FOR is likely to rear its ugly head again during the impending November 6 elections.Voters apparently believe that tax-exempt bonds present one never-ending stream of income. Money grows on the tax-exempt bond tree. Worse, voters seem unable to differentiate between items that are appropriately the target of tax-exempt public financing and other items that should instead be financed by private enterprise. Voters seem oblivious to the fact that tax-exempt financing ensures that future generations will be in debt, complete with the high tax burdens required to repay these bonds.

In two weeks, voters will be asked to cast ballots on several bond propositions. One has to wonder why bonds are being proposed—at all—when Texas has such a big surplus. Future generations should not be saddled with nearly $10 billion in new debt. Texans should prioritize their spending and use the money that they already have on hand.

The most emotionally appealing bond proposition on the ballot is Proposition 15, which promises $3 billion over ten years toward cancer research. Who doesn’t want to cure cancer? And, of course, Lance Armstrong’s appeals on behalf of the bonds are hard to resist. But don’t fall prey to the automatic “FOR!” reflex.

Instead, give some thought to whether this initiative is properly handled by the government, particularly when so many private research facilities already exist. If the bonds are approved, the funds would be used to create the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Do you hear that giant sucking sound?

That’s the sound of cancer research dollars being sucked into overhead for yet another government bureaucracy. Count on many dollars being wasted because the legislature has not created a structure to hold researchers at the Institute accountable.

Indeed, medical research, by its very nature, can’t be effectively benchmarked for success in the way that other projects can be. Finally, even assuming that this item is properly financed with public money, there is no need for taxpayers to take on debt to finance it. Use of the budget surplus would allow taxpayers to save as much as $1.6 billion in interest that would otherwise need to be paid to bondholders.

Another emotionally appealing bond proposition is Proposition 2, which would provide money for student college loans. Again, voters should stop and think before going with the automatic “FOR” reflex. Student loans are already available from many sources, including the federal government. Indeed so many loans are available that the supply/demand curve in higher education has been thrown off.

Tuition rates have skyrocketed in part because one factor that should control these rates—the affordability of education—has been compromised by the ease with which students can obtain loans. No matter how high the cost of education, students can borrow enough to pay the bill. In no other area can so much be borrowed, practically at will. Schools thus have little incentive to keep prices reasonable. Making more government loans accessible would undermine the supply/demand curve even more. Must Texans go into debt over this?The final bond propositions on the ballot would pay for various repairs, maintenance projects, highway improvements, and developments in distressed communities (Props 4, 12, and 16). These propositions at least arguably fall into the realm in which the government may appropriately act. Unfortunately, the propositions are too vague regarding the intended uses for the funds. Taxpayers deserve to know, specifically, what the government intends to do with their money.

Bond proposals should not operate like blank checks. And one continues to wonder why so much debt is being accumulated when the state has a surplus. The legislature should at least consider whether the surplus can finance these projects. Americans for Prosperity has suggested financing any cost over and above the surplus by redirecting a portion of the gasoline tax. Moreover, the Texas Department of Transportation can still issue up to $3 billion in bonds from a referendum passed in 2003. These funds should be used before taxpayers are asked to authorize still more debt.Voters these days like to complain that federal and state governments are spending too much money. And they may sympathize with Kucinich’s observation that the vast amount of spending has not greatly benefited taxpayers. November 6 is a chance to hold the line on at least a little governmental spending, if voters choose to take advantage of the opportunity.

Despite law that forbids it, TxDOT still looking to give 1604 toll project to foreign companies

Posted on October 25, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here. The article mentions SB 792, the private toll moratorium bill that KILLED the 281/1604 private toll deal. But true to form, TxDOT is breaking the law and pursuing foreign control of 1604 toll lanes anyway. The article also notes that up to nearly $200 million in GAS TAXES may subsidize the toll lanes, making the tolling of these existing corridors a TRIPLE TAX (we’ve paid a tax for what’s already built, our tax money will be used to build the improvements, and then a lifetime TOLL TAX on top of that)!

Three to bid on U.S. 281 toll road project
10/24/2007
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News

Three private groups are now in the hunt to build U.S. 281 toll lanes, but two big foreign companies competing just a short while ago to build and lease a larger toll network here have dropped out.The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority board voted Wednesday to let all three teams submit plans to rebuild U.S. 281 north of Loop 1604 into a tollway with free access roads by 2012. It’s the fledging agency’s first project.

“Goodness knows we have been two and a half years getting here,” board member Bob Thompson said. “Maybe it’s even more important to see the confidence of these three large companies. It adds some credibility, it adds some stature to what we’re trying to do.”

The three teams include 29 construction, engineering and public affairs companies.

Fluor Enterprises Inc. of Irving and Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. of Atlanta lead the Cibolo Creek Infrastructure team. Both joined to develop the Texas 130 toll road east of Austin.

Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio and Texas Sterling Construction Co. of Houston lead the other teams.

Zachry joined with Cintra of Spain to produce a plan for Trans-Texas Corridor toll lanes and rail lines that would parallel Interstate 35, and in 2005 offered to build and lease a 47-mile toll network on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio.

But Cintra isn’t part of the group angling to add U.S. 281 toll lanes now.

A tolling bill from last spring’s legislative session busted plans for the San Antonio network by banning privatization of U.S. 281 toll lanes.

Now Texas Department of Transportation officials say they’re working with Cintra and Zachry, as well as the other international bidder, Macquarie of Australia, to see if privatizing Loop 1604 toll lanes would make financial sense without U.S. 281 in the package.

Mobility Authority officials, saying they want to keep toll rates “reasonable,” want to develop Loop 1604 toll lanes without leasing them and losing some of the profits.

On the U.S. 281 tollway, motorists would pay 17 cents a mile at the start, with fees rising 2.75 percent a year until 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, under a plan the authority board approved Wednesday.

The toll lanes would go from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road or Comal County, depending on whether regional planners allocate $69 million or $112 million in state funds to subsidize the project. Another $80 million subsidy could be needed for five interchange connectors at Loop 1604.

“There isn’t surplus revenue in the case of 281,” authority Director Terry Brechtel said.

The latest estimates for the U.S. 281 tollway — in 2006 dollars — are $426 million for construction and $220 million for upkeep over 40 years.

On Monday, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom filed a lawsuit to challenge the makeup and procedures of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which oversees federal transportation dollars and is set to approve U.S. 281 toll rates in December.

The lawsuit, which claims that discussion and debate are being shut down, seeks to remove nonelected officials from the planning board.

Toll road advocates call the lawsuit frivolous.

Wolff: Toll Opponents "Crazy," "Dangerous"

Posted on October 25, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to story here. The pro-tollers have come unhinged! Look who can’t win on the arguments and feels the need to drag a political debate into the mud and muck with name calling…Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. First, we’re called PIGS now “crazy” and “dangerous.”

Here’s what’s crazy:
-Charging us over and over again for what’s already built and paid for.
-Taking our gas tax plan for overpasses on 281 that’s been funded since 2003 and turning it into a cash cow, targeted, DOUBLE tax toll scheme.
-The Legislature stealing $10 billion from our gas taxes and later saying there’s no money for roads.
-Twice passing a Bexar County Commissioners Court Resolution AGAINST TOLLING EXISTING ROADS and then allowing them to toll existing corridors all over Bexar County.
-Exploding the cost of transportation at a time with record high gas prices which will further hurt the economy and the County’s sales tax and property tax base.

Here’s what’s dangerous:
-Throwing up stop lights, orange cones, and cement barriers all over the county causing hazardous road conditions, delays, and accidents.
-Allowing continued development in Northern Bexar County without keeping up with road capacity which ensured the intersection of 281 and 1604 would sit atop the city’s “Top 10 Crash Locations” list, where it has stayed since 2004.
-Refusing to install the overpass at a DANGEROUS intersection, 281/Borgfeld, where people have DIED when they’ve had the money to do it since 2003!

Apparently our elected officials are finally taking notice of the public outcry, but it’s clear they haven’t gotten the message. We don’t want or need toll roads…stop raiding our gas taxes, stop spending our money on illegal ad campaigns and hidden cameras in orange barrels, install the overpasses that are already paid for, index the gas tax, and be done with it.

Wolff: Toll Opponents “Crazy,” “Dangerous”
Judge rips into toll critics in ‘State of the County’ speech
By Jim Forsyth, WOAI
October 25, 2007

Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff used his State of the County address today to tear into opponents of toll roads in Bexar County, saying they are ‘crazy’ and ‘dangerous’ and suggesting once that if he ‘named the other members of Commissioner’s Court who support toll roads it might endanger their lives.’

Wolff said toll roads are ‘the right way,’ and he urged the Chamber of Commerce audience to cheer Metropolitan Planning Organization Chair Sheila McNeil, who was sued along with the MPO this week by toll road opponents who claim that the organization is illegally pushing for toll roads.

“We have some people who have had to take a lot of heat,” Wolff said. “One of them is Sheila McNeil who is the head of the MPO. Sheila, stand up. We owe you a round of applause for taking the heat from these crazy people who are jamming it down your throat every day!”

Wolff has been a long time supporter of toll roads, and he has mentioned the importance of building toll roads in his previous two State of the County speeches. But the vehemence of his denunciation of toll road opponents surprised some in his generally pro toll audience. Wolff didn’t mention by name which toll road opponents he thinks are ‘crazy’ or ‘dangerous’ but he did cite an incident following a meeting to discuss toll roads.

“We had an incident not too long ago, where the anti toll road people were here and sort of jumped (Regional Mobility Authority Chairman) Bill Thornton and I in the parking lot. I tried to get away from him and he kept following me. I finally turned around and asked him to get away from me, and he said ‘give me your best shot.’ I called the deputy across the street, and he came over and kept him away from me. Let me tell you, they are dangerous people.”

“We’re barely holding on with a three two vote on Commissioners Court supporting this project,” Wolff said. “I won’t tell you who the other two commissioners are, I don’t want to endanger their lives.”

Lyle Larson and Tommy Adkisson are toll road opponents on Commissioner’s Court.

Then, Wolff suggested that residents should be grateful that toll roads are being built.

“The roads on the side will be free, the toll lanes will be in the middle, you don’t have to get onto the toll lane, you should be happy we’re building it, because there will be less traffic on the free lanes.”

Wolff said he opposes any concessions agreement which would allow “a company from ” to build the toll roads, a reference to the Cintra-Zachry partnership which has the contract to build 40 miles of the State Highway 130 toll road.

“TexDOT wants to give it (the US 281 toll lane construction contract) to a company from Spain,” Wolff said. “We prefer that the public be involved. We need to stick with the public sector, we need to keep the tolls as low as possible, and allow that money to stay right here and not go someplace else, whether it be or someplace else in

Elsewhere in his State of the County speech, Wolff said he anticipates suggestions on an estimated $300 million dollar venue tax renewal proposal to be submitted to Commissioners Court by December, and a vote could be called on the issue next spring. He says officials are considering four potential uses for the venue tax money. Sports complexes, including facilities at UTSA, which could be built inside the existing Municipal Auditorium, expansion of the Riverwalk south and north, and improvements to the AT&T Center.

Lawsuit against MPO makes front page, top of the fold!

Posted on October 23, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here. FYI, the 281 lawsuit filed in federal court in December of 2005 required a new environmental study, but NOTHING prevents TxDOT from moving forward with the FREEway improvements to 281. It only stopped the TOLLWAY! The blame for any cost escalations rest solely on TxDOT and the politicians who enable them. We’ve done everything humanly possible to force TxDOT to revert back to the gas tax plan (like this MPO vote in January 2007) and get the fix installed years ago!

Tollway foes suing again
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
10/23/2007
With a U.S. 281 tollway plan racing toward the finish line, critics Monday filed yet another lawsuit they hope will slam on the brakes.

This time, they went to a federal court in San Antonio and reached back to the First and 14th amendments of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and provide equal protection under the law.

The lawsuit seeks to remove non-elected officials from the Metropolitan Planning Organization board and to ban Sheila McNeil, a city councilwoman who serves as chairwoman, from squelching some discussions on toll issues.

“The people of Texas are fed up with out-of-control, abusive government,” said Terri Hall of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom. “This is taxation without representation.”

Planning organization Director Isidro Martinez said federal law dealing with local oversight of transportation funds calls for staff officials from major agencies as well as elected leaders to serve on such boards.

Eleven of the 19 members of the planning board have been elected to city councils, the Bexar County Commissioners Court and the Legislature.

“It’s just the way we’ve always done it,” he said. “I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.”

McNeil said it’s disappointing that no one first tried to resolve differences with her.

“Whoever’s filing a lawsuit has not come to me and asked me to reconsider or do anything,” she said. “It’s a waste of court time.”

Board member David Leibowitz, a state representative, said McNeil has repeatedly blocked consideration of a resolution that would advise the Texas Department of Transportation to stop spending up to $9 million to promote toll roads.

McNeil put the resolution on last month’s agenda but, she said, pulled it after reading it. She said an unwritten policy lets the chairwoman set the agendas.

“It got inadvertently put on the agenda,” she told the board last month. “It is not a matter for this MPO. We’re a planning organization. We don’t tell other organizations or entities how to spend their money.”

The maneuver was just the latest to spark the lawsuit, Hall said. Others include a split vote in July to push aside a toll critic and install McNeil as chairwoman, and a sudden policy change in May to try to keep a toll advocate on the board despite leaving elected office.

San Antonio has four council members on the board, more than any other entity. The city also has two staff officials who serve, and they typically vote with their bosses.

“We’ve done everything in our power to exert the political pressure to change this unconstitutional board,” Hall said. “But when a powerful unelected voting bloc is allowed to persist unchecked, we have no choice but go to court.”

The lawsuit’s lead attorney, David Van Os, who last year ran as the Democratic candidate for state attorney general, said he’ll ask for a hearing before the planning board meets Dec. 3.

In December, the board plans to set U.S. 281 toll rates and shift more public money to subsidize the toll road, from $69 million allocated now to $112 million. With the extra funds, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority could build 8 miles of tollway instead of 4.

The mobility authority hopes to start construction next summer and open the toll road in 2012, with express lanes running from Loop 1604 to either Marshall Road or Comal County. Toll rates might start at 17 cents a mile for cars and rise 2.75 percent a year through 2017 and then 3 percent annually.

But that’s if the project doesn’t get shoved into a legal ditch. A 2005 lawsuit filed in a state district court forced more environmental study, which stopped work for more than two years. Construction costs have since gone up by a third.