The National League Isn’t Alone in Its Mediocrity

Is baseball’s National League the worst side in any of the four major sports? Going by reputation, surely. Another pathetic round of results in interleague play this year won’t help. The NL’s winning percentage this season against the American League in interleague play was just .454-and that was actually better than the .434 mark it has put up in 1,259 regular season games against the AL over the last five campaigns.

This is without a doubt wretched stuff, but every sport has a weaker half. With a .448 mark against the Western Conference over the same time, the NBA’s Eastern Conference hasn’t covered itself in glory. In football, the NFC’s .423 winning percentage against the AFC over the past five seasons is even worse than what the NL has done against the AL. And going by percentage of points won, the NHL’s Eastern Conference is weaker still, with a .410 mark since the 2004-2005 against teams from the Western Conference.

In baseball, the popular explanation for the gap between the leagues is that the presence of the wealthy New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox forces rival AL front offices to raise their games. There’s probably something to this: Similarly dominant teams like the New England Patriots, Detroit Red Wings and Los Angeles Lakers have forced rivals to rise to their level.

There’s good news for the weaker sides. With the exception of the NFL, where four of its last five champions come from the AFC, regular-season dominance doesn’t seem to matter in the postseason. Since 2005, teams from the stronger halves have won just seven of 13 possible championships in baseball, basketball and hockey. Perhaps the NL doesn’t need our pity after all.

Extreme & Weird Weather of the World

http://www.coolwx.com/extreme/

Experts divided on whether Austin can handle bigger upscale market

By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

When the 36-story Ashton opens next month, the $110 million tower at Colorado and West Cesar Chavez streets will raise the bar for luxury apartment living in downtown Austin.

With such amenities as marble-tiled bathrooms, two-story penthouses, a wine cellar and private movie theater, the Ashton also will have rents averaging about $2,500 a month. That will rise to about $3,000 once incentives of two months of free rent ends.

The Ashton is opening during a year when a record 980 apartments will be added in and around downtown, even as the economy has stagnated and job growth has slowed, raising questions about whether there will be enough tenants to fill the new spaces.

On that issue, real estate experts differ. Some say that the apartment market is healthy, with units leasing well and at high rents.

Others say that although the market is faring better than expected, downtown still has too many apartments.

Between the new competition and the softer economy, landlords at some of the projects say leasing has been a challenge, prompting them to offer from one to three months of free rent to entice tenants.

The list of projects offering some free rent includes 5th Street Commons, Gables Residential's new project on West Fifth Street, Legacy on the Lake, a 31-story apartment tower on Rainey Street at the eastern edge of downtown, and many others.

The Ashton's developers, the Hanover Co. and MetLife Inc., don't typically offer concessions on new projects, which include luxury high-rises in many major cities. "It's strictly because of the economy," said Ed Hamilton, a development partner with Hanover. "We don't know when the economy is going to turn around, but when it does, we'll see the rents go back up and we'll get rid of the concessions."

Twenty units are leased, and Hamilton said Hanover expects to average 20 leases a month once the Ashton opens in mid-July.

The project "is in a class by itself," he said. "We feel like there's that many people in Austin who want that lifestyle."

Greg Willett, vice president of research for MPF Research , a consulting and research firm, said that though there appears to be "significant demand" for luxury rentals downtown, "we have delivered too many units all at once."

"There are always going to be some people who can afford it and pay whatever it costs, but it's a pretty shallow pool," Willett said.

He added that although the downtown market's performance isn't fantastic, it is surpassing MPF's low expectations.

But local real estate consultant Charles Heimsath said the downtown market is strong.

"Not only are the units leasing rapidly, but they're leasing at very high rates," said Heimsath, president of Capitol Market Research, which has consulted on many downtown projects.

Of the 13 newest apartment projects in and around downtown, nine have occupancies of 90 percent or more. Heimsath said 900 of the 1,200 units added last year were leased, and "that shows a lot of strength in the market."

Heimsath builds his case by the numbers.

More units rented, at lower prices

In June 2008, downtown's 1,493 apartment units were 72.2 percent occupied. By December, 354 more units were added, bringing the total to 1,847. The occupancy rate rose to 80.4 percent.

Since then, another 296 units have been completed, and occupancy has risen to 85.3 percent.

Another 684 units will open between now and the end of the year, which will include the first 128 units in the 294-unit Gables Park Plaza west of the Seaholm Power Plant, along with the Ashton and Gables' Pressler project on West Fifth Street.

Rents, however, have been dropping.

They fell from an average of $1,876 a month in June 2008, to $1,792 in December and $1,578 by May, Heimsath said.

Part of the reason, Heimsath said, is that new mid-rise projects, such as Red River Flats on Red River Street, the Crescent on East Riverside Drive and the 300 N. Lamar complex have rents that are generally lower than those in a high-rise.

The other reason is obvious, he said.

"In the competition for market share of tenants, one way to attract interest in leasing is to offer concessions," Heimsath said.

Willett said MPF's research shows "pretty significant rent cuts everywhere," including downtown.

Citywide, Austin apartments were 89.5 percent occupied in June, down from 93.4 percent a year ago, according to MPF Research. The average rent was $823 a month, down from $839 a year ago.

On his downtown outlook, Willett noted that his perspective differs somewhat from Heimsath's because MPF looks at the big picture of how Austin compares to all the markets it tracks.

Spencer Stuart doesn't mince words when he talks about leasing efforts for the Legacy on the Lake, which opened in October.

"Leasing has been a challenge because of the economy, and our concession levels are higher than we would have liked," said Stuart. He is a senior managing partner with Legacy Partners Residential Development Inc., a Foster City, Calif., firm with luxury apartment projects in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado and Washington.

Stuart said the developer expected 80 percent of the Legacy's 187 units to be occupied by now. The building is 60 percent occupied, although leases are signed that will raise that to 84 percent, once the tenants move in.

"The good news is that Austin is still creating new jobs, and that's balanced against the bad news that Austin is building a big supply of new apartments," he said

Moreover, "downtown seems place for young professionals to work and live, so we think the downtown properties are pretty well-positioned to outperform the overall market," Stuart said.

The normal rent for a one-bedroom unit is $1,260 a month. But with two months of free rent, the cost works out to $1,060 a month.

For two-bedrooms, the discounts put the average rent around $2,077, nearly 6 percent off the market price, Stuart said. Two of the four 2,800-square-foot penthouses are available, with rents averaging $6,200 a month.

Stuart said he expects the building to be fully occupied by October, two months later than anticipated.

But had concessions not been offered, "I don't even want to think about it," Stuart said. "That would be ugly."

Asked if the project will be profitable, he said: "The jury's out on that, and it will remain out for a while. It all depends on the recovery and the economy and overall demand."

With the capital markets in lockdown, Stuart thinks it will a couple of years before financing is available again for high-rise residential construction in downtown Austin, and a year after that before the next new construction crane rises. "So it will probably be 2013 before you see any new construction. That's my best guess," Stuart said.

But, "we expect the Austin market to lead the nation in the recovery," he said, mainly because Austin is still producing new jobs.

Positive long-term outlook

At Gables' 5th Street Commons, only 38 of the 150 units are left to lease, just five months after opening, said Jennifer Wiebrand, a development associate with Gables. Walk-in traffic "has been very strong," she said.

Interest has been spurred by concessions that have varied from one to three months of free rent — promotional pricing that Wiebrand said "will likely not be available again."

Although Gables is "somewhat concerned about the amount of competitive product that will be delivered in and around (downtown) in the next 12 months \u2026 our long-term outlook for the market is positive," she said.

Downtown's attractions, including its growing retail, restaurant and entertainment options, "will lead to long-term health in the downtown-area residential market," Weibrand said.

At the 29-story, 305-unit Monarch on West Fifth Street, developers are offering two months of free rent on some two-bedroom units, and three months of free rent on the four remaining penthouses. The project is 97 percent leased.

At Greystar Red River Flats, at Red River and Ninth streets, rents for one-bedroom units have been lowered to $1,250 a month from $1,650, and two-bedroom units are renting $1,850 a month, $575 off the market rate, said Candiss Escobar , regional property manager. The project is 96 percent leased.

On top of rent discounts, some complexes are offering incentives for tenants who sign a lease within 24 to 48 hours of seeing a unit, said Shannon Sullivan, leasing consultant for Robertson Hill Apartments on San Marcos at East 10th Street.

With the three-month rent special, one bedrooms at the complex now start at about $950 a month, down from $1,260 a month, and two-bedroom units normally priced at $1,800 a month are renting for about $1,400 a month, she said.

At Cole, 119 new apartments on South Lamar Boulevard just south of Lady Bird Lake, it's been "extremely busy," said Jessica Higgins, a leasing professional with Lincoln Property Co. On average, five new leases a week have been signed since leasing began April 15, Higgins said.

With current specials, studios start at $1,202 a month compared with the $1,420 a month market rent; one bedrooms start at $1,384 a month, down from the $1,636-a-month market rate, and two-bedrooms start at $1,947, down from $2,301 market rent.

Downtown landlords and leasing agents say that although the market is softer, demand remains healthy. Renters run the gamut: students, downtown workers, employees in Austin on temporary assignments, and people who want to test the market before buying a condominium.

From what he's seen of the Ashton, Oliver Everette said he liked everything, from its "elegant, sophisticated" finishes, expansive views and proximity to shops, restaurants and theaters.

"It feels like I'm in a high-end boutique hotel," said Everette of L Style G Style, who helps publish the upscale lifestyle magazine for Austin's gay and lesbian community. "I would expect to see this in a W (hotel) or the Austonian."

Everette, who now rents in the Monarch, plans to move into a two-bedroom unit at the Ashton.

Linda Glessner, who lives in nearby apartment building, said she was drawn to the Ashton's "understated elegance" and its proximity to the lake and to downtown's "very vibrant, energized environment."

"I think it's just unparalleled," said Glessner, a senior associate dean in the Continuing and Innovative Education division at the University of Texas.

Having watched the building rise for the past two years, "I'm real excited about making the move," she said.

Why Delta Should Buy Alaska

Delta is in the middle of digesting Northwest, quite a meal. For dessert, I suggest Alaska Airlines, which should be sweeter for Delta than for any other airline in the US.

Alaska Airlines theoretically makes sense as a merger partner to just about all the major US airlines with the exception of Southwest and United. Southwest is out because a lot of what Alaska does is outside of Southwest’s mission (and Southwest has only truly merged once in its lifetime Morris Ai—with Morris Air -) and United is out because it would probably cause anti-trust issues, given United and Alaska’s overlapping networks on the west coast.

US Airways would probably love to merge with Alaska (any port in a storm) but there’s no way it could afford it. It might make sense for AirTran too — giving AirTran geographic reach it simply does not have at the moment. Again, AirTran probably can’t afford it. Neither of these is likely to be a serious bidder if Alaska was ever in play.

But Alaska’s value is really to the legacy majors with international systems — American, Continental and especially Delta. The value is Seattle.

Seattle ought to be a substantial international gateway, but it’s not, because the dominant hub carrier (Alaska) has no intercontinental flights. Seattle, in fact, is potentially the best hub to Asia in the whole lower 48, simply because it’s closer to Asia than any other large lower 48 city. It also results in shorter connections to many (perhaps most) US mainland points. Check it out for yourself on the Great Circle Mapper. Try a bunch of connecting itineraries from say, Tokyo (NRT) or Seoul (ICN) via Seattle (SEA) or San Francisco (SFO) to some interior point, like Kansas City (MCI) (put “NRT-SEA-MCI, NRT-SFO-MCI” in the “Paths” box and hit the “Display Map” button to compare the lengths of the paths from Tokyo to Kansas City via Seattle and San Francisco).

Buying Alaska is one of the rare situations where a merger with a largely domestic airline would yield substantial benefits to the international side of the purchaser.

Alaska’s operations would also give greater access the US west coast to each of Continental, American and Delta. But Alaska is worth more, by far, to Delta. Why?

First of all, Delta has a big Tokyo operation inherited from Northwest, so like United it has a powerful Asian operation. What Delta lacks, however, is a west coast hub/gateway to anchor its Asian operation. Delta is in the unusual position of having a lot of ways to bring people to the US from Asia but not having a good distribution system on the part of the US mainland which is closest to Asia — namely the west coast. Compare to United with its big San Francisco hub/gateway.

Continental and American also lack west coast hubs/gateways, so Alaska would be valuable to them too. However, their Asian systems are not as powerful as that of Delta, so Delta could leverage Alaska’s Seattle hub far more than either Continental and American.

Seattle has another feature that matches up well with Delta. Delta’s fleet is unusually heavy in small widebodies — it probably has too many 767s. The interesting thing about Seattle is that it’s the one large potential US hub from which the 767 has sufficient range to reach useful parts of Asia,including Japan and Korea. In other words, a Seattle hub would give Delta’s probably underemployed 767s something to do — imagine 767 nonstops from Seattle to most of the significant Japanese cities, plus Korea, plus maybe parts of northeast China, especially as Delta is adding winglets to some of its 767s to give them more range.

But wait, there’s more. Seattle would do some great things for Delta on the domestic side as well. In particular, it would fix a long-time problem in the Delta network, namely the relative weakness of its Salt Lake City hub against United’s Denver hub.

Denver has always been, and will likely always be, a far better place for a hub than Salt Lake City. Denver’s a larger city, it’s placed better for domestic traffic flows, flights from Denver are allowed to fly into New York LaGuardia airport (as opposed to those in Salt Lake City, which are not, because of the idiotic perimeter rules of the Port Authority) and so forth.

Delta has struggled for years to make Salt Lake City work in the shadow of Denver. Really the main thing Salt Lake City has going for it is that it’s the only other plausible city for a hub in the Mountain West other than Denver. It ain’t much, but it’s something.

The merger with Northwest has already helped a little bit. Delta is now more relevant to a section of the Great Plains/Upper Midwest/Montana, etc, because it can provide access from two directions with the combination of Salt Lake City and Minneapolis. It’s not as good as United’s Denver + Chicago, but it’s better than Salt Lake City by itself. The new Delta is already to likely see some market shift in its favor because of the Salt Lake City/Minneapolis combination.

Imagine, however, the influence Delta+Northwest+Alaska would exert over basically the entire northwest quadrant of the lower 48 from the combination of Seattle, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis. Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming & Nebraska would all find the combination of Delta’s services to be a powerful competitor to United’s San Francisco + Denver + Chicago hub combination.

Neither Continental nor American would benefit the same way. Neither of them has hubs that are close enough Seattle to have a similar effect.

Lastly, it’s worthwhile noting that Alaska and Delta have similar pilot pay structures these days. You can check that out for yourselves by looking at rates at Airline Pilot Central. You can see that Delta & Alaska have similar 737 pay rates. This is important — prior to 9/11, Alaska’s rates were a lot lower than those of the “big ugly” airlines like Delta, meaning that a merger of Alaska with an airline like Delta would instantly impose significant additional costs on the Alaska route structure. That’s nowhere near the problem it once would have been.

Given the extraordinary benefits to Delta, we’d even go so far as to say that Delta would be nuts not to pursue a takeover with Alaska as soon as it is able. There are few occasions where a “fill-in” acquisition like Alaska could yield such benefits

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Lions Golf Course is in Jeopardy

After nearly a year of meetings, listening sessions, and presentations,Cooper, Robert son & Partners, the master planning firm hired by the University of Texas Board of Regents, last week submitted its two conceptual master plans to the austere university governing body. Most notably, neither plan includes the popular Lions Municipal Golf Course, or Muny – though both plans do include 15 acres for the West Austin Youth Association, or WAYA – and one of the options included moving the Bracken ridge Field Lab, a research facility headed up by UT professor David Hillis.

Where Muny now sits, CRP envisions a meandering central park built along the intermittently flowing Schulle Branch Creek. Paul Milana, a CRP partner who has frequently served as the company's public face, said in a press conference after the presentation that the lush waterscape envisioned in CRP drawings would be a series of ponds retaining runoff. In addition to the new park, plans include a revamped "boat town" marina and pedestrian-friendly clusters of development.

The two scenarios are far from certain and actually serve as yet another jumping-off point. It's unclear how much revenue the university could make under the two scenarios. "I would be very disappointed to see the field lab downsized when the recommendations from every faculty advisory committee and outside expert review group has been to expand the field lab at the existing site," Hillis said. Saying that the lab will be forced to downsize its classes and programs, Hillis calls CRP's option No. 2 "simply the less ridiculous of two unacceptable plans."

Without Muny, planners see an opportunity to alleviate congestion that builds up along Lake Austin Boulevard, Exposition Boulevard, and Enfield Road. In one plan, Exposition would be extended to the shoreline area and serve as a main shopping street. In both, Enfield is extended out to Red Bud Trail, with Lake Austin Boulevard widened into a "proper" boulevard. Mike Weaver of Prime Strategies told the regents that traffic could be reduced by more than 40% under the proposed plan.

During the same press conference, regents promised a further inquiry into the CRP proposals and said faculty members unhappy with the field lab propositions will be given extraordinary weight. Muny advocates are also taking a long-term view, especially in light of the fact that the lease with the city of Austin doesn't expire until 2019. Mary Arnold, a key figure in the Save Muny campaign and a veteran of prior battles to save the golf course, was upbeat. "We're very glad to hear the chair of the Board of Regents say the leases will continue to 2019," she said, but she questioned the affordability of the housing options in the plan and offered a reminder of a legal process requiring public hearings "if a public body is going to take a piece of land that has been used as open-space recreation."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:799234

Horns Force Game Three For National Title

Taylor Jungmann. Here's a mental exercise for ya: name a Longhorn in any sport who has had as gutsy a performance when his team desperately needed a superhuman effort in an absolutely must win game. Who'd you come up with? Me too.

Remember what you're wearing and where you were last night. Same place, same attire tonight. 9 innings from those 4 little words from Craig Way.

-BON-

The dog days of summer are upon us!

On this date a year ago, we recorded our 17th day at 100 or above. Yesterday our high was a record breaking 103, but was only our 10th day of triple digit heat. I say “only,” but 10 days is way too many, considering that our average number of 100 degree days is 12–for the whole summer!

So might we catch up? Could this become a worse summer than last year? It’s impossible to know now, but I can tell you the next two weeks don’t look promising at all. We’re expecting to remain near or just above 100 degrees for the next 7 days at least. Here’s the new 8-14 day outlook from the Climate Prediction Center, and as you can see, it is expected to remain hotter and drier than normal, but hopefully we’ll drop a little below 100!

International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse

By Ron Paul
Published 06/22/09

Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill. In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don’t have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.

Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.

From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called "peacekeeping" missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders. Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a "potential pandemic flu" which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.

Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund. These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help. Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people. Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.

We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF. Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security. I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily.