Do you ever feel like you’re in the Twilight Zone?

Financial news is getting more bizarre by the day. Take today’s new for example.

Citibank’s stock price soared over news that it didn’t lose as much money Wall Street expected it to. The quarterly loss was only $966 million and revenue doubled to $24.79 billion.

Is the $45 billion we gave them since October counted in this?

I know it includes the 13,000 jobs cut in the first quarter and the dumping of $116 billion of assets.

The more entertaining part of this news, was their decision to “delay a proposed exchange of billions of dollars of preferred shares into common stock until the U.S. government completes its “stress tests” of large banks to gauge which might need more aid,” as reported by Reuters.

That seems kind of underhanded to me or am I just being sensitive.

Wasn’t the point of the stress tests to identify banks who will be in more trouble if the economy worsens? How can it be a valid test if they are delaying a major exchange of stocks?

Then there’s the report that the Senate candidates are still raising tons of money for the 2010 campaigns.

Now this is a good one, because despite the horrifying economic situation, the candidates last year raised enough cash to bail out at least one bank.

Are institutions getting bailout money allowed to contribute? I don’t see why they should be able to.

Reid has already raised $2.2 million, several Democratic candidates, according to Reuters, have already raised over $1 million, Spector raised almost $2 million and already has 6 million in the bank. Clinton’s replacement has raised over $2 million, but the Reuters story
didn’t total all the millions.

We’re getting thrown out of our homes, dumped from our jobs, surviving without health care and unable to educate our children, yet these people “governing” us, have millions in their campaign “war chests.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

The final irony to today’s news, is the story that “Steven Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration’s auto task force, was one of the investment firm executives involved with payments now under scrutiny in a state and federal investigation into an alleged kickback scheme at New York state’s pension fund,” reported Reuters.

The Treasury Department, when asked if they knew about this when Rattner was appointed, said that Rattner informed them about the pending investigation but refused to comment further.

One would think that treasury would be reluctant to put someone with an investigation into kickbacks, at the head of such a high profile and crucial task force. But no, they apparently saw no problem with it because there he is.

The scarier thought is that maybe Geithner, the tax cheat, has a suspicion that no matter who you appoint from the investment bank industry, they are likely to come under scrutiny for one shady practice or another, and therefore you hire either the one with the least chance of an investigation or the one who is most likely to survive the investigation without being imprisoned.

Either way, I am leaning more and more towards the folks that chant HEY HEY HO HO THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS GOT TO GO!

Add to that the investment banks, nationally chartered banks, etc. etc. etc.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has his work cut out for him.

I now have to wonder if it was the New Yorkers that were the frauds and the Chicago financial institutions were all above board, or if Cuomo is a pro-active Attorney General and Lisa Madigan is simply remiss in not investigating the Chicago Board of Trade, Mercantile Exchange and the Board of Options Exchange.

Time will tell.

Advertisements

Congo forces leaders to pay taxes – ours?

The Democratic Republic of Congo, faced with a fiscal crisis, is now forcing their leaders to pay taxes. Reuters reports

Amid a growing budget shortfall, the government is under pressure to cut costs and boost tax revenues.

Budget Minister Michel Lokola told Reuters that last month’s decision to tax government salaries at source, rather than rely on employees to pay taxes after receiving their salaries, had already raised roughly $1 million.

“They just weren’t paying. The government ministers we replaced, the MPs, the senators, they didn’t pay,” said Lokola, who entered the government last October in a cabinet shake-up that saw his predecessor Adolphe Muzito named prime minister.

Lokola said the move was partly aimed at setting a good example, adding that Congolese President Joseph Kabila’s government salary was also subject to the measure.

“He is aware of this, and he approves of it … I don’t see how we can expect the private sector to pay their taxes if we don’t pay ourselves,” he said.

So even a country we look upon with derision, the Congo, has realized the benefit of taxing the elite of their country. As we have seen, politicians in this country appear to have an aversion to paying their taxes, and can’t even comprehend the tax code that they wrote, as evidenced by Tom Daschle, who didn’t know the limo was taxable.

So will Geithner, considering the fiscal crisis we, ourselves, are facing, implement a program of ferreting out government tax cheats and garnishing their taxpayer-paid wages?

I doubt it.

He’s a tax cheat.

Nothing like the fox guarding the hen house.

So why are we asking the experts anything?

NABE, the National Association of Business Economists, today released the results of their annual member survey. Reuters reports they predicted “the recession-hit economy would begin to recover in the second half of this year, returning to a potential growth trend in 2010.”

I wondered who these people were, and if they were the same people that missed this economic problem altogether, and were wondering for a year or two if we “might” be in a recession.

I found another survey summary that led to the current question, the topic of this entry. What do you think? Here’s what NABE says of its members:

Substantial percentages of economists report little familiarity with complex instruments and other financial innovations. Despite the prevalence of NABE members holding advanced degrees in economics and other business-related disciplines, substantial percentages admitted to having little or no familiarity with the structure, activities, and risks associated with hedge funds (45%), private equity funds (40%), asset-backed securitization (48%), credit default swaps (CDS, 68%) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs, 51%).

That was in August 2007, when they also thought:

The five-year housing outlook remains largely positive. A slight plurality (42%) of respondents expects U.S. home prices to be flat, on average, over the next five years. But respondents who expect home prices to rise on average over the next five years (41%) far outnumber those who expect prices to fall (16%). NABE members continue to place low odds (1 in 10) on a large drop in U.S. home prices similar to that experienced in Japan during the 1990s.

No comment.

A criminal conspiracy by any other name…

I stumbled today, on the stock broker fraud blog which apparently keeps track of all the dirt on Wall Street. After reading an article about former UBS Securities LLC Executive Director Mitchell Guttenberg, who was ordered to “forfeit $15.81 million in alleged illegal profits, as well as serve 78 months in prison” for an insider trading scheme, which also involved UBS stock analysts, a trader, a hedge fund manager, and other individuals, I wondered, why does the RICO Act not apply here?

According to this article, Guttenberg and the 12 other individuals, “mostly former employees at Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp, and Bear Stearns Co., Inc., were criminally charged for their involvement in the insider trading ring. Investigators say the participants tried to conceal their illegal actions by conducting meetings at restaurants, using disposable cellular phones, and coming up with coded text messages.”

Are they drug dealers or traders? To some people, money is a drug. In this case, it should be treated as such.

Were they throwaway phones, or were they stupid enough to use their own?

But it gets better.

Another article, concerning Auction-Rate- Securities, involved 12 states which banded together to form a “multi-state Task Force dedicated to finding out whether Wall Street investment firms had misled investors when persuading them to invest in the ARS market.”

I anxiously read on to see how much jail time these people would do, and discovered the answer was zero.

The punishment for this crime that involved 12 states? “11 major Wall Street investment banks have said they will buy back over $51 billion in ARS from charities, retail investors, and small companies.”

And the list of these companies, with their ARS hotlines?

Bank of America 1-866-638-4183
Deutsche Bank 1-866-926-1437
Citi 1-866-720-4802
JP Morgan 1-866-450-8470
Goldman Sachs 1-888-350-2857
Merrill Lynch 1-888-706-1381
UBS 1-800-253-1974
Morgan Stanley 1-800-566-2273
Wachovia 1-866-283-794

That was in November 2008. When did they get the first of the TARP money, and their bonuses, and their huge salaries?

Are they on the UBS list of unnamed offshore accounts?

And on the same site:

UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and Citigroup have reached finalized settlements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay tens of thousands of ARS investors almost $30 billion. The settlements will resolve SEC charges that the companies misled investors about the risks involved with auction rate securities.

The SEC’s complaint accused UBS and Citigroup of misleading customers by telling them ARS were liquid, safe investments and failing to warn them of the growing dangers when the market started to fail. When the ARS market froze in February, the SEC says both firms left tens of thousands of clients holding billions of dollars in illiquid ARS.

These finalized settlements will restore about $22.7 billion in liquidity to UBS clients who invested in ARS and some $7 billion to Citigroup investors. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox says investors will get back “100 cents on the dollar on their ARS investments.” Both firms will buy ARS from affected customers at PAR. Customers that sold their ARS under the par difference will be paid between par and the ARS sale price. This is the largest settlement in SEC history.

That was December 22, 2008……and the TARP money?

We as taxpayers, should demand equal protection under the law. They should be charged with the criminal conspiracy that this truly is and sent to prison – 20 years to life, with their assets seized and put into the TARP Rebate Fund.

No wonder they needed that TARP money to be spent so rapidly and with no accounting for where it went. No, it wasn’t spent on bonuses, IT WAS SPENT TO PAY BACK THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEY DEFRAUDED!!

And Geithner, the tax cheat, was in on that deal.

He should resign. They should all be investigated for criminal conspiracies, the whole financial sector, but most especially, the members of the Too-Big-to-Fail-Club.

They seem to be the worst offenders.

Addendum. I don’t know that this is where the money was spent, but if they didn’t loan it out, and they didn’t spend it on bonuses….well, it’s a good bet.

Follow the yellow gold road…..

What a couple of days it’s been in the financial world. Allen Stanford, scammer extraordinaire, whereabouts still unknown, is now known to have contributed large sums of money to congressional recipients, to vote against a financial services antifraud bill that would have linked the databases of state and federal banking, securities and insurance regulators. The bill died in the Senate.

Biggest recipients of his cash?

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. ($45,900); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ($28,150); Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. ($27,500); and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas ($19,700). Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, also received $41,375.

The full list is here and here.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign fund received only $4600 and it was immediately donated, yesterday, to a Chicago charity, according to the Chicago Tribune.

But the other big story is the deal Swiss UBS Bank made with the feds. Accused of assisting U.S. citizens avoid income taxes, UBS Bank has agreed to lift the veil of secrecy and identify “certain” clients. This could be 17,000 of their 20,000 clients whose combined deposits are worth $20 billion dollars.

In July 2008,Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mi) was calling for them to clean up their act. According to The Consumerist Levin told ABC News “UBS’s banking license should be revoked until the bank “cleans up its act.”” He listed the following as what the bank does to conceal its clients names and assets.

* Code Names for Clients
* Pay Phones, not Business Phones
* Foreign Area Codes
* Undeclared Accounts
* Encrypted Computers
* Transfer Companies to Cover Tracks
* Foreign Shell Companies
* Fake Charitable Trusts
* Straw Man Settlors
* Captive Trustees
* Anonymous Wire Transfers
* Disguised Business Trips
* Counter-Surveillance Training
* Foreign Credit Cards
* Hold Mail
* Shred Files

Prepared by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, July 2008.

For the record, Levin took no money from Stanford or his PAC. I’ll bet he even pays his taxes – all of them. Can he be Treasury Secretary?

Reuters reports the deal with UBS goes like this:

Swiss bank UBS AG has agreed to a deal with the U.S. Justice Department that would let the bank avoid tax-violation charges in exchange for identifying some of its U.S. account holders and paying $780 million in fines.

Here are the key terms of the deal:

– UBS, under orders by Swiss market regulators, is to give the United States identities and account information of “certain” U.S. customers. Details are to be filed under seal with U.S. federal court and turned over as soon as the court accepts the agreement.

– UBS agrees to pay $780 million in fines, interest and penalties. This includes $200 million to be paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The remainder is to be paid to the Justice Department over 18 months, with options to pay early or extend the terms up to four years.

– UBS acknowledges that it helped U.S. taxpayers open accounts that concealed their identities from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. About 17,000 of 20,000 U.S. cross-border clients concealed their identities and the existence of their accounts, with $20 billion in assets, from the IRS, the Justice Department said.

Some of these clients are unindicted co-conspirators.

The business generated about $200 million a year in revenue for UBS from 2002 to 2007, it said.

– UBS agrees to quit providing cross-border banking services to U.S. clients with undeclared accounts.

– After 18 months, the U.S. government will recommend dismissal of charges against UBS providing it honors the terms of the agreement.

The Stanford saga, in the meantime, continues to rock the world of the wealthy.

Venezuela seized a local bank affiliated with the Stanford Group, after there was a rush to withdraw funds through online banking. According to Reuters,

Depositors withdrew cash using Internet banking services. The bank takes deposits and makes loans only in the OPEC nation’s local currency.

“Most depositors of Stanford Bank Venezuela are from the (highest) income classes. They move their funds on the Internet, and this allowed for a massive withdrawal that pushed the bank into a precarious state,” Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez told reporters.

“The authorities were forced to take the decision to intervene and there will be an immediate sale,” he added.

And in Antigua, the Associated Press reports that customers were turned away from the Stanford bank there, because its assets were frozen. Depositors were arriving by private jet to withdraw their cash and were panicking when they discovered they couldn’t. One man, who owned a software firm, complained that his life savings was in that bank.

Let me guess. There is no F.D.I.C. insurance in Antigua.

It would seem this is just the beginning (of the end?).

Wonder how many of our congresspeople have offshore accounts? We already know they have an aversion to paying taxes.

Wonder if Geithner has one?

But most of all, I wonder if anyone who is caught will go to jail, go directly to jail, not pass go, and not collect $200.

And second I would like to know, will their assets be seized?

If the answer to the second question is yes, I would recommend to the Treasury Department and President Obama, that the assets seized from anyone in the financial industry caught up in these, or any future messes uncovered by the IRS and the FBI, be dumped into an account called the TARP Rebate Fund, which recoups the cash for the taxpayers, from the cheats and thieves who bought us this mess in the first place. (Oh, did I say bought, I meant brought – Freudian slip). And any congresspeople who return campaign contributions from any of these cheats, should also be dumped into this fund.

As a matter of fact, start with Geithner‘s payments, Daschle‘s Kellefer‘s and Solis‘. It would be a good start.

And any congress person who is found to have an offshore account in the UBS debacle, should be bounced from their office, forbidden from holding any public office anywhere in the U.S. or its territories, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

These people all need to do serious jail time. Nothing like seized assets and jail time to straighten up a class of people.

Is there a law against “betraying the public trust?” Because if there isn’t there should be.

Sentence: 20 to life in a Supermax prison. Enjoy. You built it.

Russ Feingold’s transparency amendment squashed

Russ Feingold introduced amendment SA 140 to HR1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Here is the text of the amendment:

SA 140. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BURR, and Mr. COBURN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 98 proposed by Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 1, making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. CURTAILING CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS AND LOBBYING DISCLOSURE.

(a) In General.–Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:

“CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

“Sec. 316. (a) In General.–On a point of order made by any Senator:

“(1) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any general appropriation bill.

“(2) No amendment may be received to any general appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an unauthorized appropriation to the bill.

“(3) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in relation to a general appropriation bill.

“(b) Point of Order New Legislation.–

“(1) SENATE MEASURE.–If a point of order under subsection (a)(1) against a Senate bill or amendment is sustained–

“(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from the bill or amendment; and

“(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the bill or amendment shall be made.

“(2) HOUSE MEASURE.–If a point of order under subsection (a)(1) against an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained when the Senate is not considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute, an amendment to the House bill is deemed to have been adopted that–

“(A) strikes unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and

“(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the bill;

“(c) Point of Order Unauthorized Appropriations in Amendment.–If the point of order against an amendment under subsection (a)(2) is sustained, the amendment shall be out of order and may not be considered.

“(d) Point of Order Unauthorized Appropriations in Amendment Between the Houses.–

“(1) SENATE.–If a point of order under subsection (a)(3) against a Senate amendment is sustained–

“(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from the amendment;

“(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the amendment shall be made; and

“(C) after all other points of order under this section have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider the amendment as so modified.

“(2) HOUSE.–If a point of order under subsection (a)(3) against a House of Representatives amendment is sustained–

“(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have been adopted that–

[Page: S1451] GPO’s PDF

“(i) strikes the unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and

“(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the House amendment; and

“(B) after all other points of order under this section have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether to concur with further amendment.

“(e) Other Points of Order.–The disposition of a point of order made under any other rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under subsection (a) with respect to the same matter.

“(f) Supermajority.–A point of order under subsection (a) may be waived only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

“(g) Form of Point of Order, Multiple Provisions.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a general appropriation bill or an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation bill violate subsection (a). The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order.

“(2) SUSTAINED POINT OF ORDER.–If the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order under paragraph (1) as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph.

“(3) MOTION TO WAIVE.–Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in accordance with subsection (f), as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate.

“(4) APPEAL.–After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.

“(h) Definition.–For purposes of this section, the term `unauthorized appropriation’ means a `congressionally directed spending item’ as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rule of the Senator–

“(1) that is not specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law); or

“(2) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be appropriated.

“(i) Conference Reports.–

“(1) IN GENERAL.–On a point of order made by any Senator, no unauthorized appropriation may be included in any conference report on a general appropriation bill.

“(2) POINT OF ORDER SUSTAINED.–If the point of order against a conference report under paragraph (1) is sustained–

“(A) the unauthorized appropriation in such conference report shall be deemed to have been struck;

“(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck shall be deemed to have been made;

“(C) when all other points of order under this subsection have been disposed of–

“(i) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report not deemed to have been struck (together with any modification of total amounts appropriated);

“(ii) the question shall be debatable; and

“(iii) no further amendment shall be in order; and

“(D) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.

“(3) FURTHER POINTS OF ORDER.–The disposition of a point of order made under any other provision of this section, or under any other Standing Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under paragraph (1) with respect to the same matter.

“(4) SUPERMAJORITY.–A point of order under paragraph (1) may be waived only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

“(5) SINGLE POINT OF ORDER.–Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a conference report on a general appropriation bill violate paragraph (1). The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this subsection. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in accordance with paragraph (4), as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.”.

(b) Lobbying on Behalf of Recipients of Federal Funds.–The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is amended by adding after section 5 the following:

“SEC. 5A. REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

“(a) In General.–A recipient of Federal funds shall file a report as required by section 5(a) containing–

“(1) the name of any lobbyist registered under this Act to whom the recipient paid money to lobby on behalf of the Federal funding received by the recipient; and

“(2) the amount of money paid as described in paragraph (1).

“(b) Definition.–In this section, the term `recipient of Federal funds’ means the recipient of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.”.

Seems to me, this is a pretty good idea. We get to know who is lobbying for our money and the powers that be don’t get to add amendments that have nothing to do with the topic of the bill (thus no bridges to nowhere or money to paint airplanes to look like flying salmon).

Considering the democrats backed Obama, and Obama wants to change the way business is done in Washington, one would think that they would be all for this bill. But alas, no. John McCain voted for it. But Kerry, Durbin, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein….all voted against it. I don’t know why.

If you want to know how your senators voted for it, here’s the list. Contact them and ask them why. Then please post a comment so other Americans can understand just why this was such a bad thing.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feingold Amdt. No. 140 )
Vote Number: 46 Vote Date: February 5, 2009, 05:03 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 140 to S.Amdt. 98 to H.R. 1 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To provide greater accountability of taxpayers’ dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking and requiring disclosure of lobbying by recipients of Federal funds.
Vote Counts: YEAs 32
NAYs 65
Not Voting 2

Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Udall (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Nay Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea

%d bloggers like this: