No one said anything of the Obama administration opposing nuclear energy. I wouldn't say support is "strong" as you would but no one has argued that. Nuclear energy needs to be more aggressively sought after and invested in. It's safe and it's cheap in the long run. It's only recent (last 12 months) that a significant portion of Americans showed support in varying degrees of increased nuclear capacity. I'm just waiting to see it thwarted by the Environmental Special Interests that hate everything nuclear. Sorry if that makes me cynical.

Fact: Decreasing demand for healthcare is guaranteed to decrease healthcare costs. No way around it. And when we pay less for something we need we always consume more.

Also Claire, there's no need to make malicious attacks by calling me uneducated. In fact, I was educated at the very institution you work for. So either your colleagues don't know how to teach or your having to resort to unsound personal attacks. Which is it?

Claire, Dave never refuted the bankruptcy numbers, he said that this bill won't lower costs. Meaning this bill won't fix any bankruptcy problems.

Insurance costs are not the reason people are not hiring. I have yet to meet anyone that is using that as an excuse to not hire. They aren't hiring because we are in a recession and they can't take on the risk of a new salary and beneftis. But believe me, the burden of a salary is significantly higher than insurance costs.

The fact is this: This healthcare bill promotes higher consumption rates. Higher consumption rates increase costs. You can't just block premium hikes to lower costs. All that will do us bankrupt the insurance industry because costs will still be rising with demand. The ONLY way to lower insurance costs is to decrease demand.

The arguments Congress and Obama are using are moot. They don't fix anything. All they do is set up the insurance industry for failure. Yes there are things that need to be fixed but they don't address any of them. So yes, Boswell and everyone else that votes for this bill is corrupt b/c they have misconstrued the facts, they have attacked the truth and they have yet to even read the bill.

You are kidding me. This has been on going for months! Don't act like your Dem leadership has been open about anything. The audacity & ignorance. I'm not defending the R's but your as blind as anyone else if you think abusing power is exclusively an R disease.

Well, I'm not running for Congress, Dave Funk is, I just read this blog. I'm not saying Serious Materials is in the wrong here. I'm agreeing with this article in that the government does not serve in a function that picks winners and losers by giving public endorsements.

The second President Obama made those public claims he crossed a line. It's not his job to promote one business. It's his job to say that America makes the most energy efficient windows and promote the industry.

One thing I've learned though is that Serious obviously is paying attention online and send out the wolves to fight back against this obvious fact - Your company doesn't deserve Presidential recognition. No company does. American industries do. So get off your high horse.

BTW, Just because you've seen the Serious CEO speak doesn't make you credible. A year ago I had the opportunity to meet and spoke with the VP of operations for Pella and discussed their manufacturing processes etc extensively, am I now an expert?

Your argument aside, it seems their article here is to point out how Leonard Boswell stood by while your Serious Materials received millions in free marketing through Presidential and Vice Presidential endorsements. The government is not here to pick winners and losers and Boswell should never have allowed them to claim on Serious' behalf that their windows are the most efficient in the world.

I'm from Iowa and hands down I would bet Pella Corporation makes at least equally energy efficient windows. And Boswell should have been on the front page screaming this fact.

Thanks for the comments here guys. Excellent points that needed to be said.

Goldman Sachs isn't losing/gaining power one way or another because, like you said, they are already heavily involved in lobbying Washington. So why should we eliminate the only viable route of direct participation for the small business person?

The net effect on large corporations is little if anything. Now it may be more explicit but it won't be any different than it would be otherwise because they could funnel their money into PACs. We'll just be dealing with a few more commercials to join the "most annoying" commericals category.

The net effect on small business is significantly large. They are no longer a stakeholder tied at the hands and feet. And considering they represent half of the America's employed I'd say they certainly deserve this chance. And it's not all biased in one direction like many are claiming. The labor unions have equal access bc the ruling was not about big business, rather, free speech (not that you said it was about big business).

AIG hasn't paid it back and there are other banks that will be taxed as well that haven't paid back their TARP funds. Regarding Freddie and Fannie, you're putting too much faith in our Government. See here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59848. They don't have the good sense not to pay huge bonuses for people showing up for work.

No one can deny that Wells Fargo is a huge employer in District 3. I don't know how many employees are receiving bonuses that will be taxed at 50% but I DO know I'd rather have that money here in District 3. Not in the hands of our Government so they can pay $900,000 salaries up front and another 3.1 million deferred.

Wall Street invested in a mortgage derivative market with loans made by Freddie and Fannie and others. These assets soon became toxic and we have a melt down. Clinton facilitated this derivative market and Bush neglected to do anything about it. Now we have a $6 million compensation package for Freddie/Fannie that even Barney Frank says is too high but said there's nothing we can do about that now. Why not tax them 50% on their obscene payouts?

So who's going to regulate the Government when they've lost their common sense and don't have the ability to police themselves? That's why we need guys like Dave in Congress who are fiscally responsible and don't take out retribution on Wall Street who was encouraged, backed and supported by the Government to invest in toxic assets over and over and over again.

This isn't so much about Wall Street regulation as it is about the Government's explicit and direct intrusion on now profitable companies that are creating jobs and rebuilding the economy. A 50% tax is not regulation, it's intrusion. Dave will protect the interest of District 3.

We were reading different things. 50k is still too low a number to be taxing at a 50% tax rate. I can't fathom any legitimate reason for the Government to intrude in the private sector and pick on banks that are doing it right. Why aren't they taxing AIG? Why aren't they taxing Fannie/Freddie Mac? Instead they pick on the institutions that have fulfilled their TARP obligations and are now profitable.

Further, I don't trust the Government with the money. At least with the employees the money would be redirected into the economy on whatever toys they planned on purchasing. The Government will lose it to the bureaucracy.

That said Clair, Thanks for reading Dave's blog and commenting. It's good to know some people are paying attention and staying informed.