Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:28PM ET - U.S. Markets close in 3 hours and 32 minutes.

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist

Campaign Season: Lessons From the Inside

by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Very Good (276 Ratings)
3.847824/5
Posted on Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:00AM
I took a leave from this column back in December so I could run for Congress in the special election in Illinois to replace Rahm Emanuel, who resigned to become President Obama's chief of staff.

I lost. (More precisely, I placed sixth in a field of 12 in the Democratic primary.) So now I am armed with a new perspective on the U.S. political system, having looked at it from the inside out. Like so many activities in life, there is no substitute for being the guy who is on the stage giving the speech.

I have lots of impressions, many of which are still raw thoughts. I'll focus on my major concern: At a time when we need more good people in public office than at any other since World War II, I worry that we've built an electoral process that has the opposite effect.

Being a Candidate

If you want a decent sense of what it's like to be a candidate, try the following: Get up before sunrise and spend several hours standing in the cold at a bus or train stop. Hand literature on the current economic situation to indifferent people (most wearing headphones) as they rush past you, already late for work.

Next, go back to your office and call 100 people randomly and ask them for money. (This assumes that you've already hit up your friends and family for uncomfortably large sums.) If you have a spouse and children, this would be a good time to see them, as they can help stuff envelopes for the large mailings, which will also ask for money.

In the evening, you will sit at the front of a semi-crowded school gymnasium and explain your plans to improve the schools, fix the economy, and overhaul the health care system.

The Campaign Rush

You are now running late, so you rush to a cocktail reception already in progress. You stand in front of the fireplace in the home of someone who has generously invited friends and neighbors to meet you. You will ask all of them for money, too. When you are walking out of the event, the first question to your aide will be, "How much did we raise?"

When you finally settle in front of your own television to relax at the end of the day, whatever show you watch will likely include commercials informing the general public about your major failings as a human being. (Fortunately, I did not have to suffer this last indignity, but that was mostly a function of the number of candidates and the short campaign; I was certainly prepared for it.)

Repeat all of the above every day for three months, nine months, 18 months, or whatever the election cycle requires.

"You're All Crooks!"

I draw this picture not in a bid for pity, since the campaign was pretty much what I had expected and I obviously chose that path. In fact, my race was a special election, so it was mercifully short. Instead, I draw this campaign portrait for two reasons. First, because this is what elected officials have to do. You may like your politicians; you probably don't. One of the more sadly amusing conversations I had during the campaign was on Election Day when I was calling registered voters to urge them to go to the polls. A man answered the phone, listened to my pitch, and sputtered angrily, "I'm not voting. You're all crooks!"

I said, "How can I be a crook? I don't have anything to do with the current system. I'm a professor at the University of Chicago!"

There was a pause, and then he said, "You're just not a crook yet!"

There's No Glamour

My point is that there is nothing easy or glamorous about running for office. If you think you can do better than what you've been watching in recent weeks in the House Financial Services Committee, then you should step up. Stand at the train platforms, knock on doors, answer invasive questions, raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, put your life on public view, and step into the arena. Or help someone else who is doing it. Or stop complaining.

The second reason that I bring up the rigors of running is related to the first: The harder it is to do -- in terms of time, fundraising, personal disclosure, and poor pay -- the fewer quality people we should reasonably expect to do it. I'm putting my economist hat on here. Remember, the people who win these races will be paid about as much as a middle manager at an insurance company -- and a lot less at the state and local level.

Congress consists of 535 members -- 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. Given that they run the most powerful country in the world, it's not unreasonable to hope that they should be as talented and honest as the 500 most important business people -- the CEOs of the Fortune 500, who now earn an average of over $15 million a year. As a precise point of reference, the salary for a U.S. senator -- the more esteemed branch of the two -- is about $170,000 a year.

Key Questions to Answer

And CEOs get a lot more privacy than political candidates. Are you a fundamentally decent, honest person? If the answer is yes, then proceed to the following questions, all of which potential candidates routinely have to answer and potential CEOs generally don't. (My answers are in parentheses.)

1. Will your tax returns for the past 10 years withstand public scrutiny? (I think so.)

2. Have you ever hired an illegal immigrant? (I don't think so.)

3. Have you ever experimented with illegal drugs? (Yes.)

4. Do you pay Social Security taxes on nannies and babysitters? (Yes.)

5. Do you have a divorce record that you'd prefer not to have unsealed and published? (No.)

6. Do you want your children, young or adult, in the public eye? (They don't seem to mind.)

7. Or the catch-all: Have you EVER done anything in the 20, 30, or 40 years of your adult life that you would prefer not to have your friends, neighbors, and parents read about in the ‘New York Times'? (Yes.)

Encouraged and Discouraged

I emerged from this race both encouraged and discouraged. I'm encouraged because, for all the craziness of the process, I like the guy who won. (Candidates get to know other candidates pretty well.) Good people run and win, despite everything I've just described.

But the process also attracts nuts, profiteers, and narcissists. My former governor here in Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was indicted on 19 corruption charges. Am I surprised that someone like Rod Blagojevich would be attracted to political life? Not particularly.

The bottom line is that, if we want to change the people in Washington (or Springfield or Austin or Sacramento) we ought to think much more about what it takes to get there.

The best aphorism to describe a market economy is, "You get what you pay for." The political equivalent should be, "If you're not willing to do what it takes to get elected, why should anyone else?"

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Very Good (276 Ratings)
4/5
Sign-in to rate!

106 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 106<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • hoosierdp - Thursday, April 23, 2009, 9:44PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    I'm surprised that you didn't bring up the fact that if elected officials were paid more, then corruption could be an even bigger issue. The difference between companies hiring CEOs and people electing officials is that companies have a huge stake in whom they hire...while people are generally disenchanted by politics. Do we really think American public is discriminating enough to screen out the extra slimeballs who would run for office? Our system may not be perfect, but even the nuts, profiteers, and narcissists have to do some good for the people to remain in office. It's their pride and their greed that helps keep them in check.

  • Bourbon - Thursday, April 23, 2009, 12:07PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Basically you describe a system that would only attract wack jobs and masochists to run for office. No wonder the current Congress is populated with such an assortment of freaks, egotists, and pure power hungry monsters. Let's select Congressmen like we select people for jury duty, with the understanding that they leave after 2 years. Maybe that will restore some sense of reality to Congress

  • Steve - Thursday, April 23, 2009, 11:56AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    People in business have to work hard to get where they want to get. Shouldn't want-a-be politicians be required to do the same? But the real problem with the electorial system is that average joe can't run. Why? Because he or she needs to raise a prodigious amount of money. And they have to raise so much money because the average U.S. congressional district contains over 650,000 people and the only way to reach that many people during the campaign cycle is through advertising on TV. Unfortunately, the U.S. has become too big with too many people and special interest to have door-to-door politics and perhaps a truely representitive government.

  • Kent - Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 2:39PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Enjoyed your speech at the Crichton Club yesterday evening. I have two questions I wanted to get your view on: * What do you think of Green Technology as a driver of new jobs as proposed by Thomas Friedman and President Obama * Why aren't the Boards of Directors of the failed companies under more public scrutiny. After all they are the shareholders representatives and the ones approving these outrageous employment contracts.

  • scribbler - Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:49PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Better luck next time.

  • Grant - Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:30PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Welcome back... Good article but we need to see how to fix the system. Here is the problems with unintended consequences. Raising salaries will not increase productivity of government just the cost. The biggest issue is that campaigns take too much and the best car salesman make the best politician. A good salesman can sell bad deals to good people. The issue is that most politicians are required to have talking points and are not allowed to weigh evidence and make thoughtful sound decisions becasue then they "sound" like they don't know what is going on, even if they are thinking. People also want "publically" funded elections, but how can that work? Who would get access to funds? Would everyone or just Democrats and Republican? How about when there are 12 people running? How about 30 like the California governor race? Money is not the end all. If you want to have better elections we need to require better electors. What we need to is eleminate names and parties from the ballot. They do this really well on the internet, but you can choose what items and statements most represent your ideas and then the politician that is closest to what you want gets your vote. You can even get a ranking system and vote that way. Voting should be a process. I really want everyone to vote, but only when they know for what they are voting. Change the voters, change the government all for the better.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 10:11AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Good column, but considering the cost of getting elected, how do we get good politicians that don't start out in the pocket of special interest groups? Having just returned from Cuba and seeing the problems there, capitalism, democracy and a free press are priceless but we have to ensure that the politicians that we elect are spending at least 80% of their efforts on maintaining and improving the life of all citizens and not just those of their friends and lobbyists / contributors. Congratulations on at least trying.

  • Rory M - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 6:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    I'm disgusted with the multitude of ugly comments I've read here. Charles has had one of the better columns on Yahoo Finance over the past few years. I don't always agree with him, but I ALWAYS trust him to speak his mind and not regurgitate someone else's spoon-fed talking points. I always get a sense he's speaking with some empirical bases or at bare minimum consistent theoretical system -- as any decent economist should. This column was very personal, and not the least bit incendiary, ivory tower, elitist, bleeding heart, cold, orthodox, pointless, or whatever silly ad hominem label trolls wish to attach. It was one guy's very timely and honest observations from the belly of the sick beast that is American campaigning! Charles was very candid -- a bit disillusioned, a bit optimistic. I really appreciated that. Many commenters love to troll and criticize any op-ed that professes ANY hope of improving the government to actually work generally FOR the people. I read your baseless statements like "we already have the best government", "laissez faire is the best way", "they're all crooks", "drown govt in the bathtub" etc. Spare me. Anyone who hates government "interference" should stop using the roads, don't rely on the police, prepare for even more games and failures on Wall Street/Main Street. Don't count on unemployment or any other assistance if you lose your lush job or your assets evaporate. Don't feel safe thanks to FDIC insurance. The truth is we don't need more government or less government. We need a better designed government. The constitution is an aging buggy alpha version of democracy. For instance: congressional districts are so huge ( 650,000 ppl) only the wealthy, powerful, or corrupt can usually win. Congress is so small AND UNCHANGING that special interests can cheaply buy off large portions of it. Our congress hasn't grown since 1910 (it grew in ALL BUT ONE census before that) yet our population TRIPLED. This all means we get a tiny ELITE congress that is UNREPRESENTATIVE of the American public's views. Our congress contains very few non-lawyers/businessmen or people who came to power through community support. How many scientists are in congress? How many teachers do you see? How many of these guys did manual or farm labor after their teenage years? By design, congress is full of unrepresentative mediocrity -- a bunch of extraverted blow-hards with tiny ideas and huge salesmanship/pandering abilities. A revenue-neutral plan like enlarging congress while shrinking their staff-sizes would bring our representatives BACK to the people. Likewise, the senate is so horribly and unfairly designed that 15% of the US population effectively controls the the senate. The senate should be made more granular (min 2, 1 add'l per 5 million residents?). The (enlarged) house should be elected every four years so they have more independence from $$$. Ranked voting (no more spoilers or guilt voting for best-of-worst), proportional representation (include a few libertarians, socialists, etc), publicly financed elections, random citizen redistricting, MANDATORY debates & posted questionnaires (put candidates ON RECORD) would go very far to improving our stock of EMPLOYEES (REMEMBER: we are our government, we choose the employees). In short, I sympathize with the challenges and inhumanity (beg for $$$) of Dr. Wheelan's campaign. I agree that those who complain about government should try to BECOME it or shut up. And I think his future columns should focus on some ideas and solutions for improving our government. They need not focus solely on shallow ideas like raising salaries. Thanks for the thoughtful column. Haters: give Chuck a break! Submitting oneself to the rigors of an election to try and better your community is the very essence of what it means to be AMERICAN. We don't do kings over here.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 1:58PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    The American political system is owned by corporations. It would be good to give power back to the people, but by now, they're too dumb or ignorant to care. Now all we have left is (something disguised as) Hope?

  • David - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 1:56PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Well, the central theme is ok. But the same can be said about this column. At at time when we have need for good advice, we have a media system that provides clowns like this guy. How to fix that system????

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 1:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    working for government requires a "public service attitude" not "I want to make lots of money" attitude. It is exactly that attitude that has got us into trouble.

  • D L - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 1:17PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Having run for city council several times I share many of the same feelings and experiences. People either love you or hate you, there's no middle ground. But you have to realize you are not running for class president or applying for CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You are tying to obtain a political job and politics is a messy business. you should know that because economics is not an exact science, either. 2 2 don't always = 4 in the realities of political science. I migrated from a city council job in a small pennsylvania town to working for a national health association where i lobby congress. i managed to get a piece of legislation through congress in early 2000, not an easy task for a single disease issue. But through persistence I manged to get more than 450 members of the House and Senate to sign on as cosponsors. During that two year process, I met with hundreds of members and their staff people. i would have to say that 95% of them are very dedicated, concerned and hard working people. the other 4% either were focused on other issues to care what i had to say, and only 1% were just plain jerks. i don't think that most people run for congress (or any other office for that matter) to become rich or screw the public. Like you i think most start out with a sincere desire to make a difference and do some good. but the system corrupts them. running for congress now requires at least $100,000 and a senate race requires millions. members of the house must run every two years. That means they have to raise a minimum of $1000 a week every day they are in office. Really more than that since you figure they have to start their re-election campaign almost as soon as they take office. so members are force to spend a lot of time squeezing money from potentail camapign contributors, and here in washington, there are lots of people flashing cash. the trouble is, none of those people handing out cash are giving it without asking you to support their issue. so members have a tendency to hear only from people with a strong point of view or who can afford to purchase a period of time with the member or candidate. that is what corrupts elected officials. its the fundraising that is the problem. address this issue and people like you will have a better chance of winning an election, getting a seat at the table, and making a difference in this government. the problems are complex at the national level, and the opinions and options very numerous. if you want to be popular or liked, then don't run for public office, because you will hear from people on all sides of every issue, no matter how small. and perhaps the next time you feel the need to verbally assult a member of congress for taking one position on another, you will remember the experiences that you had running for office. it's impossible to please everyone, even a majority. so stick to you beliefs, be honest in your positions, stay true to y our values, and let the chips fall where they may. welcome back. you probably wouldn't have liked living here in washington anyway. the traffic is a nightmare and the cost of living is incredible. so you are probably better off in that cushey teaching job letting your student assistants handle the heavy lifiting. wanna trade places?

  • Gracias - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 12:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Problem is sometimes you don't always get what you pay for. And we already have the best form of government money can buy.

  • John - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 12:31PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Wow, I thought we were rid of this guy and the steaing pile of poo he calls a column. Now we not only have him back, but as an "expert political insider". Just when I thought his columns couldn't get any worse he starts blabbing about politics (in addition to his worthless economic opinions). I think I just threw up a little in my mouth... Point here is that this guy can't make it anywhere else which is why he's in academia to begin with I'm sure. He took a little vacation to play at being a politician and failed miserably at that (lower 50% by his own admission), and now Yahoo in their infinite wisdom has seen fit to bring him back. What's next? Is Anya coming back too? I guess the only reason I even look at these columns anymore is to see how much more ridiculous the drivel can get. Next thing you know they'll have Obama here as a guest columnist writing about fiscal discipline - now I KNOW I just threw up a little in my mouth.

  • Nick Name - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 12:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    All you need to do is send dead fish to people you hate and take a knife and stab it into a table after screaming the names of those people. It worked for Rahn Emmanuel ! Welcome back, LOSER.

  • KurtP - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 11:59AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    This is such a great article for Dr. Wheelan to start with on his first day back. It really highlights the idealism that his thoughts and ideas are based in. After reading his previous work, it's clear that they aren't based in reality.

  • Devin - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 11:57AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    In my more cynical moments, I've often said that anybody who runs for public office either naively thinks they'll make some big difference and is therefore too naive and clueless to hold office, or else they're planning to use the office to enrich themselves through corruption. Either way, the very fact somebody would choose to run for public office automatically makes them a poor candidate for public office...but those are my cynical moments. It's easy to see that being a politician is possibly the most thankless and difficult job anywhere. In business, you have the option of choosing your customers, and every successful business has to "fire" troublesome customers from time to time. In government, at least in a democracy, everybody is your customer and you can't "fire" any of them. That is the great strength, and weakness, of our political system. The need to listen to every voice makes democracies incredibly inefficient...nevertheless, because every voice must be heard great ideas eventually find their way to the masses time and time again. I'm glad Dr Whelan made the effort to lend his voice and his ideas to public office. We always need more good ideas in government. (http://freemarketsgoodbeer.blogspot.com)

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 11:25AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This naked socialist is really promoting Big Brother and government corruption.

  • Kirk Kinder - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 11:15AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    I am sorry to hear your campaign did not result in a victory. At least you tried, which is more than the rest of us. I do think you hit upon a key point when you said apathetic people ran by you on train platforms with headphones. This is a key point in my mind. People don't have time to stay involved politically, which is sad. But, it shows why we should have less government to begin with. We will all take actions to better our own self interests. The world will work because we will make it work. The government only hinders folks. We end up with narcissists making policy to only increase their power and influence. Ultimately, they should get out of the way of the folks on the trains.

  • Mark - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 11:07AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Great article. I live in DC and the thing that seemed to really surprise me was the number of politicians with family members who are/were also politicians. A LOT of senators had fathers, cousins, uncles..etc who were senators or members of congress. This is extremely obvious with the Bush and Clinton family. The incestuous nature of politics is what I find most disturbing. Of course, I'm sure a lot of the money and name recognition is related to family. That in itself isn't bad, except for the fact that we're getting not getting the best and the brightest and change is very rare.

  • Eveninbreeze - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 10:55AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The naked communist is back. My advice: read The Constitution, believe it, live it. You'll get the admiration of the voters. Until then you're part of the problem.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 10:48AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    An honest yet sad article. I accompanied one of our local state senators on a canvassing tour of my housing development. It was cold and rainy; the man had heart problems and could barely walk between homes. He would wipe his face, press the bell, politely introduce himeself and offer his campaign literature to the homeowner. Nobody invited him in although he has been an incumbent for many years. In one house, the owner told him eagerly "You sound just like Joe Biden". Although from the other party, my friend pointed out that Biden had some good characteristics and had helped Delaware. To which the man said "... can't stand that s.o.b either." I was left wondering why anyone would put himself through all the aggravation, and life disrupting career. Our politicians are genuine even if we don't agree with them, and even if some are bad apples. Most of them are not crooks and won't be in the future either.

  • AndrewM - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:59AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    An all too rare and honest analysis. This sort of thing should be required reading for apathetic people and anyone who does not think we need to overhaul the way campaigns are paid for.

  • JimO - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:56AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This is your best column yet, Charlie. See what happens when you get involved in the real world? But your main campaign mistake was not having a sugar daddy/mommy who is a billionaire we alll know. Better luck next time.

  • Randall - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:54AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I was hoping IL would elect Charles, he is certainly liberal enough. If the power of elected officials were held in check by their true constitutional limits then you could elect a chimpanzee or a 6 year old because then you could at least count on them not to ruin anything. This is the concept of limited government, but we have maximum government and its getting bigger by the day. You can pick up on this concept of maximum government when incumbents and statist use the phrase "running the country" and "public service" both fallacies and misnomers. The country runs better by itself thus the concept of laissez faire which is now extinct and public service can't be service if most of the losers that are attracted to the thing get better money benefits and power than those of us who work in real jobs. Remember government doesn't produce anything, it has no money, and it doesn't exist without cannabilizing the private sector, therefore by necessity it must be small and only function within its constitutional function of protecting liberty. Right now we have the perfect storm disaster of a shrinking private sector, a rapidly expanding public sector, and spending like nobody would have ever believed now we're going to fix healthcare, fix global warming, the drug problem, etc. and the government has no record of fixing anything. Sorry to have you back.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:22AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    My experience was similar. I had dreamed of entering politics since I was 6 years old. After I graduated (2003) I volunteered for my congressman, and while I learned some interesting marketing techniques, I was really dismayed how money was the main thrust of the day-to-day of the system. Now, instead of being a public servant, (or civil servant like my father) I can't bear the low salary and negative opinion most of the public has towards this type of honorable service, so instead I've been in China for 3 years and will return for a top-10 MBA in the fall to enter corporate America.

  • Brian - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:04AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    We treat public servants like crap in this country. Geithner is an example -he's been in public service all his life- and people have no qualms about the vitriol that they hurl at him.

  • Mobyware - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 8:18AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Good insight! Read the book Liberal Fascism! People who run for office are not motivated money or good intentions. They are motivated by power, having control over people's lives and promoting a class system that puts them on the top. They buy votes with our money. Our money gives them power and they take it against our will. Look at Collins and Snow, they did what they did for the power trip it gave them. There is no turning the juggernaut around.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 7:22AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Welcome to the real world. You forgot one very important election requirement. It's the ability to give your followers and opposition what they really want, most want something for nothing. Good ideals don't matter any more.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 6:50AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Very interesting. One of the better articles I've read on yahoo finance.

Showing comments 6-35 of 106<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Charles Wheelan

Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

An accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, now available in paperback.

View more about Charles Wheelan.

The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as "clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty."

Order Naked Economics today. Average customer review on Amazon.com: 4.7 out of 5 stars.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Sponsored Links

Free 2010 Credit Report and All 3 Scores
Free 3-bureau Credit Report – includes Transunion, Equifax, Experian.
FreeCreditReportsInstantly.com
Live Forex Practice Account
Practice Forex Trading in Real Market Conditions with a Free Trial.
www.GFTforex.com
Financing - Bank of America®
Take Advantage Of Low Refi Rates For Home Loans Up To $3 Million.
www.bankofamerica.com
Refinance Now at 3.7% APR
$160,000 mortgage under $752/mo. Free. No Obligation. Get 4 quotes now.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com
Obama Backs Insurance Regulation
Millions of Americans Are Over Paying For Auto Insurance.
www.Auto-Insurance-Experts.com
Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance
($90,000 Refinance $489/mo) See Rates - No Credit Check Req.
www.SeeRefinanceRates.com

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.