Finger-pointing begins as Senate nixes auto vote

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers — and millions of Americans' jobs — after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. President George W. Bush has "no appetite" to act on his own.

U.S. auto companies employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other people have jobs producing the materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million on top of that work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the auto giants were to go belly up, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.

"If GM is telling us the truth, they go into bankruptcy and you see a cascade like you have never seen," said Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, who was working on one rescue plan Wednesday. "If people want to go home and not do anything, I think that they're going to have that on their hands."

The automakers — hobbled by lackluster sales and choked credit — are burning through money at an alarming and accelerating rate: about $18 billion in the last quarter alone. General Motors Corp. has said it could collapse within weeks, and there are indications that Chrysler LLC might not be far behind. Ford Motor Co. has said it could get through the end of 2008, but it's unclear how much longer.

For now, however, with the federal emergency loan plan stalled in the Senate, lawmakers in both parties are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken, positioning themselves to blame each other for the failure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scrapped plans Wednesday for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new auto industry loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

It's really up to Bush's team to act, he said.

"I don't believe we need the legislation," Reid said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can tap the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies, Reid said, but "he just doesn't want to do it."

Not our responsibility, countered the White House.

"If Congress leaves for a two-month vacation without having addressed this important issue ... then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

She said there was "no appetite" in the administration for using the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies.

The White House and congressional Republicans instead called on Democrats to sign on to a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September — designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles — to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.

Voinovich and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., along with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, were at work on that measure Wednesday, trying to placate skeptical Democrats by including a guarantee that the fuel-efficiency loan fund would ultimately be replenished.

"It is the only proposal now being considered that has a chance of actually becoming law," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

If an acceptable deal emerges, Reid said it could be passed as part of a measure to extend jobless aid to unemployed workers whose benefits have run out. A vote on that bill is likely on Thursday. Negotiators were discussing a scaled-down aid package of $5 billion to $8 billion to help the automakers survive through year's end.

But there was little sign that Democratic leaders would go along.

"We have to face reality," Reid said.

They are vehemently opposed to letting the car companies tap the fuel-efficiency money — set aside to help switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline — for short-term cash-flow needs.

All of which leaves the Big Three bracing for a bleak winter without government help.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House committee Wednesday that the downfall of his industry would ripple through communities around the nation. Pressed by lawmakers, Wagoner wouldn't say precisely when GM would run out of money without a government lifeline, but he disclosed that the company now was burning through $5 billion a month.

Still, with the $25 billion emergency package, "we think we have a good shot to make it through this," Wagoner said.

Many lawmakers in both parties are now openly discussing whether bankruptcy might be a better option for auto firms they regard as lumbering industrial dinosaurs that have done too little to adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The carmakers argue that bankruptcy would devastate their companies, but proponents say it would give them a chance to reorganize and emerge stronger and more competitive.

It's unclear, though, whether Democrats controlling Congress are willing to risk being blamed for letting one of the Big Three — symbols of the nation's once-mighty manufacturing sector — go under.

Bailout-shy lawmakers got an earful from jittery constituents last month when the House let an early version of the Wall Street rescue fail, sending the Dow Jones industrials tumbling and erasing more than a trillion dollars in retirement savings and other investments. Congress took a deep breath and reconsidered, passing the plan a few days later.

Faced with a similar collapse in the auto industry, the Bush administration might yet decide to step in to help the auto companies, or the Federal Reserve could step in — though both have steadfastly refused to do so.

If not, lawmakers have left themselves a contingency plan: Come back to Washington in December for yet another postelection session where they might be able to strike the deal that now seems beyond reach.

Democratic leaders are planning to gather for an economic conference the week of Dec. 8, noted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

"That is available," Hoyer said this week. "The year has not ended."

The myth of $1,000,000 retirement

Social Security's in trouble. Pensions are biting the dust. America's savings rate is abominable. And every time you turn around, some pundit is warning that if you haven't already put aside some vast sum -- the number changes, but it's always immense -- then you have no hope of ever retiring.

Feel like giving up? Don't.

The truth is, nobody knows exactly how much you, or anybody else, is going to need for retirement. You may need a million bucks, or a lot less, or a lot more. The "right" sum will depend on too many factors, including:

* your lifestyle now -- and in the future

* how long you'll live

* how your health holds up

* what kind of returns your investments earn

* what happens with inflation

* what twists and turns the economy throws at you

* what twists and turns your life throws at you

…to name just a few.

The studies that purport to show Americans are doing a lousy job of saving for retirement have to make so many assumptions about the future that their conclusions must be seen for what they are: educated guesses. (The same must be said about all the other studies that purport to show Americans are doing OK when it comes to saving for their golden years. Nobody's got a crystal ball.)

That doesn't mean you're off the hook. The more you save now and the better decisions you make about investing, the more choices you're likely to have later -- about when to retire, how you'll live, how much (if anything) you'll leave your kids.

If you haven't already, spend a few minutes with MSN's Retirement Planner to get a ballpark idea of how far your current savings plan will get you.

You may be pleasantly surprised -- or horribly depressed. Even if the results are grisly, though, don't let the doom-and-gloomers talk you into the notion that you'll never have enough to retire, or that you'll have to settle for some pinched, strained half-life at the end of your days.

For one thing, money isn't everything, not before retirement and certainly not after it.

For another, you may have more going for you than you think. Consider:
Social Security will probably survive
A lot has been written about the impending demographic crunch that will cause Social Security to start running in the red in a few decades. I've even contributed to some of the hand-wringing about the program's future. But whatever Congress eventually decides to do, Social Security itself is unlikely to disappear, and it probably will continue to provide at least some benefit for most working folks. Currently, the program replaces 30% to 40% of most people's income; even if that percentage declines somewhat, it will still help.

The scenario may be different for high earners. Currently, the more you make, the less of your income Social Security is designed to replace. Congress may well opt to cut benefits even further for the high-bracket crowd in order to preserve more for lower-paid workers, so you might not want to count on getting much, if any, benefit.

Now, the younger you are, the more skeptical you're likely to be about Social Security's future. But there's a silver lining here. Even the smallest amount you put away for retirement will have plenty of time to grow, and grow big, so that you'll be in a great position to provide for yourself if Social Security doesn't. Here's an example: a 42-year-old who puts away $1,000 today can expect that sum to grow to about $7,000 by the time she hits full retirement age at 67, assuming 8% average annual returns. A 22-year-old who makes the same investment would have nearly $32,000 by the same age. So take advantage of the power of compounding, and start saving now.
You'll probably spend less as you age
Most retirees find their expenses decline once they quit working for a variety of reasons. Their income tax bracket may drop. Work-related expenses like commuting shrink, as do (typically) contributions to retirement funds. And they're certainly no longer shelling out for payroll taxes, which consume 7.65% of the typical worker's paycheck.

But other expenses often decline as well.

Bernicke discovered that, far from increasing at the rate of inflation, Americans' spending actually drops fairly precipitously as they age, to the point where folks over 75 spend about half the amount middle-aged people do. He believes this drop is voluntary and tied to aging itself, since household wealth continues to climb. So your retirement savings could last longer than you think. Also:
You probably won't make it to 100
Much has been made of Americans' increasing longevity and the risk it poses to retirement funds. The longer you live, after all, the longer your money has to stretch. But most of us aren't going to be centenarians, or even come close.

If you have good health and a family history of long-livers, you might make it. Otherwise, 85 or 90 is reasonable estimate.

MSN's Life Expectancy Calculator can help you make your best guess.
You'll probably have some flexibility
If you get close to retirement and it looks like you're falling short, you may be able to work a while longer or get a part-time job in retirement. If you're a homeowner, you could tap your equity, either by moving to a smaller place or taking out a reverse mortgage. If the kids are gone or the mortgage is paid off in those final working years, you may be able to boost your retirement kitty considerably before you cross the finish line.

Or you may discover you're willing to live more cheaply than you once thought, just to be able to call your time your own.

If you're still feeling tense about retirement, then channel that feeling into action:

If you don't think you're saving enough, find a way to eke out a little more. Bump your 401(k) contribution up 1% and resolve to bump it up again next quarter or next time you get a raise. Or, if that's not an option, transfer a few bucks a week into an IRA and put the contributions on automatic so they're whisked out of your paycheck or bank account without your having to think about it. Every little bit really will help. Just keep at it.

Do the best you can, try to roll with the punches, and realize that nobody -- not you, not me, not the pundits -- really knows what the future will bring.

If you to be a millionaire

A true rich guy wont show their richness in front of others. Well at lest too much show off.

once a guy become a millionaire, there should no popping of champagne corks, no trips to the Continent, no quitting of jobs. The fact that the experience was so mundane speaks volumes, both about how millionaires are really created and what it means to be one.

you should not, for example:

• Win the lottery.

• Score a big win in the stock market.

• Inherit a huge pile of cash.

• Appear on any reality shows.

We can do, however:

• Make financial security a priority.

• Spend less than we earn.

• Save and invest regularly.

• Pay down our debt.

• Own a home.

• Maximize our incomes.

If you want to be a millionaire someday, I hope that this example -- and those of millions of others who have achieved this goal -- might provide some insights and inspiration for getting there.

First, though, let's deal with the obvious: a million ain't what it used to be. But that's nothing new. Except for brief periods of deflation, such as during the Great Depression, the generally rising level of prices has always chewed away at the value of a buck. That means you need $1.85 million today to match the buying power of $1 million in 1986, or $7.44 million for the equivalent of a million in 1956.

Still, reaching the million-dollar mark put us in the top 10% of all U.S. households. (The minimum net worth to join that 90th percentile, according to the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances was $831,600 in 2004.) In global terms, we're near the very pinnacle of wealth when you consider that billions of people live on just a few dollars a day.

Of course, we live here in the good old U.S.A., where a million-dollar net worth may be "enough," or not. As a good article in "The myth of the $1 million retirement," some people need a lot less to say goodbye forever to work. Others, with more expensive lifestyles and expectations of living a long time, may need a lot more. Hubby and I have a bunch of long-lived ancestors as well as some costly goals ahead, so we're not going to retire just yet.

I'm confident, though, that the habits and strategies that got us to the million-dollar point will get us the rest of the way, regardless of what happens in the short run to the economy, the markets and real estate.

So here they are:

You've got to want it -- and plan for it

There are few accidental millionaires in the world. People who achieve financial independence, however they define it, make getting there a priority in their lives, according to Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko, authors of the groundbreaking book, "The Millionaire Next Door."

That doesn't mean you have to live for money, but you need a clearly defined goal and a plan to achieve it. If your goal is retirement, for instance, you might try MSN's calculator to see what you need to do to get there.

If you haven't got a plan, it's way too easy to lose your way: spending money on stuff that isn't important, taking on debt that's toxic rather than helpful, giving in to despair when markets turn against you. Having a long-term goal, and a long-term view, are essential to keeping your balance.