Federal Stimulus: Quick Guide to the Payroll Protection Program

Payroll Protection Program - Here. (always be careful and check the https, there are reportedly already fraudulent websites collecting financial information).

"It's Going To Be A Mess" is the headline at Fortune Magazine.

As a recycler / junkyard operator, I'm in a rare position of having experience (as a regulator of 9 years at MA DEP) reading Federal Register rules, and know that this morning the "FINAL" Rule on the PPP - Payroll Protection Program - is not going to change. We started the application early, and had applications ready for submittal by last Thursday. But we've had to redo the application twice already.

But now it's final.

Here's what makes this blogworthy. My company has 30 employees (positions, some are vacant or seasonal). This program will lend my company money to continue payroll, and the portion of the money actually used / documented to be payroll will be eligible in ~6 months for forgiveness.  Even the portion not forgiven will only be 0.5% Changed to 1% APR to the feds plus whatever the Lending Bank adds.

Here is the link to the loan application.  I have been pursuing it NOT JUST FOR MY OWN COMPANY.  I am making calls to any company we carry an A/R or A/P with, as my future income and future required services requires THOSE companies remain in business as well.

The Basel Convention: Bayesian Soup Nazi Episode

Ok, Another E-Scrap Conference, and another allusion to an American comedy.  I hope my international readers will be patient.

R2 or E-Steward?  Who has the best recipe?

Yesterday's E-Scrap 2012 Conference in Dallas had two sessions worth writing about.   John Lingelbach of R2 and Jim Puckett presented on the two certification programs for Electronics Recyclers (along with auditor Kelley Keough of Greeneye).   Later, Travis Reed Miller of MIT presented on the use of Bayesian predictors to refine data, and Laura Bloodgood of US International Trade Office reported (without data) on the survey work on 900+ e-scrap firms.

The session with BAN E-Stewards and R2 was very amicable.  Sitting in the audience, I couldn't help but feel bad for having taken Puckett tiredly to task the day before in the blog.  They seemed to narrow the "disagreement" between the two programs down as follows:

1. E-Stewards is expensive.  And R2, while cheaper, is unsustainable (it needs to be more expensive).
2. BAN - a little unclearly, I thought - described their belief in evolving WITH a Basel Convention group.  The Basel Ban Amendment - not passed - should be incorporated in the standard because they are confident it will be passed.  The E-Steward position on export of goods for repair, while CLEARLY on the list of Annex IX "non-waste" activities, is that they should be held to a standard of a recent committee at Basel Meetings... ie not to International Law, but held to the amendment of the international law which the non-profit NGO promotes for a living).

This "adherence to promoted future law" of course is what frightens the USA away from Ratifying Basel Convention.   The USA Congress might agree with everything in a convention as written, and then Jim Puckett may make a presentation in Jakarta or Columbia, and the non-elected international group of attendees may vote that repair, allowed in the Convention, should no longer be allowed.  In that case the USA has passed a law which gives a non-elected international  interest group, effectively, regulatory power over USA companies.  UN Treaty 101.