This post is part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007. Voting has now closed and readers have chosen the Cadillac CTS as the hottest automobile of the year. Be sure to let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

What is it about a car that makes it "hot" for you? Is it slinky lines, European styling and a deep throaty growl? Perhaps you prefer a ride with all the luxury appointments: leather, navigation, DVD players, and surround sound. Are you the kind of driver that seeks out a pavement-ripping roadster with more horsepower per pound than a F-1 formula racer, or are you more into the touring feel? Whatever your criteria for choosing a hot car, we're asking for your opinions on the following four vehicles, and we like to know which one you'd choose as Hottest Car of the Year for 2007.

There is a bit of a shuffle these days in regard to when manufacturers release their year models, so for comparison I am using what I believe is the latest available production model for each of the four competitors. Please feel free to consider more than just one model year as you make your judgment. I want to know which vehicle make and model you think owns the road.

Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) will be paying about $41,000 in fines to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shortly, as the federal agency determined that the nation's second-largest discount retailer incurred violations of federal rules on the labeling, distribution and sale of pesticide products. Sounds harsh, right? But, this was not just pesticide out in the lawn and garden area.

The fines stem from the marketing of anti-microbial toilet seats and mattress pads, along with pillows and household cleaner that claimed to be "germ-killing" products. That's a no-no unless there is pesticide involved, according to the FDA. Funny, since I see "kills germs" claims on so many household products these days it would make a normal shopper's head spin.

According to the FDA, Target sold and distributed unregistered pesticides from its stores and on its website based on the above-referenced products. Most likely, Target was just the retail distributor of these products and has very little (if any) oversight to the marketing tactics used on them. But, this brings up a larger point: at what point should a retailer be responsible for all the marketing claims used on all the products in its stores? Or, should it at all?

Although Target is removing the "germ-killing" claims from the products, who was to blame here? If these were Target private-label brands, we may have a problem. But, if the products in question were from other companies and brands not related specifically to Target, are those companies under the auspices of the EPA as well? This reminds me of the recent lead paint recall that affected many toy retailers. After the smoke cleared, the manufacturers were found liable -- not the distributing retailers.

In an effort to better understand the lead-in-toys scandal, I had a chance today to talk to an industry expert on the topic. Dr. Marcia Stone holds a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry and is Founder/President of Hybrivet Systems, a manufacturer of lead-testing equipment for industry and home use. She has worked in the lead testing field for 15 years.

I asked Dr, Stone why manufacturers would use lead paint? She explained that "Lead in paint provides a hard, glossy, pretty finish, the reason it was once used extensively in expensive housing. Leaded paint is also easy to work with and inexpensive."

What lead-containing products have you found on American shelves that consumers should be concerned about?
"The scandal over lead in children's jewelry is not over; we continue to find these products for sale," said Stone. She told me manufacturers will use a core of lead in cheap jewelry and cover it with nickel plating or paint, or use a solder containing lead in its construction. Children often chew on their jewelry, and as little as three milligrams of lead, about the size of three grains of sugar, can kill a child. Since lead has a sweet taste, the propensity for children to ingest it is even greater.

Water utilities are hardly a high-flying investment, but some may be worth a second look. According to EPA estimates, American municipalities will need to spend $500 billion over the next 15 years to upgrade and expand their aging water infrastructure, money most municipalities do not have. Enter privately owned waterworks, including Aqua America (NYSE: WTR) and American Water, currently in the process of being sold by RWE AG in an IPO valued between $4-6 billion. Aqua America currently owns 10,000 miles of pipes in 13 states. The company has a market cap of $3 billion, and recently posted 1Q 2007 earnings of 13 cents per share, just shy of the estimated 14 cents per share. Revenues were up for the quarter 16.5% to $137.3 million. The company also announced a small increase in its quarterly dividend, to 11.5 cents per share.

Aqua America, like its closest competitor American Water, grows primarily through acquisition of smaller water works that can no longer compete on economy of scale. Aqua America has acquired 25 to 30 smaller water companies each year for the past five years. When American Water is finally spun off from its German owner, it will be flush with cash and ready to acquire. The company currently serves 18 million residents in 29 states, and will only get larger. 85% of Americans receive their water via municipal systems, many of which will be prime targets for acquisition.

Investing in waterworks requires an understanding of an unusual business model. Municipalities must agree to sell their waterworks. Scenarios in which municipalities continue to own but contract out waterworks operations are low profit margin deals. Given the impending large bills municipalities will face, they will be more inclined to outright sell to large private waterworks. Once a private waterworks acquires a municipal system, it must spend on upgrades first, then seek to recoup upgrade costs in addition to interest on debt. Much of the debt can be borrowed tax free or tax reduced through municipal borrowing authorities. Typically, a waterworks company spends $3.45 upfront for each $1 in revenue. This is more than twice the cost electrical utilities incur to generate revenue. Private waterworks are also guaranteed a "reasonable" rate of return on equity, generally 10-11%, as part of the acquisition deal.

As you have probably heard, that perennial pain in the butt EPA has come up with a new knot for you. They are claiming that the auto manufacturers have skewed miles per gallon estimates by testing their cars when they are warmed up, using tepid air and running at the speeds they're supposed to. Obviously the EPA believes that averages aren't averages unless you figure all the extremes into the calculations. As an average Joe, I really don't care. The EPA has always annoyed me and I guess they will continue to.

Be that as it may, I am happy to report to you that the personal finance gurus at Kiplinger have provided a tool for you to convert 2007 EPA ratings into 2008 EPA ratings. This handy automated mileage calculator is so simple to use a White House subcommittee could do it. You simply enter the manufacturer, model, engine size and transmission configuration of your specific test subject vehicle and...viola! An instant converted mileage estimate is yours.

Please use the Kiplinger's calculator if you'll be shopping for a 2007 model year vehicle. The new conversions will more closely match what you'll see as actual. Or you could use the tool that I've always employed: Deduct two or three MPG from the sticker estimate and you'll be in the range of actual results. Of course the vehicle window stickers will still say:

"ACTUAL MILEAGE MAY VARY"

General Electric shares got a temporary boost today after shareholders witnessed some pleasant chest-thumping from CEO Jeff Immelt at the annual shareholders meeting. But after reaching $34.44, they slid most of the day, before bumping up again a half hour before the close. The price ended at $34.13, up 16 cents on the day.

News over the wires this evening that GE may face nearly $1 million in Environmental Protection Agency fines may not help matters tomorrow. Although at 5 p.m., shares were up slightly in after market trading.

The first sentence of a Wall Street Journal story today (subscription required)  about GE said it best, "General Electric Co. is in Wall Street purgatory." The article went on to explain how GE's shares are down 6% in the past year while the Dow is up 11%. This is even though earnings jumped 12% in the past year.

The article also made mention of a nagging issue of an extra low tax rate for its financial services division, which has some analysts wondering if earnings are as sparkly clean as they should be. Interesting.

The way I see it, though, General Electric has two big problems holding its share price back. First, about half of GE's earnings come from its financial businesses (think Citigroup with out all the ATMs). How good is that business going to be if interest rates keep rising? Second problem: NBC primetime ain't so prime time these days.