TampaYankee

I've got to admit that if I ever knew this was in the 14th Ammendment I had long forgotten it. It sure adds a new wrinkle to the issue. Rather than seeing this as a lever to get the GOP to compromise I see it as giving them license to walk away and let the Dems have full credit for the 'Debt Crisis'. This puts the Dems between a rock and a hard place IMO. I can't think of anything that would rally the conservative and conservative leaning moderates more in the next election than for Obama and the Dems to declare the Debt Ceiling unconstitutional and issue new debt without Congressional approval. This would be the equivalent for the GOP that the Medicare dismantling is to the Dems. On the other hand, to let happen the economic armageddon that almost all economists predict if the GOP doesn't compromise in good faith would be malfeasant as the stewards of government. I guess Obama may have to draw a line in the sand that without a compromise solution by a date certain he would be left with no other choice than to invoke the 14th Ammendment as a resolution to the crisis. That would put the onus on the GOP to decide if they want the short term political gain in the next election versus losing the authority to ever again exercise any authority over the national debt beyond limiting spending on a routine year-year to year basis by the party in control of Congress. Interesting dilemma.

14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional Samuel Haass samuel.haass@huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment. "This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'" By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context -- that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending. "The way everybody talks about this is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. What we're really saying is, 'We have to pay our bills,'" Murray said. The 14th Amendment approach is "fascinating," she added. The White House referred questions on the constitutionality of the debt ceiling to the Treasury Department. Treasury declined to comment. Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that the 14th Amendment option has recently been much discussed in the field. "Without any clear case law about the debt ceiling in particular, no one knows exactly how the courts would rule on that issue, about whether President Obama could ignore the debt ceiling," he said. "If he wanted to continue to service the public debt, he'd probably get away with it." Which leads to a related question: Who's to stop him? "To have standing to challenge a governmental action, you must show that you have suffered some injury from that action, and it's hard for someone to show such an injury," Winkler said. "If Congress acted as a unified body, and claims that the president has usurped their authority, then it may have some standing." "But," he cautioned, "it would have to be a joint resolution. And this Senate would almost certainly block it." The 14th Amendment became law in the wake of the Civil War, pushed by a Republican Congress eager to extend citizenship rights to freed slaves. But it also included a section dealing with federal debt: The government wanted to make clear to the market that even though loans to the Confederacy would not be paid back, any loans made to the U.S. government were still good. In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt. "While [the 14th Amendment] was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation," the majority wrote in Perry v. U.S. "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations." The law at issue, which tried to override the validity of a bond offering, "went beyond the congressional power," the Court ruled, setting a precedent that has not been overturned. Because the government borrows based on its full faith, Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders, the ruling declared. "To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government." President Barack Obama, who taught constitutional law, hasn't been afraid to assert executive authority. Most recently, he issued what amounted to a legal analysis defending the White House position that the military's operations in Libya were not in violation of the War Powers Act. Ultimately, if Obama chose to ignore the debt ceiling, the debate would be more about power than an academic interpretation of the Constitution: Simply asserting that all debts and obligations will be paid may still spook the bond markets if a constitutional crisis is triggered. Coons said that "from every professional -- either an economist or a currently practicing professional in the bond markets or financial services -- unanimously their input to me has been, 'You don't even want to have this debate, you don't want to terrify the markets by arguing over the interpretation of a previously irrelevant or not often applied provision of the Constitution. Don't spook the markets, don't scare the average American, just do your jobs.'" But if that job can't get done, the government needs a fall back, Democrats say. "Our challenge is that we have a partisan divide over how to craft a package that allows us to move forward -- that seems to me so deep that I am gravely worried we are rapidly running out of time," Coons said, noting that the Congressional Budget Office needs days or weeks to analyze whatever package of cuts is agreed to -- if one is agreed to. Would the administration go down this road? It's impossible to say, but if the choice is between a financial crisis and a constitutional one, the option becomes awfully appealing. "The consequences of [ignoring the debt ceiling] will produce a legislative response, and almost certainly a constitutional crisis -- a crisis of interpretation, if not fact," Coons said. "Unfortunately there's no way that that does anything except spook the markets." See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html

If marriage = fidelity then I think Tomcal is as likely to marry as MarcAnthony.

A perfect example of where the free market has failed in providing a reaonsble, affordable widely needed 'essential product' is 'burial caskets'. The free market supports horrendously priced caskets, even at the most basic level, even though funeral homes (distributors) are manifest-and-many in our population centers. The suppliers are few, I guess, and they call the tune -- the same tune apparently. The free market has NOT caused a glut in suppliers, even with the high profit margins, that would reduce prices. This applies to Heath Insurance in some ways too. There are not that many Insurance companies that compete against each other in a given region/area. When there are a half-dozen or so, it is not so much a free market system as it is a 'leveraged' market system. That is clear from the great disparity between individual and group policy rates. If you have clout then you get better prices, if not well... that's tough. That is not strictly free market. That is how big employers get better rates and bigger insurance companies get better deals from hospitals and doctors. My employer didn't play off one provider against another and choose a winner. They sought proposals from the local providers then offered three or four plans to the employees. (As health care costs increased in recent years they dropped back to two plans.) The individual has NO clout. They pay full window list price even though, generally, they are less better situated to pay -- even the leveraged prices. Without leverage they might as well be negotiating for a burial casket.

Good to know. I really appreciate companies that are responsive to customer needs and complaints.

It's been my experience in the places I have lived that property tax is assessed at the county or township level and pays for local services like police, fire and schools etc. These costs are roughly fixed more or less with some room for adjustment by a modest percentage. The county millage is set to cover costs. So if the property values are halved it only makes sense that the millage rate is doubled because the coounty obligations are more or less unchanged even though the property assessments are changed. How does PS escape this fact of economics?

10 Tax-Unfriendly States for Retirees 2011 Due to copyright restrictions see this article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/112987/tax-unfriendly-states-retirees?mod=fidelity-livingretirement&cat=fidelity_2010_living_in_retirement

Thanks for sharing these recipes. I'll give then a try.

Be aware that you may loose significant muscle mass with this regimen. Under such extreme conditions the body believes it is in starvation mode and summons all hands on deck. Would that the body was smart enough to just burn fat when it is present in abundance. Although it is easier to convert fat to energy, the body looks wherever it can to save itself when in panick mode. You will loose much more fat than muscle but the latter will take a hit too.

CNET EDITORS' REVIEW Reviewed by: Seth Rosenblatt on June 20, 2011 The bottom line: Firefox 5 is a worthy expression of Mozilla's ideals. The browser is competitively fast, sports a new minimalist look, and includes some excellently executed features. Unfortunately, that describes most of Firefox's competition, too. Review: Firefox 5 is the first version of Firefox released under Mozilla's rapid-release cycle, which means that instead of seeing a new whole-number version once every year or two, you'll now see one every three months. This follows in the footsteps of Google Chrome, which adopted the rapid-release cycle a while ago and is now up to version 12 (at the time this review was written) despite having its first release only in 2008. Firefox 4 had a massive impact on Firefox 5, and so this review is not dramatically different from its predecessor. Firefox 4 had a rough time in its early development, but those days are over. The browser that you can download now is in the same speed category as its competition; offers many similar features (stronger in many areas and slightly weaker in others); includes broad, cross-platform support for hardware acceleration and other "future-Web" tech and standards; and is a must-have for Android users (download for Android). For more see: http://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-10208569.html?tag=rb_content;main Read more: Mozilla Firefox for Mac - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Downloads http://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-10208569.html?tag=rb_content;main#ixzz1QMfxiNlC

Just pointing out that free enterprise is not the end all, be all for providing essential services to the people. In some instances the concept of profits is inconsistent with providing some services. The free market is almost always better at providing products and nonessential services. It is certainly not clear cut that holds for essential services as the above list of examples points out. It is not even clear for some essential products as certain important but mostly obsolete products -- overtaken by newer products using newer technologies -- which may be important to certain critical systems still in operation. Vacuum tubes might be one example. There are others. So we need a combination of market types to serve the nation. That's my point, not obfuscation. Anyone that has faith to put all the eggs in either basket is more about ideology than in effective product and services delivery, IMO.

Good news. It's going to increase the push to move the issue to the Supreme Court in either of two ways: the constitutionality of denying the right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause or denying recognition in other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. As more gays become legally married in more states it is only a matter of time till the SCOTUS has to settle the second issue whether it addresses the first one. In the case for either I suspect the SCOTUS to resolve both issues for once and for all. It is not inconceivable to me that presently we may have a Plessy vs. Ferguson Court. Kennedy is the deciding vote.

Updates are of three types: adding new functionality, providing performance patches, and providing security patches. The big upgrades, i.e. 3,4,5, etc always have new functionality. The smaller upgrades are ususal dealing with performance issues or security issues. Each update notice explains what the update is for. You have to search for the link on the page. I never do a mjaor update without searching for online reviews about it. I disliked version 4.0 and went back to 3.12 or something like it until they fixed severe performance issues in 4.0 with later updates. I also use IE also and updated to 8 to 9 when it came out. The reviews said good thinngs. I found that 9 sucked in terms of the look and feel that I liked. I reverted to 8. I also set my systems to ask before updating. I never mix tool bars and browsers myself. Just not confident enough about compatibility. FWIW

I have used Hotwire in the past with satisfaction. The prices aren't quite as good and the choice is a bit more of a crap shoot than with Priceline. But because it is more of a crapshoot and because NYC is full of so many small hotel rooms with small beds I never had the gumption to roll the Hotwire dice in NYC. Hotline for Boston, DC, Florida not so squeamish about but care still used.

That is what reviews are for.

I did a flax bread once. Learned my lesson. Beans are great but have their own side effects for many.

Flax seed is a great dietary aid. You can take it pre ground but it is important to keep it refrigerated and use it in a timely manner. It's shelf life is limited, even refrigerated. I put a couple of spoonfuls in cooked oat bran. It adds a strange texture -- a bit gummy-- but not too bad for the benefit. Add milk and sweetener with a little butter. If you like oatmeal this is not an unacceptable stretch.

I can't wait to see the free enterprise take over our military, highways, disease control, food and drug inspection, flood control, rural power grid, prisons, police, schools, veterans hospitals, voter registration -- everything operated on a pay as you go basis with a good profit the bottom line. Who will build roads and power lines to small communities that are not profitable? The same for clinics and hospitals? Toll roads will become omnipresent, even to your local grocery store or cleaners. Will business create a military based on strategic and tactical needs or on profit margin? The Military Industrial Complex has a great track record for bringing weapons systems online within budget and schedule. Let's let them do it all including troop management and logistics given their outstanding record. We will allocate our police and schools on the profit bottom line rather than the crime stats in the community. Same for fire protection. When the costs cut into the profit margin we let the buildings burn? If you have a fire then pray it happens in the first half of the fiscal year. I could go and on. Many things are best accomplished with free enterprise. Some things are not.

Nice clip, thanks for sharing.

It would depend... Certainly several variables were right. The slow AM activity, the guy was cute and very definitely willing. Generally being reserved, I can be somewhat uninhibited in the right circumstance. I'm sure you will recall one party in your NY apt. How much would you regret getting banned from the gym? How big a tip to get the infraction reduced to a warning? All things to consider.

Wear a rain coat. Your pores will still ooze. Probably more with second source of steam in the room. All that an a free show!!

I give the Playboy Club three weeks. This is one of those shows that is so obvious to fail in this country. They cannot be true to the topic in bible-thumping America. Unless they accidentally hire some excellent writers that conjer up some intriguing subtexts that have nothing to do with Playboy bunnies, then who knows. I'm betting against that. I suspect this is some sort of payoff for a past debt to the programming VP or something like that. I bet the replacement is already in the can. The two other shows sound as equally deep.

Lookin already answered that question. I'd broaden the context to all of Big Business and Deep Pocket Monied Interests influence on most aspects of government policy. We will never have a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' as long as we have the nonconstitutional fiction of Corporate Personhood foisted upon us via a backdoor through an opinion of the Supreme Court in a case which had no direct interest in the concept. That and the ill-conceived opinion that money = free speech without 'any' restriction. That puts the monied interests in the driver seat -- plain and simple. Both of those instutionalized concepts make sure we get the best government that money can buy.

Amen, Amen, Amen...

Sorry, I don't see it. I do see a strong Jesse Metcalfe resemblance.