TampaYankee

I think I could be quite happy there if I is spoke the lingo. BTW, you may have mentioned this in a previous post but how are the winters?

I second the Happy Birthday sentiment and many happy returns.

Gas-powered cars that get 40 mpg For non-electric, non-hybrid cars, 40 is the new 30 (mpg). By Marco R. della Cava | Yahoo! Autos – Thu, Apr 14, 2011 6:10 PM EDT To put an automotive spin on an old axiom, 40 really is the new 30—in miles per gallon. What’s particularly remarkable is that this impressive highway-mileage figure is increasingly being achieved not only by hybrids and other alt-fuel cars—which post their best numbers in the city—but by regular gasoline-powered vehicles with relatively low price tags. A look at eleven current and forthcoming cars that deliver 40 mpg highway reveals MSRPs ranging from $12,490 (for a two-door Smart car) to around $20,000 (for a four-door Ford Focus SE). With global turmoil continuing to push pump prices higher, it’s clear manufacturers understand they can boost sales by focusing on a statistic that for most of the past few decades was a non-issue for the American automotive consumer. In fact, Ford recently started running ads that specifically boast about reaching the 40 mpg mark. “Even five years ago, consumers wanted horsepower and driving dynamics, but now we have rising gas prices,” says Tracy Handler, senior analyst at IHS Automotive. “In the end, even more than CAFE standards (federally mandated fuel economy targets) gas prices really drive what companies are doing now, because of what concerns their customers. So they’ve set 40 (mpg) as a target, mainly for advertising reasons, and are achieving it with innovations ranging from air-flow louvers with sensors to simply cleaning up the underbody for better aerodynamics.” Here’s a quick look at models that deliver 40 mpg on the highway: See this link for the list with photos: http://autos.yahoo.com/news/gas-powered-cars-that-get-40-mpg.html

10 Best and Worst States to Make a Living by Kathy Kristof Tuesday, April 12, 2011 Provided by: The job market is finally picking up some steam, providing hope to long-suffering job seekers everywhere. But if you're among the applying masses, you probably want to do more than just get a job. If you want to make a living -- in other words, make enough after tax and fixed expenses to prosper -- your chances of getting a job that pays enough to live in comfort varies dramatically based on the state where you live and work. MoneyRates.com pulled unemployment rates, average wages, tax rates and cost of living from all 50 states and found that the best places to find a job were not necessarily the best places to make a living. The unemployment rate is only 3.7% in North Dakota versus 11% in Michigan, for example. But Michigan is a much better place to make a living, with "adjusted average income" of $37,427 versus $35,365 in North Dakota, according to MoneyRates. MoneyRates rankings are based on their analysis of what you have left to spend, after adjusting for paying your state taxes and dealing with the comparative cost of buying groceries and keeping a roof over your head, among other things. Based on that analysis, where are the best and worst places to make a living? The best, according to MoneyRates, is ... 1. Illinois: The adjusted average income is $41,987, thanks to reasonably high average wages, relatively low state income taxes and a reasonable cost of living. 2. Washington (state): The cost of living is higher than average, but so is the average wage and the state imposes no income tax. Adjusted average income: $41,456. 3. Texas: Also benefits from no state income tax. Adjusted average income: $41,427 4. Virginia: $41,120 5. Delaware: $39,105 6. Massachusetts: $38,665 7. Georgia: $38,228 8. Tennessee: $38,038 9. Colorado: $38,020 10. Minnesota: $37,721 Where are the worst states to make a living? 1. Hawaii: $22,108 2. Maine: $29,159 3. Montana: $29,496 4. California: $29,772 5. Vermont: $29,986 6. Oregon: $30,343 7. Rhode Island: $30,612 8. Mississippi: $30,953 9. West Virginia: 31,357 10. South Carolina: $31,636 ___

These types of articles are designed to put maximum ads in front of your nose. The info could have been presented on one screen with scroll bars, maybe. No need for stock photos to thumb thru one screen at a time, to get once city at a time.

Goldman Sachs Ripped Off And Misled Clients, Senate Report Says Shahien Nasiripour shahien@huffingtonpost.com Goldman Sachs, the nation's fifth-largest bank by assets, systematically misled clients, sold them financial instruments it knew to be junk, bet against them and profited off of their losses, according to a Senate report released this week. The report, the product of a two-year investigation, paints the firm as Exhibit A of Wall Street's evolution from a place that raises and deploys capital to worthy businesses into a vulturous creature that preys on unwitting investors. Goldman's conduct in the two years leading up to the near-implosion of the financial system show a firm dedicated to "sticking it to their own clients," said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the panel that produced the report. "Goldman gained at the expense of their clients, and used abusive practices to do it." In 2006 and 2007, Goldman recorded more than $21 billion in profit thanks to a strategy that ensured earnings as the housing bubble inflated and then popped. It also dodged a loss in 2008 -- one of the few firms to do so -- during a year that saw the demise of three of its direct competitors. The "abusive" tactics the firm employed helped gain those winnings, according to the report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. While Goldman was betting -- or "shorting," in Wall Street parlance -- that securities would collapse, clients were on the losing end. "Of course we didn't dodge the mortgage mess," Goldman chairman and chief executive Lloyd C. Blankfein explained to a colleague in a Nov. 18, 2007 email documented in the report. "We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts." Four complex financial instruments with names like Timberwolf and Abacus show how the firm profited while others lost, according to the Senate report. Goldman declined to comment for this article. Timberwolf was a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation squared, meaning it was a financial instrument comprised of other CDOs that were backed by various types of securities, like mortgage bonds and insurance contracts. Goldman issued the security, formally called Timberwolf I, in March 2007. It began to lose value almost immediately upon issuance. But Goldman was a step ahead of its clients. It immediately shorted about 36 percent of the assets underlying Timberwolf, meaning it would profit off their demise. Investors were kept in the dark about this development, according to the Senate report. In May 2007, Goldman promised one future buyer it could earn a 60 percent return on its investment in Timberwolf, even though Goldman's interval valuations of the security showed the CDO was continuing to fall in value, the report notes. The prospective buyer, a hedge fund named Basis Capital, finally bought slices of Timberwolf on June 18 of that year, at prices of 84 cents and 76 cents on the dollar. Less than a month later, Goldman marked them down to 65 and 60 cents. Even Goldman salesmen had second thoughts about the firm's practice of marking down securities within days or weeks of a client's purchase. "Real bad feeling across European sales about some of the trades we did with clients," one of the firm's salesmen wrote in an October 2007 email to the head of Goldman's mortgage unit, Daniel Sparks. "The damage this has done to our franchise is significant. Aggregate loss for our clients on just...5 trades alone is 1bln+ [more than $1 billion]." A few months earlier, a senior Goldman executive warned his colleagues about selling clients securities at one price and then immediately devaluing them. "[D]on't think we can trade this with our clients [and] then mark them down dramatically the next day," Harvey Schwartz wrote in a May 11 email. On July 13, Basis told Goldman that one of its funds was in "real trouble," according to the Senate report. Three days later, Goldman marked down those securities to 55 and 45 cents on the dollar. Within weeks, Basis Capital liquidated its hedge fund. Goldman bought back the Timberwolf securities at prices of 30 and 25 cents on the dollar. Another Timberwolf buyer, Bank Hapoalim, purchased a $9 million slice at about 78 cents on the dollar. The Israeli-based bank didn't know that Goldman's internal valuations at the same time pegged the slice at just 55 cents on the dollar. Last week, another bank, Wells Fargo was fined $11 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission because the firm it took over, Wachovia, did something similar when it sold a client a slice of a security at 90-95 cents on the dollar even though Wachovia internally valued it at 52.7 cents on the dollar. In announcing the settlement, the SEC's director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami, said the lender violated "basic investor protection rules -- don't charge secret excessive markups, and don't use stale prices when telling buyers that assets are priced at fair market value." In the end, though Goldman eventually lost some money on Timberwolf because it couldn't sell all of it, its losses were offset by profits made from betting those securities would fall in value. Goldman profited "at the expense of its clients," according to the report. Meanwhile, the buyers lost virtually everything. Basis Capital ended up declaring bankruptcy. Another CDO, called Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1, was a $2 billion financial instrument brought to market in December 2006. Goldman shorted all of Hudson, meaning it would profit if any of the slices lost value, according to the Senate report. Goldman "failed to disclose to potential investors that it was shorting the very securities [it] was selling to them," the report notes. Instead, Goldman told investors that it had "aligned incentives" with them because it invested in a portion of Hudson. The report called that "misleading" because Goldman's $6 million bet that Hudson would rise in value was "outweighed many times over by Goldman's $2 billion short position." Goldman also told investors that the assets underlying Hudson were "sourced from the Street," as in other Wall Street firms. In reality, all of the assets were acquired from a unit inside Goldman. Two Goldman executives later told Senate investigators that the firm's original description was accurate because Goldman was part of "the Street." Goldman made a $1.35 billion profit off Hudson, earnings the Senate report described as coming "at the expense of [its] clients." Similar practices occurred with two other Goldman CDOs, named Anderson Mezzanine 2007-1 and Abacus 2007-AC1. In Abacus, Goldman allegedly helped set up the mortgage-linked investment for a favored client, designing it to fail, yet sold it anyway to its other clients, reaping the favored client nearly $1 billion. Last year, the SEC charged Goldman with securities fraud. The firm later settled the accusations for $550 million. In Anderson, the Senate report claims Goldman bet that 40 percent of the assets underlying the deal would decline in value. Investors were never told. They also weren't told that Goldman expressed reservations about the quality of the subprime mortgages that helped make up Anderson. Anderson investors were eventually wiped out and lost virtually their entire investments, according to the Senate investigation. "The evidence discloses troubling and sometimes abusive practices which show...that Goldman knowingly sold high risk, poor quality mortgage products to clients around the world," according to the Senate report. It also alleges "multiple conflicts of interest" surrounding Goldman's CDO activities. Previously, Goldman has defended its conduct and rejected accusations it did anything improper during the leadup to the financial meltdown. "Goldman Sachs did not engage in some type of massive 'bet' against our clients," the firm said in a statement last year. "[We] never created mortgage-related products that were designed to fail." The firm also has said that buyers of such securities were "large, sophisticated investors" that had "significant in-house research staff to analyze portfolios and structures and to suggest modifications." The investors "did not rely upon the issuing banks in making their investment decisions," Goldman said in a December 2009 statement. Also, the firm maintains that "it is fully disclosed and well known to investors" that Wall Street firms that arranged CDOs initially shorted the securities and that "these positions could either have been applied as hedges against other risk positions or covered via trades with other investors." "Many major banks had similar businesses," the firm noted. The report makes note of federal securities laws that Goldman may have violated. "Goldman...had an obligation to disclose material information that a reasonable investor would want to know," the report notes. Levin said his investigators found a "financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest, and wrongdoing." Last year's financial reform law includes a section authored by Levin that tries to clean up the markets by prohibiting firms from betting against securities they sell to their clients. Levin pointed to Goldman's activities as a primary reason for why he wanted that in the new law. As of 3 p.m. New York time, Goldman shares were down more than 3 percent since Levin's report was publicly released. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index is up about 0.6 percent. See the original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/goldman-sachs-levin-investigation_n_849708.html

Maybe so, but everybody but him seemed ready to give up on health care after Brown won Kennedy's seat, if you put any stock in the behind the scenes reports that came out several months later. I felt that there was little chance at that point that anyone would continue too push hard enough to get it done. It happened.

That's fine as long as they send their troops over to get it done. We could even sell them some A-10s with crash training to take out Khadafy's tanks. We could use the balance of payments.

I'll take my Fusion at the low end of that range. It comes with five wheels and has a roof too. I never was any good at working an umbrella at 40 mph. TY <-- party pooper

I agree with one thing the article says -- this is on the same level with the Birther Conspiracy. It belongs in the same garbage can .

Looks like it is also built for stealing too.

You could say the same thing about Ryan's initial budget announcement. News outlets reported the broad strokes that he gave and said, "we'll have to wait for details of the plan to see exactly what his vision means for seniors and medicaid" more or less. They unfolded over the next couple of weeks -- what little we got. We still haven't seen many of the details. How big a medical voucher will seniors get? Will it be inflation protected? Medical cost or general cost inflation? Will there be a guarantee that affordable health plans will be in place for seniors to access? etc. etc. etc. All I know is that the GOP will give a voucher of some amount for Seniors to use in the market place. Not a lot of detail. I know something has to be there for the CBO to score, but I haven't seen it, and I watch. I agree that details are important but that wasn't the venue for details. Details require facts and figures and... details. The ability of an audience to absorb lots of details while sitting on their asses after lunch is limited, much less the population at large. I know, I spent a career doing it from both sides of the podium. Details are better presented in a C-SPAN type program. We know how broadly those are watched. That audience is narrow, deep, and committed. That was not the intended audience yesterday. I think we have a clear idea about the big differences between the plans, where each plan wants to go, and the paths to get there. Now it is important to get on with the details. I suspect Obama's details will take form as a Senate Budget bill crafted by the Senate and Obama staff, just as the GOP did in the House. OMB may present a separate piece of paper but I doubt that would serve much purpose as the action will happen on Capitol Hill. That might be more likely to happen for individual components should light open up between Obama and what is happening in the Senate. A comprehensive deficit reduction plan will not be ready for the Debt Increase vote. There just is not time to reach a consensus in time no matter how much the GOP pushes it. Their plan is to use the deadline to shove unpalatable measures down the throats of Obama and the Dems. That cannot happen if the Dems want to remain a cohesive political force. Obama sounds like he is ready to fight. The Tea Party is ready to fight. Is Boehner ready to take down the credit rating of the USA and with it the economy to meet Tea Party demands? They are bailing on him over this interim budget compromise. I doubt there will be any more compromise from them. Time for him to choose in this game of chicken. The best way out of this immediate dilemma is to attach to the Debt Ceiling bill a Congressional Deficit Reduction Commission with a deadline to report and Congress to vote up or down. That mandates a date certain for action which should satisfy deficit hawks of all stripes.

lookin' You often have a unique way of driving home a point. BTW, what was your point here or were you just teasing bibottomboy? <Gee, where can you find an icon for 'Caution, Pussy Crossing' when you need one.>

Do you really believe there are 218 votes in the House and 41 votes in the Senate willing to see the dountry default? I don't. To default would mark the end of America as an economic superpower. We would have declared ourselves as just another banana republic by defaulting. No longer would anyone look to us as a the international entity of stability. The dollar would be abandoned as any sort of international currency. International investments would be great diminished with much higher profit and interest rates demanded of banana republic investments. Many might think we could just undo the impact after getting our house in order. Sort of like tell everyone "we was just funnin'" or "it was only a tantrum, nothing serious". Yeah. Confidence is easily shaken and slow to be regained, especially after such a grand tempermental failure. A default would accrue to no one's benefit. However, the GOP would take the big hit because they would be the one causing the default. The argument that 'The Dems made us do' it would get little traction outside of the school yard GOP play area. That is not to say that Dems would not suffer as all Congressional politicians would be lumped together as ineffective and corrupt. However, the Dems cannot accept governance with a gun held to their head. IMO, this is not an issue that lends itself to an open legislative process. History tells us that there are too many special interests with too much influence affecting both sides for an open give and take process to achieve a rational end result. These kinds of issues with intense partisan feelings have been addressed in the last fifty years behind closed doors with all parties represented by trusted people. A compromise proposal emerges which pleases no one but addresses the issues and meets some of each sides requirements. The package is submitteed for an up or down vote. This his how military bases are closed. This is how Social Security solvency was addressed in the 80s. This is how this question will be resloved, not with a gun to one side's head. If we don't have a Congress with enough since to protect and defend the Constitution and the Country then maybe we have come to the end of the line. I doubt it though.

I give him an A+. It as good as I could hope for. It reflects most of my views about priorities and the necessary urgency of action to lay out a plan. That is change I can get behind. I especially appreciate the vision he painted for our country, past present and future, how the parties came together in the past to solve similar problems and how we came to our present circumstances and need for action. Now for the negotiations and resisting the urge to give it away.

Here is an instance where Obama and the Dems have all of the leverage. If the GOP shoots down the Debt Ceiling extension the effects would devastate them for years. The choice is throw a political tantrum and cause world-wide economic, and worse, national armageddon or pass the extension and sit down to some serious negotiation about long term spending and tax policy. If I were Obama I would demand a clean extension bill with a committment to begin immediately serious disucssion about the longterm issues, with a renewed proposal to have the Deficit Commission with straight up or down vote that the GOP shot down last time after having proposed it. An intelligent economic restructing is not going to happen in a few weeks or a few months with a gun to our heads, expecially with the stunts and wackos pushing for impossible remedies. This is not the way to solve a serious problem short of taking a meat ax to our limbs. Some want that, but it won't happen and shouldn't happen. For the Dems to even particpate in a platform for that type of discussion adds to the circus environment. Here is an instance where Obama and the Dems have all of the leverage. Let's see how badly they screw it up. You know they will.

Debt Ceiling Fight: Democrats See Republicans In 'Blazing Saddles' Strategy Michael McAuliff mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- Are Republicans following a Blazing Saddles strategy in the looming standoff over the nations debt limit? Imagine the scene in the Mel Brooks classic, where Cleavon Little points a gun at his own head and threatens to shoot if the armed townspeople dont drop their weapons. Listen to him, men. He's just crazy enough to do it! one says. Thats how some Democrats view GOP demands for really, really big concessions on spending and deficits in return for raising Americas debt ceiling. They think Republicans are essentially threatening to take a step that would spark an economic catastrophe -- and that the public would blame the GOP for it. It reminds me of the joke where the guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another guy, puts the gun to his head and his wife starts laughing, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) told the Huffington Post. He says Who are you laughing at? Youre next! The next hostage event seems to be the debt limit, House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. The only reason you can hold hostage something is because the other side wants to act responsible, he added. Therefore you think, even though they don't want what you're pressing, that [Democrats will] take it to prevent a bigger harm. I think that's irresponsible." Even some Republicans privately wonder how the leadership can plausibly threaten a move that could pull the plug on the economy while arguing they want to fix the economy. Thats a damn good question, one GOP Financial Services aide acknowledged. Even the Ryan budget requires raising the debt ceiling, the staffer said, referring to the Republicans 2012 budget plan offered last week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Its Alice in Wonderland territory, the aide said. To recap, the U.S. debt ceiling is the maximum amount set by Congress that the country can borrow to meet its obligations. Now standing at $14.3 trillion, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warns the nation will hit it in mid-May. The Treasury can juggle the books for several weeks after that to pay the bills, but America will default for the first time since dropping the gold standard if the limit is not raised by early July. Economists have warned defaulting would spark economic calamity, beginning with spiking interest rates on bonds and potentially ending with a new, worse recession. Yes, the Republicans are threatening to wreck the U.S. economy unless they get their way, said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who chaired the Joint Economic Committee before the GOP won the last election. The reason the GOP stance seems like a bad joke to many Democrats is that Congress can't avoid raising the debt limit, whatever anyone says. The math just wont allow it. It's all but impossible to cut enough from the budget to avoid smacking into the limit, which last week was only about $80 billion away, a fact that many people have overlooked.. According to the Congressional Research Service, the nation needs to raise its debt limit by $738 billion just to finish 2011 -- and there is only about $688 billion in discretionary spending left for the second half of the year. Cutting that spending would only delay the need to hike the debt, because there is, after all, an awful lot of interest to pay. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, noted that the debt involves money that was already spent: on wars, an unfunded Medicare drug program and tax cuts, for instance, which he pointed out he didn't support. The way you deal with debt is by not incurring it, Frank told HuffPost. The notion that you can incur it and then ignore it is stupid. Yet Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has vowed to use the debt ceiling as a " leverage moment," and declared Tuesday, Were only talking about even doing this [raising the debt limit] if we can be assured there are guarantees in place that the spending doesnt get out of control here. Maybe theyve got an imaginary magic leverage stick, quipped Ackerman, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee. Thinking along fairy tale lines, Frank argued that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) know what has to be done. But he said they could have a hard time doing it because of both the new Tea Party members in their base and fears of primary challenges from the Tea Party. Nobody knows just how far removed from reality these people are, Frank said. If we were dealing with just John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, it would be one thing. When youre dealing with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter, its unpredictable." This is not Samuel Adams Tea Party; this is Lewis Carrolls Tea Party were dealing with here, Frank said. And that gives Democrats pause, Ackerman said, leaving him feeling a little like Cleavon Littles townspeople. The problem is they might just go ahead and do it, Ackerman said. In a political world in which [Minnesota Republican Rep.] Michele Bachmann is a serious person, then not raising the debt limit becomes a serious threat, said Frank. Ackerman and Frank, though, think maybe its time to call the bluff, rather than have Democrats give the GOP concessions as they did on this year's budget and last winter's tax cuts. Theyre in charge, which means theyre supposed to be the grown-ups this year, said Ackerman, admitting, as Frank did, that the minority party generally opposes the debt limit. But their strategy of 'lets hold our breath until our face turns blue' is not a good strategy. I think the American people will blame them. Refuse to pay any attention to the threat, Frank advised his colleagues and the White House. And make no concessions. I think its clear theyd pay a very high price for this, Frank added. Nevertheless, reports from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Tuesday suggested President Obama might throw the GOP at least several bones in his fiscal responsibility speech set for Wednesday -- a prospect frowned upon by Ackerman. For my taste, Id like to see a stronger executive branch where theyre really helping direct things rather than standing by just watching them, he said. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/democrats-republicans-debt-ceiling-fight_n_848369.html

This budget is obscene!! The cut in community health centers is unconscionable, short sighted, penny-wise and pound foolish. So is the cut to state and local governments which will cut police, fire, and teacher jobs - a safety issue as well as a jobs/economy issue. The same for the cuts to highway investments -- jobs, jobs, jobs -- and not with make-work but infrastructure investments that will benefit the economy for decades. A big cut to WIC, the most vulernable of the vulnerable. Sure, we can defer clean water projects for a while under these emergency conditions and farm subsidies too which are unlikely. Not all of these cuts are bad or cannot be tolerated. But this budget is obscene for much of what it cuts, especially when you consider that Congress just gave Big Oil a $4 Billion tax break thus necesssitating offsetting budget cuts. Just obscene!! Everybody is taking their eye off the ball. What we need now is jobs, jobs, jobs, not short term budget cuts, but short term jobs spending. We need long term budget reform for sure and now is the time to start working on it so that it can be phased in 3-5 years down the line, after we get jobs going. We cannot cut our way out of the deficit. We must have revenue. That comes from jobs and wealth creation: investment, development, and profit realization. Even the Dems have lost sight of the economy needs in favor of short term politics as erroneously framed by the GOP. The Dems are hopelessly out-manuevered, out-messaged by the GOP. They are very consistent in this shortcoming.

Inside The Budget Deal: Vulnerable Populations Targeted, But Family Planning Saved First Posted: 04/12/11 01:06 PM ET Updated: 04/12/11 02:17 PM ET WASHINGTON –- Congressional leaders unveiled their final budget deal early Tuesday, a $1.049 trillion spending plan that axes billions of dollars for some of the most vulnerable populations while preserving a handful of priorities for both parties. The budget, which will keep the government funded through the end of September, includes an across-the-board cut of 0.25 percent to every domestic agency. Key highlights include: •$600 million in cuts to community health centers. •$414 million in cuts to grants for state and local police departments. •A whopping $1.6 billion cut in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, of which nearly $1 billion comes from grants for clean water and other projects by local governments and Indian tribes. •Cuts to homeland security programs for the first time ever, though much of the agency's two percent decrease stems from a $786 million cut in first responder grants to state and local governments. •A $7 million cut to the Bureau of Public Debt, which accounts for and provides reports on the debt. •A $1 billion cut to HIV and disease-prevention funds. •A $3 billion cut to agriculture programs, the biggest portion of which comes from the Women Infants and Children fund, which loses $504 million. •A $390 million cut to low-income heating assistance; Community Development Funds are cut by $942 million. •Contributions to the United Nations and other international institutions are cut by $377 million. •$45 million pulled from nuclear nonproliferation funds. •A $650 million cut to federal highway investments. •A rider tucked in by lawmakes from Western states that allows states to remove wolves from the endangered species list. Democrats were able to preserve some of their education priorities, including keeping Pell Grant awards at $4,860 and giving a slight boost to funds for Head Start. They also prevented Republicans from slashing funds for the National Institutes of Health: The agency will absorb a $260 million cut, rather than the $1.6 billion cut sought by House Republicans. Democrats also rescued family planning programs from elimination; instead, they will face a five percent cut. But the budget does restore the D.C. abortion ban, which prohibits the city from using federal or local funds for abortions, for five months. Republicans can claim victory in defunding two programs under health care reform: the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan and Free Choice Voucher programs. They also succeeded in eliminating several of the Obama administration’s “czars” for healthcare, climate change, autos and urban affairs. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/inside-the-budget-deal_n_848089.html

Once again I agree with some of what you say. However, I do disagree with the proposition that every community can fund its own needs or else, or that every state knows what is best for them. In the first instance take, for example, a poor rural county in any state. Their tax base may not be able to afford all aspects of health and safety and rudimentary county government they need. To say that they just have to live within their means is not an acceptable alternative. Else crime may run rampant, overspilling into other counties, or the closed county health department may not be able to detect cases of whooping cough or meningitis before it has spread beyond county borders. You might respond: let the state pick it up. Well, that is the same argument as letting the Feds pick it up -- moving it onto someone else. You might argue that keeping it closer to home is better. I agree there is something to that too and they better know local communities. However, that presumes that all states know how to and will do the right thing. That is not a proven proposition in all cases. Unfortunately, in this age of air transportation and the potential for horrendous communicable diseases, eg. ebolla, it is not wise public policy to rely on a patchwork of capability and vigilence to guard our national health. All one has to say, whether in California or Maine, am I comfortable for my health safety with the communicable disease capbility and response of Louisiana or Idaho? What about their meat inspection levels for mad cow disease? Or do we exclude imports of food products across state borders. Some conservatives would say: Let the buyer beware. I'm sure there would be instant buyers remorse over that if their child or spouse should die of botulism or salmonella poisoning. So, to not take over certain state functions, like disease control or safety, the Feds offer grants to supplement state programs while requiring a set of minimal standards and interstate cooperation. Where to draw this line is always controversial but that is the nature of policy and politics. While local control has much to recommend it for communities there are some very important exceptions that are effectively beyond local control.

I agree with some of what you say. Our freedoms have taken a big hit from both sides The problem with most 'government is too big' people is that government is too big only when it comes to providing services that 'they' do not want to support. However, there are many 'big government' programs they do support. Your comment alludes to this too. Most conservatives do not want to support some or any of the social support projects from social security and medicare to community health care support such as but not limited to Planned Parenthood. Most do want to support big defense expenditures whether for security, or to support the defense industry in their districts or defense business interests in general. Conservatives are against subsidies for the disadvantaged and for education goals such as Pell grants or grants to local K-12 schools. However, most are for subsidies for Big Oil, Wall St, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. through tax breaks. All one need do is look at Paul Ryan's proposed 2012 budget which dismantles Medicare and Medicaid and other prorams and spending to the tune of approx $6 billion while cutting taxes (most to the rich and business) of $4 billion, over ten years. This is an ideological budget, not a deficit and debt reduction budget as the CBO and numerous nonpartisan economists confirm. Most conservatives used to support money for local law enforcement. Now they are going after their unions along with other public employees. Many support putting government in the bedrooms and doctor offices and treating women and LGBTs as second-class citizens. The ultimate truth is that we are a very large pluralistic society with differing values and priorities. There is insufficient strength in numbers for any sector to impose its will on the others. The practical outcome is compromise -- which involves swallowing bitter pills that nobody likes -- or stalemate. Maybe we are about to see what the stalemate alternative brings.

The C-64 was the Shelby Cobra of personal computers in its day, and at a VW Beetle price.

Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no By Holly Bailey Mon Apr 11, 11:41 am ET President Obama and House Republicans may have narrowly averted a government shutdown last weekend, but as the two sides prepare to engage in another round of intra-party feuding over budget proposals, a new study suggests that basic brain science might stand in the way of bipartisanship. Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety. "Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," lead researcher Ryota Kanai writes of the study in the latest issue of Current Biology. "Our study now links personality traits with specific brain structure." Observers will notice a familiar name on the report: Oscar-winning actor Colin Firth, who commissioned the report while serving as a guest host of the BBC Radio 4's Today program in London last year. (Neurological sources of stammering don't come into play.) The study, which was conducted with the help of 90 young adult volunteers, comes on the heels of other research that linked political beliefs to genetic differences between liberals and conservatives. Last year, a joint study by the Harvard and the University of California, San Diego, found there might actually be a so-called "liberal gene" that influences political leanings. While the London study does find distinct differences between Democrats and Republicans, its authors caution that more research needs to be done on the subject. One unknown is whether people are simply born with their political beliefs or if our brains adjust to life experiences--which is a possibility, Kanai writes. "It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," he said in a statement accompanying the study. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude." See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110411/pl_yblog_theticket/will-president-obama-and-the-house-gop-ever-agree-science-suggests-no

This is obviously untrue. All one need do is watch any session of either body. The First Ammendment is not suspended on the floor of Congress. What often is suspended is any sort of personal integrity. It is illegal to lie to Congress while under Oath. That applies to members too -- why it is an extremely rare event for any member to testify or be called to testify under oath. It is also true that members of Congess have certain immunities while conducting business on the floor of either chamber. I suspect this also applies to committee meetings off the floor as well. I believe this is mentioned in the Constitution but I haven't researched that this AM. As an exmaple, I believe libel/slander laws are unenforceable for anything said on the floor. Certainly the courts would be full of cases otherwise

Jon Kyl Is Sorry If He Gave Anyone The Impression That The Things He Says In Public Are Factual Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com As you may recall, during today's lengthy Pap Smear Armageddon/Government Shutdown 2011 pageant play, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) stood on the floor of the upper chamber, telling the C-Span cameras and gathered attendees that abortion was "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." That prompted many people to remark, "Uhm, actually, you have got those statistics just about as wrong as you possibly could." But now, Kyl's office has walked back the statement, in perhaps the most hilarious and cowardly way possible. Let's kick this over to Alex Seitz-Wald, at ThinkProgress: This afternoon, CNN brought on Planned Parenthood's Judy Tabar to discuss his comment. During the interview, CNN anchor Don Lemon relayed a statement from Kyl's office walking back the comment, claiming the statement was not meant to be "factual": LEMON: We did call his office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, 'his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.' Oh, ha ha, did you think that the things Kyl says aloud on television that go into the Congressional Record and that he attaches his name to are meant to be some sort of true facts or something? Well, the joke's on you, because sometimes, Jon Kyl just likes to spit straight verbal nonsense at you to "illustrate" things that he wishes were true, but aren't. Once upon a time, a Jon Kyl would call this little move of his "Clintonian," so maybe we have to chalk this up to 1995 shutdown nostalgia. But noted: most of what Jon Kyl says on the Senate floor is intended to be complete horsecrap. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-is-sorry-if-he-ga_n_846941.html