TampaYankee

White House Opposes DADT Deal By Kerry Eleveld | Posted on Advocate.com November 08, 2010 Following reports that lawmakers are considering stripping “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal from the Defense funding bill to which it is currently attached, a top White House official issued a statement Monday evening saying the administration does not approve of any attempt to remove the repeal measure from the legislation. “The White House opposes any effort to strip 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' from the National Defense Authorization Act,” said Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director. The Advocate reported Sunday that Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was exploring the possibility of offering a scaled-down version of the defense funding bill that scraps the repeal measure, and a spokesperson for Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee, confirmed the discussions to The Wall Street Journal. A spokeswoman for Levin said Monday afternoon that the senator has been discussing with McCain the path forward on the National Defense Authorization Act, but she did not confirm whether the two were considering a version of the legislation that dropped the repeal provision. “Senator Levin has been discussing with the Defense Department when the report relating to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy — due to the Secretary of Defense on December 1 — will be made available to Congress and the public, and he has also been discussing with Senator McCain how to proceed,” said Tara Andringa, spokeswoman for Levin. While traveling in Australia over the weekend, Defense secretary Robert Gates urged Congress to pass the bill with the repeal measure before the end of the year. Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, called the remarks “extraordinary” since Gates has consistently asked lawmakers to wait until the Defense Department’s study of repeal is issued in December. “This is the first time Secretary Gates has been on the record and calling for passage before the Pentagon working group report comes out,” Sarvis said. “I think the secretary is generally aware of the recommendations that are going to be coming from General [Carter] Ham and the working group.” A spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid echoed Gates’s comments Monday, saying Reid “strongly supports” repeal but adding that Senate Republicans stood in the way of progress. Democrats failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to advance the defense bill to debate in September after Republicans mounted a successful filibuster. “The senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue — a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have,” said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. “It's unfortunate that Senator McCain — who previously expressed support for the repeal of this law — and other Senate Republicans are ignoring the advice of our military leaders to reverse this discriminatory policy that not only harms our men and women in uniform, but also our national security.” But one repeal advocate challenged the remarks and suggested Reid had provoked the GOP leadership by limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to the NDAA. "Senate majority leader Reid's office is simply ignoring the well-established fact that we indeed do have the votes to proceed on defense authorization, including Republican votes, if he would just bring the bill up under normal procedural conditions,” said Alex Nicholson, executive director of the gay veterans group Servicemembers United. “If he firmly believes the Senate should have this debate this year, then he will bring the bill back up next week and allow us to move forward on NDAA and DADT repeal.” Reid has already left the NDAA out of his lineup of three bills to be considered during the week of November 15, meaning consideration of the legislation wouldn’t come up, if at all, until senators return from the Thanksgiving holiday on November 29. Reid has also set a target date of December 10 to adjourn for the year, which would leave just two weeks to complete the defense bill – a near impossibility since debate usually takes two weeks and reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill often takes another two weeks. President Barack Obama has said his priorities for the lame-duck session include ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and extending President Bush’s tax cuts for middle-class Americans, both of which could require lengthy debate. See original article at:http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/08/White_House_Opposes_DADT_Deal/

Here are some other takes on Colombia from a travel site perspective. I wouldnt take them at face value exactly since they have a leg in the game but it is another input. http://www.adncolombia.com/colombia-tourism/why-colombia-is-a-secure-country-to-travel/index.html http://www.lonelyplanet.com/colombia You are right that care needs to be exercised whenever one travels to an unfamiliar destination whether it be Russia, Latin America, the Phillipines or New York City. Thanks again for sharing your experience and answering questions. I envy you your opportunity to work on temporary assignment there next fall. By the way, how is the weather in the fall?

It is my impression, unprovable of course, but probably shared by more than a few pundits, that this would have been a more run-of-the-mill mid-term election had it not been for the economy and Wall St failure. That means that after the 2008 Dem tide we should expect a 30-35 seat swing the other way. It was double that. People vote jobs when they do not have jobs or have fear of losing a job. Add to that the government bailing out banks (Bush/Obama) who then turned around and put a thumb in the eye of government by not putting that bailout to effective use in restarting the economy but using it to feathered their own stocks bed and gave themselves record bonuses brought out a lot of resentment. None of this was Pelosi's personal doing. There was little choice in the goverment doing what it had to do - distasteful as it was or pissing people off as it did. Pelosi didn't run rogue, she pushed Obama's program and the Democratic Platform. That is her job. For the Dems to stab her in the back for success in that goal is to repudiate that Platform and the President. If she is to be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency, well... that is more of the same of my first post above. The Dems don't really have the fortitude or commitment to push their agenda. I'd rather the Dems lose than keep bailing on the priciples and agenda when the going gets tough. Again, why vote for them if they are all to willing to cut and run, to borrow a phrase from Bush.

Any election I buy better be pretty damn cheap!

This is a perfect example of why the GOP Congressional caucus is, more often than not, successful in their legislative efforts and the Dems endure a surprising number of recurring failures. The GOP is consistent focused and sustained in their efforts. The Dems are fractured and most of them run for the hills at the first bit of a serious political fight. They really do not deserve to perservere due to their lack of commitment and willingness to sustain an effort in the face of hard sledding. They refuse to throw down the gaunlet and fight to the last man standing. The GOP is never so skiddish. Half the democrats want to dump Pelosi because she was so successful the GOP made her a national campaign issue. Regan and the GOP tried to do the same with Tip O'neil. There was no sentiment to dump O'Neil. Is this how the Dem House Caucus stands behind their quarterback for one of the most successful Congresses in history in terms of passing legilation. Obama says he caving on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Well that's ok. Who cares if we stack another $700 billion to the deficit and the national debt so that the rich get even richer, faster and faster stuffing more currency and gold into their Swiss banks. Now the dainty Dem Senators are caving on the fight to pass DADT repeal by withdrawing it from the Defense Appropriations Bill. There is no other vehicle on the horizon. This was the best opportunity for Senate disposal of the issue. It seems that term is going apply very literally now. I'm disgusted with Democrats. The have always been a disorganized, unfocused, weak-knee'd bunch. Uncharacteristically, they managed a rare exception by stumbling to the Heath Care Reform finish line although it was a mess by the time it got there. It seems that effort sapped all the fortitude the Dems had. I had hoped the Dems would gather some gumption in the realization that this lame duck session is their last opportunity to do much for the next two years. However, they don't want to rock the boat after the elections. Who the fuck is going to vote for any of them the next time? If we want Republican leaning governance, which the Dem's are conceding then who the hell needs Dems? Why bother to vote?

Dems To Cave On DADT Repeal In Lame Duck Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting First Posted: 11- 8-10 12:28 PM | Updated: 11- 8-10 12:28 PM The vast majority of the American people want the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy repealed. A majority of conservatives want it repealed. A soon-to-be-released Defense Department study finds U.S. servicemembers do not mind serving alongside gay soldiers. Admiral Mike Mullen wants DADT repealed. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants it repealed. So, naturally, Congressional Democrats are poised to turn tail and run from taking any kind of stand on the matter: President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he wants to overturn the policy, which bans gays from serving openly in the armed forces. Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely. Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September. Over at the American Prospect, Adam Serwer puts it pretty bluntly: Look, if Democrats can't repeal a policy more than two thirds of the American people, including a majority of conservatives want gone then they can't expect people to vote for them. We take you now live, to the scene of ever diminishing electoral expectations: Republicans made significant inroads among gay and lesbian voters in the midterm elections, with national exit polls for the House races showing that the GOP captured 31 percent of the vote of this group this year, compared to 19 percent in 2008. I think that GOP strategists are perfectly capable of understanding what "vast majority of the American people want DADT repealed" means. They are certainly capable of understanding what "31 percent of the LGBT vote" means. But if Democrats think that they can keep stringing along the LGBT community as a captive constituency for one more election cycle, then by all means, they should cave in to pressure and punt on DADT. By the way, the "pressure" to not repeal DADT is coming from where, exactly? See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/dems-to-cave-on-dadt-repe_n_780371.html

Not Available For Sale Here By Joel Stonington, BusinessWeek provided by: Dozens of automotive models—from manufacturers that include boutique supercar makers in Europe and mass producers in China and India—may never roll down U.S. streets. Once the unquestioned destination car market, the U.S. is no longer even the world's biggest. Last year, China became the top consumer of motor vehicles. Our list this year includes two cars we'd like to see here: the world's fastest pickup truck and a two-seat roadster with a roof that retracts in just 12 seconds. Nevertheless, you won't see these vehicles in a showroom any time soon. See original article for ten cars with photos and full discussion:http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1558/not-available-for-sale-here?bust_cache=1

Very true. I agree. However, with any 'group' there will be differing tastes and priorities and maybe several who share the same tastes and feel a little competition. Therefore it is advisable to collaborate on common issues and to help get the feet wet, but also advisable to break into smaller groups of shared interests like shopping, sight seeing, and trips to the saunas -- different saunas and different times, etc. Trying to maintain everyone joined at the hip would be daunting task and invite friction and discord. There is much to be gained in cooperation and at the same time recognize individual imperatives too.

There is a complementary post in the Politics Forum that delves into how in the present era the U.S. income profile exhibits the characteristics of a Banana Republic. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5641-to-visit-banana-republic-no-need-to-leave-us/ That certainly reflects on the nature of The American Dream in this era, and not well either.

In another forum Oz posts the question: Is the American Dream Still Alive. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5635-is-the-american-dream-over/ The above post is an answer to that question. Unquestionably it is alive and well for the top 1% and probably for the top 10%, maybe the top 20%. Also, unquestionably the income gap is widening between those and everyone else. That is 'widening' not widened. It is still growing, even in these terrible economic times. These two articles demonstrate clearly how shameful the GOP is for demanding that tax cuts for the wealthies of us be extended even though it will add 700 trillion to the deficit that hurts all of us and our children and their children. More GOP talking out of both sides of their mouth: cut the deficit and debt but extend tax breaks for the rich. They are sickening in their support of unbridled greed at the upper incomes while sacrificing basic essentials like education of our children and afforadable health care and coverage for those who could not be previously covered at affordable rates or any rate in many many cases. How can you not love these guys?

Op-Ed Columnist Our Banana Republic By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: November 6, 2010 In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie. But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse. The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent. That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that. The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings. At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools. Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes. So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires? And if Republicans are worried about long-term budget deficits, a reasonable concern, why are they insistent on two steps that nonpartisan economists say would worsen the deficits by more than $800 billion over a decade — cutting taxes for the most opulent, and repealing health care reform? What other programs would they cut to make up the lost $800 billion in revenue? In weighing these issues, let’s remember that backdrop of America’s rising inequality. In the past, many of us acquiesced in discomfiting levels of inequality because we perceived a tradeoff between equity and economic growth. But there’s evidence that the levels of inequality we’ve now reached may actually suppress growth. A drop of inequality lubricates economic growth, but too much may gum it up. Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute recently wrote a fascinating paper suggesting that inequality leads to more financial distress. They looked at census data for the 50 states and the 100 most populous counties in America, and found that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies. Here’s their explanation: When inequality rises, the richest rake in their winnings and buy even bigger mansions and fancier cars. Those a notch below then try to catch up, and end up depleting their savings or taking on more debt, making a financial crisis more likely. Another consequence the scholars found: Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. Maybe I’m overly sentimental or romantic, but that pierces me. It’s a reminder that inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a question of human dignity and happiness. Mounting evidence suggests that losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. Forced moves wrench families from their schools and support networks. In short, inequality leaves people on the lower rungs feeling like hamsters on a wheel spinning ever faster, without hope or escape. Economic polarization also shatters our sense of national union and common purpose, fostering political polarization as well. So in this postelection landscape, let’s not aggravate income gaps that already would make a Latin American caudillo proud. To me, we’ve reached a banana republic point where our inequality has become both economically unhealthy and morally repugnant. I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter. See original article at:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html

Very reasonable hotel and he certainly is easy on the eyes. Wonder if he rents out? (rhetorical question)

Let's hope that things continue to improve because Colombia looks like a wonderful destination to enjoy.

I think that is a GREAT IDEA for newbies to experience a trip to Brazil. Not only are the cost benefits very attractive but it is daunting for a newbie to underake all of the first time challenges that come with visiting a foreign country where the object is to meet guys whose language you do not speak. Even in saunas where everyone is gathered for common reasons, communication is a high barrier for the newbie to overcome in his head. Add to that the logistics of getting around in a foreign city with foreign currency and security issues -- it is a no-brainer for the newbie IMO. If I were in a position to undertake it, I'd sign on in a nanosecond. With good publicity, I'd think your concern would be limiting the size of the party for practical considerations.

It is a measure of Wall St. single-minded greed, that after having been saved by the Bush/Obama administrations and Congress, they showed their thanks not by reforming their operations and practices but by fighting financial reform to restore sound busness practices, not by lending a hand and money to help small business through the storm that Wall St caused after Wall St had been helped out of the hole it created, but by closing their doors effectively to lending to small business, not by writing off their bad debt to strengthen their underlying foundation but by buying back their own stock and giving their execs the biggest bonuses in history. If it weren't for the fact that they would take the whole country with them, we should have let Wall St Financial circle the toilet bowl that they so richly deserved. The GOP by statements and actions support those Wall St actions. The Tea Party has invited the snake into their bed. Let them sleep with it now.

Discuss the topics and not the posters, please. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and we appreciate their willingness to share it. That is the basis for informative discussion. If we all agreed it would be a boring world not to mention a very boring forum.

Texas Considers Medicaid Withdrawal By EMILY RAMSHAW, The Texas Tribune Published: November 6, 2010 Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program. Far-right conservatives are offering that possibility in impassioned news conferences. Moderate Republicans are studying it behind closed doors. And the party’s advisers on health care policy say it is being discussed more seriously than ever, though they admit it may be as much a huge in-your-face to Washington as anything else. “With Obamacare mandates coming down, we have a situation where we cannot reduce benefits or change eligibility” to cut costs, said State Representative Warren Chisum, Republican of Pampa, the veteran conservative lawmaker who recently entered the race for speaker of the House. “This system is bankrupting our state,” he said. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year.” The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, estimates Texas could save $60 billion from 2013 to 2019 by opting out of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, dropping coverage for acute care but continuing to finance long-term care services. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which has 3.6 million children, people with disabilities and impoverished Texans enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, will release its own study on the effect of ending the state’s participation in the federal match program at some point between now and January. State Representative John M. Zerwas, Republican of Simonton, an anesthesiologist who wrote the bill authorizing the health commission’s Medicaid study, said early indications were that dropping out of the program would have a tremendous financial ripple effect. Mr. Zerwas said that he was not ready to discount the idea, but that he worried about who would carry the burden of care without Medicaid’s “financial mechanism.” “Because of the substantial amount of matching money that comes from the federal government,” Mr. Zerwas said, “there’s an economic impact that comes from that. If we start to look at what that impact is, we have to consider whether it’s feasible to not participate.” State Senator Jane Nelson, Republican of Flower Mound, who heads the Senate Public Health Committee, said dropping out of Medicaid was worth considering — but only if it made fiscal sense without jeopardizing care. Currently, the Texas program costs $40 billion for a period of two years, with the federal government paying 60 percent of the bill. As a result of federal health care changes, Ms. Nelson said, millions of additional Texans will be eligible for Medicaid. “I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see better outcomes in a state run program,” she said. eramshaw@texastribune.org A version of this article appeared in print on November 7, 2010, on page A37A of the National edition.. See original article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html

It is ideology, it is payoffs to the military industrial lobby and it is preservation of home state jobs, whether or not specific items/programs are useful to the defense goal. In other words it is politics at the basest whether there is a deficit and over spending or not. Sacred cows cannot be touched. As the lapdog of big business the GOP is nearly monolithic in worshipping this sacred cow. Many Democrats, seeking political contributions and preserving local jobs, also are also to blame in this travesty. There is blame to spread in many quarters. That is why base closures require an independent comission to make cuts that Congress and the President cannot tinker with but only vote up or down. This will never change as long as big buiness and labor unions remain significant contributors to the political process. That is just the fact, free political speech platitudes notwithstanding.

I often try to respond but sometimes, often times, I feel my screen name as the responder inhibits others to respond. So I am torn between responding and letting it go for others.

It ain't over til its over and it ain't over yet.

U.S. Banks Failing At Fastest Pace In 2 Decades MARCY GORDON, Associated Press | AP First Posted: 11- 6-10 02:11 PM | Updated: 11- 6-10 02:11 PM WASHINGTON -- Regulators shut down four more banks Friday, bringing the 2010 total to 143, topping the 140 shuttered last year and the most in a year since the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over K Bank, based in Randallstown, Maryland, with $538.3 million in assets, and Pierce Commercial Bank, based in Tacoma, Washington, with $221.1 million in assets. The FDIC also seized two California banks: Western Commercial Bank in Woodland Hills, with $98.6 million in assets, and First Vietnamese American Bank in Westminster, with assets of $48 million. M&T Bank, based in Buffalo, N.Y., agreed to assume the deposits and $410.8 million of the assets of K Bank. First California Bank, based in Westlake Village, Calif., is acquiring the assets and deposits of Western Commercial Bank. Heritage Bank, based in Olympia, Wash., is taking the assets and deposits of Pierce Commercial Bank, while Los Angeles-based Grandpoint Bank is assuming the assets and deposits of First Vietnamese American Bank. In addition, the FDIC and M&T Bank agreed to share losses on $289 million of K Bank's loans and other assets. The FDIC and First California Bank are sharing losses on $83.9 million of Western Commercial Bank's assets. The failure of K Bank is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $198.4 million. That of Western Commercial Bank is expected to cost $25.2 million; Pierce Commercial Bank, $21.3 million, and First Vietnamese American Bank, $9.6 million. Like these four financial institutions, the banks that have failed this year are smaller, on average, than those that succumbed in 2009. That has meant the deposit insurance fund has suffered a milder loss, which has reached about $21 billion so far this year, compared with $36 billion in 2009. Still, banks, especially small community institutions, are falling as soured loans have mounted and the economy has sputtered. The wave of closings points to the lingering power of the recession more than a year after its official end. Florida, Georgia, Illinois and California have each seen bank failures in the double digits this year. Some communities in those states are still reeling from the financial meltdown that brought an avalanche of bad loans, especially for commercial real estate. The closures have compounded the problems in areas already straining under high unemployment, foreclosed homes and vacant malls and office buildings. The pace of failures has accelerated as banks' losses on loans for commercial property and development have mounted. Many companies have shut down in the recession, vacating shopping malls and office buildings financed by the loans. That has brought delinquent loan payments and defaults by commercial developers. The 2009 total of bank failures had been the highest annual toll since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis. More than 1,000 banks went under in the savings-and-loan crisis of 1987-1992. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three succumbed in 2007. The growing bank failures have sapped billions of dollars out of the FDIC's deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red last year, and its deficit stood at $15.2 billion as of June 30. The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to total around $52 billion from 2010 through 2014. Depositors' money -- insured up to $250,000 per account -- is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. That insurance cap was made permanent in the financial overhaul law enacted in July. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/us-banks-failing-at-faste_n_779941.html

New Ways Bankers Are Spying on You By KAREN BLUMENTHAL NOVEMBER 6, 2010 Big Banker is watching youmore closely than ever. With lenders still skittish about making new loans, credit bureaus and others are hawking services that help banks probe deeply into your financial closet. The new offerings include ways to look at your rent and utility payments, figure out your income, gauge your home's value and even rate your banking habits based on details like whether your direct deposits have stopped. All of this could influence your financial freedomnot to mention the number of junk-mail solicitations you receive. Ken Lin, CEO of Credit Karma, a credit-score information website, knew he had a good credit score. But when he recently applied for a new credit card, he was rejected: The lender had flagged him as a higher credit risk because the value of his California home had declined and his mortgage principal wasn't declininggiving away that he has an interest-only mortgage. "It's a lot more than just your credit score today," he says. Your credit record still matters, of course. But here are some newer ways lenders and financial-services companies are sizing up your financial behavior and credit-worthiness: Bank-depositor behavior scores. Fair Isaac, the creator of the widely used FICO credit score, is marketing bank-depositor behavior scores, which are used by banks to assess their own customers. The scores are based on balances, deposit records and withdrawal activity, says Debb Gordon, a senior principal consultant at Fair Isaac. Unlike credit scoreswhich are most affected after payments are late or credit is maxed outbehavior scores can be a leading indicator of credit risk. They also can help banks identify which of their customers might be ripe for additional services and rewards programs and which might need special attention because, for instance, their direct deposits had stopped. Income estimation. This business took off earlier this year after the Federal Reserve allowed lenders to use credit bureaus' income estimates to satisfy new requirements that credit-card applicants show the ability to pay their debts. The bureaus use credit-record information, such as the size of your credit lines and the age and size of your mortgage, and plug it into models to predict your earnings. Those estimates also may be used to double-check the income you report on credit applications or to determine if you should be preapproved for credit. You can't see those estimates. But if you are denied credit because of them, you must be given a chance to provide additional information. Rent payments. An estimated 40 million consumers, including young people and people who prefer to pay in cash, have too little credit experience to generate a useful credit score. But they are likely to pay rent or utility bills, which could help credit bureaus better assess their credit-worthiness. Experian, one of the three major credit bureaus, bought RentBureauwhich collects rental-payment data from large property managersand expects to integrate that information into credit records before the end of the year. Even if those consumers don't want credit, that information could help them win better rates from insurers, which may use insurance scores based on credit records, and fatten up thin credit files, which some employers check before making hiring decisions. Credit bureaus say they also would like to offer data on cellphone payments, but have run into concerns over privacy issues, which may require legislation to untangle. Collection triggers. If you owe money, you can run, but you can't hide. Credit bureaus can now send daily reports to collection companies when a debtor's financial status changessay, if new employment information appears or if a debt starts to decline. A drop in credit use would indicate that the consumer has more capacity to pay and a better chance of repaying other outstanding debts. Home values. As home values have plummeted and foreclosures have soared in many states, lenders of all stripes have become more cautious, as Mr. Lin found. Using home values as a factor in credit decisions doesn't appear to be widespread, but it may come into play when someone in, say, Nevada or California applies for a new loan. Of course, it also could work in your favor if you are one of the roughly 25 million Americans who owns a home outright. Your wealth. Information about your assets other than homes and cars, which aren't part of the credit record, may soon play a bigger role in your financial life. With a better sense of a consumer's balance sheet, lenders might be able to target potential customers better and also have a fuller sense of their likely risk. Equifax, another of the big three credit bureaus, offers financial-service providers an estimate of liquid wealth as part of a financial "suite" of information. As all of this becomes a widespread practice, those who are prompt and careful in all aspects of their financial life may have more optionsand those who have been sloppy with, say, their bank accounts may be penalized for that. Write to Karen Blumenthal at karen.blumenthal@wsj.com Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B8 See original online article at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704865104575588803958385376.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth

Republicans map out their agenda of less By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 6, 2010; 12:33 AM Republicans are mapping an agenda for the new Congress that calls for a radical reduction in government spending, a hard-line stance against new taxes and a "sustained" battle against federal regulators - all aimed at easing the concerns of voters desperate for jobs and anxious about the soaring national debt. The path charted in the party's "Pledge to America" and in a new blueprint released this week by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, is certain to provoke clashes with the White House. It is already stirring dissension among Republicans who say it doesn't go far enough. Less certain is its ability to make progress on the nation's top economic priorities, particularly job creation. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate was stuck at 9.6 percent for the third month in a row, although job growth accelerated in October. Employers added a total of 151,000 jobs - more than double analysts' expectations. Gains were concentrated in the private sector, where 159,000 new jobs offset the loss of 8,000 government positions. It was the strongest job growth since May, and a welcome sign that the recovery may finally be strengthening. Still, many economists see the need for further government spending to bring down unemployment. This week, the Federal Reserve announced plans to pump $600 billion into the economy through massive purchases of Treasury bonds to fuel the recovery. Republicans reject the notion that government spending can spur prosperity. Instead, they favor keeping tax rates steady by extending Bush-administration tax breaks that are set to expire this year and repealing President Obama's health overhaul. Republicans also want to restrain government regulators and are looking to require congressional approval for any new regulation that imposes costs on the private sector in excess of $100 million a year. On Friday, Cantor even rejected President Obama's call for additional tax breaks to spur hiring, such as a proposal to let businesses deduct their expenses more quickly. Republicans offer "a disciplined approach to removing uncertainty and to allowing the private sector to regain its footing and begin to grow again," Cantor said in an interview. "Trying to prod business to do what Washington wants is not what is needed. We need to rein in this desire of Washington to tell business how to grow." That hands-off strategy - combined with GOP plans for an immediate and dramatic reduction in government spending - would do more harm than good, said Bill Gale, a senior fellow in economics studies at the Brookings Institution. "I don't get what they think they're doing to stimulate the economy right now," Gale said. "I can understand that people are angry or upset about the economy. But I can't understand how that anger and anxiety has turned into this set of legislative proposals." To make good on their campaign pledge to reduce the size of government, Republicans say they are planning a series of quick moves to slash spending soon after they take control of the House in January. Among the likely options: a massive rescissions package that aides said would slice 20 percent from most domestic agency budgets and enact $160 billion in additional cuts endorsed by visitors to Cantor's "YouCut" Web site. Such a package would trim more than $260 billion from this year's $1.1 trillion budget for most government operations - the biggest one-year reduction at least since the military drawdown after World War II, budget experts said. Because Republicans propose to exempt the Pentagon, veterans programs and homeland security from these cuts, liberal analysts said the reductions would decimate education funding, the National Park Service and other worthy programs. For the remainder of this article see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507092.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010110502343

Seven Clunker Cars To Avoid Life is still giving Detroit lemons, but that doesn't mean you should buy one. By Hannah Elliott Provided by Things have been looking up for troubled American automakers. In October General Motors saw sales across all four of its brands (Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC) rise 22% year-over-year. Chrysler's sales were up 37% during the same period, and Ford Motor's sales climbed more than 20%. Ford Motor alone among the Big Three escaped the list, thanks to improvements in product construction and reliability--changes that took years to plan and implement, but have slowly gained critical and consumer recognition. And while industry experts say American consumers can expect good things from Detroit within the next couple of years, they aren't as optimistic about what's in showrooms right now. Behind the Numbers To determine 2010's biggest clunkers, we revisited a series of worst-of-the-worst lists, starting with our own The Most Dangerous Cars On The Road, Most Dangerous Trucks on the Road and Cars that Lose Their Value the Fastest. (We included depreciation rates because depreciation is the biggest expense of owning a car, and gives insight into whether consumers like their cars, and if they perceive them as reliable.) We also looked at the 34 least-reliable cars as rated by Consumer Reports, and all vehicles that received a score of two stars or less on JD Power and Associates' annual dependability ratings. Any 2010 model car that appeared on at least three of these five lists makes our final ranking of the year's biggest clunkers. We did not include clunkers from now-defunct brands like Pontiac and Saturn. It's All Relative The car models on our list may rank at the bottom when you compare them to other new vehicles in their class. But just because a car counts as a "clunker" doesn't mean it's inherently dangerous or unreliable. Automobiles released in 2010 are safer, more reliable and better-made than cars made just a decade ago, and they're vastly better than anything made in the 1940s and '50s. "If you're going to [ask about] unsafe cars in the market, or unreliable cars the market ... you'd have to say there aren't any," says Karl Brauer, senior automotive analyst at automotive website Edmunds.com. "You're really just down to the least-good cars, the cars that are below average." Brauer says improvement comes mostly as a result of increasingly strict federal standards, which will continue to require safer and more efficient vehicles in the future. Two brands that have jumped ahead of the pack in those terms, according to Brauer? Korea's Hyundai and Kia. Bottom of the Barrel Still, it's impossible to ignore when a new car simply doesn't perform. Take Chrysler's Jeep Wrangler SUV: While it enjoys a fiercely loyal following of off-road and vintage-loving drivers, it doesn't perform as well as its competitors on federal and private safety tests. Consumer Reports gave the Wrangler only 17 out of 100 points overall (anything above 70 is considered a "good" score) and criticized its ride, handling, braking, noise, fuel economy, fit and finish, visibility, front-seat comfort and access. The SUV received a less-than-glowing assessment: "We expect reliability to be worse than average, according to our latest subscriber survey," the Yonkers, N.Y.-based agency said. Another Chrysler-made vehicle, the Sebring sedan, also appears on the list of clunkers. It's notoriously below-average in agility and performance tests and a frequent recipient of well-below-average reliability scores. "The Sebring is one of the least competitive family sedans on the market," says Consumer Reports. "We found the 2.4-liter engine noisy and unrefined, and four-speed automatic unresponsive. The ride is unsettled, and handling is ungainly but ultimately secure. The interior has cheap, hard plastics, poor panel fit and uncomfortable seats." It's no surprise that the Sebring will be discontinued after the 2010 model year, to be replaced with the Chrysler 200. Silver Lining For Detroit Even though General Motors cars account for nearly half of the models on this list, it's not all bad news for the manufacturer: The three brands that saw the biggest year-over-year increases in new U.S. registrations are also Buick, Cadillac and GMC. Tom Libby, an automotive analyst for R.L. Polk, says the strong showing in sales of those GM brands supports the notion that the auto industry is still "all about product." Buick's 58% increase over last year is due mostly to the recent introduction of the all-new Regal sedan, as well as nearly doubled sales of the updated Buick Lacrosse. Cadillac's 44% rise has been driven by a tripling in deliveries of the redesigned SRX. "There are some hard facts working in [GM's] favor," Libby wrote this week in his earnings report. Indeed. GM is eliminating clunker cars like the Chevy Aveo, which was listed as one of the most dangerous cars of the year on Forbes' annual roundup, and rated by Consumer Reports as one of the least reliable compact vehicles on the road. GM is said to be planning a name-change for the subcompact when its refreshed version hits showrooms next year. Redesigned and rebranded 2011 models should create positive buzz for American automakers. "The domestics are designing exciting vehicles such as the Malibu or the Taurus or the Enclave," says Eric Ibara, director of residual value consulting for Kelley Blue Book. "They're finally coming up with vehicles customers want to buy." As early as next year consumers will see significant improvements in several key models from Detroit, Ibara says. In short: Don't splurge on a new car until the new models hit the market. You'll be glad you waited. Top Five Clunker Cars To Avoid Chevrolet Aveo Segment: Subcompact sedan Worst-of lists: Most Dangerous Cars, Consumer Reports Least Reliable Cars, Two Stars or Lower on JD Power Dependability Ratings MSRP: $11,965 Chevrolet Colorado Segment: Pickup truck Worst-of lists: Most Dangerous Trucks, Consumer Reports Least Reliable Cars, Two Stars or Lower on JD Power Dependability Ratings MSRP: $16,985 Chrysler Sebring Convertible Segment: Convertible Worst-of lists: Worst Resale Value, Consumer Reports Least Reliable Cars, Two Stars or Lower on JD Power Dependability Ratings MSRP: $27,850 Chrysler Sebring Sedan Segment: Sedan Worst-of lists: Worst Resale Value, Consumer Reports Least Reliable Cars, Two Stars or Lower on JD Power Dependability Ratings MSRP: $20,120 GMC Canyon Segment: Pickup truck Worst-of lists: Most Dangerous Trucks, Consumer Reports Least Reliable Cars, Two Stars or Lower on JD Power Dependability Ratings MSRP: $17,045 See original article and more clunkers at:http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1562/seven-clunker-cars-to-avoid

I think this bodes well for gay tolerance and maybe even acceptance. Tolerance might be expected more because it is a 'big city' of sorts, but not that big, and it is in Kentucky!! Suprising? Yes. A positive sign for the Kentucky and the country? Yes. Now we have to balance that with the deposing of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices. Progress happens in fits and starts.