U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement after Senate passage of health care reform.  The vote was 60-39 with Graham voting against the legislation.“This bill dramatically increases government control of our nation’s health care.  It raises taxes over $500 billion and cuts Medicare by $464 billion.  At the end of the day, the real-world impact of this legislation is that 80 percent of Americans will find themselves in some form of government-run, government-controlled health care. “The fact that 4 out of 5 Americans will be in government-controlled health care is an ominous sign.  I can say with certainty the remaining 20 percent will soon be asked, if not required, to follow.  I believe we should be pushing for more private sector choice in health care – not government dominance.    “If you want an idea of how bad this bill is, just look at the number of Democratic Senators who inserted special provisions exempting their states and businesses from the effects of this legislation.  They know it’s going to be devastating. “Written behind closed doors in backrooms of the Capitol – the legislation completely exempts one state, Nebraska, from paying for expanded Medicaid coverage, a requirement imposed on the 49 states.  This provision, if not unprecedented, is certainly among the most troubling to have ever passed the Senate.“In the state of Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield will be exempted from paying certain taxes.  In the state of Florida, seniors who enjoy the benefits of participating in Medicare Advantage will be protected from losing that coverage, a benefit not provided to seniors in other states.“The legislation is loaded with similar provisions.  It’s certainly not the way we should be legislating on an issue as important as health care, which comprises one-sixth of our national economy.  Without a doubt, the health care policy contained in this bill is bad medicine for America and the Senate’s actions were the worst of Washington politics.”

Edison and Upper Saddle River, NJ – February 21, 2008 – The Internal Revenue Service recently issued Notice 2007-78 that provides plan sponsors an extension to December 31, 2008 to maintain compliance with written documentation relative to deferred compensation plans. Written language of a deferred compensation plan must be in compliance with the regulation as of the end of this year. Plans, therefore, have extra time to be modified to comply in the written form, but must continue to be in compliance operationally with Section 409A. Where written plan provisions don’t comply with the regulation, plan sponsors will not violate 409A if:

Struggling homeowners who’ve been considering filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy may soon receive good news. A new piece of legislation referred to formally as the “Helping Families Save Their Home Act,” or more commonly as the “cram down bill,” is on its way to the Senate. Designed to complement President Obama’s strategies to quell the nation’s foreclosure and economic crises, the cram down bill would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a person’s mortgage if they face losing their property to foreclosure.Under the proposed bill, judges could reduce the loan’s interest rate, lengthen the loan term, and decrease the principal amount owed. All of these actions would ultimately result in lower monthly payments for the homeowner, and allow him and his family to remain in the home.Loan modification is not a new solution for distressed homeowners, but lenders currently only modify loans on a voluntarily basis. Lenders have all the power, and homeowners are subject to whatever agreement the bank sets out. With the new cram down legislation however, bankruptcy judges will be able to override stubborn lenders, and help families save their homes While the cram down bill would certainly help those who are facing bankruptcy and foreclosure, the bill also has the potential to strengthen our economy as a whole.Wherever there is a foreclosure, the property value of every home on the street is affected. This in turn upsets the economic viability of entire neighborhoods and communities, then states, then the nation. With global markets in such dire straits as they’re currently in, it’s critical that the number of foreclosures in this country is quelled. The cram down bill is but one measure planned to help achieve this goal.Mortgage companies, some moderate Democrats, and a large number of Republicans are opposed to the cram down bill, arguing that it’ll only make matters worse. Not only do lenders face the prospect of losing money on these modified loans, but some believe that a proposal like this only serves to reward the financially irresponsible, and punish those who practiced fiscal restraint. While it is certainly true that many Americans purchased homes that were beyond their means, it is also true that lenders must own their share of the responsibility for issuing loans to people who had no reasonable hope of affording them. Regardless of who is to blame, the time has come to look forward. No one can change what happened, so it’s time to pull together and come up with practical solutions.Banks and major corporations have received bail-out funds, so perhaps it’s time to bail out those who truly feel the brunt of the economic crisis—the average homeowner. With layoffs occurring in record numbers and property values continuing to plummet in some regions, many Americans are feeling this recession with acuity. People are struggling to feed their families, fear is setting in, and the economy is slowing down even further. Perhaps the cram down bill will give desperate homeowners a much-needed break—a bail out if you will, so that they won’t end up on the streets. Perhaps with their new monthly savings, they can pump money back into the system, and invigorate this slumping economy. How novel a concept—economic revival from the bottom up.The cram down bill is slated to be taken up by Senate after the April recess.

Phen-fen (or fen-phen), has been linked to serious medical complications that, in turn, led to a flurry of lawsuits and efforts to legislate reform redefining approval of new drugs and to curb the activity of trial lawyers.

European Election Broadcast number 1 for the UK Independence Party

Stepping into the world of political prediction is a murky arena for an astrologer. My personal position is that I am for the good of all humanity. I want whoever wins to have a pure heart and intelligent mind, I want the candidate who will uplift and do what is right for the country, for all of humanity, and the planet. I am not a politician, I am simply offering what I see astrologically for the presidential race. Astrology offers insight into the nature of individuals and the planetary energy around us. When an astrologer is looking to make a prediction he or she looks at the symbols and from there makes a judgment based upon the symbolic language of the planets. This election is very difficult as there are many mixed messages as to who will win. The greatest symbol for the election is that everyone appears to be surprised in some way. One thing is certain the astrology is saying that election day will be anything but normal and that the results can surprise many people. That in itself would imply that McCain could win as Obama is expected to win. However I do not think that will happen.             When we look at the day of the election we are looking at the emotional symbols around the candidates for the symbols that would represent victory, achievement, accomplishment and being happy. When a person wins a hard fought fight one would expect a feeling of elation that will accompany that victory, when someone loses we would expect a feeling of being deflated. In very simplistic terms we want to see who looks the happiest.  McCain has a Venus aspect, although minor, getting something he wants, the larger influence points back to the date that he was taken prisoner of war and is indicating he is coming into a time of his life that the decisions he made then come to fruition and completion. McCain’s chart also show that he will have a “date with destiny” by the beginning of December, meaning that he will be taking on something new in his life that will fulfill what he feels he needs to do in this life. This does not mean that he will be president, and it doesn’t mean he won’t:  it is indicating he is about to make major changes in what he has been doing to fulfill a mission he feels is important. Obama’s chart also shows he will lose something that is precious to him, yet in light of the health of his grandmother, (she is still alive at the time of this article)  it may not be that he loses the presidential race he has been fighting for but his grandmother. I think the most telling chart is not in the charts of the presidential candidates, but in the chart of Sarah Palin. There are two reasons why I think that Senator Obama will win the presidential race. 1.) The day of the inauguration he has several indications of being in the public eye. 2.)  In Michelle’s chart it indicates she will be concerned around her children for the next couple of years and their school will be changing, and that they will be moving. 3.) The evening of and following day of the election Sarah Palin chart is indicating that she will be very angry. All of these influences could be manifested in other occasions, such as Palin being angry does not mean that McCain loses, it could mean her kids do or say something that embarrass her and she is mad at them. When you look at an astrological influence you must make a conclusion about where and how you think the influence will manifest. The simplest and most straight forward way to predict the astrological influence which is present on November 4th 2008 is to say the candidate that is not expected to win will win, however my conclusion is that Obama wins after a day of chaos at the polls. Whoever wins we know has a very tough job ahead of them, the chart of the USA is in very bad shape, indicating bankruptcy, continued disruption, and economic problems. However the nation seems to come together in June of 2009, that whoever wins can pull together the divisiveness and unite the country in hope and expectation. As difficult as the upcoming charts indicate there is the protection and gift from Jupiter; optimism, hope, and with it the opportunity to learn that will take us to a better future.

Final 2 minutes from the 1998 NCAA Tournament regional finals game between Kentucky and Duke.

The New Mexico state Senate has advanced a new budget scenario that would cut state government deeper than other plans that have been introduced.The proposal, Senate Bill 15, would cut state agencies by $314 million, including a 6 percent cut to public education.On Monday morning, the Senate Committee on Committees ruled the bill “germane” on a 6-2 vote — meaning the panel agreed that the bill is relevant to Gov. Bill Richardson’s proclamation, which sets the agenda for the special legislative session.The proposal likely will antagonize Richardson, who for weeks had said he wanted no cuts to K-12 school funding, but on Friday agreed to consider $40 million in cuts as long as they cost-saving measures don’t hurt classroom instruction.Among other things, it would cut K-12 public education funding by more than $140 million, according to a spreadsheet given to state lawmakers. K-12 education accounts for roughly 40 percent of the state’s $5.2 billion budget.Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said Monday he would not comment on the Senate proposal.No consensus on the plan“I’m not voting for anything without other options,” one of the dissenters to the bill, Sen. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa, told his colleagues on the Committee on Committees.Cisneros said he opposed the bill on its merits because Richardson has prohibited the Legislature from contemplating tax increases in the special legislative session to address this year’s $650 million budgetary shortfall.“You can’t do this if your hands are tied,” Cisneros had said just before the meeting.Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, said the new proposal reflects the worsening economic reality facing New Mexico. The state’s revenues continue to sag, meaning even if state lawmakers approve a budgetary fix, it likely will worsen. That might mean state lawmakers would have to address this year again in the regular January legislative session or — in a worst-case scenario — have another big shortfall to take care of after the 2010 budget year ends June 30.“It’s painful as hell, but it reduces the dilemma for us a little” in the next budget year,” Smith said of the new proposal.In addition to cutting public education, the bill would trim higher education by nearly $52 million.It also would trim the low-income health insurance program known as Medicaid by $14 million. The corrections department, meanwhile, would take a $16.5 million hit while the Department of Health would lose $10.4 million, the spreadsheet shows.

(HealthDay News) — A new report card gives the U.S. government consistently failing grades for not protecting Americans from illnesses caused by tobacco. According to the American Lung Association’s State of Tobacco Control 2008, the federal government as well as most states failed to enact critical policy measures, such as higher taxes on cigarettes and to adequately regulate tobacco products. “Effective tobacco control saves both lives and money,” Charles D. Connor, president and chief executive officer of the lung association, said during a Monday afternoon teleconference. “Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death in America.” Tobacco-related diseases such as lung cancer and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) kill more than 392,000 Americans each year, and another 50,000 die from exposure to secondhand smoke, Connor said. “All the while, tobacco companies continue to find new ways to keep smokers hooked,” he said. “Each day, the tobacco industry lures 1,100 kids into becoming regular daily smokers. Also each day, 1,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases. It’s easy to see from this arithmetic that the tobacco industry is motivated to attract new young replacement smokers.” This year’s report card for the federal government was “abysmal,” Paul Billings, the association’s vice president for national policy and advocacy, said during the teleconference. Specifically, the federal government got: An “F” for FDA regulation of tobacco products — the bill authorizing FDA regulation of tobacco products passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House of Representatives but was not considered by the U.S. Senate before it adjourned for 2008.

An “F” for a cigarette tax — the federal government’s cigarette tax is 39 cents per pack, well below the “F” standard of anything just less than 60 cents a pack.

A “D” for failing to ratify the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a treaty designed to limit smoking’s health risks worldwide. The Bush Administration again “neglected to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification,” the report card said.

The report card also faulted the federal government for not doing more to increase access to smoking-cessation programs, Billings said. “While the Medicare drug program covers smoking-cessation drugs, the federal government does not require state Medicaid programs to cover cessation treatments and services for Medicaid recipients,” he said. This, despite the fact that people receiving Medicaid smoke at almost a 60 percent higher rate than the national average, he added. On the state level, no state earned a straight A. “Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island received the best grades,” Billings said. But even these states fell short in at least one grading categories, including smoke-free air laws, amount of state cigarette tax, funding for tobacco-cessation programs, and covering tobacco-cessation treatments for Medicaid recipients and state employees, Billings said. The states with the worst grades — all Fs — were Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, according to the report. Twenty-three states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have enacted comprehensive smoke-free air laws that protect almost all workers from exposure to secondhand smoke, Billings said. Fourteen states got an “F” in this category, he said. In 2008, only Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia raised cigarette taxes. The average state tax is $1.19 per pack, Billings said. New York state has the highest tax at $2.75 a pack; South Carolina has the lowest at 7 cents a pack. Billings said that only Alaska and Delaware funded tobacco-cessation programs to the level recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Tragically, 42 states received “Fs” in this category,” he said. The CDC estimates that smoking costs the U.S. economy more than $193 billion each year, including $96 billion in health-care costs and $97 billion in lost productivity, Connor said. The way to stem this loss of lives and money is through strong tobacco control laws, Connor said. But not enough is being done, he said, adding that he hopes the new Obama administration will be more active in supporting tobacco control. “Firstly, the Congress must give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products,” Connor said. “State governments must step up and fully fund tobacco-cessation programs, increase cigarette taxes, and pass comprehensive smoke-free air laws.” Reaction to the report was strong. Dr. James Rohack, president-elect of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement, “This new report confirms that weak government tobacco policies fail to support smokers’ efforts to quit, and fail to discourage teens from smoking.” He added, “The AMA encourages federal and state lawmakers to pass legislation that invests in tobacco prevention programs and will help Americans quit using tobacco and protect them from exposure to second-hand smoke.” Vince Willmore, vice president for communications at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said: “This report underscores that we know how to win the fight against tobacco use in the United States, but need strong political leadership to implement proven solutions at all levels of government.” “This report lays out a roadmap for the federal and state governments to follow, beginning with Congressional enactment of FDA regulation of tobacco products,” he added. David Sutton, a spokesman for Altria Group Inc., the parent company of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, said: “We sell our products only to adult consumers. We are looking for folks who choose to smoke who are of legal age to do so. We are going to compete for their business, but we are not looking to recruit new smokers and we certainly don’t want anyone under age using tobacco products of any kind.” Sutton said Philip Morris is “opposed to excise taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products because they unfairly burden adult tobacco consumers.” The company supports the efforts of smokers who want to quit and endorses having the FDA regulate tobacco products, he said. More information: http://104Smoking.com

Lying with statistics has always been part of politics, but it has perhaps become more prevalent as we have become more mathematically illiterate as a people. In fact, 65.7% of statistic are just plain false. Okay, I invented that one – but to make a point. One of the easiest ways to lie with statistics is to make them up. Being “precise” makes them more believable too, which is why I didn’t round that off to 67%. Watch for unrealistically precise figures when you read or here statistics. Nobody can actually say to the nearest hundredth of a percent how overweight a population is, for example, or exactly how many homeless people there are. But what else should you watch for? Here’s an small example pulled from a magazine I was reading. The May 2008 issue of Sierra Magazine had a small piece on the “hyper-consumptive, carbon spewing ways” of Western countries,” with the following quote: “Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environmental Institute, claims that the planets richest 700 million people – a mere 7% of the world’s population – are responsible for half of the global greenhouse-gas emissions produced by fossil fuels.” Notice that if 700 million is 7% of the world’s population, we suddenly have 10 billion people in the world. The actual figure was about 6.7 billion as of 2008. That kind of mistake is common in reporting. It is most likely a simple error, but on the other hand, it seems that the mistaken figures are often better for making the desired point than the true ones would be. It is bad enough if 10.3% of the world’s people produce over half of carbon emissions, but politically a stronger point if a mere 7% do. Watch for this kind of common mistake and/or manipulation of the statistics. For another example of lying with statistics, watch election reporting. More than once I’ve seen the vote percentages given for the Republican and Democratic candidates add up to 100% in major elections – even presidential elections. Of course for that to be true there would have to be no votes for any other candidates. In reality, other parties often get several percent of the votes. What the news organizations are apparently reporting then, is the votes that they think matter. This kind of manipulation gives the impression that there are no other political parties, but there were a dozen that ran presidential candidates last time I voted. Be careful too of the more subtle lying with statistics. For example, let me ask you a question: If a company’s profits go from 3% to 6%, did they rise 3% or 100%? Profits did double, which is a rise of 100%, but as a return on equity they moved only from 3% to 6%, which still leaves a poor rate of return compared to most industries. How this is reported depends on the political slant of the news organization. If they want to attack the company for making too much money, they can write a headline that says; “XYZ Company sees 100% Increase In Profits!” Technically it is an accurate statement, but it hides a lot of truth, doesn’t it? Lying with statistics is perhaps most evident in opinion polls. In this case, the manipulation of the truth is accomplished by the way in which questions are phrased. If a thousand people were asked, “Should the government help people who face losing their homes to foreclosure?” the number of people for such a program would certainly be higher than if a thousand were asked, “Should you be forced to pay more taxes to help people make the payments on their houses?” Notice that both accurately describe what the program would do. As you watch the evening news or read newspapers and news magazines, stop at each statistic they throw out there. Ask if it is likely to be accurate, and how it was arrived at. Ask if it tells the whole truth, and what other ways things could be measured. Get online and look for other information. Lying with statistics will continue, but being fooled by them is optional.