Same-Sex Initiative Reaches Next Hurdle

SAN FRANCISCO ? It has been more than two years since voters outlawed same-sex marriage with a ballot initiative in California, and it may be two more before the legality of that measure ? Proposition 8 ? is finally decided, most likely by the Supreme Court.

On Monday, however, the two sides in the debate will lock horns at the highest legal level yet, when a federal challenge to the law filed by two gay couples is heard by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

But the lawyers involved expect few surprises when it comes to arguments.

?A lot of the stuff is going to be repeated,? said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group that has helped defend Proposition 8. ?But what I hope is that it will not be the one-sided presentation of the facts the district court had in its opinion.?

That opinion was issued in August by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who said that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of due process and equal protection. The measure has remained in effect as the higher appellate court considers it.

The hearing on Monday will unfold in two parts and cover two issues. The first is the question of legal standing: the major defendants in the case ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown ? have opted not to defend the measure, leaving the defense to groups like Mr. Lorence?s.

Mr. Brown was elected governor last month, meaning the state?s next chief executive will not support the ban. David Boies, the veteran Washington lawyer challenging the measure, said that proponents would need to prove that their lives were being directly, and substantially, harmed by Judge Walker?s decision in order to prove their standing.

?It?s not enough that you have a policy disagreement,? Mr. Boies said.

While the state has opted out of the defense, in September, officials in Imperial County ? a rural area east of Los Angeles that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state ? filed briefs to defend the measure, saying that Judge Walker had disregarded the will of California?s voters, who passed Proposition 8 in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote.

?The district court in this case failed to recognize his role as a judge as opposed to a policy maker,? the brief read. ?Before this court is an opportunity to restore the vote of over seven million Californians.?

The panel that will hear the arguments has also been questioned by supporters of the measure. On Thursday, one of the three panelists ? Judge Stephen Reinhardt ? rebuffed a motion asking him to disqualify himself because he is married to Ramona Ripston, the longtime executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The A.C.L.U. has actively opposed Proposition 8, but Judge Reinhardt said that he could remain impartial.

The judges will spend the second part of Monday?s hearing on the actual legality of Proposition 8. Opponents have argued ? and Judge Walker agreed ? that voters had no legitimate state interest in defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, and provided more than a dozen witnesses during testimony in January to back up their case. Supporters of the measure offered two witnesses.

Both sides expect pointed questions from the panel on Monday, though its decision will not be the last word on Proposition 8. Both sides are already preparing for an appeal to either a larger array of judges in the Ninth Circuit or directly to the United States Supreme Court.

?We are ready to go from Day 1,? said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for opponents of the measure.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2c197c1e39b94f0cb5c6bc4a3a10dab9

cwtv bee movie jenni lyn watson best buy cyber monday

Device Helps Paralyzed Rats Walk Again

Until recently, severe spinal cord injuries came with a fairly definite diagnosis of paralysis, whether partial or complete. But new developments in both stem-cell therapy and electronic stimulation have begun to provide hope, however distant, that paralysis may not be a life sentence. Complicated muscle stimulation devices can enable limited standing and walking, and the first embryonic stem-cell trials began last year. Other techniques, however, may provide an even simpler solution.

In his lab at the University of California, Los Angeles, V. Reggie Edgerton is developing an electronic neural bridge, one that helps impulses jump from one side of a severed spinal cord to the other to take advantage of neural "circuitry" that remains intact even after it's been cut off from the brain. In research presented two weeks ago at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego, Edgerton and graduate student Parag Gad used this approach, combined with electromyography (EMG), to help rats with severed spinal cords and completely paralyzed hind legs to run on all fours again. When their front legs began to run, the movement triggered a small current that prompted their rear legs to keep up.

Edgerton has been working on a system that employs preëxisting abilities of the spinal cord: neural pathways that, after an injury, may be blocked but don't disappear. Although the brain may control the impulse that initiates walking, the sequential muscle-by-muscle movement is not under our conscious command. "The signal coming down from the brain isn't to activate this muscle and then this muscle and then this muscle," Edgerton says. "It's to activate a program that's built into the circuitry. A message comes down from the brain that says step. The spinal cord knows what stepping is; it just has to be told to do that."

Rather than connecting electrodes to neurons or muscles, Edgerton attaches his neural bridge to electrodes on the outside membrane of the severed spinal cord. Slow pulses of electricity fire up the spinal circuitry associated with stepping, and, once the legs start to bear weight, the spinal cord recognizes the resulting sensory information and generates stepping motions on its own?no brain connection required.

With the flick of a switch, Edgerton and his colleagues made the rat's paralyzed hind limbs break into a trot. The result?an even, rhythmic gait controlled by the researchers?is something that stimulation of individual muscles can't yet replicate.

Gad took this system one step further, creating a technique that monitors movement of the animal's front legs and uses this information to generate electrical pulses that prompt the rear legs to move. First, he developed an algorithm that can distinguish walking activity?constant, alternating movement in both forelegs. Then, he implanted EMG wires into the front and rear legs, to detect the activity of skeletal muscles. The EMG wires connect to a small backpack containing a microcontroller that, upon detecting walking in the forelimbs, sends out a constant pulse to the spinal cord, triggering the hind limbs to join in.

"They're demonstrating, in a practical sense, many of the concepts that have been tossed around for some time," says Vivian Mushahwar, a biomedical engineer at the University of Alberta. "It is really refreshing." Mushahwar and physiologist Richard Stein, also at the University of Alberta, have been working on another system that takes advantage of the spinal cord's innate circuitry.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.technologyreview.com/click.phdo?i=e6f776dab6afcc64f7234e9f20f6956a

jenni lyn watson best buy cyber monday sugar bowl 2011 bcs projections

Senate Rejects Obama?s Plan on Extending Tax Cuts

The White House and Congressional leaders are now discussing a deal to extend the reduced tax rates at all income levels, at least temporarily, perhaps for two years.

But with Senate Democrats and the White House badly splintered, and some lawmakers increasingly angry at the idea of sustaining President George W. Bush?s economic policies, the prospects of a compromise remained uncertain.

The floor action on Saturday highlighted the volatility of the issue. Mr. Obama?s plan, approved by the House on Thursday, would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals, but Democrats did not have the 60 votes required under Senate rules to muscle it forward.

Nor could they muster the votes needed for an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to end the breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.

Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted unanimously against both proposals. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with ?millionaires and billionaires? over the middle class. Republicans said they were refusing to let taxes rise for anyone, given the continuing weakness in the economy.

If Congress does not act, the tax rates expire for everyone on Dec. 31, meaning an increase across the board. The rate in the lowest bracket would rise to 15 percent from 10 percent and in the highest bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

Some Democrats suggested they were willing to let that happen and extend the fight into next year. Mr. Obama, while pronouncing himself ?very disappointed? with the outcome, told reporters he would work through the weekend on a compromise.

?With so much at stake, today?s votes cannot be the end of the discussion,? he said.

The administration and Congressional leaders have been discussing a plan that would temporarily extend all of the income tax rates, and also include a one-year extension of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, which has started to run out.

With some Congressional Democrats fretting that the administration would give in too easily, senior White House officials said Mr. Obama was insisting on the jobless aid and the extension of other tax breaks for middle- and lower-income Americans included in the 2009 stimulus plan as a condition of any deal. Republicans said they were considering those demands.

Many other taxes, including the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends, were also part of the talks.

The formal negotiations were being conducted by senior lawmakers from both parties, along with the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the White House budget director, Jacob Lew. But there were also direct talks under way between the West Wing and Republicans, including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of holding show votes for political reasons but said he was optimistic that a solution would be reached before Congress adjourns. ?I am relatively confident that the end of this process will lead us into, I think, a very sensible decision not to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession,? he said.

The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he was hopeful an agreement would be reached by Wednesday, allowing the Senate to move forward with a busy end-of-year agenda.

But some Senate Democrats were growing increasingly angry at the administration and wary of a deal. In a sign of the deepening divisions, White House officials had voiced opposition to raising the threshold for the tax breaks to $1 million, saying it would do little to reduce the deficit.

The rejection of that proposal underscored a harsh defeat for Democrats in both the policy debate and on the political messaging front. Some of them lashed out at Republicans in response, accusing them of holding tax cuts for the middle class ?hostage? to secure tax breaks for the wealthy.

?I feel like I am in the twilight zone,? said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. ?It?s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.?

Senate Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, said he would benefit personally from a tax cut on income above $1 million. ?I had a good business career, and I would be entitled to a tax cut for those over the million-dollar mark? he said. ?But I don?t want it. I don?t need it. What I am looking at today, I think, is a great American travesty.?

Mr. Obama?s preferred plan fell 7 votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster and advance to a simple majority vote. The vote was 53 to 36, on a bill adopted by the House on Thursday to end the cuts on income above $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals.

Republicans voted unanimously against the House-passed bill, and they were joined by four Democrats ? Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia ? as well as by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut.

?You don?t raise taxes if your ultimate goal, if the main thing, is to create jobs,? said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, echoing an argument made repeatedly by his colleagues during the floor debate.

Mr. Schumer, pressing for his proposal, said: ?It?s not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they?re doing fine, and they?re not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy.?

At a news conference after the vote, Mr. Schumer said Democrats would keep fighting to end the tax breaks for millionaires. ?We?re not giving up in three days, one week, two months, six months,? he said.

The roll call on the so-called millionaire?s tax, which also needed 60 votes to advance, was 53 to 37, with Republicans again unanimously opposed and joined this time by Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lieberman and Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.

Democrats, including Mr. Obama, have long questioned the economic basis for lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, particularly at a time of deep concern over rising debt. White House officials said the revenue lost to tax cuts for the rich would be better spent on tax breaks for the middle class and businesses to help promote growth.

Republicans insisted that allowing the tax rates to expire for the top two income brackets would further hamper the already tepid economic recovery.

With the economy teetering, Democrats had not brought the tax issue to the top of the legislative agenda. And by this fall, when Congressional leaders began contemplating bringing up the issue for votes, many Democrats were wary of being accused by campaign opponents of favoring a tax increase.

Some Democrats supported a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax rates at all levels, and it was quickly clear that Senate Democrats could not generate sufficient votes in favor of Mr. Obama?s plan ? so the issue was put off until after the election.

The drubbing Democrats took in the elections, as Republicans won a majority in the House and picked up six seats in the Senate, further undermined the Democrats? negotiating position. Republicans have since viewed an extension of the lower income tax rates as a foregone conclusion.

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=52d19f4844efae925de46efb4e4d6187

ernest borgnine cwtv bee movie jenni lyn watson

Critics Accuse Group Of a Serious Texas Sin: Forgetting the Alamo

But in the last year members of the group, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, have found themselves besieged and divided. Dissidents have accused the leaders of caring more about building a $36 million library and theater nearby than about preserving the site?s old church and priest?s quarters, the only buildings remaining at the Spanish mission where at least 189 Texan rebels died fighting the Mexican Army in 1836.

The cracked roof of the church, known as the shrine, continues to leak nearly four years after engineers recommended it be repaired or replaced, lending fuel to the criticisms. Calls to install underground barriers to keep moisture from destroying the famed limestone walls have also gone unheeded.

This summer, the attorney general began an investigation into the group?s finances and business practices, seizing thousands of documents. As the inquiry has gone on, donations have plummeted and speculation has grown that the state may take control of the site in downtown San Antonio. Editorials in The San Antonio Express-News and on local television have supported that idea.

?There is a kind of mini civil war going on within the organization,? said Richard Bruce Winders, the historian and curator of the Alamo. ?Unfortunately, the Alamo is caught in the middle.?

But beyond the controversy over maintenance is a larger debate over the future of the shrine and battleground, an emotional touchstone for many Texans. More than 2.5 million people visit it each year.

With 7,000 members, many from prominent Texas families, the Daughters, as they are known here, remain a political third rail no one wants to touch. State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, whose district includes the Alamo, says it would be politically impossible to remove the Daughters as custodians without hard evidence of wrongdoing.

?Until the attorney general makes his report, politicians will tread very carefully because the Daughters are so beloved in the state,? she said. ?But it?s not about them. It should be about the shrine.?

Still, Gov. Rick Perry clashed publicly this year with the Daughters over their attempt to trademark the words ?the Alamo? to generate more revenue from souvenirs, and he has signaled he might consider switching custodians. ?If the Legislature would like to consider exploring alternate ways to continue to preserve this Texas treasure, we would certainly be open to their recommendations,? said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for the governor.

One sign of the governor?s wavering support for the Daughters has been his slowness to approve their plan to seal the roof with an acrylic sheath. Aides say he has delayed the plan pending further engineering studies and a review of other options.

The roof has become the focus for those calling for new management. Their complaints reached a peak last February when a patch of plaster fell from the ceiling and forced the closing of two rooms in the church. An engineer?s report in July said the building was safe, but recommended ?the roofing over the entire Alamo shrine be repaired or replaced.?

The group?s leaders have a vision: to build a three-story annex that would hold their organization?s library of historical documents, a theater, a recording studio and office space. The proposed building, next to the square where the battle was fought, would cost about $36 million.

?They came up with a big plan of all the grandiose things they want to build, and that?s what they need the money for,? said Sarah Reveley, a former member whose lengthy complaint to the attorney general?s office prompted the investigation. ?The preservation of the Alamo was also in the master plan, and they just ignored it.?

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=927f3ff9ce524b6874e9c6cba3a0756c

cyber monday deals 2010 blac chyna bowl projections big 12 championship tickets

News Analysis: Arizona Medicaid Cuts Seen as a Sign of the Times

With enrollments exploding, revenues shrinking and the low-hanging fruit plucked long ago, virtually every state has had to make painful cuts to its Medicaid program during the economic downturn.

What distinguishes the reductions recently imposed in Arizona, where coverage was eliminated on Oct. 1 for certain transplants of the heart, liver, lung, pancreas and bone marrow, is the decision to stop paying for treatments urgently needed to ward off death.

The cuts in transplant coverage, which could deny organs to 100 adults currently on the transplant list, are testament to both the severity of fiscal pressures on the states and the particular bloodlessness of budget-cutting in Arizona.

?It?s a real sign of the times,? said Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy. ?And I think this is a precursor to a much larger number of states having this discussion.?

Policy choices with such life-threatening implications are all the more striking given the partisan framing of the health debate.

Republicans have argued that the new health law will lead to rationing, warning even of ?death panels.? Democrats have responded that care is already rationed, with 50 million people going largely without insurance, and that the law will bring greater equity.

The Arizona case, said Diane Rowland, director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ?is a classic example of making decisions based not on medical need but based on a budget.? And, she added, ?it results, potentially, in denial of care to individuals in a life-or-death situation.?

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do not monitor which states use Medicaid money for transplants. But health experts said no other state had withdrawn coverage for patients pursuing transplants.

Arizona?s decision, by Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, and the Republican-controlled Legislature, was made after state officials assessed success and survival rates for a number of transplant procedures. National transplant groups call the figures misleading.

?It seems inappropriate that life-saving care has the potential to be withheld based solely on budgetary issues and the bureaucratic determination of relative benefits,? said Dr. Robert S. Gaston, president-elect of the American Society of Transplantation.

There is usually a long-term consequence to short-term cuts in safety-net programs like Medicaid, which insures low-income Americans and is financed by state and federal governments.

When payments to doctors are cut, fewer providers are willing to treat Medicaid patients. When eligibility levels are lowered, more people are left to seek charity care in emergency rooms. When optional benefits like dental services and prescription drugs are eliminated, conditions worsen until they require more expensive care.

But no other state in recent memory has made such a numbers-driven calculation pitting the potential loss of life against modest savings.

Jennifer Carusetta, the legislative liaison for Arizona?s Medicaid agency, said the transplant cuts would save a mere $800,000 in the current fiscal year, and only $1.4 million for a full year.

The cuts were imposed in an effort to close a $2.6 billion shortfall in the state?s $8.9 billion budget for this year.

The options available to states for cutting Medicaid have been limited because the federal stimulus package and the health care law have required them to maintain eligibility levels. That has left states to cut payments to providers and trim benefits not required by federal regulations.

Many states, including Arizona, have done both. A September report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 39 states cut provider payments and 20 cut optional benefits in their 2010 fiscal years, with similar numbers planning to do so in 2011.

Arizona reduced Medicaid payments to doctors by 5 percent last year and has frozen payments to hospitals and nursing homes for two years. All providers will undergo another 5 percent cut on April 1, Ms. Carusetta said.

This year, Arizona became the only state to eliminate its Children?s Health Insurance Program, which would have affected 47,000 children of working-class parents. Lawmakers reversed course before the effective date only after concluding that the state might run afoul of federal requirements and lose billions of dollars in matching money.

The state has also enacted a wide range of Medicaid cuts, eliminating coverage for emergency dental procedures, insulin pumps and orthotics. ?We realize this has serious impacts on people,? Ms. Carusetta said. ?Unfortunately, given the fiscal constraints facing our state, the Legislature has limited options at this point.?

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=422e353c03ed7d3755c4484ca726ace7

walmart cyber monday bryan cranston cyber monday deals 2010 blac chyna

Obama Pays Visit to Afghanistan

Wrapped in a tight cocoon of secrecy and security, Mr. Obama landed at Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, on a pitch-black evening and told thousands of American service members who greeted him that they had begun to turn the tide in a war that has frustrated commanders and soldiers alike for nearly a decade.

But Afghanistan confounded the president?s plans, just as it has foreign forces over the centuries. Its notoriously gusty winds whipped around him at 45 m.p.h. and dust clouds limited visibility, grounding the helicopter that was to take him to Kabul to meet with President Hamid Karzai.

A backup plan to confer via video teleconference then was scrapped due to technical problems. The two leaders talked by telephone for 15 minutes, never laying eyes on each other, even though they were just 35 miles apart.

White House officials played down the glitches, saying Mr. Obama?s main mission during his three-and-a-half-hour stay was to show support for the troops heading into another holiday season far from home. The president had met with Mr. Karzai just two weeks ago at a NATO meeting in Lisbon, where they set forth a plan to gradually start turning over the lead role in the war to Afghan forces next year, with the aim of ending the foreign combat mission by 2014.

?Thanks to your service, we are making important progress,? Mr. Obama, wearing a bomber jacket and dark slacks, told more than 3,800 troops at Bagram. ?We said we were going to break the Taliban?s momentum, and that?s what you?re doing. You?re going on the offense, tired of playing defense, targeting their leaders, pushing them out of their strongholds.

?Today,? he continued, ?we can be proud that there are fewer areas under Taliban control and more Afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future.?

He added, ?Because of the service of the men and women of the United States military, because of the progress you?re making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of a transition to Afghan responsibility.?

The president?s remarks offered a more positive assessment of the situation on the ground than he has in some time, influenced perhaps by the optimism expressed in recent weeks by his commanding general, Gen. David H. Petraeus. American military forces have tripled, to 100,000, on Mr. Obama?s watch, and he has vowed to begin reducing the number of troops next July.

But others in Washington and Kabul have been more skeptical of the claims of progress, noting the unabated and pervasive corruption of Mr. Karzai?s government, the resilience of the insurgency despite escalated attacks and the debacle of recent peace talks that turned out to be held not with a senior Taliban leader but an impostor.

Mr. Obama, too, dwelled on the continuing cost of the war, noting the platoon he met that had lost six members, the five Purple Hearts he awarded in the base hospital and the Medal of Honor he presented recently to an American soldier at the White House.

The atmosphere appeared more subdued than in past presidential visits, as Mr. Obama noted that ?many of you have stood before the solemn battle cross, display of boots, a rifle, a helmet, and said goodbye to a fallen comrade.?

Mr. Obama?s visit came at a pivotal moment in the war on both sides. In Washington, the administration is completing a review of the surge and counterinsurgency strategy that the president approved a year ago, although officials played down its import. ?I don?t think you?ll see any immediate adjustments,? Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the president?s top Afghan policy adviser, told reporters on Air Force One.

In Kabul, an election held on Sept. 18 has yet to result in a sitting Parliament, as Mr. Karzai has neither endorsed nor condemned its outcome. And State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made public on Friday laid bare the unvarnished and dubious view of American diplomats toward Mr. Karzai and his government. The cables questioned whether Mr. Karzai will ever be ?a responsible partner? and depicted him as ?erratic? and ?indecisive and unprepared.?

But unlike his last trip to Afghanistan in March, when Mr. Obama pressed Mr. Karzai about corruption and the frictions were on public display, the president this time was intent on working around the divisions, and aides said the cables did not come up in the call between the presidents.

As has become customary under both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush, the trip to Afghanistan was carried out in clandestine fashion. Mr. Obama slipped out of the White House without notice on Thursday night after presiding over a Hanukkah celebration, accompanied only by his personal aide, Reggie Love, Secret Service agents and members of his support staff.

At Andrews Air Force Base, he was joined by General Lute; his national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and other top aides. Air Force One took off in secret at 10 p.m. A small pool of journalists was brought along on condition that they not report on the trip until the president landed in Afghanistan.

Many White House officials, and most of the Afghan government, were not informed. The president?s advance schedule for Friday listed him meeting with advisers in the Oval Office and then making a public statement on the latest unemployment report, with the schedule reporting that ?the location of the statement is T.B.D.,? or to be determined. Aides said Mr. Karzai?s government was informed in the last few days.

Mr. Obama?s trip was the third time he had left the United States in the month since his party absorbed major losses in midterm elections. He left Washington at a very busy moment, as he struggles with Congress over a host of issues like tax cuts, deficit spending, arms control, gays in the military and immigration.

He landed just after 8:30 p.m. Afghan time and took off from Bagram shortly after midnight. He spent time with General Petraeus and Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry in addition to visiting wounded soldiers. Aides said it was a useful visit even without a meeting with Mr. Karzai.

?Obviously it would be nice to be able to share a meal together, but at the same time they were able to be face-to-face less than two weeks ago,? Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, told reporters traveling with the president. ?I think President Karzai understood the purpose of this was really for the president to spend time with the troops.?

Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a08ae48543de6751b42dd8cc5019a9ee

notre dame football juan manuel marquez vs michael katsidis steven pieper ernest borgnine

Senate Rejects Obama?s Plan on Extending Tax Cuts

The White House and Congressional leaders are now discussing a deal to extend the reduced tax rates at all income levels, at least temporarily, perhaps for two years.

But with Senate Democrats and the White House badly splintered, and some lawmakers increasingly angry at the idea of sustaining President George W. Bush?s economic policies, the prospects of a compromise remained uncertain.

The floor action on Saturday highlighted the volatility of the issue. Mr. Obama?s plan, approved by the House on Thursday, would have extended the lower rates on income up to $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals, but Democrats did not have the 60 votes required under Senate rules to muscle it forward.

Nor could they muster the votes needed for an alternative proposal, championed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to end the breaks only on income exceeding $1 million.

Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted unanimously against both proposals. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with ?millionaires and billionaires? over the middle class. Republicans said they were refusing to let taxes rise for anyone, given the continuing weakness in the economy.

If Congress does not act, the tax rates expire for everyone on Dec. 31, meaning an increase across the board. The rate in the lowest bracket would rise to 15 percent from 10 percent and in the highest bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

Some Democrats suggested they were willing to let that happen and extend the fight into next year. Mr. Obama, while pronouncing himself ?very disappointed? with the outcome, told reporters he would work through the weekend on a compromise.

?With so much at stake, today?s votes cannot be the end of the discussion,? he said.

The administration and Congressional leaders have been discussing a plan that would temporarily extend all of the income tax rates, and also include a one-year extension of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, which has started to run out.

With some Congressional Democrats fretting that the administration would give in too easily, senior White House officials said Mr. Obama was insisting on the jobless aid and the extension of other tax breaks for middle- and lower-income Americans included in the 2009 stimulus plan as a condition of any deal. Republicans said they were considering those demands.

Many other taxes, including the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends, were also part of the talks.

The formal negotiations were being conducted by senior lawmakers from both parties, along with the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the White House budget director, Jacob Lew. But there were also direct talks under way between the West Wing and Republicans, including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of holding show votes for political reasons but said he was optimistic that a solution would be reached before Congress adjourns. ?I am relatively confident that the end of this process will lead us into, I think, a very sensible decision not to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession,? he said.

The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he was hopeful an agreement would be reached by Wednesday, allowing the Senate to move forward with a busy end-of-year agenda.

But some Senate Democrats were growing increasingly angry at the administration and wary of a deal. In a sign of the deepening divisions, White House officials had voiced opposition to raising the threshold for the tax breaks to $1 million, saying it would do little to reduce the deficit.

The rejection of that proposal underscored a harsh defeat for Democrats in both the policy debate and on the political messaging front. Some of them lashed out at Republicans in response, accusing them of holding tax cuts for the middle class ?hostage? to secure tax breaks for the wealthy.

?I feel like I am in the twilight zone,? said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. ?It?s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.?

Senate Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, said he would benefit personally from a tax cut on income above $1 million. ?I had a good business career, and I would be entitled to a tax cut for those over the million-dollar mark? he said. ?But I don?t want it. I don?t need it. What I am looking at today, I think, is a great American travesty.?

Mr. Obama?s preferred plan fell 7 votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster and advance to a simple majority vote. The vote was 53 to 36, on a bill adopted by the House on Thursday to end the cuts on income above $250,000 a year for couples and $200,000 for individuals.

Republicans voted unanimously against the House-passed bill, and they were joined by four Democrats ? Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia ? as well as by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut.

?You don?t raise taxes if your ultimate goal, if the main thing, is to create jobs,? said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, echoing an argument made repeatedly by his colleagues during the floor debate.

Mr. Schumer, pressing for his proposal, said: ?It?s not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they?re doing fine, and they?re not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy.?

At a news conference after the vote, Mr. Schumer said Democrats would keep fighting to end the tax breaks for millionaires. ?We?re not giving up in three days, one week, two months, six months,? he said.

The roll call on the so-called millionaire?s tax, which also needed 60 votes to advance, was 53 to 37, with Republicans again unanimously opposed and joined this time by Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lieberman and Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.

Democrats, including Mr. Obama, have long questioned the economic basis for lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, particularly at a time of deep concern over rising debt. White House officials said the revenue lost to tax cuts for the rich would be better spent on tax breaks for the middle class and businesses to help promote growth.

Republicans insisted that allowing the tax rates to expire for the top two income brackets would further hamper the already tepid economic recovery.

With the economy teetering, Democrats had not brought the tax issue to the top of the legislative agenda. And by this fall, when Congressional leaders began contemplating bringing up the issue for votes, many Democrats were wary of being accused by campaign opponents of favoring a tax increase.

Some Democrats supported a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax rates at all levels, and it was quickly clear that Senate Democrats could not generate sufficient votes in favor of Mr. Obama?s plan ? so the issue was put off until after the election.

The drubbing Democrats took in the elections, as Republicans won a majority in the House and picked up six seats in the Senate, further undermined the Democrats? negotiating position. Republicans have since viewed an extension of the lower income tax rates as a foregone conclusion.

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=52d19f4844efae925de46efb4e4d6187

blac chyna bowl projections big 12 championship tickets notre dame football

Weekend Open Forum: How often do you beat games?

Blog - Modes 'n' Models

PlayStation Phone shown off running Android 2.3

The PlayStation Phone, codenamed Zeus Z1, has received a nice new leak, this time in video form. It reveals just how fat the Sony Ericsson phone really is and also clearly shows that the device is running Android 2.3 (codenamed Gingerbread). The audio-less video in question is embedded below, but if you want to make sure that there really is a PlayStation icon for the dedicated PlayStation app, check out the second shorter video.

Separately, seven pictures taken with the phones camera have leaked to Picasa. If the camera is a big factor in your decision for a phone, check the pictures out; they're not half bad.

Less than two months ago, details of the PlayStation Phone leaked out. The phone will supposedly come with a custom Sony Marketplace for purchasing and downloading games designed for the new platform. The device sports a 1GHz Qualcomm MSM8655, 512MB of RAM, 1GB of ROM, and a screen ranging from 3.7 to 4.1 inches. The handset also includes a long touchpad in the center which is apparently multitouch, as well as familiar PlayStation shoulder buttons. There's no Sony Memory Stick slot, but there is support for microSD cards. Right now, a 2011 release is most likely.

Powered by WizardRSS | Best Membership Site Software

Source: http://www.techspot.com/news/41430-playstation-phone-shown-off-running-android-23.html

cyber monday deals 2010 blac chyna bowl projections big 12 championship tickets