Saturday, June 30, 2012

Reuters: Politics: Analysis: Jumping off the fiscal cliff

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Analysis: Jumping off the fiscal cliff
Jul 1st 2012, 05:08

A 2011 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return form is seen in New York April 17, 2012. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

A 2011 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return form is seen in New York April 17, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

By Kim Dixon and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 1, 2012 1:08am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of Congress from both parties are increasingly mulling the unthinkable: going home in December without acting to avoid the $4 trillion in tax hikes and deep spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans claim this is their preferred option, as it could rattle global financial markets badly and anger their constituents.

But as they circle each other in an ever-more partisan atmosphere they see little prospect for a settlement acceptable to both parties in the lame duck session of Congress after the November 6 election.

That is when they confront the wave of fiscal cliff decisions including how to handle expiration of temporary tax cuts that originated during the presidency of George W. Bush, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts and the need to raise the debt ceiling again.

Some members and partisan strategists are concluding that they might be better off doing nothing.

They would come back in January with a new Congress relatively flush with cash - at least on paper - from the impact of the tax hikes; hit reset and start over to structure a new series of tax cuts. Call them the "Obama tax cuts" or "Romney tax cuts," depending on the victor in the November election.

The risk of shaking the markets is always there. But they could mitigate that by telegraphing to voters and Wall Street in advance that they definitely intend to write some new tax cuts into law. It could take a couple months, or maybe even all of 2013 and beyond, but they promise they will do it and they promise they will make the tax cuts retroactive to January 1, 2013.

"My preference would not be to accept a lesser solution than you could get in February and March just to say that you got it done before the end of the year," Senator Roy Blunt, a member of Republican leadership and congressional liaison to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, told the 2012 Washington Reuters Summit last week.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, said that if Republicans continue to demand a tax plan with breaks for the wealthy, Democrats should "take the question to the American people" in January by allowing historically low rates from the Bush years to expire.

"If they refuse, if the Republican position remains as it is today - which is, they are going to insist on holding tax relief for 99 percent of the American people hostage - I think we should just take that debate into next year," Van Hollen said.

A liberal Democratic think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has since argued that the cliff is more of a slope, and that any negative impact would be gradual. That may leave lawmakers some wiggle room.

Romney last month floated the idea of Congress leaving town and waiting until he arrives in late January to act, which initially brought gasps, in part because the Congressional Budget Office has said stepping off the "cliff" could push the U.S. economy into a recession in the first half of 2013.

"The prospects are substantial that the Bush tax cuts expire for at least a period of time," said a senior Senate Democratic aide. "This is not to say that folks plan that to happen, but a lot of folks will block other paths," the aide added.

The idea - while embryonic - is gaining traction. Peter Orszag, former head of the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget, touted it as a strategy for a re-elected Obama in a widely discussed article in the summer issue of the journal "Democracy."

Obama would "escape the intractable debate" over the Bush tax cut extensions and come back in early 2013 with legislation that reduces taxes "disproportionately for middle- and low-income families," making it hard for Republicans to vote against them.

The reasoning goes like this.

Politicians are scared to death of raising taxes. But they wouldn't have to if they just let the Bush tax cuts expire. They don't have to lift a finger. They just let them die, as scheduled, on December 31.

Then, flush with cash, they take some of the $3.7 trillion, which they would then have on the budget books from the expired Bush tax cuts, and they announce to voters that they're going to give it back to them in the form of brand new tax cuts.

They take another chunk of the $3.7 trillion and devote it to deficit-reduction - maybe - and as they rewrite the tax code to include rate reductions for corporations and others, they also end some tax goodies, possibly getting more money for the Treasury.

Even though taxes for some might rise in the end, that bit of unpleasantness gets tucked into a tax-cut bill in a way that eases everyone's jitters. Politicians can brag about giving Americans new tax cuts. There's some new deficit-reduction - maybe and that might be a big maybe - as a result of Congress letting Treasury keep some of the Bush-era tax cuts that have died.

The approach reflects deep pessimism for an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff other than some temporary fix, which, as Orszag noted, would only set the stage for more uncertainty and partisan struggle.

Political disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over whether the rich should continue to enjoy the benefits of the Bush tax cuts are at the center of the dispute that could end in deadlock on December 31.

But with just over a month between the election and the end of the year, not including holidays, the losing party will be sore and not apt to compromise.

Contributing to the ill will could be a court fight stemming from demands by the Republican-controlled House for documents about the Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal to Mexico that the administration refuses to provide. And, last week's Supreme Court decision to uphold the healthcare law also revived bitterness.

POSSIBLE SHORT-TERM DEAL

Among the other scenarios is a short-term extension of all the tax cuts, possibly attached to a trigger to force action on the deficit and tax reform. Many lawmakers are weary of that approach, though, since it failed so miserably last November in efforts to come up with a thoughtful $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years to avoid the blunt axe of automatic spending cuts.

In a pre-election show vote, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will pass a version of this in July, knowing it will hit a roadblock in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

During a nearly identical debate in 2010, Obama conceded to Republican demands to extend all the Bush-era cuts. In exchange, he got jobless benefits renewed and a payroll tax cut.

Back then, vulnerable Democratic senators fretted openly about the impact of raising taxes in a fledgling recovery. Some of these same senators are teetering again, with 20 Senate Democrats facing re-election in 2014.

"The problem with Obama's position on the Bush tax cuts is he doesn't even have majority support in the Senate on this," said Ethan Siegal, an investor adviser.

Democrats want to let low tax rates for the wealthiest expire - defined by some as those earning more than $250,000, while others favor the $1 million threshold.

Republicans want to extend the rates for all income groups.

DEBT CEILING WILD CARD

In any of these scenarios, everything is dependent on the outcome of the election.

If Obama wins, "I think somebody is going to pay 39.6 percent" in taxes, said Greg Valliere, an analyst for institutional investors.

Under the Democrats' proposal, the top tax rate for high earners would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

One wild card is the need to raise the limit on the Treasury Department's borrowing authority, known as the "debt ceiling." Republicans caused a stir last year when a group of Tea Party- allied conservatives advocated blocking any increase in Washington's borrowing authority without accompanying adequate budget cuts - even if that meant a historic U.S. default and government shutdown.

A deal eventually prevailed, but the deadlock was a factor in Standard and Poor's August downgrade of the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi told the 2012 Reuters Washington Summit last week that Obama should avoid a rerun of that fight with Republicans by using his executive authority to raise the limit. It was an argument that some Obama confidants, including former President Bill Clinton, had unsuccessfully urged Obama to employ last year.

"I myself would not empower them (Republicans) to hurt the full faith and credit of the United States of America," Pelosi told Reuters.

(Reporting by Kim Dixon, Rachelle Younglai, Donna Smith, Richard Cowan, Thomas Ferraro and David Lawder. Editing by Fred Barbash and Jackie Frank)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Ruling ups support for Obama healthcare, still unpopular

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Ruling ups support for Obama healthcare, still unpopular
Jul 1st 2012, 04:08

Supporters of the Affordable Healthcare Act celebrate in front of the Supreme Court after the court upheld the legality of the law in Washington June 28, 2012. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

1 of 2. Supporters of the Affordable Healthcare Act celebrate in front of the Supreme Court after the court upheld the legality of the law in Washington June 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 1, 2012 12:08am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voter support for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul rose after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it but most people still oppose the law, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Sunday.

The online survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the political independents whose support will be essential to winning the November 6 presidential election.

Thirty-eight percent of independents support the healthcare overhaul in the poll conducted after the court ruled Thursday the law was constitutional. That was up from 27 percent from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken days before the justices' ruling.

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent, from 43 percent before the court decision.

"This is a win for Obama. This is his bill. There's not really any doubt in people's minds, that it belongs to him," said Julia Clark, vice president a Ipsos Public Affairs. "It's his baby. It's literally been labeled Obamacare ... which maybe it works in his favor now that there's a little bit of a victory dance going on."

Republican opposition to the law stayed strong, if somewhat weaker than before the High Court ruled. Eighty-one percent of Republicans opposed it in the most recent survey, down from 86 percent in the poll conducted June 19-23.

Underscoring the intense polarization on the issue, three-quarters of Democrats backed the bill, the same as a week earlier.

FANNING OPPOSITION'S FLAME

In some good news for Republicans, the Supreme Court ruling is energizing opposition to the 2010 healthcare overhaul.

In the new poll, more than half of all registered voters - 53 percent - said they were more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he were running on a platform of repealing the law, up from 46 percent before the ruling.

"This is galvanizing both sides," Clark said.

Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has made it clear that he will run against "Obamacare." Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling, the former Massachusetts governor asked voters to throw Obama out of office to get rid of the law, which he promises to repeal and replace if he wins the White House in November.

There have been some early signs that appeal is working. On Friday, Romney's campaign said the former Massachusetts governor raised $4.6 million in the 24 hours following the Supreme Court's decision.

Romney has offered few specifics on how he would replace the Obama reforms, although he said he would work to retain popular provisions such as blocking insurance companies from forbidding coverage of patients with pre-existing medical conditions.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll showed little change in the strong support for that and most of the other major provisions of the bill, including requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees and allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Most Americans still oppose the requirement that U.S. residents own health insurance, the so-called "individual mandate," which the Supreme Court found was constitutional under the government's right to impose taxes.

Despite the court labeling the mandate a tax - which Republicans have seized on in campaigning against Obama - the new survey found support for it unchanged. Thirty nine percent of all Americans backed the mandate, compared with 61 percent who opposed it.

Obama has credited the state plan Romney instituted as Massachusetts governor, which used a system of subsidies and mandates to expand health coverage, as a blueprint for his national plan.

The survey interviewed 991 Americans online from June 28-30. The precision of the Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Doina Chiacu)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Friday, June 29, 2012

Reuters: Politics: Pentagon chief urges Congress to block new defense cuts

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Pentagon chief urges Congress to block new defense cuts
Jun 29th 2012, 22:43

By David Alexander

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:43pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Congress on Friday to act soon to stop a new round of defense budget reductions next year, saying the threat of $500 billion more in cuts leaves military families and defense workers under a cloud of uncertainty.

"Congress can't keep kicking the can down the road or avoiding dealing with the debt and deficit problems that we face," Panetta told a news conference. "The men and women of this department and their families need to know with certainty that we will meet our commitments to them and to their families."

Panetta's remarks come at a time of renewed focus on the looming across-the-board defense cuts, which would be carried out under a process known as "sequestration." Industry officials met with House Democrats to discuss the cuts on Thursday and held talks with Panetta at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said this month that several different groups of lawmakers were holding talks on how to deal with the threat of sequestration. Some lawmakers are pushing to delay the cuts by up to a year, well beyond the November election.

Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Friday accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, of blocking efforts to halt the new round of cuts due to go into force on January 2. They urged him to "put forward your own plan or stop obstructing plans others have already offered."

"Further cuts to the military don't affect some faceless bureaucracy," Republicans from the House Armed Services Committee said in a letter to Reid. "The White House has determined that sequestration will arbitrarily gut the funding to our troops who are putting their lives on the line."

The Pentagon has said that unless Congress acts to change the law, it will have to implement the cuts on January 2 by slashing all programs by the percentage needed to bring about the required spending reduction, regardless of strategic need.

The potential new budget cuts come at a time when the Defense Department is already reducing projected spending by $487 billion over 10 years as required by the Budget Control Act passed by Congress last year. The act was an attempt to curb the government's trillion-dollar deficits.

NO ALTERNATIVE DEAL

The cuts under sequestration were included in the act as part of an effort to encourage Republican and Democratic lawmakers to reach an alternative deal to cut spending by more than $1 trillion. But they failed to achieve a compromise and now the cuts are due to go into force.

Panetta and senior military commanders have warned that a new round of spending reductions under sequestration would be devastating to the military and would force the Pentagon to abandon the new strategy adopted in January as part of the budgeting process.

But some analysts point out that the cuts being implemented come after a decade of rising defense spending and are far smaller proportionally than during previous military drawdowns.

They predict defense spending eventually will be reduced by several hundred billion dollars more, with or without sequestration.

Industry leaders who met with Panetta this week warned that the Pentagon could face billions of dollars in contract termination fees and other costs when the new cuts go into force next year. Panetta said the industry executives shared many of the Pentagons fears about the cuts.

"They're very concerned about the impact that it will have on their companies and on their employees," Panetta told the news conference.

He noted that company executives faced legal requirements to notify their employees about possible terminations, letters that would have to go out just days before the November elections.

"Both the companies as well as the Defenses Department are making very clear to Capitol Hill that this is a matter that ought not to be postponed, that it ought to be dealt with soon so that sequester ... will not happen," Panetta said.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Mohammad Zargham)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Justice Department will not prosecute Holder over gun scandal

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Justice Department will not prosecute Holder over gun scandal
Jun 29th 2012, 23:06

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington in this June 12, 2012, file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst/Files

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: After health ruling, will U.S. be ready for the law?

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
After health ruling, will U.S. be ready for the law?
Jun 29th 2012, 21:43

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:43pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Now that the Supreme Court has removed the main legal challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, policy experts question whether enough U.S. states will be ready to implement the law when it takes full effect in 2014.

Up to now, most states have avoided decisive action to build the private insurance exchanges that would extend health coverage to an additional 16 million Americans. Governors in largely Republican states who oppose the entire law may still refuse to act on the exchanges, requiring the federal government to step in to operate them.

"We will be ready to ensure that every American has access to affordable, high quality coverage on January 1, 2014," Mike Hash, an official overseeing the exchanges effort at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said on Friday.

HHS says that 34 states have received $850 million in grants to help plan and build the exchanges. Accepting the funds alone does not signal significant progress, however.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks healthcare issues, 17 states have made no significant progress towards establishing an exchange or rejected the idea. Most of them voted for Republican candidates during the 2008 elections that brought Obama, a Democrat, to power.

Another 18 states are studying their options, leaving only 15 that have taken concrete steps to establish an exchange, Kaiser said.

Some health experts fear that many of the states holding off now will wait until the November elections in the hope Republicans will win control of the White House or Congress and repeal the law. Wisconsin Governor Rick Scott announced on Thursday that he intended to do just that and other Republican governors, including Sam Brownback of Kansas, expressed similar views.

"If states really have the will to throw themselves into this, there is time to set up an exchange. But if states are going to wait for the election, then there isn't time," said health economist Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Former Obama administration officials acknowledge that two years of political battles since the healthcare law was passed in 2010 might hamper its full introduction.

"We have taken a two year diversion - which is one thing I'm worried about ... Everyone knows the law is going to be implemented and the question now really is how well," said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser.

The Supreme Court ruling on Thursday upheld the core of the law, but also allowed states to opt out of a planned expansion of the Medicaid health program for the poor. That could also jeopardize the law's aim of enrolling another 16 million of the most vulnerable Americans via Medicaid.

TIME OF THE ESSENCE

With the exchanges, timing is key. States must build information technology systems capable of quickly evaluating individual applicants to see if they are eligible for private insurance or Medicaid, based on household income and other factors. Only Massachusetts, which overhauled its health system in 2006, has built one to date.

Gruber estimates that any given state could require a year to build an exchange's infrastructure. Those that wait until after the November ballot could be ill-prepared by the autumn of 2013 when the federal government expects exchanges to offer open enrollment.

The administration set a November 16, 2012, deadline for states to confirm they are building an exchange and maintains that will leave the federal government enough time to step in and set one up where needed.

But health experts say federal exchanges could create service gaps by overlooking unique features in state health system, while posing political risks to local officials by providing benefits they denied to their citizens.

"Our objective is that every state will operate a state-based exchange," Hash said.

Joseph Antos, a health expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, believes the administration could have difficulty setting up federal exchanges because of the sheer complexity of the task.

"They won't be ready everywhere. And even the degree of readiness - the idea that everything's going to be smooth - smooth is not the word you attach to implementation," he added

(Additional reporting by Salimah Ebrahim; editing by Michele Gershberg and Andre Grenon)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: A tax or a penalty? Romney, Obama camps debate healthcare ruling

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
A tax or a penalty? Romney, Obama camps debate healthcare ruling
Jun 29th 2012, 20:37

U.S. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney pauses as he gives his reaction to the Supreme Court's upholding key parts of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law in Washington June 28, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

U.S. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney pauses as he gives his reaction to the Supreme Court's upholding key parts of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law in Washington June 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:37pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took his fight against President Barack Obama's newly upheld healthcare law out on the campaign trail on Friday, attempting to use it to galvanize support for his bid to oust Obama on November 6.

Campaign supporters of Obama sought to blunt Republican criticism that the law will amount to a new tax increase on Americans. A 5-4 majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled the law constitutional on Thursday by saying it falls under Congress' authority to levy taxes.

Romney, at a fundraiser in New York, said the court's decision calls for "greater urgency, I believe, in the election" and that in order to replace Obama's healthcare law "you've got to replace President Obama."

His supporters have responded, pouring nearly $5 million in campaign donations in little more than 24 hours since the ruling was unveiled. Obama's campaign insisted Obama had raised more but did not disclose a number.

Obama's court victory protects his landmark domestic policy achievement but also leaves him open to election-year attacks from Republicans who say the law kills jobs by putting a burden on small businesses.

A ruling by the court that the centerpiece of Obama's law - the "individual mandate" which requires Americans to have health insurance - is in fact a tax, gives Republicans an extra stick with which to hit the Democratic incumbent.

The White House and Obama's campaign argued the court was wrong to label it a tax. Those who refuse the law's mandate to buy health insurance would be required to pay a fine. Only about 1 percent of Americans would likely fall under this category, the administration said.

"So your choice is to purchase health care reform or a penalty will be administered," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The Supreme Court ruling fell in the midst of a tense period in the presidential campaign with Obama and Romney running closely in opinion polls and trying to define each other as unfit for the White House.

In a sign of the bitterness of the fight, the Romney campaign on Friday issued an ad featuring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticizing Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Obama's primary opponent at the time, Clinton accused her fellow Democrat of lying about her record and said "shame on you Barack Obama." The ad is running in the swing states of Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia and Iowa.

TAX ISSUE

The Obama campaign accuses Romney of double standards by criticizing the requirement to buy health insurance even though it formed part of the healthcare plan he developed for Massachusetts when he was governor there.

"That was right then, you should ask why he doesn't think it's not right now," Obama senior strategist David Axelrod told NBC's "Today" show.

Romney has offered few specifics on how he would replace the Obama reforms, although he said he would work to retain popular provisions such as blocking insurance companies from forbidding coverage of patients with pre-existing medical conditions.

David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, said the tax issue may catch fire in the campaign.

"I think that's going to be a fair argument to take to voters. Obama says he's not raising taxes, the Supreme Court says this is a tax. Voters are going to have to decide whether they like this idea," said Yepsen.

The Romney campaign says the law would a have far bigger impact on taxes than just penalizing people who refuse to buy insurance, but instead would raise $500 billion over 10 years.

This charge is based on a March 2011 estimate from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which said the legislation will increase federal revenues in various ways, mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers. Democrats have disputed that.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and Susan Heavey; Editing by Philip Barbara)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Senate confirms top nuclear power regulator

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Senate confirms top nuclear power regulator
Jun 29th 2012, 20:38

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:38pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed geologist Allison Macfarlane, an expert on how to store radioactive waste from power plants, to head the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Macfarlane will serve out the year left in the term of Gregory Jaczko, who announced his resignation last month after being publicly criticized by fellow commissioners as being abrasive.

At a hearing in mid-June, Macfarlane pledged to treat her colleagues with respect and ensure the five-member commission operates smoothly.

The NRC, which has about 4,000 staff, is working on sweeping reforms for the 104 aging U.S. reactors in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, caused by an earthquake and tsunami.

The Senate also confirmed on a voice vote Republican NRC commissioner Kristine Svinicki to a second five-year term at the commission.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Congress approves transportation, student loans bill

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Congress approves transportation, student loans bill
Jun 29th 2012, 18:16

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:16pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan bill to fund a massive job-creating transportation bill, renew low-interest rates for student loans and provide flood insurance won final congressional approval on Friday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

The House of Representatives and Senate passed the measure before heading off for a week-long holiday recess.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Romney fundraising keeps spiking, small donors giving too

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Romney fundraising keeps spiking, small donors giving too
Jun 29th 2012, 17:30

By Deborah Charles and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:48pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney raised $4.6 million in the 24 hours following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said via Twitter on Friday that the former Massachusetts governor had raised the money through 47,000 online donations. "Thanks for everyone's support for #FullRepeal!" she tweeted, referring to the candidate's vow to repeal and replace the healthcare law if he is elected president on November 6.

Obama's campaign said they had also raised a lot of money since the Supreme Court issued its ruling, but officials would not give any figures to back up the assertion.

"It's perverse that Mitt Romney won't share details about what he'd do for the millions he'd leave uninsured or at the whims of insurance companies when he 'kills Obamacare dead,' but he'll share the hourly details of his fundraising after the Supreme Court ruling," said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

"We've outraised the Romney campaign in that time period but that's not the point - our supporters are more committed than ever to ensuring that insurance companies can't drop coverage for people who get sick or discriminate against people with preexisting conditions by re-electing the president," LaBolt said.

In May, Romney and Republican groups raised more than $76.8 million for the month from 297,000 donors, an average of about $2.48 million per day and about 9,580 donations per day. So the one-day haul for Romney on Thursday was a bit less than double that amount and the number of donations was about five times the usual number.

The sharp uptick in the number of contributions means Romney is receiving more money in small quantities from regular Americans as opposed to wealthy individuals or organizations donating large sums. This could potentially translate into more votes and repeated donations.

"Research shows small-dollar donors don't give just once in most cases - they give more than once," said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. "Now Romney's campaign has a direct link with them. This was about expanding to a much broader network of people who now can become intense, active supporters."

Most Americans oppose the new healthcare law even though they strongly support much of what it does, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday. Democrats acknowledge that they have done a poor job of selling the Affordable Care Act and they suffered steep losses in the 2010 congressional elections that followed the law's passage.

While the court decision avoids an embarrassment for Obama in an election year, it could energize conservative voters who were slow to warm to Romney during a months-long battle for the Republican party nomination.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Congress poised to wrap up transport, loans, flood bill

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Congress poised to wrap up transport, loans, flood bill
Jun 29th 2012, 17:44

By Roberta Rampton and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:44pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan bill to fund a massive job-creating transportation bill, retain low interest rates for millions of student loans, and maintain national flood insurance won approval on Friday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On a vote of 373-52, the House sent the measure to the Senate for anticipated concurrence later in the day, which would clear the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

Both Democrats and Republicans embraced the measure, largely because it would create or save about three million jobs, a key issue in the November 6 elections since voters' top concern is the struggling U.S. economy.

The bill came together this week as lawmakers calculated the election-year impact of continued gridlock on measures affecting jobs, soaring consumer debt, and help for people who need government underwriting for flood risk to buy a home.

"It has indeed been a very bumpy road to get to this point," said John Mica, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee, who led negotiations on the bill.

"I'm not particularly pleased with some of the twists and tu-HOUSErns," he said on the House floor on Friday, describing the difficulties of reaching the deal in the gridlocked Congress.

After months of negotiations, the compromise was reached just days away from the deadline for an increase in student loan rates and for a lapse in transportation funding.

Ambitious proposals to shore up U.S. infrastructure gave way to a deal that basically keeps transportation funding at current levels.

The blueprint was based on a bipartisan proposal by the Democratic-led Senate and was supported by the Obama administration.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the transportation funding would help put Americans to work fixing crumbling U.S. infrastructure.

"There is still much more that Congress can do to put Americans back to work, and the President will continue to call on them" to do this, he said on Air Force One as Obama flew to Colorado.

The federal government spends more than $50 billion annually on road, bridge and transit construction projects. The last transportation bill expired in 2009 and construction programs have survived since through a series of short-term funding extensions. The current one ends on Saturday.

STUDENT LOANS, FLOOD INSURANCE

The package also prevents federal student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent on July 1 in a one-year, $6 billion deal.

The bill also extend funding for the National Flood Insurance Program to September 30, 2017. It had been set to expire at the end of July, in the middle of hurricane season.

The flood insurance program took on a massive debt load during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has been kept alive through repeated short-term extensions as lawmakers struggle with reforms.

Federal law requires that homes in designated flood-risk areas have flood insurance before a mortgage can be completed. Because the NFIP is effectively the only flood insurance available in the United States, a lapse in the program would mean home sales could not close in designated flood areas.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell and John Crawley; Editing by Fred Barbash)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Young, worried, and unsure - about both candidates

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Young, worried, and unsure - about both candidates
Jun 29th 2012, 14:44

By Margot Roosevelt

ROCHESTER HILLS, Michigan | Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:01am EDT

ROCHESTER HILLS, Michigan (Reuters) - Megan Edwin graduated Phi Beta Kappa in political science. As a student, she had internships in local government and worked as a waitress to help pay tuition. She is poised, articulate - and after a year of job hunting, a tad desperate.

"I'd be happy to work at almost anything," she said recently. "Much of the time, you apply and never hear back. I feel I'm talking to the wind."

The 23-year-old, who earned a bachelor's degree from Michigan's Albion College last year, has posted her resume on websites, chatted up recruiters at a career fair and applied for jobs as far away as Boston and New Haven. So far she has had interviews for a secretarial job and a call center job. Neither panned out.

Edwin is the sort of voter Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican nominee for president, hopes to woo - the victim of a torpid economy that Romney blames on President Barack Obama. She lives in Lake Orion, Michigan, 16 miles from Romney's childhood home in Bloomfield Hills.

Nonetheless, Edwin, who voted for Obama in 2008, is not tempted. "Am I comfortable with the direction the nation's going in?" she asks. "No. It was a mess for Obama going in. But some things are better now. Having the Republicans back would be disastrous."

GENERATION GAP

In 2008, voters under 30 formed about 17 percent of the electorate. They cast twice as many ballots for Obama as for John McCain. By contrast, only half of voters over 30 backed the Democratic nominee. It was the biggest generation gap in four decades of modern election polling.

Almost four years later, speculation is rising that stubbornly high unemployment among 20- to 24-year-olds - at 9.3 percent for college graduates and 12.9 percent overall - will cause them to abandon the president in November, or simply stay home.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll of recent graduates reveals a drop in support for Obama compared with 2008, but it shows no movement toward the GOP. If the election were held today, 52 percent said they would vote for the president, and 27 percent for Romney. (The poll surveyed those who graduated from four-year colleges since 2008.)

Far from remaining aloof, 58 percent of recent college graduates said they have "a great deal" or "quite a bit" of interest in the upcoming presidential election. That compares with 62 percent who went to the polls four years ago.

In Michigan as across the country, a number of recent initiatives are likely to boost Obama's appeal with twentysomethings: his push for a freeze on the interest rate for federally subsidized student loans, his endorsement of gay marriage, and his offer of work permits for more than a million young undocumented immigrants.

Meanwhile, 6.6 million Americans are taking advantage of a provision in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, that allows them to get health insurance on their parents' plans through age 26.

Among them is Edwin, the Albion College graduate, whose father is a retired sheriff's deputy. She had knee surgery last year after an injury suffered in college failed to heal. "I could never have done that on my own," she said.

FALLON AND FACEBOOK

Michigan has chosen Democrats in the past five presidential elections. In 2008, Obama won the state by 16 points. However, in the 2010 midterm elections, the GOP captured the governorship along with both houses of the legislature.

Romney's late father, George, was a former auto executive who served three terms as the state's governor. "If Michigan gives me the win, I'll be the next president of the United States," the GOP candidate predicted this month as he campaigned in the state.

Stopping in three Michigan towns during a five-state bus tour, Romney decried the growing federal deficit, adding, "It's simply wrong for my generation to spend massively" and leave "young kids ... stuck with massive debts."

Polls show the president and Romney neck and neck in the state.

Nationally, Obama has been far more aggressive in courting the younger generation. In April he "slow-jammed" his college loan message on "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon," punctuated by smooth jazz and Fallon's quips. The video of the performance racked up 5.7 million views.

Touring campuses, Obama called on students to tweet members of Congress about the student loan bill with the hashtag #DontDoubleMyRate. His Twitter feed has 17 million followers - compared with 590,000 for Romney's. His Facebook page has 27 million subscribers; Romney's has 2 million.

UNHAPPY, NOT DESPAIRING

The president's strategy hasn't altered the fact that, overall, recent college graduates are unhappy with the status quo. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 54 percent say the country is on the wrong track.

That doesn't mean they are in despair. Sixty percent say Americans "can still live the American dream." Only 17 percent think they will be less successful than their parents.

"I was really excited when Obama won," said Joe Zmudczynski, a 2011 graduate of Michigan's Ferris State University. "He's still my favorite. It's not like you can snap your fingers and everything gets better."

Zmudczynski, who majored in sports management, moved to Arizona after graduation for a sales job with a chain of fitness centers, only to discover that he couldn't make ends meet on 100 percent commission, even working 80 hours a week. He returned to Michigan to live with his parents in February and has yet to find a new position.

"It makes me feel like a failure," he said.

Still, he sees hopeful signs. "In 2008, with the foreclosures, there were for-sale signs everywhere," Zmudczynski said. "Now, Michigan is turning around. My siblings bought houses recently and got good deals. Unemployment is not as bad as it was."

ON THE MEND

Michigan was hit hard by the recession: Joblessness peaked in 2009 at 14.8 percent. Today it is down to 8.5 percent, slightly above the national average, an improvement that could work in Obama's favor.

To be sure, Detroit, which is preparing to lay off thousands of city workers, remains mired in fiscal and political disarray. Yet overall, state finances are on the mend. Thanks to a revenue boost, officials agreed last month to hike spending on roads, schools and welfare, as well as enact a small tax cut.

Most significantly, the auto industry, buoyed by an infusion of federal funds, is roaring back to life. The Obama campaign doesn't miss an opportunity to remind Rust Belt voters that the president supported the 2009 bailout of Chrysler and General Motors - and Romney didn't.

In a 2008 New York Times op-ed headlined "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," Romney argued that the companies should go through bankruptcy without government help. The GOP candidate has since called the auto bailout "crony capitalism on a grand scale," which rewarded "union bosses."

During his bus tour, as Romney campaigned near Lake Michigan, a plane swooped overhead, towing a banner reading "รข€˜Let Detroit go bankrupt.' Really Mitt?"

"VERY, VERY STRESSFUL"

In the Detroit suburb of Rochester Hills, several hundred job hunters thronged a recent career fair. Colorful displays advertised openings at Prudential Insurance, Avon Products, the Air National Guard, Value City Furniture, and Big Boy Restaurants. Many of the posted jobs paid minimum wage or were commission-only.

Daniel Henris, a 2010 graduate of Wayne State University who majored in human resource management, talked to 30 recruiters that day. Six asked for his resume, but none showed interest afterward.

"I've been to maybe 16 job fairs," he said. "You wait in line behind six people, and by the time you get to the front there are six people behind you. It is very, very stressful."

The son of an auto mechanic and a florist, Henris is the first in his family to attend college. It took him nine years to get his degree. He took classes at night, worked days at a convenience store, changed majors when "accounting didn't resonate with me" and at one point dropped out for 18 months when he ran out of money.

Henris voted for Obama in 2008 but is undecided this year. "The economy is the main issue. I identify with Romney because he is a businessman. I just want to start making some money myself."

On the other hand, he praised the president for "charisma," said he "did a good job with (Osama) bin Laden" and added, "It's important that he took a stand on student loans."

With college debt of $25,000, Henris is typical of recent graduates. The average cost of both public and private colleges has more than doubled in three decades. Today, 94 percent of students - up from 45 percent in 1993 - borrow to pay for higher education. Nationwide, student loan balances top $1 trillion - more than credit-card debt.

Obama takes credit for doubling the number of low-income students receiving Pell Grants, to 9 million, since 2008. He also pushed through Congress a tax credit of up to $2,500 in annual college tuition relief, capped payments for new borrowers and ended subsidies for middlemen lenders.

This spring, as House Republicans blocked the president's proposal to freeze the student loan interest rate, his campaign focused on the issue. "Michelle and I, we've been in your shoes," Obama told a University of North Carolina crowd in April. "We didn't come from wealthy families. ... We only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago."

The comment offered a sharp contrast with Romney, a former private equity executive with a net worth of more than $200 million. The GOP candidate had earlier criticized "the government's taking over the student loan business" and "taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school."

However, Romney quickly shifted gears, declaring that he, too, favored a freeze. The rate was scheduled to double, to 6.8 percent, on July 1, which would have cost 7 million borrowers an average of $1,000 a year.

Late Wednesday, congressional leaders reached agreement on how to finance the $6 billion annual price tag of the rate freeze, intending to push it through both the House of Representatives and the Senate before the July 4 recess.

UNDERPAID AND UNDEREMPLOYED

In Michigan the Obama campaign is ahead of Romney's in grassroots organizing but has yet to hit the airwaves. Meanwhile, advocacy groups have spent about $6 million on anti-Obama TV ads in the state since March. One spot shows a mother whose adult children have moved in with her. "Obama added almost $16,000 in debt for every American," she says. "How will my kids pay that off when they can't even find jobs?"

Charrie McFadden, a 2011 graduate of Oakland University, outside Detroit, can identify with the message. A biology major, she also made the rounds at the Rochester Hills job fair. Like many, she is underemployed: Hoping to find a job in the medical field, she has been working part-time at a clothing store. After college, she moved back with her parents.

McFadden's recent two-week paycheck was $191. "I spent about $60 getting to work and back and another $55 on car insurance and another $70 on health insurance and my phone bill," she said. "I can't afford to pay rent, let alone utilities or food ... I feel people are looking down at me."

McFadden, 24, is an evangelical Christian who supported McCain in 2008 and expects to vote for Romney, partly because he is strongly anti-abortion, she said. "Republicans are for the middle class," she added. "Democrats want to help out poor people who don't have much going for them."

Conservatives such as McFadden are outnumbered in her age group. When recent graduates were asked which party best serves the needs of young Americans, they cited Democrats over Republicans by 50 percent to 17 percent.

Edwin, the Albion College graduate, cited her "pro-choice" stance on abortion along with funding for public schools, gay rights and getting out of the Iraq war as reasons to vote for Obama. "I'm a social issue voter," she said.

She has no doubt that she'll get to the polls on November 6.

(Editing by Lee Aitken, Douglas Royalty and Prudence Crowther)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Reuters: Politics: Analysis: Why Roberts saved Obama's healthcare law

Reuters: Politics
Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Analysis: Why Roberts saved Obama's healthcare law
Jun 29th 2012, 07:26

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:20pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the end, it all came down to Chief Justice John Roberts, the sphinx in the center chair, who in a stunning decision wove together competing rationales to uphold President Barack Obama's healthcare plan.

Roberts' action instantly upended the conventional wisdom that he would vote with his four fellow conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and undercut the agenda of a Democratic president, who as a senator in 2005 had opposed Roberts' appointment to the bench.

But Thursday's extraordinary conclusion to the bitterly fought healthcare battle was quite ordinary in some ways. Roberts hewed to a traditional Supreme Court principle that if the justices can find any constitutional grounds on which to uphold a law, they should do so. The 57-year-old chief justice also followed a stated principle of his own: narrowly deciding cases and trying to preserve the integrity of the judiciary in polarized Washington.

While he has voted consistently with the conservative bloc on social issues, such as abortion rights and racial policies, Roberts in his public remarks has suggested that he seeks, as chief, to transcend an ideological label. He routinely refers to the court's place in history and has bristled at polls and public commentary that suggest the high court acts in the same political realm as the two elected branches of government.

Indeed, in his comments during oral arguments in the healthcare case, Roberts hinted that he could be open to siding with the government. He expressed concern that the court over which he presides might be seen as ignoring more than 75 years of precedent and rolling back U.S. law to the New Deal era. The last time the Supreme Court struck down a major act of Congress was in 1936, when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

"He is positioning the court as the one, competent, principled institution in Washington," said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor. "The chief justice's opinion is designed to appear thoughtful, measured. He is in this for the long haul."

DEFYING HISTORY

As the lone conservative standing with four liberals, Roberts defied recent history, most people's expectations, and the deepest held hopes of the right-wing and Tea Party opponents of the law. He also rejected the prevailing view of Republican politicians, who had been his strongest backers when President George W. Bush nominated him five years ago.

"The court avoided, despite an enormous amount of pressure to invalidate this law, staining itself as excessively partisan," said Bradley Joondeph, a law professor at Santa Clara University. "Think of the people who supported Chief Justice Roberts, who put him on the court, who were rooting for him."

On the Roberts court, the swing-vote role has often been played by Justice Anthony Kennedy, not the chief himself. For example, Kennedy, a conservative appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, was crucial to its 1992 decision to uphold the right to abortion. Thursday's case marked the first time that Roberts joined the liberal bloc as the deciding fifth vote in a major case.

On Thursday, Kennedy fell in with the conservatives and read their joint dissent. In it, he took a swipe at Roberts' claim that the court was acting cautiously. "The court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty," Kennedy wrote. "It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching."

A PYRRHIC VICTORY

Roberts did hand the conservatives a pyrrhic victory. He rejected the Obama administration's main argument that the core of the law, a mandate that requires most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty, was covered by Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Roberts said that power, while broad, does not extend to "inactivity," such as the choice not to buy insurance.

Whether this apparent limiting of the Commerce Clause will hinder Congressional power in the future remains to be seen. In their briefs and arguments, both sides characterized the health insurance mandate as distinctive, and it is unclear whether another Congressional regulation could be struck down under the Roberts "inactivity" rationale. Roberts' judgment on the Commerce Clause issue was endorsed by fellow conservatives Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

But in turning to another constitutional ground on which to uphold the mandate, Congress' taxation power, Roberts embraced the Obama administration's secondary argument - and delivered a victory to the President. Roberts reasoned that even though Congress had shied away from calling the penalty for not buying insurance a "tax," it effectively is one.

Roberts stressed that the court was not endorsing the administration's approach. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass on its wisdom or fairness," he said.

As he read excerpts from the momentous decision Thursday, Roberts seemed to downplay the drama of the morning. His voice was steady and even. He kept to his script. There were few rhetorical flourishes. He occasionally looked out at the spectators. Among them was Justice John Paul Stevens, a liberal who had served with Roberts until he retired two years ago at the age of 90.

Following the usual decorum in the white-marble and crimson-draped room, the nearly 300 people listening to the chief justice gave no audible response. Roberts then named the justices who had joined him in various parts of the decision, and those who had not. All told, it took about 20 minutes.

(Reporting By Joan Biskupic; Editing by Amy Stevens and Paul Simao)

  • Link this
  • Share this
  • Digg this
  • Email
  • Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.