Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

DALLAS -- After the joy of a wedding and the adoption of a baby came arguments that couldn't be resolved, leading Angelique Naylor to file for divorce.

That left her fighting both the woman she married in Massachusetts and the state of Texas, which says a union granted in a state where same-sex marriage is legal can't be dissolved with a divorce in a state where it's not.

A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision. He also is appealing a divorce granted to a gay couple in Dallas, saying protecting the "traditional definition of marriage" means doing the same for divorce.

A state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Dallas case on Wednesday.

The Dallas men, who declined to be interviewed for this story and are known only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings, had an amicable separation, with no disputes on separation of property and no children involved, said attorney Peter Schulte, who represents J.B. The couple, who married in 2006 in Massachusetts and separated two years later, simply want an official divorce, Schulte said.

The drawn-out process has been frustrating for Naylor, who says she didn't file for divorce as an equal rights statement -- she just wants to get on with her life.

"We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce," said Naylor, 39, of Austin, who married Sabina Daly in Massachusetts in 2004.

That year, Massachusetts became the first state to let same-sex couples tie the knot. Now, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia also allow them.

Gay and lesbian couples who turn to the courts when they break up are getting mixed results across the nation. A Pennsylvania judge last month refused to divorce two women who married in Massachusetts, while New York grants such divorces even though the state doesn't allow same-sex marriage.

"The bottom line is that same-sex couples have families and their families have the same needs and problems, but often don't have the same rights," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, a national legal organization that promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

"It really is an unenviable position that the courts have put these couples in," said Karen Loewy, an attorney at the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election, declined to be interviewed for this story.

He has argued in court filings that because the state doesn't recognize gay marriage there can be no divorce, but a gay or lesbian Texas couple may have a marriage voided. Attorneys representing such couples argue that voiding a marriage here could leave it intact in other states, creating problems for property divisions and other issues.

"OK, you're recommending voidance, but how does that work?" asked Jennifer Cochran, Naylor's attorney. "Is it only void in Texas and can you void a marriage that's valid in another state? The attorney general I feel didn't answer those questions."

In 2005, Texas voters passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage by a 3-to-1 margin even though state law already prohibited it. Abbott has said he is appealing the Dallas divorce ruling for two men to "defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters."

Abbott disagrees with the judge in that case, who ruled in October that the same-sex marriage ban violates equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the conservative Liberty Institute in Plano, called that decision "outrageous judicial activism." The institute has filed a friend of the court brief to the appeals court on behalf of the two Republican state lawmakers who co-sponsored the amendment banning gay marriage: state Rep. Warren Chisum and former state Sen. Todd Staples.

"It's a backdoor run at establishing same-sex so-called marriage against the people's vote," Shackelford said. "Once you grant the divorce, you are recognizing that there was a marriage."

Dallas divorce attorney Tom Greenwald said he's advising gay couples to wait and see how things play out in the courts.

"Getting the court of appeals to even accept the issue is a step in the right direction in getting some clarity on this," he said. "We just don't know how to treat it."

As for Naylor and Daly -- the latter declined to comment -- they've been trying to figure out what to do since separating in 2007 amid escalating arguments.

The couple, who had real estate-related businesses and renovated homes, toyed with the idea of one of them moving to a state where gay marriage is legal until a divorce is finalized, but that didn't seem practical.

Naylor said that eventually, she and Daly worked out a custody arrangement for their now 4 1/2-year-old son. Naylor said that when she heard about the Dallas divorce, she thought it was worth a try and filed for her own, even though several attorneys she spoke with weren't so sure.

"They said it's too up in the air, wait and see for appeals," Naylor said. "I didn't have a lot of time to wait and see."

Ma question: Pourquoi ne divorcent-ils pas la ou ils se sont maries, dans le Machachuchet! Serait-ce trop simple?

In a New York Times opinion piece, "What We Learned in Oklahoma City," Clinton placed the blame on Americans who have advocated smaller government. The terrorists -- bomber Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices -- who targeted the Murrah Federal Building, he wrote, "took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them."

Suite...

I am, of course, writing about the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) recent commitment to participate in the inevitable bailout of Greek national debt. The initial tab is $50 billion, and consensus is that this is just for triage and the patient ultimately will require much more. With the United States having the largest IMF quota, it is the largest donor country. While this unfolding story is getting daily media attention in Europe, including heads of state speaking out, President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem to have decided just to let it happen. Except for specialty financial media, it seems as if the media also is giving a free pass to this story.

What is most galling is that the EU openly declares it has the money to handle this bailout internally within the eurozone. It's just that it prefers to use other people's money, and the IMF is ready to deliver under its director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a career French government bureaucrat. Plugging budget holes in the eurozone (an economic superpower) hardly is in line with the IMF's intended role of backstopping Third World countries during times of crisis in return for structural free-market reforms. But Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi seem happy to let even U.S. taxpayer dollars flow for this purpose.

Let's take a closer look. As recently as January, France's position, pumped up by its legendary pride, was that the eurozone has more than enough resources to manage this internal problem and that the EU would no more consider asking IMF participation to bail out Greece than the U.S. would consider asking IMF support to bail out California. The eurozone plan was to have member countries proportionately pool necessary funds, which meant Germany and France would carry the heaviest burden.

But then the German equivalent of the Tea Party movement revolted against using German taxpayer money to bail out the Greeks, whose problems obviously are self-inflicted through a decade-plus orgy of spending and flagrant violation of EU and eurozone budgetary obligations. Angela Merkel, the German prime minister, and her coalition listened to the loud protests of fiscally conservative German taxpayers and made a U-turn in March, declaring Germany will not participate in the Greek bailout unless the IMF ponies up about half the cash and takes the lead in dictating and enforcing the terms Greece to which must commit.
The other EU members, France, et al., were shocked at first, but after hearing no push-back or shaming from the IMF, the U.S. Congress or Mr. Obama, quickly warmed up to the idea. And why not? Why reject what will be tens of billions of dollars from others, starting with U.S. taxpayer cash?

In short, when Germany's taxpayers said "no" to the bailout, Mrs. Merkel listened and said "no." The Europeans looked around and found the IMF and Mr. Obama, who has less of a problem saying "yes" to spending, regardless of how loudly his fellow citizens clamor for fiscal restraint.

America can easily put a stop to this misuse of the IMF. While the U.S. Congress and president don't have direct control over the IMF, they certainly have a very effective bully pulpit, given that America is the largest donor country. The IMF and United States should call Germany's bluff. Germany has far too much to lose, in fact, the most - if Greece were allowed to collapse and put the euro currency at risk. If that were to happen, German Tea Party movement not withstanding, any German government would contribute its fair share of an internal eurozone bailout.

Without delay, all Americans - red state, blue state, from Tea Party folks to Charlie Rangel fans - should be writing letters to their congressmen, senators and president, demanding that they push back and use America's bully pulpit. The blogosphere and radio/TV pundits should be mobilized. American taxpayers must toss this rotten egg back across the Atlantic to their German counterparts. We'll deal with our California, and they can deal with their Greece, thank you very much.

Mr. President and madam speaker, please make an effort to stop U.S. tax dollars from plugging holes in national budgets within the eurozone. We can't afford it, and the eurozone certainly can take of its internal financial issues. After all, the dollar has fallen more than 40 percent against the euro in the past decade because the markets believe our financial situation is even worse that the eurozone's. The Europeans think we are suckers for going along with this. Not one U.S. taxpayer penny should go, directly or indirectly, toward filling budget gaps in the eurozone.

Mark Jurkevich is an international executive in the high-tech industry and splits his time between the Washington area and Europe.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. That estimate may be too optimistic.

Last Christmas Eve, Treasury removed the $400 billion cap on what the government might be required to invest in these two GSEs in the future, and this may tell the real story about the cost to taxpayers. In typical Washington fashion, everyone has amnesia about how this disaster occurred.

The story is all too familiar. Politicians in positions of authority today had an opportunity to prevent this fiasco but did nothing. Now—in the name of the taxpayers—they want more power, but they have never been called to account for their earlier failings.




One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

These authorities were necessary to control the GSEs' risk-taking, but opposition by Fannie and Freddie—then the most politically powerful firms in the country—had consistently prevented reform.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee's action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs—which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements—accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Recently, President Obama has taken to accusing others of representing "special interests." In an April radio address he stated that his financial regulatory proposals were struggling in the Senate because "the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis."

He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

With hypocrisy like this at the top, is it any wonder that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don't trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country's problems?

Mr. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

All Levin really needs, they say, is some sensitivity training and some anger management therapy.

Levin, who declared his mission to "dismantle and demolish" the Tea Party on his "Crash the Tea Party" website, was placed on administrative leave last week while a state education board and his school district investigate whether the technology teacher promoted identity theft against Tea Party activists and misused school property.

But the Oregon Tea Party seems to be sipping chamomile. It doesn't want his neck -- just an apology from Levin and the Beaverton School District.

"We don't want to see Jason Levin fired, we want to see him helped," said Oregon Tea Party founder Geoff Ludt. "We want to reach out to him and we want to use his actions to create a teachable moment."

Levin, a media lab teacher at Conestoga Middle School, was placed on leave last week pending the conclusion of an investigation by the Beaverton School District into whether he used school hours or computers to work on his anti-Tea Party website, and if his political activity was appropriate behavior for a teacher of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students.

He is also being investigated by his state's teachers licensing agency, which was inundated with complaints after his incendiary statements became front page news.

In recent weeks, Levin announced his intention to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible -- anything, he said, short of throwing punches.

In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Levin said, "Our goal is that whenever a Tea Partier says 'Barack Obama was not born in America,' we're going be right there next to them saying, 'Yeah, in fact he wasn't born on Earth! He's an alien!'"

And in a now deleted post on website, Levin called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers -- among other personal identifying information -- about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies that took place last Thursday.

"The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!" he wrote.

But the Oregon Tea Party says the teacher's actions are cause for a "teachable moment," not a trip to the unemployment line.

Ludt said his group sent out a press release to both the state agency and school district -- the same school district Ludt attended as a child -- on Monday in which they listed their demands.

The group is calling on the Beaverton School District to:

- Apologize for inadequately supervising their teacher

-- Issue a written pledge to thoroughly investigate whether Levin encouraged his students to repeat overtly racist statements

-- Send a letter to all staff reminding them of district policy prohibiting teacher engagement in political activity on school time or using school resources

Despite being called “that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons” among a litany of other offensive names, the Oregon Tea Party says that as long as Levin successfully undergoes anger management and sensitivity classes, they see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to teach.

"Levin sees us as enemies. We see him as a fellow human being who is obviously very angry and troubled. Political dialogue will never advance if we are unable to treat each other decently as human beings," Ludt said.

"Folks are out there are essentially rooting for the football team -- they're more interested in the games and not really looking at the issues. What we're trying to do is focus on the issues and the best way we can see to do that is to rise above the games.”

As for Levin's website, it has crashed and burned. The home page that once invited readers to help him demolish the Tea Party at all costs now simply reads: "Want to Show your support for Jason Levin? BUY A TEA-SHIRT."

The Texas Republican said the president shouldn't attack GOP lawmakers for "doing what Rahm Emanuel did" -- a reference to the closed-door cocktail reception Wall Street investors and Democratic donors had with Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and former House Democratic campaign chief, this week.

Obama used his weekly radio address to excoriate Republicans for their ties to Wall Street. Then, at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he said this:

“The Senate Republican leader, he paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago. He took along the chairman of their campaign committee. He met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don’t know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform."

Cornyn says it makes sense to talk to people who know the industry when working on new regulations -- as evidenced by the Emanuel meeting, which was first reported by The Washington Post.

"I think it's clear that the White House is politicizing this debate," he said.
Posted by Martin Kady II 01:13 PM

12-year-old Saudi girl has won a divorce from her 80-year-old husband in a case that may help to introduce a minimum age of marriage in the kingdom for the first time.

The girl’s unusual legal challenge to the arrangement generated international media attention and scrutiny of Saudi Arabia’s record of child marriages. It also prompted the state-run Human Rights Commission to appoint a lawyer to represent her. The commission has capitalized on the case and pushed for a legal minimum age for marriage of at least 16.

“The main aim is to not allow cases like this to happen again,” said Alanoud al-Hejailan, a lawyer for the commission. “There will be some opposition, of course, but we feel that public opinion has changed on this issue.”

Since the girl’s case became public, judges and clerics in Saudi Arabia have waded into the debate about whether child marriages should be banned. The Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a 9-year-old girl has been used as justification for the practice in some quarters.

In January, however, Sheikh Abdullah al-Manie, a senior Saudi cleric, spoke out in defense of the girl, declaring that the Prophet’s marriage 14 centuries ago could not be used to justify child brides today.

The 12-year-old has been fighting her case through the courts in the conservative town of Buraidah, near Riyadh, the capital. She was married against her wishes to her father’s elderly cousin last year. A dowry of 85,000 riyals (about $23,000) was paid and the marriage consummated.

She has now reached agreement with her family that a divorce will be settled privately, and has dropped her legal challenge to the marriage.

Politicians in the U.K. and Germany are starting to call on their governments to cut ties with Goldman, which has long been one of the top financial advisers to European policy makers.

U.K. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, riding high in opinion polls less than three weeks before national elections, said on Tuesday that Goldman "should now be suspended in its role as one of the advisers to the government until these allegations are properly looked into." His comments follow Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent characterization of Goldman's alleged behavior as "morally bankrupt."

"We should let the business relationship with [Goldman] rest until the allegations are cleared up," lawmaker Frank Schäffler of Germany's Free Democratic Party, part of Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition, told German newspaper Handelsblatt on Tuesday. Mr. Schäffler's office confirmed the comment.

The New York-based bank denies allegations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it committed fraud by withholding important information from investors to whom it sold mortgage-related securities.

But the political backlash in Europe and the U.S. threatens to damage the network of political ties with policy makers that the bank has carefully built up on both sides of the Atlantic over two decades.

Goldman declined to comment on the European politicians' remarks. In a message to employees on Sunday, Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman's chairman and chief executive, said the bank was "taking all appropriate steps to defend the firm and its reputation."

Fair or not, the growing perception in Europe that Goldman used cutthroat tactics to turn a profit could make it an unpalatable partner for politicians who are facing voter pressure to clamp down on risk-taking by the financial sector, analysts say.

The firm is among the leading arrangers of government bond issues in Britain, Germany and many other European countries, and has a played a prominent role in privatizations in both countries.


In the U.S., the poisonous atmosphere surrounding Goldman Sachs has done more than just provide fodder for "Saturday Night Live." Anger toward Goldman was at play when the Treasury Department selected a manager to oversee the sale of the government's $32 billion stake in Citigroup Inc.



Career officials at the Treasury chose Morgan Stanley to manage the account, and said the decision was based on the firm's ability to do the work. But at the time of the decision, an administration official said there was recognition inside the government that choosing Goldman, which has similar expertise, could trigger a firestorm.



The SEC probe has resonated in Europe because the Goldman transaction in question led to write-downs at British and German banks that later needed taxpayer bailouts. Royal Bank of Scotland PLC of the U.K. lost $841 million on the deal, while IKB Industrie Bank AG of Germany lost $150 million, according to the SEC. RBS and IKB declined to comment.


With the U.K. in the midst of a heated election campaign, the charges against Goldman have made the bank an attractive target.

Mr. Clegg, speaking at a news conference in London, called the SEC's allegations against Goldman "extremely serious" and a sign of "how reckless and greed the global banking industry had become" in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The Conservative Party also joined in, seizing on Mr. Brown's criticism of Goldman.

"Why is he still using them as advisers?" asked Mark Hoban, a top Conservative finance official.

Suite...

... et Freddie, Fannie et leur dirigeant Barnie (pardon Barney - Frank) toujours tres haut dans la sphere politique Democrate et parmi les proches du POTUS, alors?

In other words, the Kentucky Republican is merely a mouthpiece for the bankers.

Mr. Obama added that Mr. McConnell's objections to the bill were not merely "just plain false" but also "cynical"—and then he repeated the attack on motives at another event the following evening.

We can't recall anything close to this kind of language from, say, Ronald Reagan toward House Speaker Tip O'Neill, or even George W. Bush after Harry Reid called him a "liar." But it is an Obama staple.

A few hours after the Supreme Court's vindication of political speech last year in Citizens United, Mr. Obama called the decision "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

He later personalized his criticism by rebuking the Justices as they sat in front of him during the January State of the Union, accusing them of reversing "a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections." So the Justices, too, are mere tools of corporate interests. Don't expect many of them at next year's SOTU.

The President is especially fond of employing this blunt rhetorical force against business. In a December interview, Mr. Obama said he "did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street. . . . They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at banks. Well, let's see," he continued. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in—in decades, and you guys caused the problem."

Amid the Beltway panic during the AIG bonus bonfire in March 2009, Mr. Obama played directly to the public anger. "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," said the President, and asked, "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping this company afloat?"

He did the same with the Chrysler bondholders who had initially resisted the White House's bankruptcy terms that squeezed them in favor of the United Auto Workers. Mr. Obama characterized these investors in April 2009 as "a small group of speculators" who "were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none." They quickly caved.

Likewise, in his September address to Congress on health care, Mr. Obama did not merely disagree with opponents but accused them of being "cynical and irresponsible," spreading "misinformation," and making "bogus," "wild" or "false" claims through "demagoguery and distortion."

He added that "If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out." He later singled out Anthem Blue Cross by name, describing the California insurer's behavior "jaw-dropping" in February after it attempted to raise consumer premiums.

Politics ain't beanbag, but most Presidents leave this kind of political attack to surrogates or Vice Presidents. Mr. Obama seems to enjoy being his own Spiro Agnew. A President may reap a short-term legislative gain from this kind of rhetoric, but he also pays a longer-term price in ill-will and needless polarization.

Presidents speak to all of America and they best build consensus through argument and persuasion—not by singling out political targets, cultivating resentment, questioning motives and mocking differences of principle or political philosophy. Mr. Obama's bellicosity is no more attractive than Sarah Palin's attempts to pit "the real America" against the big-city slickers. And his rhetorical method seems especially discordant coming from a President who still insists, in between these assaults, that he is striving mightily to change the negative tone of American politics.

If the President and his advisers are wondering why his approval ratings are falling even as the economy is recovering, they might look to his own divisive conduct and the contempt he too often shows for anyone who disagrees with him.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill -- Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings -- could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise -- health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

Congress in the past has enacted deeper Medicare cuts without disrupting service, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement that sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses.

Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period, even if overall health care spending rises.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program.

Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

En gros confirmation de ce que les opposants d'Obamacare ont dit depuis plus d'un an. Obamacare, c'est voler Pierre pour donner a Paul! (Pierre ayant paye pour son acces a l'assurance maladie toute sa vie et Paul jamais. Mais bon selon le systeme socialiste ca semble juste, tout le monde au meme niveau. Sortez les petites pilules bleues elles nous feront autant de bien que les petites pillules rouges du POTUS!

Conclusion, Obamacare, une solution qui n'en est pas une puisque le cout pour l'etat non seulement ne baissera pas mais augmentera au contraire et qu'une partie de la population ne recevra plus les soins alors qu'ils ont contribue regulierement a l'assurance. Et on se demande pourquoi tant de personnes du 3eme age se retrouvent dans le Tea Party?

Les Democrates pro-Obamacare vont faire une drole de tete lorsqu'ils approcheront les 65 ans! (il faut toujours essayer de trouver le cote positif ou amusant des choses lorsqu'on ne peut pas les changer! Bon, en ce qui concerne Obamacare, il y a toujours l'espoir d'une abrogation... )

... et le Programme de Bush 43 ne valait pas tripette selon eux...

The increased level of concern was reflected in the sharp new criticism by federal officials of BP for not stopping the leak and cleaning up the spill before it reached land, something the company’s officials had said was possible earlier in the week.

“It is clear that after several unsuccessful attempts to secure the source of the leak, it is time for BP to supplement their current mobilization as the slick of oil moves toward shore,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said pointedly, as the government announced steps to supplement its response with people and equipment from the Defense Department.

Geoffrey S. Morrell, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in a statement that the government would hold BP accountable for the cost of the department’s deployment, which as of Friday night included the Louisiana National Guard to help clean up coastal areas once the oil comes ashore.

BP officials said they did everything possible, and a review of the response suggests it may be too simplistic to place all the blame on the oil company. The federal government also had opportunities to move more quickly, but did not do so while it waited for a resolution to the spreading spill from BP, which was leasing the drilling rig that exploded in flames on April 20 and sank two days later. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead.

The Department of Homeland Security waited until Thursday to declare that the incident was “a spill of national significance,” and then set up a second command center in Mobile. The actions came only after the estimate of the size of the spill was increased fivefold to 5,000 barrels a day.

The delay meant that the Homeland Security Department waited until late this week to formally request a more robust response from the Department of Defense, with Ms. Napolitano acknowledging even as late as Thursday afternoon that she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful.

By Friday afternoon, she said, the Defense Department had agreed to send two large military transport planes to spray chemicals that can disperse the oil while it is still in the Gulf.

Officials initially seemed to underestimate the threat of a leak, just as BP did last year when it told the government such an event was highly unlikely. Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry, the chief Coast Guard official in charge of the response, said on April 22, after the rig sank, that the oil that was on the surface appeared to be merely residual oil from the fire, though she said it was unclear what was going on underwater. The day after, officials said that it appeared the well’s blowout preventer had kicked in and that there did not seem to be any oil leaking from the well, though they cautioned it was not a guarantee.

BP officials, even after the oil leak was confirmed by using remote-controlled robots, expressed confidence that the leak was slow enough, and steps taken out in the Gulf of Mexico aggressive enough, that the oil would never reach the coast.

(The NOAA document on a potentially far larger leak, first obtained by The Press-Register in Mobile, Ala., was described by an agency spokesman as simply a possibility raised by a staff member, not an official prediction.)

Some oil industry critics questioned whether the federal government is too reliant on oil companies to manage the response to major spills, leaving the government unable to evaluate if the response is robust enough.

“Here you have the company that is responsible for the accident leading the response to the crisis,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “There is a problem here, and the consequence is clear.”

But it is still the government, in this case the Coast Guard, that has the final say. A law passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster makes the owner of a rig or vessel responsible for cleaning up a spill. But oversight of the cleanup is designated to the Coast Guard, with advice from other federal agencies.

Rear Adm. Robert C. North, retired, who was commander of the Coast Guard’s Eighth District from 1994 to 1996, said that decisions in these situations are made collectively, but that the buck essentially stops with the federal coordinator — in this case, Admiral Landry. “The federal on-scene coordinator is kind of the one individual to say, ‘I think we need to do more’ or ‘That’s adequate,’ ” he said.

Suite ...