From the Chicago Tribune November 19, 2011.

“Cellini prosecution urges judge not to toss verdict
Government says juror’s failure to divulge her criminal record isn’t enough to overturn power broker’s conviction”

“Federal prosecutors objected to a new trial for Springfield power broker William Cellini, saying his lawyers failed to show that a juror deliberately lied about her criminal background or that knowing about her felony convictions would have led to her removal from the panel.

The filing came after the defense moved for a new trial after the Tribune revealed that a juror apparently did not disclose her own convictions for crack cocaine possession and aggravated DUI on questionnaires or under questioning by the judge during jury selection.

The jury convicted Cellini of an attempted extortion.

Prosecutors noted that during jury selection several other jurors had been questioned about their criminal histories — including one with a drug arrest — but the defense failed to raise concerns at the time.

“Defendant’s newly professed concern that (the juror’s) convictions would make her unfairly biased is belied by his utter failure to advance any such argument during” jury selection, prosecutors said in their filing late Thursday.

Lawyers for Cellini argued that the juror, a Chicago woman, violated her probation on the drug case and failed to pay a $1,400 fine levied for her 2008 DUI conviction, making her ineligible to serve on the jury because she was a convicted felon whose civil rights had not been restored.

But prosecutors strongly disagreed. Citing Illinois law as well as court precedent, prosecutors said it didn’t matter whether the juror had paid her fees and fines.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cellini-juror-1119-20111119,0,1888916.story

Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college just west of Charlotte, NC is challenging ObamaCare over a provision that requires employer insurance plans to cover contraception and other birth control.

From the Charlotte Observer November 18, 2011.

“Belmont Abbey sues feds over birth control rule”

“Belmont Abbey College has filed a broad legal challenge to the part of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms that requires employer insurance plans to cover contraception and other birth control.

The Catholic college in Gaston County says the federal mandate forces religious institutions opposed to birth control to violate their beliefs or face penalties. The rule goes into effect next August.

Read more:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/11/18/2784162/belmont-abbey-sues-feds-over-birth.html

From The Becket Fund November 10, 2011.
“BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE SUES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER NEW OBAMACARE MANDATE
McDonald’s & teachers’ unions get exemptions but Catholic and all religious colleges do not
 

Today, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Belmont Abbey College over the “Affordable Care Act” (aka “Obamacare”), that forces the College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs or pay a severe fine. The heart of the lawsuit involves the recently issued Health and Human Services’ mandate  that requires thousands of religious organizations to provide, against their conscience, contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients—namely Plan B and Ella—and sterilization.

Although the government has already provided thousands of waivers for a variety of special interest groups including McDonald’s and teachers’ unions, often for reasons of commercial convenience, it refused to accommodate religious organizations. Instead, the government permitted a religious exemption so narrowly defined that it prompted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to note that even Jesus’ ministry would not qualify.

“A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces,” said Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “This is much worse than an un-funded mandate; it is a monk-funded mandate.”

The current exemption from the mandate excludes only certain religious employers whose purpose is to instill religious values and that employ and serve only individuals of their same faith. Accordingly, many religious colleges and universities will not qualify for the exemption. Belmont Abbey, as a small Catholic liberal arts college, teaches that contraception, sterilization, and abortion are all against God’s law. The government mandate forces Belmont Abbey and others to make the Hobson’s choice of either violating their deeply-held religious beliefs or paying a heavy fine and terminating their health insurance plans for employees and students. 

“The mandate is nothing other than a deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of millions of Americans,” added Hannah Smith. “In the end, the government is forcing religious orders and believers to pay for services they find immoral or pay a stiff fine.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with one of the attorneys, please contact Emily Hardman, Communications Director, at ehardman@becketfund.org or call 435.232.3898.”

http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/795925/523f6b82dc/ARCHIVE

From the LA Times November 13, 2011.

“Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal
A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.”

“Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a “sole-source” procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.

Once feared for its grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.

If there were an attack, the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to inoculate the entire U.S. population and quickly treat people exposed to the virus. The vaccine, which costs the government $3 per dose, can reliably prevent death when given within four days of exposure.

Siga’s drug, an antiviral pill called ST-246, would be used to treat people who were diagnosed with smallpox too late for the vaccine to help. Yet the new drug cannot be tested for effectiveness in people because of ethical constraints — and no one knows whether animal testing could prove it would work in humans.

The government’s pursuit of Siga’s product raises the question: Should the U.S. buy an unproven drug for such a nebulous threat?

We’ve got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use — how much more do we need?” — Dr. Donald A. Henderson

“We’ve got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use — how much more do we need?” said Dr. Donald A. “D.A.” Henderson, the epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox for the World Health Organization and later helped organize U.S. biodefense efforts under President George W. Bush. “The bottom line is, we’ve got a limited amount of money.”

Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC’s Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga’s drug “a waste of time and a waste of money.”

The Obama administration official who has overseen the buying of Siga’s drug says she is trying to strengthen the nation’s preparedness. Dr. Nicole Lurie, a presidential appointee who heads biodefense planning at Health and Human Services, cited a 2004 finding by the Bush administration that there was a “material threat” smallpox could be used as a biological weapon.

Smallpox is one of 12 pathogens for which such determinations have been made.

“I don’t put probabilities around anything in terms of imminent or not,” said Lurie, a physician whose experience in public health includes government service and work with the Rand Corp. “Because what I can tell you is, in the two-plus years I’ve been in this job, it’s the unexpected that always happens.”

Negotiations over the price of the drug and Siga’s profit margin were contentious. In an internal memo in March, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, chief medical officer for HHS’ biodefense preparedness unit, said Siga’s projected profit at that point was 180%, which he called “outrageous.”

In an email earlier the same day, a department colleague told Hatchett that no government contracting officer “would sign a 3 digit profit percentage.”

In April, after Siga’s chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, complained in writing about the department’s “approach to profit,” Lurie assured him that the “most senior procurement official” would be taking over the negotiations.

“I trust this will be satisfactory to you,” Lurie wrote Rose in a letter.

In an interview, Lurie said the contract was awarded strictly on merit. She said she had discussed buying a smallpox antiviral for the nation’s emergency stockpile with White House officials and with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, but that the conversations focused on policy, not the manufacturer.

“We discussed the need for the product, and a need for a product to be stockpiled,” Lurie said. “And we discussed an impending procurement.”

Lurie denied that she had spoken with or written to Rose regarding the contract, saying such contact would have been inappropriate.

But in a subsequent statement, an HHS spokeswoman acknowledged Lurie’s letter to Rose, saying it “reflects the critical importance of the potential procurement to national security.”

Representatives of Siga, speaking on the condition they not be identified, said the new drug has been effective in animal testing and that the company is being paid a price commensurate with its value.

Neither the HHS spokeswoman nor the Siga representatives would disclose the agreed-upon profit margin or the per-treatment price. Siga has cited terms of the contract in its public financial statements — but without those financial details.

Worst-case scenarios

Worrying about worst-case scenarios is what biodefense planners do. In the case of smallpox, millions of Americans have no immunity because the vaccination of civilians ended in 1972. And there is no way to guarantee that a rogue regime such as North Korea is not holding smallpox.

Nonetheless, no such threat has been verified. The Bush administration suspected Saddam Hussein of possessing smallpox and other biological weapons, but inspectors did not find any after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

Still, pressure to move quickly and spend more has helped shape U.S. biodefense policy since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the anthrax mailings that fall.

Investors such as Perelman saw opportunity. In 2003, Perelman, through his holding company MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., invested heavily in Siga and installed a team of executives to run it.

The move seemed prescient when Bush, in June 2004, signed Project BioShield, a 10-year, $5.6-billion initiative to fund the development and stockpiling of medications to counter bioterrorism.

Two months later, Siga purchased the rights to what became known as ST-246 and other assets from a Pennsylvania company, ViroPharma Inc., for $1 million in cash and 1 million shares of Siga’s common stock. Over the next three years, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded Siga two research grants and a related contract, worth a total of $23.5 million, to develop the new drug.

From the outset, there was only one potential customer: the U.S. government.

From the outset, there was only one potential customer: the U.S. government.

For Siga, the stakes were high. ST-246 was its most promising experimental compound.

From 2005 through September, the company has paid three lobbying firms $800,000 to represent its interests in Washington, public records show. Disclosures filed by the lobbyists said they focused on Project BioShield and “issues related to homeland security and HHS,” along with “government procurement of vaccines.”

Siga representatives told The Times that the company had lobbied only “generally” for biodefense spending, adding: “Neither Siga nor anyone else on Siga’s behalf ever lobbied anyone to get this contract.”

Perelman and others at Siga’s affiliate, MacAndrews & Forbes, have long been major political donors. They gave a total of $607,550 to federal campaigns for the 2008 and 2010 elections, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. About 65% of that money went to Democrats. Perelman donated an additional $50,000 to President Obama’s inauguration.

A spokeswoman for Perelman said his contributions reflected nothing more than “his right as a citizen to support candidates he believes in.”

From December 2007 to January of this year, Rose, Siga’s chief executive, served on the U.S. National Biodefense Science Board, which has advised Lurie on how to respond to biological terrorism and other potential health emergencies. (Rose was appointed during the Bush administration.)

In June 2010, Siga further heightened its presence in Washington by naming to its board Andrew Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union and a frequent visitor to the Obama White House. The union is a wellspring of campaign money and volunteers for Democratic candidates.

On Oct. 13, 2010, Siga announced that the government intended to award it a contract for ST-246 worth as much as $2.8 billion. Within days, Siga’s stock price soared. In its year-end financial statement, the company said:

“Our ability to generate near-term revenue is particularly dependent on the success of our smallpox antiviral drug candidate.”

But the federal contract required that the winning bidder be a small business, with no more than 500 employees. Chimerix Inc., a North Carolina company that had competed for the contract, protested, saying Siga was too big.

Officials at the Small Business Administration investigated and quickly agreed, finding that Siga’s affiliation with MacAndrews & Forbes disqualified it.

The Obama administration could have awarded the contract to Chimerix as the only eligible small-business applicant. Or it could have reopened the competition to companies of any size.

Instead, the administration moved to block all companies — except Siga — from bidding on a second offering of the contract.

In early December, officials completed a required “justification for other than full and open competition,” which said an antiviral against smallpox was needed within five years and Siga was the only company able to meet that timetable.

The rationale was questioned by some in HHS, including contracting officer Brian K. Goodger, who in an internal email called it “a stretch.”

On Feb. 18, HHS terminated the original contract and requested a proposal from Siga.

Siga and government officials soon began tangling over the price the company would be paid. Because the contract was no longer to be awarded based on competition and because the only customer was the government, officials sought to assess whether the company’s proposed price was “fair and reasonable,” as required by federal law.

In so doing, officials looked at how much government money had already gone into developing ST-246. Public records show $115 million in federal support, not including the stockpile contract.

After reviewing Siga’s costs and the prices of other drugs produced in low volumes compared with commercial products, the HHS negotiators wanted to pay about $170 for each treatment. The company argued for more based on ST-246′s potential value to the nation.

“Siga did not derive its price based on any cost information, and, from Siga’s viewpoint, such information is not relevant to determination of an appropriate price,” the company’s chief financial officer, Daniel J. Luckshire, wrote to Lurie’s office and others on March 4.

“Siga has created extremely valuable intellectual property, embodied in ST-246, and Siga has priced ST-246 based on the value of that intellectual property,” Luckshire added.

A senior HHS official described negotiations as going “extremely badly… They are intransigent on price.”

After the two sides had conferred and again aired their differences, a senior HHS official, Michael A. Balady, told a colleague in an email April 4 that the negotiations “went extremely badly.… They are intransigent on price.”

On April 6, Rose emailed the government’s chief negotiator, D. Andre Early, saying the two sides were “at impasse.” Rose said “any further negotiation should occur with a more senior official [with] the authority to take into account the important policy issues that surround this procurement.”

Two days later, Lurie wrote her conciliatory letter to Rose, pledging to install a new lead negotiator. Her top subordinate, Balady, followed through by naming Goodger to replace Early, who continued to work on the contract but not as lead negotiator.

A financial analyst for RBC Capital Markets reported to investors in May that the agreed-upon price per dose appeared to be $255. He arrived at that estimate by dividing the $433-million contract by the 1.7 million doses to be delivered. Siga told The Times that this would give a rough approximation of the per-treatment price.

On May 13, HHS announced what amounted to the second awarding of the contract, worth between $433 million and $2.8 billion, depending on whether the government exercised options to buy more of the drug in future years. Siga hailed it as a “historic event for the biodefense industry.”

FDA skepticism

Throughout the negotiations over price and profit, a separate issue loomed: uncertainty over whether the Food and Drug Administration would approve ST-246 for use in humans.”

Read more:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,6456082,full.story

From CNN money October 31, 2011.

“Home prices heading for triple-dip”

“The besieged housing market has even further to
fall before home prices really hit rock bottom.

According to Fiserv (FISV), a financial analytics company, home values
are expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, pushing them to a new
low of 35% below the peak reached in early 2006 and marking a triple
dip in prices.

Several factors will be working against the housing market in the
upcoming months, including an increase in foreclosure activity and
sustained high unemployment, explained David Stiff, Fiserv’s chief
economist.

Should home values meet Fiserv’s expectations, it would make it the
third (and lowest) trough for home prices since the housing bubble
burst.

The first post-bubble bottom was hit in 2009, when prices fell to 31%
below peak. The First-Time Homebuyer Credit helped perk prices up by
mid-2010, but by the time the credit expired, prices fell again.

In the second dip, which was reached last winter, prices were down
33%before staging a mild rally that was artificially spurred as banks
slowed the processing of foreclosures following the robo-signing
scandal, which found that loan servicers were rapidly signing
foreclosures without properly vetting them.

Now that the scandal is mostly resolved, lenders are speeding more
cases through the foreclosure pipeline and back onto the market,
weighing on home prices even further.

Earlier this month, RealtyTrac reported the first quarterly increase
in foreclosure filings in three quarters. Even more discouraging: new
default notices were up 14%.

There’s also a “shadow inventory” of homes in foreclosure that have
yet to go back onto the market.

The specter that those foreclosed homes could flood the market at any
time and drive prices significantly lower is a huge concern, said Mark
Dotzour, an economist for Texas A&M University. “That’s the elephant
in the room,” he said, noting that there are 6 million home currently
in shadow inventory.

Biggest losers
Many of the regions that will be hardest hit were already beaten up
during the previous two dips.

Naples, Fla., for example, is expected to take the biggest hit of any
metro area, a price drop of another 18.9% by the end of next June,
according to Fiserv. Home prices in the area have already fallen 61%
from the peak.

Other cities expected to be hit hard include the not-so-lucky Las
Vegas, which is expected to see home prices fall another 15.9% for a
total loss of 66%; Riverside, Calif., is projected to fall another
14.8% (for a total decline of 61%); Miami is expected to decline by
13.2% (total loss: 57%), and Salinas, Calif. could drop by another 13%
(for a total loss of 66%).”

Read more:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/real_estate/home_prices/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

From the  US Labor Department October 27, 2011.

“UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

          SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending October 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 402,000, a decrease of 2,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 404,000. The 4-week moving average was 405,500, an increase of 1,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 403,750.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.9 percent for the week ending October 15, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week’s revised rate of 3.0 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending October 15 was 3,645,000, a decrease of 96,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 3,741,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,701,000, a decrease of 26,750 from the preceding week’s revised average of 3,727,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 374,231 in the week ending October 22, an increase of 17,007 from the previous week. There were 408,489 initial claims in the comparable week in 2010.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.5 percent during the week ending October 15, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,149,676, an increase of 14,906 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 3.0 percent and the volume was 3,769,438.

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending October 8 was 6,681,507, a decrease of 14,634 from the previous week.

Extended benefits were available in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the week ending October 8.

Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 2,845 in the week ending October 15, a decrease of 1,533 from the prior week. There were 2,724 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 688 from the preceding week.

There were 26,697 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending October 8, an increase of 1,811 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 39,883, an increase of 922 from the prior week.

States reported 2,921,937 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending October 8, a decrease of 45,117 from the prior week. There were 3,779,795 claimants in the comparable week in 2010. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending October 8 were in Puerto Rico (4.1), Alaska (3.9), Pennsylvania (3.5), Oregon (3.4), California (3.3), New Jersey (3.3), Nevada (3.2), Connecticut (3.1), Arkansas (2.9), Illinois (2.9), New Mexico (2.9), and Wisconsin (2.9).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending October 15 were in Puerto Rico (+1,286), Wisconsin (+1,193), South Carolina (+1,189), Oregon (+416), and Nebraska (+241) while the largest decreases were in California (-8,942), New York (-7,273), Texas (-3,489), Pennsylvania (-3,258), and Georgia (-2,740).”

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/eta20111544.htm

“Those who can, do: those who can’t, teach.”…George Bernard Shaw

From the Wall Street Journal October 26, 2011.

“Tuition and fees at the nation’s four-year colleges climbed sharply again this year, though rising federal grants and loans took some of the sting out of the increases.

At four-year public colleges, in-state tuition and fees for the school year beginning this fall rose by an average of 8.3% from the previous year, to $8,244, amid declining support from state legislatures, according to annual reports from the College Board, a nonprofit that conducts collegiate research. The total cost including room and board rose 6% to $17,131,

Tuition and Fees
Average published tuition and fees for undergraduates.

Sector  2011-12 costs  2010-11 costs  $ Change  % Change 
Public Two-Year In-State $2,963 $2,727 $236 8.7%
Public Four-Year In-State $8,244 $7,613 $631 8.3%
Public Four-Year Out-of-State $20,770 $19,648 $1,122 5.7%
Private Nonprofit Four-Year $28,500 $27,265 $1,235 4.5%
For-Profit $14,487 $14,040 $447 3.2%

Source: The College Board
.At private colleges, tuition and fees rose by an average of 4.5% to $28,500, as total costs including room and board jumped 4.4% to $38,589.

The markedly quicker rate of increase at public schools continues a decade-long trend that has narrowed the price gap between the two. This year, the average tuition-and-fees price of a four-year public college is 29% of the private-college price, compared with 22% a decade ago.

“While the importance of a college degree has never been greater, its rapidly rising price is an overwhelming obstacle to many students and families,” said Gaston Caperton, College Board president.

Yet the actual price that students are paying is often much lower than the sticker price, thanks to big jumps in federal Pell Grants and veterans benefits, combined with the 2009 implementation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit. While the published rates of public-college tuition and fees rose by a total of about $1,800 over the past five years, the actual increase paid by students after accounting for grants and federal tax benefits was only $170, according to the College Board.

In the 2009-10 school year, average grant aid jumped 20% from the previous year for the average full-time undergraduate. During the three years ended last spring, grant aid and federal loans per student each separately jumped by about 30% in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Board said.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576653431724677362.html

Citizen Wells commentary.

“They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money.”… Margaret Thatcher

I taught college level computer science years ago and spent most of my career in the business world. I am qualified to make the following comments.

Universities began about one thousand years ago in Europe. A few well educated people were seeking a way to earn a living. They began tutoring the nobles and  the wealthy. Colleges and schools since then have increasingly become self serving. A good example of this is the typical college book store in conjunction with the professor book selection process. 

• NC four year colleges, based on my observations, have been spending like drunken sailors (other people’s money).
• NC has an excellent community college system. One can attend them for 2 years and transfer to a 4 year college.
• However, I know a young man who recently signed up for 3 classes at a community college. He spent over $ 400 for books. This is absurd!
• Most books do not have to be replaced every year. Most or all of the following subjects have not changed in the past 10 years. Math, Ancient history, English grammar, Foreign languages, etc.
• Much of the problem in four year college book costs is the concept of “publish or perish.” This is an outdated self serving concept that in most subject areas hurts education instead of helping.
• A prime example of “publish or perish” comes from a friend of mine attending a four year college. He is taking Greek and Latin. He is well educated and has a degree. His Greek book is horrible and was probably chosen because his professor knew the author and was included in the credits.
• Those who didn’t go to college and the taxpayers in general are paying for these cost excesses.
• Cost vs benefit, one of the fundamentals of basic business decisions as well as personal life should be well taught by at least high school. Apparently this is not happening. If college and school personnel have been taught this concept they are ignoring it.
• If you are going deeply into debt for college & you are not in some highly specialized field such as medicine,
  you should consult with a business person, i.e., cost vs benefit.
• Our education systems needs a major overhaul

From the Christian Science Monitor October 21, 2011.

“‘Stimulus 2.0′? Senate rejects bid to revive parts of Obama jobs bill.
Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats blocked the first attempt by to pass a scaled-down version of the $447 billion Obama jobs bill, calling it a ‘bailout.’”

“In a rebuff to President Obama’s jobs strategy, Senate Republicans late Thursday blocked a $35 billion bill to avoid or reverse layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police – setting up what will remain competing campaign themes for the 2012 election cycle.

The vote marked the first attempt by Senate Democrats to pass a scaled-down version of the president’s $447 billion jobs plan, which the Senate rejected on Oct. 12.

The measure failed 50 to 50 – 10 short of the 60 votes needed to allow debate on the measure – with Sens. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas, and Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, voting with all Republicans to oppose the measure.

RECOMMENDED: Unemployment, Inc.: Six reasons why America can’t create jobs

Majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada is planning three stand-alone votes on other aspects of the Obama jobs bill, including extending cuts in Social Security payroll taxes.

But all will have to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. With Republicans unanimously opposed – and a few moderate Democrats willing to break ranks – it’s a formidable hurdle.

“Our fight isn’t over,” said President Obama in a statement after the vote. “We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work.”

Senate Republicans dubbed the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work bill a “bailout” for states and public service workers, at the expense of creating jobs in the private sector. The 0.5 percent tax hike for incomes greater than $1 million that Democrats proposed to pay for the measure would hit small business owners, discouraging investment and hiring, they said.

“Four out of every five Americans who would pay higher taxes are small business owners,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee, who chairs the Senate Republican Conference, in a statement after the vote. “That doesn’t sound like a jobs bill to me.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida, a tea party favorite, said that the federal government can’t afford “another bailout of local governments,” while running its own massive debt. “We can’t afford stimulus 2.0,” he said, in a video statement.

It’s an ideological divide that both parties seem eager to carry into the 2012 elections.

Mr. Obama took his case for a jobs bill to key swing states North Carolina and Virginia on a bus tour in the runup to the Senate vote. Vice President Joe Biden led a rally of firefighters and teachers at the Capitol.”

Read more:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1021/Stimulus-2.0-Senate-rejects-bid-to-revive-parts-of-Obama-jobs-bill

From the Huff Post October 20, 2011.

“Steve Jobs Biography Reveals He Told Obama, ‘You’re Headed For A One-Term Presidency’”

“In one of the most hotly-anticipated biographies of the year, “Steve Jobs,” author Walter Isaacson reveals that the Apple CEO offered to design political ads for President Obama’s 2012 campaign despite being highly critical of the administration’s policies and that Jobs refused potentially life-saving surgery on his pancreatic cancer because he felt it was too invasive. Nine months later, he got the operation but it was too late.

Those are just some of the tidbits about Jobs’ life revealed in the upcoming biography, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post. The publication date of the official biography of the notoriously-secretive Apple co-founder was pushed up after his death in October. “I wanted my kids to know me,” Isaacson quoted Jobs as saying in their final interview. “I wasn’t always there for them and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did.”

Among other details unearthed in the book on the notoriously-secretive Apple co-founder:

Jobs’ Meeting With Obama

Jobs, who was known for his prickly, stubborn personality, almost missed meeting President Obama in the fall of 2010 because he insisted that the president personally ask him for a meeting. Though his wife told him that Obama “was really psyched to meet with you,” Jobs insisted on the personal invitation, and the standoff lasted for five days. When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

Aiding Obama’s Reelection Campaign

Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses — but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that “he had no intention of coming.” In preparation for the dinner, Jobs exhibited his notorious attention to detail, telling venture capitalist John Doerr that the menu of shrimp, cod and lentil salad was “far too fancy” and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. But he was overruled by the White House, which cited the president’s fondness for cream pie.

Though Jobs was not that impressed by Obama, later telling Isaacson that his focus on the reasons that things can’t get done “infuriates” him, they kept in touch and talked by phone a few more times. Jobs even offered to help create Obama’s political ads for the 2012 campaign. “He had made the same offer in 2008, but he’d become annoyed when Obama’s strategist David Axelrod wasn’t totally deferential,” writes Isaacson. Jobs later told the author that he wanted to do for Obama what the legendary “morning in America” ads did for Ronald Reagan.”

Read more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-biography-obama_n_1022786.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C106076

Steve Jobs interviews from CBS:

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20116402-10391709.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

From the Chicago Tribune October 12, 2011.

“Ex-Indiana governor: That’s not my signature on Obama petition”

“Former Gov. Joe Kernan says a signature on a petition to place Barack Obama’s name on Indiana’s 2008 primary ballot isn’t his, putting him among dozens of dubious signatures found in a newspaper’s investigation.

Kernan, a Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary, told the South Bend Tribune that he didn’t sign the Obama document.

“No, not at all,” the former South Bend mayor said when asked whether the signature next to his name on the Obama petition looked like his own. “Nor does the printing look like mine.”

The Tribune reported Wednesday that it has talked with more than 40 people who say they didn’t sign ballot petitions submitted in St. Joseph County for Obama or Clinton, despite their names appearing on the documents.

State Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb has called for a federal investigation into the matter.

“How deep does this problem go?” Holcomb said. “Is it isolated to St. Joseph County, or was it a broader, coordinated effort across the state? … Who forged the signatures and why?”

The Tribune first reported Sunday that it and the Howey Politics Indiana newsletter had found pages from Clinton and Obama petitions with names and signatures that appear to have been copied by hand from a petition for 2008 Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jim Schellinger. The petitions were filed with the Indiana Election Division after the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office verified individuals’ information on the documents.

The petitions were submitted in late January and early February 2008, weeks before it became apparent that Obama and Clinton would be hotly contesting Indiana’s May primary in their tight race for the Democratic nomination. Clinton narrowly won the state, but Obama won many delegates in his successful drive for the nomination.

Indiana law requires candidates for president, senator and governor to submit ballot petitions signed by at least 500 registered voters in each of the state’s nine congressional districts to qualify for the statewide primary ballot. The Tribune reported the investigation had only found questionable signatures among the St. Joseph County petitions.

County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak, a Democrat, has started an investigation into the faked signatures.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-exindiana-governor-thats-not-my-signature-on-obama-petition-20111012,0,1203433.story?track=rss

Real time coverage of the William Ceelini trial in Chicago are provided by Natasha Korecki of the Chicago SunTimes in Twitter feeds and can be viewed here:

http://citizenwells.net/2011/10/11/william-cellini-trial-live-coverage-by-natasha-korecki-of-chicago-suntimes/

Natasha Korecki’s Twitter account:

 ”natasha korecki
@natashakorecki Chicago
Sun-Times Federal Courts Reporter. I’m all about Chicago federal courts, where politics and crime combine.http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago. ”

Some background on the William Cellini trial from Natasha Korecki.

“Here is a roadmap to the case against him:

The charge

Referred to as “the pope” because of his influence over a major pension fund in Illinois, Cellini is accused of conspiring with school pension fund board member Stuart Levine and Blagojevich advisers Tony Rezko and Christopher Kelly to extort Thomas Rosenberg. Cellini allegedly passed on a message to Rosenberg that Kelly and Rezko were upset he didn’t ante up to Blagojevich’s campaign fund at the time he sought a $220 million deal with the state. Prosecutors have recordings of Cellini and Levine, but his lawyers insist they show no wrongdoing.

The players

William Cellini: The ultimate backroom dealer who made millions of dollars off state-related deals. Cellini landed the state’s first casino boat license. He founded Argosy Gaming Co., a casino firm, and later made a fortune after a Pennsylvania company bought it out. But it’s his investment group, Commonwealth Realty Advisers, and his behind-the-scenes influence with the state’s pension fund system that’s at the center of his corruption trial.

Teachers’ Retirement System: Its board votes on millions of dollars of state investments. The feds say that Cellini controlled the appointment of board members and TRS staff to protect Cellini’s interests.

Commonwealth Realty Advisers: Cellini founded the firm in 1989 and it became a major real estate investment manager for TRS, managing hundreds of millions of dollars in pension money for the system. TRS stopped doing business with Commonwealth after Cellini’s indictment.

Stuart Levine: The main witness against Cellini whose credibility is expected to take a beating because of Levine’s history of drug use and wild partying — not to mention his own criminal misdeeds. Levine was a TRS board member and onetime top Republican fund-raiser who, like Cellini, supported Blagojevich once he took the governor’s job. Levine has pleaded guilty, admitting to using his position on two Illinois state boards to mastermind multimillion-dollar extortion schemes designed to enrich himself, Tony Rezko and others.

Tony Rezko: Convicted in 2008 of conspiring with Levine and using his influence with Blagojevich to illegally profit off state deals. Cellini’s lawyers point out that Rezko was acquitted of the charge involving Cellini. Tapes played in Rezko’s trial concerning the charge involved Cellini and Levine — and not Rezko.

Thomas Rosenberg: Hollywood producer, including of the movie “Million Dollar Baby,” who also headed Capri Capital, which sought TRS pension fund business. Rosenberg is a central figure in Cellini’s case. Prosecutors argue he was the victim of an extortion conspiracy involving Cellini, Rezko, Chris Kelly and Levine. Rosenberg testified in Rezko’s 2008 trial that his $220 million deal with the state was initially stalled after he refused to ante up to Blagojevich’s campaign fund. “They made the consequences clear,” Rosenberg testified.

Christopher Kelly: The late adviser and fund-raiser for Blagojevich and Rezko purportedly worked to shake down political donors for campaign contributions in exchange for board appointments and state business.

Rod Blagojevich: Was governor at the time of the alleged conspiracy. Cellini, a longtime Republican backer, switched parties and began raising money for Blagojevich, including hosting a $400,000 fund-raiser .

Keith Bozarth: A onetime TRS executive director, who in 1999 moved to pull back on real estate investments. Prosecutors say Cellini felt a threat to Commonwealth, so he worked with Levine to target Bozarth to leave and replace him with someone they could better control.

Jon Bauman: The TRS executive director in 2001, whom Cellini, Levine and Levine’s faction on the TRS board found to be “friendly” to their interests, according to prosecutors. At one private meeting that included Levine, Bauman and Cellini, a $50 million TRS allocation was proposed for Commonwealth. Cellini said it wasn’t enough and wanted the amount doubled, according to testimony in Rezko’s trial. Bauman later recommended that to the board, which approved the higher figure, prosecutors allege in court papers.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7967467-418/stage-is-set-for-cellini-trial.html