Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of ?The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform ? Why We Need It and What It Will Take.?

It is clear that the rising inequality of wealth and income and how the wealthy should be taxed will be major issues in the political campaign.

All the Republican candidates are committed to at least preventing any increase in taxes on those with large incomes. President Obama is pressing the so-called Buffett Rule that would require those making $1 million a year or more to have an effective federal tax rate (taxes divided by income) of at least 30 percent, while raising the top statutory tax rate for those with incomes over $250,000 to 39.6 percent from 35 percent.

One problem that undoubtedly will arise is how to generalize about any particular income class?s tax burden. As I pointed out last week, tax burdens depend a lot on how one defines ?income.? In particular, the tax law makes a sharp distinction between income earned through wages and salaries, sometimes called ?earned? income, on the one hand, and income from capital, or ?unearned? income.

Wage income is very heavily taxed because both the income tax and payroll tax apply to it. The lower one?s income is, the more likely that it consists solely of wages. Therefore, the heavy taxation of labor necessarily hits hard those with low and middle incomes.

By contrast, income from capital is lightly taxed. Unrealized capital gains are untaxed, realized gains are taxed at a maximum rate of just 15 percent, and gains held until death are never taxed. Moreover, wealthy hedge fund managers are permitted to treat their managerial fees as if they are capital gains, something that is called ?carried interest.? Dividends on corporate stock are also taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent.

The wealthier one is, the less his or her income is derived from labor. According to the Tax Policy Center, households in the middle three quintiles get about 70 percent of their total income from wages and salaries. Those in the top quintile get 55 percent of their income from labor.

For those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, only about 30 percent of their income comes from labor and for those in the top tenth of 1 percent, just 20 percent of their income comes from labor.

By contrast, those with low and middle incomes derive very little of it from capital. The bottom 80 percent of households get less than 4 percent of their income from capital. For those in the top quintile, however, 16 percent of their income comes from capital. And among the top 1 percent it is 35 percent.

But looking at the data this way understates how low taxes on capital benefit the wealthy, because if one looks only at capital income, virtually all of it goes to them. Those in the top quintile get 86 percent of all the capital income in the United States ? $960 billion out of $1.1 trillion in total capital income. Most of that went to the top 1 percent, which received $633 billion ? 57 percent of the total. And the top 0.1 percent got two-thirds of that.

The point is that a tax system that lightly taxes capital and heavily taxes labor is necessarily going to benefit the wealthy. As this chart illustrates, federal tax rates on the wealthy have been falling since 1978, when Congress cut the maximum capital gains rate to 28 percent from 35 percent.

We rationalize this mainly on the grounds that increasing the stock of capital is good for everyone. For example, it will raise productivity, which in the long run will raise wages for all workers.

The empirical question of whether sharply lower taxes on capital, and hence the wealthy, has actually raised saving, investment and productivity is one I will revisit. Suffice it to say that since 2003, when the current tax rates on capital gains and dividends were instituted, the economy offers little, if any, evidence on this score. (Before 2003, capital gains were taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent and dividends were taxed like wages and salaries.)

The point I want to make here is that differential tax rates on different forms of income mean that tax burdens will vary not only between income classes but within them as well. The latest Economic Report of the President has an interesting table that illustrates this point.

For the wealthy, we can see, effective tax rates vary between 12 percent for those at the lower end of the top quintile and 29 percent for those at the upper end. Among the top 1 percent, effective rates vary between 9 percent and 35 percent.

Those paying the highest effective rates are, no doubt, those such as doctors and lawyers with large incomes consisting mostly of salaries.

Thus we see that the bottom tenth of those in the top 1 percent pay well less in federal taxes as a share of their income than at least 25 percent of those in the bottom income quintile. And 25 percent of those in the top 1 percent pay less than substantial numbers of households in the upper three quintiles.

I couldn?t find the raw data underlying that in the table, but the Census Bureau put the floor for households in the second quintile at $20,000 in 2010. For the third quintile, the floor was $38,043; for the fourth $61,735; for the fifth $100,065, and for the top 5 percent $180,810.

We can see, then, that the tax system in the United States violates the fundamental principles of income taxation. Those are ?vertical equity,? which says that those with upper incomes should pay a higher effective tax rate than those with modest incomes ? as far back as Adam Smith, ability to pay has always been a core principle of taxation ? and ?horizontal equity,? which says that those with roughly the same income ought to pay roughly the same taxes.

Source: http://g7finance.com/g7finance-news/economix-blog-bruce-bartlett-tax-code-not-aligned-with-basic-principles/

kim kardashian bermuda aristotle nickel sangria tyler the creator goblin gnomeo and juliet

Having employees between the ages of 45 and 67 increases a business’ productivity, the German government announced on Tuesday in a report examining age-equality in the workplace.

The report, which encourages mixing older and younger workers, was commissioned by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, following the decision to raise the national retirement age to 67.

Germany has become a leading force in the EU regarding age-equality in the workplace over the past decade, with the steepest rate of increase of working 60 to 64-year-olds. In 2010, the employment figure for this age bracket went up from 38.4 percent to 40.8 percent.

Labour Minister Ursula von der Leyen called the increase ?a considerable success,? in a statement released with the study on Tuesday.

?Soon we will have more people between 60 and 64 working than taking retirement,? she said. ?Our ultimate aim is to make being employed over the age of 60 the norm.?

Experts at the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), who carried out parts of the study, found that the productivity of a company increases by 0.5 percent with every percentage of the proportion of 45 to 50-year-old employees increases.

Having workers in that age bracket can even boost a company?s performance by an average of two percent, the report said.

But Michael Sommer, the head of the DGB trade union association, criticised that many older workers had precarious jobs without social benefits.

“We have 800,000 people aged between 55 and 64 who only have mini jobs,” he said after meeting with von der Leyen in Berlin on Tuesday.

The Local/DAPD/jcw

Source: http://www.thelocal.de/money/20120221-40883.html

danielle staub julianne hough may 21st judgement day prague path castle season finale harmon killebrew

NEW YORK (Reuters) ? Americans felt worse about their personal finances in early February, even as they saw a light at the end of the tunnel for the jobs market, a survey released on Friday showed.

The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan overall index of consumer sentiment fell to 72.5 in early February from January’s 75.0, which was the highest level since February 2011.

The latest figure fell short of the median forecast of 74.5 among economists polled by Reuters.

“This pattern of responses – less favorable current assessments and more favorable prospects – is not surprising. It simply indicates that consumers find their current situation all the harder to bear when improvement is finally in sight,” said survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement.

An improving financial situation was reported by just 23 percent of all consumers surveyed in early February, down from 29 percent in January and last year’s 30 percent.

One in four families reported declines in income in the early February survey, even as official data have shown overall U.S. income growing since last August, albeit at a slow pace.

A separate survey released in late January by the Conference Board also indicated a pullback in consumer optimism partly because of income jitters.

Angst about income did not derail expectations of a moderate 2.2-percent increase in U.S. consumer spending this year, Curtin said.

The consumer sector accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.

Financial markets did not react to the pullback in consumer confidence. Wall Street stocks fell on fears Greece might not receive a bailout to avoid a messy default, while the dollar and U.S. Treasuries were higher.

“Overall, the souring in household moods in February is somewhat at odds with the improvements seen in labor market conditions and the economic recovery more generally in recent months. However, when seen in the context of the sustained gains since August, the modest pullback in confidence not may not be that surprising, after all,” said Millan Mulraine, senior macro strategist at TD Securities in a research note.

While more households worried about shrinking paychecks, they reported a record level of optimism about job prospects. Last week, the U.S. Labor Department said the monthly jobless rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, a near three-year low.

“More consumers spontaneously mentioned hearing about increases in employment and job opportunities than ever before recorded in the long history of the surveys,” Curtin said, adding that positive reports of job growth set a record in early February.

The survey’s barometer of current economic conditions fell to 79.6 in early February from 84.2 in January. Analysts had expected a figure of 84.5.

The gauge of consumer expectations dipped to 68.0 from 69.1. January’s figure was the highest level since May 2011 and for February, analysts had predicted an even higher reading of 69.5.

In an uncertain economic climate, consumers shaved their short-term inflation outlook, but raised their expectations on long-term inflation.

The survey’s expectations for one-year inflation slipped to 3.2 percent from 3.3 percent in January, while the survey’s five-to-10-year inflation outlook rose to 2.9 percent, matching the level set a year ago, from 2.7 percent in the previous four months.

(Editing by Padraic Cassidy)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/personalfinance/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120210/bs_nm/us_economy_sentiment

beltane randy couture vs lyoto machida pope john paul misery divine mercy sunday godzilla gaddafi son killed

STILLWATER, Okla. ? Freshman swingman Le’Bryan Nash scored a career-high 27 points, Brian Williams added a career-best 22 and Oklahoma State knocked off No. 2 Missouri 79-72 on Wednesday night.

Nash, a McDonald’s All-American, scored 13 points during a 17-4 burst that sent the Cowboys into the lead in the final 4 minutes and the Tigers (18-2, 5-2 Big 12) didn’t have a response.

Nash hit a jumper and a 3-pointer to get it going, then nailed another 3 from the left side to give the Cowboys (10-10, 3-4) a 65-64 lead with 3:23 to play. He connected on another 29 seconds later and ran to the opposite end of the court when Missouri called timeout to encourage a student section that was already hopping up and down to bring it on.

When the clock hit zero, the students rushed the court and huddled around Oklahoma State’s players at midcourt.

Ricardo Ratliffe had 25 points and 12 rebounds to lead Missouri, which allowed OSU to shoot a season-best 59 percent. The Cowboys had not surpassed 49 percent against an NCAA opponent all season.

Missouri got steals on three straight possessions to fuel a 10-2 run in the first 5 minutes of the second half, taking a 48-41 lead when Ratliffe waited out two defenders leaping prematurely to block his shot at the left block before scoring the basket.

Ratliffe’s three-point play off a spinning bucket at the right block gave the Tigers their largest lead at 53-45 with 14:22 to play, but the Cowboys weren’t done yet.

Nash had a bucket off a baseline inbounds pass and another off a post-up move against Kim English to get Oklahoma State within striking distance.

Markel Brown added another energizing play with a right-handed dunk off an alley-oop but got called for his second technical foul for getting in Matt Pressey’s face and was ejected. Marcus Denmon hit the two free throws from the technical and Ratliffe added two more off a third-chance opportunity, but the Cowboys didn’t miss a beat.

After Nash’s big spurt, Williams had a two-handed dunk in transition and a three-point play to help preserve the lead down the stretch.

It continued a rough stretch for Top 25 Missouri teams in Gallagher-Iba Arena. The Tigers have lost six straight games while ranked in Stillwater, dating back to 1992, and may not be visiting again anytime soon with next season’s move to the Southeastern Conference.

Four of those six losses have come at the hands of unranked Oklahoma State teams. It was the Cowboys’ biggest win since taking down top-ranked Kansas two seasons ago.

Brown provided a boost right from the start with a thunderous right-handed jam on Oklahoma State’s first possession after winning the tip. He picked up a technical foul 90 seconds into the game that seemed inconsequential at the time but eventually led to his dismissal.

OSU made an uncharacteristic 57 percent of its shots while leading most of the first half. Keiton Page’s step-back jumper from the left elbow provided the Cowboys a 37-36 lead at the break.

The first half marked the third-best shooting performance in a half this season for Oklahoma State, the Big 12′s worst shooting team at 41 percent, only to be outdone by a 62 percent mark after halftime.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/sports/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120126/ap_on_sp_co_ga_su/bkc_t25_missouri_oklahoma_st

sweet home alabama dexter season 6 mothers day gift ideas gas buddy college green valerie jarrett

By?Baxter B. Allen, 24/7 Wall St.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its estimated causes of death for 2010. The 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. accounted for 75 percent of the nearly 2.5 million deaths in 2010. Overall costs for the top 10 causes of death topped $1.1 trillion in 2007, the last fully reported year for all causes. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the causes to determine how much they cost and to reflect how efficiently they are being treated.

The overall cost for the top 10 causes of death, which includes direct medical care and the indirect loss of productivity, is far greater when the lost wages of family members are taken into account. Since 2000, the overall cost of the top 10 causes of death has increased by an estimated 35 percent. During this same time, the death rate from these diseases and injuries has decreased by 13.5 percent.

In some of the areas, spending to treat the disease has been very efficient. For example, the costs attributable to heart disease and stroke (two closely related diseases) have declined both due to decreasing deaths and improvements in the efficiency of care.

In other areas, however, costs have gone up disproportionately compared to the decreases in death rate. For example, while the cost to treat diabetes has risen by 30 percent, the death rate dropped by only 11 percent. Of course, when taking lives saved into account, it is tough to decide how much is too much to spend.

Finally, some areas continue to increase in both cost and rate of death. Alzheimer?s disease deaths have increased by more than 50 percent over the past decade, and total costs have more than doubled. This is likely a function of an aging population and very limited success in treatment.

24/7 Wall St.: The 11 most-implanted medical devices in the U.S.

24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 leading causes of death to determine how much they cost and how effectively they?re being treated. We used yearly estimates from the CDC to examine changes in death rates between 2000 and 2010. We also examined data from the National Institutes of Health, CDC and several national health organizations focused on individual diseases, to determine the direct costs for medical care and procedures and the indirect cost of death and lost productivity, as well as to reflect how the leading causes of death individually affect the U.S. economy. The costs for each cause of death are based on the last fully reported year for all causes, 2007. More recent estimates on costs were also referenced when available.

These are the 10 leading causes of death and what they cost the American economy.

10. Suicide

• Deaths: 37,793
• Change since 2000: 15 percent increase in death rate
• Total cost: $36 billion

The age-adjusted suicide rate in America has been steadily increasing over the past decade, and the costs associated with successful and unsuccessful suicide attempts continue to rise. In successful suicide attempts, more than 99.6 percent of the costs are due to lost wages and work productivity.?In 2010, the most recent available estimate, suicides cost the economy approximately $34 billion. The overall cost is even higher when all intentionally inflicted self-harm is included. In 2010, there were more than 450,000 injuries in this category, which cost the economy an additional $3 billion in direct medical care costs and $5.1 billion in indirect costs due to lost wages and productivity. The rate of self-inflicted injuries increased by 36 percent since 2000, a greater increase than suicide itself.

24/7 Wall St.: 10 states that can’t pay their bills

9. Pneumonia and the flu

• Deaths: 50,003
• Change since 2000: 32 percent decrease in death rate
• Total cost: $40 billion

Despite widespread use of vaccinations, influenza continues to be a major cause of death in the United States. While the death rate due to both pneumonia and flu has fallen by 32 percent over the past decade, the impact of the flu itself varies widely from year to year. In 2000, flu directly accounted for 1,765 of the 65,313 deaths in the category, compared to 494 of 50,003 in 2010. Much of this variation is due to the differing severity of the flu strains each year, as well as the success of the yearly flu vaccine. Until a better flu vaccine is invented, this wide variation is likely to continue. Pneumonia and the flu cost $6 billion in direct medical care and another $34.2 billion in projected lost earnings in 2007, according to the American Lung Association. This represented an increase of nearly 50 percent from 2003, the previously reported year.

8. Renal disease

• Deaths: 50,472
• Change since 2000: 21 percent increase in death rate
• Total cost: $61 billion

Not only do kidney diseases cause an increasing number of deaths every year, their total cost has also been rising at an even faster pace. Dialysis, the process of filtering the blood of a patient with failing kidneys, is an enormously expensive medical procedure. In 2007, direct medical treatments cost the U.S. economy $54 billion.?Between 2000 and 2009, the direct costs of kidney diseases doubled in the Medicare budget, from $12 billion to $24 billion, according to the U.S. Renal Data System. As diabetes and obesity rates continue to rise, the costs of damaged kidneys will continue to skyrocket.

7. Diabetes mellitus

• Deaths: 68,905
• Change since 2000: 11 percent decrease in death rate
• Total cost: $112 billion

Deaths attributable to diabetes have been falling because of increased awareness and treatment of the disease complications. But even as deaths from the disease decline, more and more Americans are diagnosed and the costs of the disease continue to rise. In 2002, the American Diabetes Association estimated that the 12.1 million Americans diagnosed with the disease cost twice as much per person in direct medical expenses compared to otherwise similar people without diabetes. That same year, they estimated $92 billion in direct costs and an additional $40 billion in losses to the U.S. economy. By 2007, there were 17.5 million Americans diagnosed with diabetes. That year, according to the ADA, costs jumped to $116 billion in direct costs and $58 billion in lost wages and productivity, for an inflation-adjusted increase of $21 billion over five years. According to the World Diabetes Foundation, 80 percent of type 2 diabetes, which represents roughly 90 percent of all cases, is preventable by changing eating habits, increasing physical activity, and improving living situations. Unless people start living a healthier lifestyle, this disease will continue to be a major drain on the U.S. economy.

24/7 Wall St.: The 10 most-hated companies in America

6. Alzheimer?s disease

• Deaths: 83,308
• Change since 2000: 50 percent increase in death rate
• Total cost: $70 billion

As of 2011, an estimated 5.4 million Americans are living with Alzheimer?s disease. This number is projected to hit 13.2 million by 2050, according to the Alzheimer?s Association. Alzheimer?s is a very expensive disease with high direct medical costs, as well as lost productivity from patients and unpaid care given by the family and friends. This last category is not counted in government reports as part of the disease?s cost, but was estimated at more than $200 billion in 2010 for over 17 billion hours of unpaid care. As of 2004, total medical costs for Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer?s disease were three times the cost of similarly aged people without the disease. From 2005 to 2011, the total direct costs of Alzheimer?s disease increased from $91 billion to $183 billion, according to the Alzheimer?s Association. By 2050, this is projected to increase to $1.1 trillion (in 2011 dollars).

5. Accidents

• Deaths: 118,043
• Change since 2000: 7.6 percent increase in death rate
• Total cost: $308 billion

The rate of accidental injury and death has remained fairly constant over the past decade. It has also remained incredibly expensive. Accidental deaths alone accounted for $91 billion in lost earnings and productivity in 2010. The direct medical costs of all accidental injuries, fatal and nonfatal, accounted for $78 billion. Additional costs due to death, disability and lost productivity accounted for another $233 billion. Despite rather stable costs, accidental death, injury and poisoning account for a greater share of medical spending and indirect losses than all other diseases on the list.

4. Strokes

• Deaths: 129,180
• Change since 2000: 31 percent decrease in death rate
• Total cost: $34 billion

While the total costs of all cardiovascular disease have declined slightly over the past decade, costs attributable to stroke have decreased an impressive inflation-adjusted 46 percent, according to data from the American Heart Association. Direct and indirect costs have both dropped significantly. These declines have been linked to increased awareness and treatment of major risk factors, including high blood pressure, diabetes and smoking, as well as to improvements in acute stroke care, which appears to decrease both death and long-term disability from stroke. Despite these improvements, stroke remains the leading cause of serious long-term disability in the United States.

24/7 Wall St.: Worst product flops of 2011

3. Chronic lung disease (chronic lower respiratory diseases)

• Deaths: 137,789
• Change since 2000: <1 percent increase in death rate
• Total cost: $65 billion

Chronic lung disease is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., but unlike the top two causes of death, heart disease and cancer, it is not seeing any significant improvement in the death rate. The main contributors to this category of disease are asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As of 2008, there were 23.3 million Americans with asthma, which cost approximately $14.7 billion in direct health care and $5 billion in lost productivity, according to the American Lung Association. Prescription drugs constituted $6.2 billion alone. Another 12.1 million adults have COPD. COPD cost the U.S. economy $42.6 billion in 2007, including $26.7 billion in direct health care expenditures, $8 billion in decreased productivity and $7.9 billion in costs related to death. Smoking remains the number one cause of COPD.

2. Cancer

• Deaths: 573,855
• Change since 2000: 7.5 percent decrease in death rate
• Total cost: $227 billion

In the next five years, cancer is likely to become the number one killer of Americans, if current trends continue. Despite major advances in treatments and increases in the number of people who survive for five years or more, few true ?cures? have been found. Real progress is being made, but there is still a long way to go. Direct costs of medical treatments will continue to rise, more than offsetting any gains due to decreased mortality rates. In 2004, direct medical costs to the U.S. economy were $69.4 billion. By 2007, costs were $104 billion, and by 2020, they are projected to range between $160 billion to $200 billion, according to the American Cancer Society. The vast majority of these increases in cost are driven by new medical treatments, usually highly tailored and difficult-to-manufacture drugs that cost $5,000/month on average. One such drug, Gleevec, increased five-year survival rates to 95 percent (from 70 percent) for one blood cancer and has been used to varying degrees of success in a different cancers since.

1. Heart disease

• Deaths: 595,444
• Change since 2000: 25 percent decrease in death rate
• Total cost: $190 billion

Heart disease remains the number one killer of Americans. But deaths due to the disease have been declining at a rapid rate over the past several decades, despite the ever-increasing issues of obesity and diabetes in America. The indirect costs of heart disease due to death have declined from an inflation-adjusted $114 billion in 2000 to $94.8 billion in 2008. Over the same time period, direct costs of medical interventions and care have decreased from an inflation adjusted $129 billion to $96 billion. These declining costs are likely due to major improvements in care. For example, in 2001, only 43 percent of heart disease patients were counseled on smoking cessation compared to 99 percent in 2010, according to the American Heart Association. Similarly, only 60 percent to 85 percent of patients were discharged from the hospital on all recommended medications in 2001, compared to 92 percent to 99 percent in 2010. Additionally, there was a decrease in the number of bypass surgeries, stent placements, angioplasties and diagnostic cardiac catheterizations between 2002 and 2009, likely contributing to the decrease in direct medical costs. Despite the recent trends, total costs are likely to rise over the next couple decades due to an aging population and increased rates of obesity and diabetes.

Source: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/18/10183578-11-trillion-what-the-10-leading-causes-of-death-cost-the-economy

spybot chastity bono delonte west blackberry pearl journey san jose mercury news hud homes

NEW YORK ? U.S. stocks edged lower in midday trading with bank stocks leading the way down.

Stocks opened higher Monday but quickly fell after an hour of trading. Cautious comments from the head of the European Central bank soured any hopes the ECB would find a resolution to Europe’s debt crisis anytime soon.

Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley fell nearly 6 percent. JPMorgan Chase & Co. lost more than 4 percent, the biggest drop among the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial average.

“If Europe is going to be bring us down it’s going to come through the financial firms,” said J.J. Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist at TD Ameritrade.

A report in The Wall Street Journal also said U.S. regulators will likely force U.S. banks to follow stricter rules to shore up their finances. The new rules are aimed at keeping banks from failing but would pinch profits.

The Dow fell 51, or 0.4 percent to 11,814 as of 12 noon Eastern time. Pfizer Inc. was the Dow’s leading stock, rising 1.2 percent.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell 7 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,212. The Nasdaq composite index fell 10, or 0.4 percent, to 2,545.

Among companies making large moves, Winn-Dixie soared 71 percent. The supermarket chain is being sold to Bi-Lo LLC, another supermarket operator with stores in the southern U.S., in a deal valued at $560 million.

Cablevision Systems Corp. rose 1 percent after an analyst from Citibank said a recent drop in the company’s stock seemed “way overdone.” The stock has lost 27 percent from the end of October through last Friday following the unexpected resignation of its chief operating officer.

Commercial Metals Co. dropped 1 percent. The company’s board rejected a $1.7 billion takeover bid from the investor Carl Icahn, saying the proposed deal undervalued the company.

The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment index inched up two points to 21 in December, the highest level since May 2010. But any reading below 50 is still a negative outlook.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/stocks/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111219/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

bora bora dream act doodle god news and observer douglas adams bristol palin bill of rights