Treasury Department says it will deposit the first 800,000 payments four days earlier than expected in effort to boost economy.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government, eager to boost the flagging economy, will start distributing special stimulus payments Monday - four days earlier than expected.

"Beginning Monday, the effects of the stimulus will begin to reach households," President Bush said Friday. "This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump and at the grocery store."

The department announced the early arrival of the payments Thursday after saying last month that it would begin sending out the money on May 2.

As of next week, 800,000 tax filers daily will begin to have their checks directly deposited Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. No checks will be distributed Thursday, and 5 million payments will be made Friday.

The payments will go out ahead of schedule because of a new computer program that updates records daily - faster than an older program that updates weekly, according to Andrew DeSouza, a Treasury spokesman.

Overall, the Treasury will distribute more than $110 billion to 130 million taxpayers by July and hopes to get the first $50 billion out by the end of May, DeSouza said.

The checks are the centerpiece of an economic stimulus program signed into law by President Bush in February. The aim is to boost consumer spending and help mitigate problems caused by the slowing economy.

Checks are being distributed to people who file 2007 tax returns. Those who opt for direct deposit with the Internal Revenue Service will start getting payments before those who use the mail.

The program calls for rebates of up to $600 for single filers making less than $75,000. Couples making less than $150,000 would receive rebates of up to $1,200. In addition, parents would receive $300 rebates per child. Filers who do not owe income taxes but have at least $3,000 in income would get a $300 payment.

Payments to taxpayers slated to get paper checks will start to go out May 9 - one week earlier than originally planned.

The order in which tax filers will receive their payments will be based on the last two digits of their Social Security numbers.

Source

Treasury Department says it will deposit the first 800,000 payments four days earlier than expected in effort to boost economy.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government, eager to boost the flagging economy, will start distributing special stimulus payments Monday - four days earlier than expected.

"Beginning Monday, the effects of the stimulus will begin to reach households," President Bush said Friday. "This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump and at the grocery store."

The department announced the early arrival of the payments Thursday after saying last month that it would begin sending out the money on May 2.

As of next week, 800,000 tax filers daily will begin to have their checks directly deposited Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. No checks will be distributed Thursday, and 5 million payments will be made Friday.

The payments will go out ahead of schedule because of a new computer program that updates records daily - faster than an older program that updates weekly, according to Andrew DeSouza, a Treasury spokesman.

Overall, the Treasury will distribute more than $110 billion to 130 million taxpayers by July and hopes to get the first $50 billion out by the end of May, DeSouza said.

The checks are the centerpiece of an economic stimulus program signed into law by President Bush in February. The aim is to boost consumer spending and help mitigate problems caused by the slowing economy.

Checks are being distributed to people who file 2007 tax returns. Those who opt for direct deposit with the Internal Revenue Service will start getting payments before those who use the mail.

The program calls for rebates of up to $600 for single filers making less than $75,000. Couples making less than $150,000 would receive rebates of up to $1,200. In addition, parents would receive $300 rebates per child. Filers who do not owe income taxes but have at least $3,000 in income would get a $300 payment.

Payments to taxpayers slated to get paper checks will start to go out May 9 - one week earlier than originally planned.

The order in which tax filers will receive their payments will be based on the last two digits of their Social Security numbers.

Source

In Haiti, where three-quarters of the population earns less than $2 a day and one in five children is chronically malnourished, the one business booming amid all the gloom is the selling of patties made of mud, oil and sugar, typically consumed only by the most destitute.

“It’s salty and it has butter and you don’t know you’re eating dirt,” said Olwich Louis Jeune, 24, who has taken to eating them more often in recent months. “It makes your stomach quiet down.”

But the grumbling in Haiti these days is no longer confined to the stomach. It is now spray-painted on walls of the capital and shouted by demonstrators.

In recent days, Mr. Préval has patched together a response, using international aid money and price reductions by importers to cut the price of a sack of rice by about 15 percent. He has also trimmed the salaries of some top officials. But those are considered temporary measures.

Real solutions will take years. Haiti, its agriculture industry in shambles, needs to better feed itself. Outside investment is the key, although that requires stability, not the sort of widespread looting and violence that the Haitian food riots have fostered.

Meanwhile, most of the poorest of the poor suffer silently, too weak for activism or too busy raising the next generation of hungry. In the sprawling slum of Haiti’s Cité Soleil, Placide Simone, 29, offered one of her five offspring to a stranger. “Take one,” she said, cradling a listless baby and motioning toward four rail-thin toddlers, none of whom had eaten that day. “You pick. Just feed them.”

For the full NY Times article click here

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal employees charged millions of dollars to government credit or debit cards, according to a Government Accountability Office study released Wednesday.

A new GAO study sheds light on federal employees' improper use of credit and debit cards.

Those charges include Internet dating services, iPods, expensive clothing, a $13,500 dinner and lingerie to be worn during jungle training in Ecuador, the study said.

The audit also found that government agencies could not account for nearly $2 million worth of items, which included computer servers, laptop computers, iPods and digital cameras.

Nearly half of transactions made in the 2006 fiscal year with government credit or debit cards -- referred to as "purchase cards" -- were improper, the study found, and the audit condemned the government-wide "rate of failure" as "unacceptably high."

The improper purchases were either not authorized or did not meet the government's requirements for using purchase cards, the study said.

Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, and Carl Levin, D-Michigan, initiated the investigation into the use of government cards.

"Too many government employees have viewed purchases cards as their personal line of credit. It's time to cut up their cards and start over," Coleman said in a news release about the GAO study.

"The basic rules for authorizing purchases and accounting for goods and services are not that difficult: Use the card for legitimate purchases, not to cover the costs of buying yourself an iPod," he added.

The study used scientific sampling to examine spending across federal agencies, and mined data from purchases made from July 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. The study categorizes the inappropriate purchases as "fraudulent," "abusive," or "improper."

In the fraudulent category, the most egregious case involved a Forest Service employee writing about 180 credit-card-linked checks worth $642,000 to an individual with whom the employee shared living quarters and a bank account.

"All transactions were undetected by the agency," the report said.

After an investigation initiated by a tip from a whistle-blower, the employee was indicted and pleaded guilty in June 2007 to embezzlement and tax fraud, the study said.

The employee was sentenced to 21 months of prison and was required to pay over $642,000 in restitution.

In another fraudulent case, a postmaster used a government credit card to subscribe to two Internet dating sites, the study said, and the employee also used a government computer to access pornographic sites.

The postmaster racked up $1,100 in charges for the dating services, it said, and "the activity went unnoticed" by U.S. Postal Service for a full year.

After an investigation, the employee paid back the $1,100, the study said. He was also removed from his position.

In a case characterized as abusive, four Department of Defense employees purchased $77,000 in clothing and accessories for service members from high-end clothing and sporting goods stores, including stores such as Brooks Brothers, Talbots and Johnston Murphy, the study said.

The DOD purchased the items to provide service members with civilian clothing while they worked at American embassies, the cardholders said, according to the study.

However, the purchases far exceeded the maximum allowance of $860 per person for civilian attire, the study noted.

In another case, USPS spent $13,500 on a dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse for employees who were attending a national postal forum in Orlando, Florida.

The dinner included more than 200 appetizers and the agency paid for about $3,000 of alcoholic drinks, including more than 40 bottles of wine and top-shelf liquor, the study said. It deemed the dinner as an "excessive cost."

Another case, described as a "questionable government need," involved a State Department employee who spent $360 on women's underwear and lingerie to wear during jungle training by "trainees of a drug enforcement program in Ecuador."

A State Department official agreed that the charge, for items purchased from Seduccion Boutique, was "questionable" and said it should not have been approved.

About 300,000 government employees use purchase cards, the study said. The purchase card system, which was established in the late 1980s, was designed to streamline federal purchasing, and the cards are typically are intended for purchases of $2,500 or less.

All purchases are to follow federal guidelines, which include proper authorization and independent receipt and acceptance.

Source

by Borell
Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM PDT

I just had the strangest experience. A presidential candidate gave me back my donation, told me he would not accept it because of what I do for a living, and it left me more committeed to the candidate and conviced that he is the person that must be the next president.

I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.

* Borell's diary :: ::
*

You see, I am a registered lobbyist for a non-profit organziation. We are a non-partisan, non-political membership organziation, we do not have a political action committee and strictly observe a policy of non-particpation in any event that even remotely appears political. I serve as their legislative rep, trying to ensure that expertise of our membership is heard by public officials on issues related to their area of expertise (public safety).

I guess given the fact that I was not a corporate/industry lobbyist, I never really considered that Obama's no-lobbyist money ban would apply to me, but it did! The letter thanked me for my interest in the campaign, but stated flately that my donation was not acceptable.

It's not often you get told that you are persona non grata and end up praising the person who exiled you. But that's what I am doing. Obama actions are living up to his words. Through the actions of his campaign he is demonstrating that his values are real and his commitment is certain.

Another aspect that is quite impressive to me is that the Obama campaign has a mechnism set up to check each donation, even one as small as mine, against the lobbyist database, and then return it.

If I ever doubted the sincerity of the Obama Campaign, this action removed any questions.

I know my donation is not going to make a difference one way or another, and I hope that I am not the type of "corrupt lobbyist" that has infested washington.

Obama, and his campaign, are committed to bringing about change. They are doing this in both large and small steps. Refusing my money is a small step, but it spoke volumes to me. It showed me Obama means what he says and backs it up with action. It shows me that no detail is to small and that his organization is top notch. It strengthened my commitment to see him elected President.

I guess I just can't use my money to do it:).

p.s.: As a side note, last year my spouse had set up automatic monthly payments to Hillary (nothing big $10/month) but after switching to Obama, had to battle with the Clinton campaign to cancel the automatic payment. I find it ironic that one campaign won't take my money, the other won't give it back!

Updated to add: I though we had finally stopped the payments to the Clinton Campaign, but after checking with my spouse, it turns out they are still taking the payments 3-4 months after we asked them to stop.

The Source

Morning Edition, March 28, 2008 · Julio Diaz has a daily routine. Every night, the 31-year-old social worker ends his hour-long subway commute to the Bronx one stop early, just so he can eat at his favorite diner.

But one night last month, as Diaz stepped off the No. 6 train and onto a nearly empty platform, his evening took an unexpected turn.

He was walking toward the stairs when a teenage boy approached and pulled out a knife.

"He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, 'Here you go,'" Diaz says.

As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, "Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something. If you're going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm."

The would-be robber looked at his would-be victim, "like what's going on here?" Diaz says. "He asked me, 'Why are you doing this?'"

Diaz replied: "If you're willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get dinner and if you really want to join me ... hey, you're more than welcome.

"You know, I just felt maybe he really needs help," Diaz says.

Diaz says he and the teen went into the diner and sat in a booth.

"The manager comes by, the dishwashers come by, the waiters come by to say hi," Diaz says. "The kid was like, 'You know everybody here. Do you own this place?'"

"No, I just eat here a lot," Diaz says he told the teen. "He says, 'But you're even nice to the dishwasher.'"

Diaz replied, "Well, haven't you been taught you should be nice to everybody?"

"Yea, but I didn't think people actually behaved that way," the teen said.

Diaz asked him what he wanted out of life. "He just had almost a sad face," Diaz says.

The teen couldn't answer Diaz — or he didn't want to.

When the bill arrived, Diaz told the teen, "Look, I guess you're going to have to pay for this bill 'cause you have my money and I can't pay for this. So if you give me my wallet back, I'll gladly treat you."

The teen "didn't even think about it" and returned the wallet, Diaz says. "I gave him $20 ... I figure maybe it'll help him. I don't know."

Diaz says he asked for something in return — the teen's knife — "and he gave it to me."

Afterward, when Diaz told his mother what happened, she said, "You're the type of kid that if someone asked you for the time, you gave them your watch."

"I figure, you know, if you treat people right, you can only hope that they treat you right. It's as simple as it gets in this complicated world."

Source: NPR
Produced for Morning Edition by Michael Garofalo.

To our neighbors, my wife, Nancy, and I don’t appear in the least unusual. To those in the quiet Oregon community where we live, we are viewed just as we are -- a happy couple deeply in love. Our desire to work hard, buy our first home, and start a family was nothing out of the ordinary. That is, until we decided that I would carry our child.

I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy. Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage. Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.

Ten years ago, when Nancy and I became a couple, the idea of us having a child was more dream than plan. I always wanted to have children. However, due to severe endometriosis 20 years ago, Nancy had to undergo a hysterectomy and is unable to carry a child. But after the success of our custom screen-printing business and a move from Hawaii to the Pacific Northwest two years ago, the timing finally seemed right. I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months, and I didn’t have to take any exogenous estrogen, progesterone, or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy.

Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns. We have only begun experiencing opposition from people who are upset by our situation. Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive; most of Nancy’s family doesn’t even know I’m transgender.

This whole process, from trying to get pregnant to being pregnant, has been a challenge for us. The first doctor we approached was a reproductive endocrinologist. He was shocked by our situation and told me to shave my facial hair. After a $300 consultation, he reluctantly performed my initial checkups. He then required us to see the clinic’s psychologist to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world and consulted with the ethics board of his hospital. A few months and a couple thousand dollars later, he told us that he would no longer treat us, saying he and his staff felt uncomfortable working with “someone like me.”

In total, nine different doctors have been involved. This is why it took over one year to get access to a cryogenic sperm bank to purchase anonymous donor vials, and why Nancy and I eventually resorted to home insemination.

Picture:http://advocate.com/uploadedImages/advocate/editorial/current_issue_stories/1005/THOMAS_BEATIE.jpg
Source: Advocate.com

BISMARCK, North Dakota (AP) -- Using tiny brushes and chisels, workers picking at a big greenish-black rock in the basement of North Dakota's state museum are meticulously uncovering something amazing: a nearly complete dinosaur, skin and all.
Unlike almost every other dinosaur fossil ever found, the Edmontosaurus named Dakota, a duckbilled dinosaur unearthed in southwestern North Dakota in 2004, is covered by fossilized skin that is hard as iron. It's among just a few mummified dinosaurs in the world, say the researchers who are slowly freeing it from a 65-million-year-old rock tomb.

"This is the closest many people will ever get to seeing what large parts of a dinosaur actually looked like, in the flesh," said Phillip Manning, a paleontologist at Manchester University in England, a member of the international team researching Dakota.

"This is not the usual disjointed sentence or fragment of a word that the fossil records offer up as evidence of past life. This is a full chapter."

Animal tissue typically decomposes quickly after death. Researchers say Dakota must have been buried rapidly and in just the right environment for the skin to be preserved.

"The process of decay was overtaken by that of fossilization, preserving many of the soft-tissue structures," Manning said.

Tyler Lyson, a 25-year-old doctoral paleontology student at Yale University, discovered the dinosaur on his uncle's ranch in the Badlands in 1999. Weeks after he started to unearth the fossil in 2004, he knew he had found something special.

"Usually all we have is bones," Lyson said in a telephone interview. "In this special case, we're not just after the bones; we're after the whole carcass."

Researchers have used the world's largest CT scanner, operated by the Boeing Co. in California and used to examine space shuttle parts, to get a better look at what is encased in the rumpled mass of sandstone.

"This is the fourth dinosaur mummy that's ever been found in the world of any significance," said Stephen Begin, a Michigan consultant on the project. "It may turn out to be one of the best mummies, because of the quality of the skin that we're finding and the extent of the skin that's on the specimen."

Dakota was moved to the museum early last month and is currently surrounded by precariously perched desk lamps and a machine to suck up dust. State paleontologist John Hoganson, of the North Dakota Geological Survey, said it will take a year, maybe more, to uncover it.

Amy Sakariassen, part of the team working on the project, was toiling away with a brush whose bristles had been ground down to nubs.

"It really is wonderful to work on it," she said, as Begin used a sharp instrument to pick away tiny bits of rock and unveil a scale. "Nobody's seen that particular scale in 67 million years. It's quite thrilling."

Manning said his involvement has meant 18-hour days, seven-day weeks and "more work than I could have ever imagined. But I would not change a single second of the past few years."

Hoganson said the main part of the fossil is in two parts, weighing a total of nearly 5 tons.

"The skeleton itself is kind of curled up," he said. "The actual length would be about 30 feet, from about the tip of its tail to the tip of its nose."

The fossil has spawned both a children's book and an adult book, as well as National Geographic television programs. The National Geographic Society is funding much of the research.

"We are looking forward to seeing what emerges from the huge dinosaur body block now housed in North Dakota," said John Francis, a society vice president.

Many prehistoric fossils have been found in the western North Dakota Badlands where terrain has been heavily eroded over time by weather. Hoganson said other treasures likely are waiting to be unearthed.

"It's one of the few places in the world where you can actually see the boundary line where the dinosaurs became extinct, the time boundary," he said. "In the Badlands, this layer is exposed in certain places."

Lyson, who found the fossil, eventually hopes to send it on a worldwide tour and then bring it back to his hometown of Marmarth, where he is creating a museum. For now, workers at the North Dakota Heritage Center on the state Capitol grounds are getting part of it ready for display this summer.

source: cnn.com

(CNN) -- In three days, Ashley Alexandra Dupre went from being an unknown 22-year-old aspiring musician to the fifth most-searched subject on Google because of her alleged sexual encounters with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

After she was identified by The New York Times, throngs of journalists staked out her home.

At the same time, she appeared to have jumped on her MySpace page, which was identified by the Times, and a Facebook profile with the same name and photos.

It seemed she was trying to stay one step ahead of journalists, attempting to limit what information they could access.

She was seemingly aware that the press would have access to her friends and every word, photo and comment on her profiles, so she began by deleting connections between her friends on Facebook.

Facebook and MySpace have become one of the go-to background tools for journalists in the past couple of years, allowing members of the press to put a face to the subject of their story and find out more about them.

As more people make profiles on these Web sites, the information they make available is more frequently becoming public fodder.

Pictures from her apparent MySpace and Facebook profile were splashed across media Web sites -- and Dupre appeared to take notice. Time stamps and activity on what appears to be her Facebook profile shows she was staying up all night cleaning up her profile and responding to critics on the Internet.

American University Law Professor Chris Simpson, an expert in Internet and privacy law, said there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to social networking Web sites.

If you post photos or comments, there is a chance your information can end up on the front page of The New York Times, although in most cases it won't.

"A week ago, only [Dupre's] friends cared," he said. "But once you put it up for the world to see, you can't control which fraction of the world will see it."

Simpson also said while Dupre may have originally left her profiles open hoping someone would discover her music, it also left her susceptible to media scrutiny after the Spitzer scandal.

"Unfortunately, you can't say, 'Oh well, I didn't want that kind of publicity, I only wanted positive publicity,'" he said.

While most people may understand their profiles are subject to public viewing, Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist for the Pew Internet and American Life Project, said focus groups have shown they generally can't think of a scenario where their information would become so public.

Early Thursday morning, it appears Dupre realized she needed to make some changes to alter what the public would be able to know about her.

At 3 a.m., there was an entry that she had completed a "thorough profile scrub," leaving only a couple of photos of herself on Facebook.

At the same time, the self-described aspiring musician left a clip of one of her songs on MySpace and frequently linked to a page where users could download it.

So does Dupre want the attention that comes along with this scandal or not?

"Maybe promoting herself and her music on the Internet means she does want to make it available to everyone in a very public way," Lenhart said.

Some of her close friends made sure their feelings were known to the press, too. Some posted on her MySpace page telling her to ignore the media, that they would be there for her and reminding her to stay strong.

But even those who weren't close with her seemed to want in on the action. Some identifying themselves as her high school classmates created a group on Facebook devoted to those who had classes with her.

The early morning hours slipped by and Internet activity on Facebook continued until 5 a.m., when she apparently confronted the high school classmates on the group page. It seemed she believed they were trying to exploit her situation.

"Do me a favor and don't try to cash out... thanks," she wrote on the Facebook group page.

Thursday morning, the Dupre Facebook status gave the impression she wanted no part of the attention.

"Sneaking out the back door," she wrote under her "current status."

But as the day went on, it seemed Dupre's feelings were changing and she might have been embracing the newfound spotlight.

The page had received more than 1,100 friend requests on Facebook. Initially, she ignored them.

By the afternoon she apparently gave in, but the feelings were short-lived.

By 2:30 p.m. the Facebook and MySpace profiles were gone.

Source: cnn.com

OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma (AP) -- People with specialized firearms training, such as military personnel, would be allowed to carry concealed weapons on Oklahoma's college campuses, under a bill that passed the state's House Thursday.

The measure was approved 65-36, despite opponents who said it made no sense following shootings at schools across the country.

It now heads to the state Senate for a vote.

Introduced by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, the law would authorize active-duty military and National Guard and reserve personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others with firearms training certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education who hold a state concealed weapons license to carry guns on college and university campuses.

The legislation is more narrow than Murphey's original proposal, which would have allowed anyone at least 21 years old with concealed handgun carrying rights to carry weapons on campus. That version was similar to a Utah law.

"This has to be the craziest thing I have ever seen," said Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow, one of several lawmakers who said the measure is opposed by college administrators.

Supporters argued that the measure would make college campuses safer by putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Rep. Colby Schwartz, R-Yukon, said someone with a concealed weapon might be the only person in a classroom who can protect himself and others from an attacking gunman.

"When seconds matter the police are just minutes away," said Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs.

House members also approved a measure that lowers the age to 18 from 21 of active-duty military, National Guard and reserve personnel as well as veterans who can be licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Murphey said his bill was a "commonsense step" to expand Oklahoma's concealed weapons law to combat campus violence.

"The concealed carry law is about 12 years old. It's worked out very well," Murphey said. He said more than 60,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry concealed weapons, and there has been no widespread gun violence in the state, which opponents had warned of.

Murphey's bill would require people authorized to carry a concealed handgun to provide written notice to the university or college president before bringing a gun on campus. It would not limit a university's ability to restrict concealed weapons from access-controlled areas where people are subject to security checks.

Source: cnn.com