text:
Logitech UE 6000
"When listening to music , i used to plug in my razer electra's , not that its gone in the dumpster but it did give a solid sound. Now when i started to use my UE6000 the sound felt so different that it took me to a new level of listening. Like i stated in the pro whatever genre of music plays the lows are very well defined that means the drums , keys and sounds that are normally drowned..." --maestrochin29
Logitech UE 900
"This is my first review so keep that in mind. I bought a pair used UE 900's at Cex, an electronics resale store in San Francisco. I was cleaning them and pulled the wrong way on the MMCX connector and the freakin' right unit came apart and ripped the internal wires apart. I contacted Logitech tech support and was shipped a complete UE 900s for a replacement! They were quick and helpful..." --caffed
YUIN PK3 Earbuds
"Looking at the picture of the PK3's I wasn't expecting much. They look and feel cheap using a generic case for the drivers making them easy to fake. (In fact my first pair were fake!) these earbuds sound GREAT! Especially considering the price ($44) I have a few pair of earbuds in this same and higher price range and these PK3's knock all of them out of the water. They have a flat sounding..." --thebluebulk
Logitech UE 900s Ultimate Ears Noise-Isolating Earphones (NEWEST 2014 VERSION)
"UE 900S Unibody I would like to first say thank you to Mrs. McDonald for sending me a demo unit to review. UE has some of the best customer service that I have experienced, they are very fast in responding to any emails with questions that I had. I am not employed or I am being compensated by UE for this review, this review is based on my opinions and all the photos were taken by..." --acain
Logitech Wireless Gaming Headset G930 with 7.1 Surround Sound
"I purchased these because my original gaming headset have been attacked by my rabbit. I understand that you make sacrifices when you purchase a wireless headset. I'm not a huge fan of this headset, but it gets the job done and I've come to terms with that. Yes, it is true that you need the software running in order to use the surroundsound and also to equalize the headset. I've never had a..." --Butler
Logitech Ultimate Ears 600 Noise-Isolating Earphones - Dark Silver
"should have added a cable clip , fitting is awesome , sound quality is just what i like , bass is fast , hits with a punch , really nice mids , highs are lively too . thick and dark signature , my fav sig . secoend in command of my line up , might let the xba-3 creep in between , but xba-3 lacks sound stage , come on xba-3 , being a $200 phone you can not lack sound stage . but xba sounds fine..." --suman134
Yuin Pk3 Earphones
" Got these at Amazon after a long search and much reading. Sound for the price is really good. Not in the same league with my Sony Pros or the Sennheisers but surprisingly close. I have them connected with a REALLY cheap headphone amp and the combo far exceeds what I expected. Clear, roomy, dead quiet. " --Richard S
Yuin Pk1 Earphones
" These were my sweetest sounding head-gear yet. It would be brilliant all-rounder if it would not require a portable amp for portable use. This is the first reason i left it, otherwise i almost got an ear infection from those foams.., they get dirty in a few weeks of massive use. I recommend them to clean, i boiled them in water. " --angevoi
G430 Gaming Headset
"Overall Summary: The sound is overall really good. If you're just looking for gaming surround sound and quality isn't the main concern, these would be pretty good for you. The price is nice at ~$70, so they shouldn't be out of reach for anyone really. They feel great, I've worn them for the past 9 months almost for an average of ~9-12 hours each day, sometimes longer,..." --Bugattikid2012
Yuin OK1 Earphones
" Well firstly this is not a true iem. The sound is about as great as one could get from an earbud. In my limited experience and without trying the pk1, I would say these are the finest buds you can buy. With that said, these are not for everyone, this is a niche product within an already niche market. I find driving it with my D12 anaconda makes for a pleasurable sound,..." --Jamesdeandoa


text:
Total AG Ratings: 3,767
1. Type your Review (required)
2. Rate the Game (required)
Fun. Why is it called gluey if the blobs are in paint buckets?
why no zen mode?
cool game
how do you unlock zen mode? i beat the game and nothing. p great game tho
i love the blobs sooo much they are just soo cute!!!! <3
ohhh so cute
love this game
grrr, beat the game and it wouldn't unlock zen mode >:(
just click like mad

subset: commoncrawl


text:
79 photos found.
Endangered! by Nancy Richard
endanger himself by luthfie lazuardy
Endangered by Kyle Santos
Endangered I by Christiaan d'Arnaud
endangered by Jessica White
Endangered Tiger by Ramír Delgado
Endangered by Dennis Joel Lim
Endangered by Vic Brincat
Endangered by Franz Malalis
Endangered Species... by Roberto Noto
Endangered Beauty by Patricia Davila
Endangered species by Nancy Charter Kechnie Goatbe
All "endangered" in Photos: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


text:
No-touch request-to-exit sensor uses IR technology to open a door or activate a device with the simple wave of a hand. The trigger distance is up to 4". Since there is no physical contact, this sensor is ideal for use in hospitals, clinics, labs, cleanrooms (to reduce the risk of contamination) or for use in schools, factories, or offices (anywhere an easy way to exit is required).
Login Here to rate and review this product.
82-12725 - Single-Gang Request-to-Exit Sensor with Square Green Illuminated Button
Push-to-exit button features stainless steel wall plate and lighted, momentary, square push-to-exit push button.
82-2570 - Amber Strobe
Amber Strobe for 3~14VDC applications.
25-5920 - 4 Warm White LED Project Lighting Module
The LED Light Module has housing made of ABS plastic with a transparent epoxy seal around the LEDs. This provides a robust construction with excellent light distribution and IP-65 sealing, (splashproof and dustproof). The LED Light Modules are available in 3 LED r...
108-4170 - Twist-on Wire Connector O/b+ Box Of 100 2#22~2#12 AWG
Quick bite. Flexible skirt covers overstrips for additional safety. 100 pieces per box.
MCM Cat 57, Page 536
MCM Cat 56, Page 499


text:
A health care sharing ministry (HCSM) provides a health care cost sharing arrangement among persons of similar and sincerely held beliefs. HCSMs are not-for-profit religious organizations acting as a clearinghouse for those who have medical expenses and those who desire to share the burden of those medical expenses.
- HCSMs receive no funding or grants from government sources.
- HCSMs are not insurance companies. HCSM do not assume any risk or guarantee the payment of any medical bill. Twenty-four states have explicitly recognized this and specifically exempt HCSMs from their insurance codes.
- HCSMs serve more than 170,000 people, with participating households in all fifty states.
- HCSMs' participants share more than $165 million per year for one another's health care costs.
- HCSMs strive to be accessible to participants regardless of their income, because traditionally shares are a fraction of the cost of insurance rates.
In our nation's past, our forefathers were quite familiar with bearing one another's burdens. Mutual aid was a foundation of social welfare in the United States. Today, our mentality has moved far from that of our ancestors. We still have the mandate to bear one another's burdens, but we hardly know what that means anymore. If an emergency medical problem arises, the government or the insurance company takes care of it, and our friends, relatives and neighbors have little participation in restoring us to our former state. We don't think we need each other in the way we used to. HCSMs provide an opportunity where Christians can minister to the Body of Christ while being thrifty with their money, and without ignoring their own medical needs. HCSMs have grown in popularity and success ever since the Old Order Amish Church Fund began the modern-era of burden-bearing during the 1960's. Today, participants from a broad spectrum of Christian denominations support each other's medical needs across all fifty states and around the world.
Biblical basis
A HCSM is founded on the biblical mandate of believers to share each other's needs. Our goal is to apply Galatians 6:2, "Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ" to the ever-rising medical costs which can be quite burdensome for anyone, single or married, young or old. It is a principle that has been around since the birth and growth of the early Church. The Book of Acts reports, "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need," (Acts 2:44-45). These Christians are making a decision to be there for their neighbor in need and bring glory to God in the process of sharing.
How it works
The member ministries of the Alliance each publish and distribute a monthly publication to a group of committed Christian participants who have offered to give a certain amount each month. This money is shared among the participants to assist those with medical bills. The publication lists the current needs of its participants and shows who the gift is to help that particular month. This brings Christians together to share medical bills with one another. The key is that medical needs are shared among participants. The personal approach of HCSMs facilitates Christians to bear one another's burdens in a very tangible way. Biblical principles are foundational to HCSMs and the participants treat each other with respect, prayer, and genuine care.
Testimony from a participant
We are amazed at the care and generosity of God's people! We received over 200 cards and gifts from those who felt led by the Holy Spirit to help bear our financial burden! I now share with others as much as possible about this incredible ministry. We often found ourselves in tears as we read the meaningful notes of agape love and encouragement.
Michael and Mary Suitter
Hayden, ID
Member Ministries
Click here to compare participation guidelines and requirements between our member ministries. Please direct all participation related questions to each respective ministry.


text:
Rag & Bone
Danbury Blazer
http://www.barneys.com/rag-%26-bone-danbury-blazer-502051559.htmlProduct Actions
Exclusively Ours!
Wool two-button blazer in Glen plaid with notched lapels, chest pocket, and two side flap pockets. Lined with interior pockets. Available in Black/Grey. Imported. Wool, bemberg/cotton lining. Dry clean.
Style # 502051559Designers Marcus Wainwright and David Neville hail from England, but they've created a new American standard with Rag & Bone. Perfect denim, suits, boots and more—for men and women—are our go-to wardrobe staples.
Need Help? Have Questions? Contact Us.
Please call 1.888.222.7639 to speak with a Customer Service Representative.
We're here to help you:
Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday - Sunday, 11:30 AM - 8 PM (ET)
If you prefer email, we can be reached anytime at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Our Shipping & Returns Policy can be viewed here.


text:
Briefing Paper No. 20 | October 17, 1994 |
by Dean Stansel
Dean Stansel is a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
In November 1980 Missouri voters approved the Hancock amendment, a constitutional amendment intended to prevent the Missouri state budget from growing faster than the Missouri family budget. Since then the effectiveness of that amendment has been eroded as legislators have discovered ways to evade its restrictions by exempting certain revenues from the cap. Those evasions have cost Missourians $5 billion in higher taxes.
On November 8 voters in Missouri can repair the Hancock amendment by enacting the Hancock II amendment. Because it more precisely defines "total state revenue," Hancock II would be more difficult for politicians to evade.
The opposition's scare tactics--claiming that Hancock II will require a $1-billion tax refund and necessitate massive spending cuts and service disruptions--are inaccurate and misleading. Any reduction in spending that may be necessary to comply with Hancock II would be only about one- eighth the size of the opposition's alarmist predictions.
Missouri is one of 23 states that have some form of tax and expenditure limitation (TEL) to restrict the growth of the state budget. In November 1980 Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment--called the Hancock amendment after its sponsor, Mel Hancock--that prevents the state government from increasing the percentage of residents' incomes taken as state revenues without voter approval.
Like most TELs, the Hancock amendment was initially effective at restraining the growth of state taxes and spending. However, over the years that effectiveness has been eroded as legislators--aided by sympathetic court rulings-- have discovered ways to evade the voter-imposed restrictions by exempting certain revenues from the cap.(1) For example:
* In 1982 only 2 percent of Missouri state revenue was considered exempt from the revenue limit. In 1993 the uncapped portion was nine times higher, or 18 percent.
* Increasing the amount of revenue excluded from the revenue limit has allowed Missouri's state politicians to collect $5 billion more in revenue over fiscal years 1982- 93, than the Hancock amendment would have permitted.
* Since the Hancock amendment took effect, state own- source revenue, on a per capita basis, has risen 56 percent, the third fastest rate of state tax growth in the nation.
* Though state revenue was not supposed to rise faster than Missouri residents' incomes, between 1982 and 1993 state revenue grew by 134 percent while Missouri personal income grew by only 112 percent.
* In FY95 alone, due in part to state senate bill 380-- a $310-million tax hike passed in 1993 but not approved by the voters--state revenue will rise 9.4 percent, more than double the 4.1 percent rise in Missourians' incomes.
Many Missouri residents would like to restore the integrity of the original Hancock amendment (Hancock I hereinafter). To that end, a new amendment, Hancock II, has been placed on the ballot this year. Because it provides a more precise definition of "total state revenue"--the item being limited--Hancock II would plug the loopholes that have substantially undermined the effectiveness of Hancock I.
One of the leading critics of Hancock II has claimed that the measure will require an immediate taxpayer refund of $1 billion and that it will "completely change the way the state does business." However, as this analysis shows, the opposition's scare tactics are inaccurate and misleading. Any reduction that might be necessary to comply with Hancock II's restraints would be only about one-eighth the size of the opposition's alarmist predictions. Such a cut would not be as much evidence that Hancock II is a draconian measure as it would be indicative of just how successfully state politicians have been able to evade the voter-imposed restrictions of Hancock I. Hancock II would simply enforce the constitutional requirement that the Missouri state budget not grow faster than the Missouri family budget.
How Politicians Avoid the Constraints of Voter-Imposed Tax and Spending Limits
In 1978 the passage of California's revolutionary Proposition 13--which rolled back property taxes and severely restricted their rate of annual growth--launched a grassroots citizens' tax revolt that swept across the nation. By 1982, 20 states--including Missouri--had adopted some form of TEL. Although those measures were initially effective at reining in the growth of state government, over the years their effectiveness has been eroded as big-spending politicians have discovered ways to evade the restrictions.
For example, since many TELs apply (or are interpreted as applying) to only the general fund, one common way of circumventing a spending cap has been to set up new "special funds," which, by definition, are exempt from the cap. Similarly, state legislatures have enacted "earmarked" taxes, the revenue from which is set aside in a separate fund, exempt from most voter-approved caps. Such end-runs around the will of the people have eviscerated nearly all of the Proposition 13-era tax and spending limits, including Missouri's Hancock I.
Evidence that the effectiveness of TELs declines over time can be found by examining spending growth in the 15 states that had binding TELs in place by 1980.(2) From 1980 to 1985 the real growth rate of per capita state spending in those states was 3.5 percentage points below the U.S. average (6.3 percent vs. 9.8 percent). However, from 1985 to 1990 spending in those states actually rose faster than the U.S. average (16.7 percent vs. 16.3 percent).(3)
It seems that no matter how explicitly voters try to constrain the tax and spending powers of state government, politicians eventually find ways to circumvent those constraints.
Missouri's Hancock Amendment (1980): A History of Evasion
Missouri's original Hancock amendment, passed by the voters in 1980, has been routinely thwarted by the Missouri legislature. Hancock I was intended to prohibit the state legislature from increasing the percentage of Missourians' income taken as state revenue. (In that way it was similar to many of the other Proposition 13-era TELs.) Beginning with fiscal year 1982 (the first full fiscal year after Hancock I passed), that ratio was not allowed to rise above its level in FY81, when total state revenue consumed 5.64 percent of personal income.(4) In each fiscal year thereafter, the revenue limit was to be determined by multiplying the relevant personal income amount by the original ratio of 5.64 percent.(5)
Hancock I defined the specific item it intended to limit, total state revenue, as follows.
"Total state revenues" includes all general and special revenues, licenses, and fees, excluding federal funds, as defined in the budget message of the governor for fiscal year 1980-1981. Total state revenues shall exclude the amount of any credits based on actual tax liabilities or the imputed tax components of rental payments, but shall include the amount of any credits not related to actual tax liabilities.(6)
Apparently, that language was not explicit enough for state officials. In its first annual review of Hancock I, the state Auditor's Office described the situation as follows.
The amendment, beyond the language above [section 17 (1), above], is not specific as to the types of revenues that are included or excluded in determining TSR [total state revenue]. Further, the amendment does not specify the methodology to be used in determining TSR. Consequently, the division (7) [Missouri budget office] established procedures to calculate TSR. The division also had to make certain decisions as to items that would be either included or excluded, except for items ruled on by the attorney general or the Missouri courts. (8)
Much of the confusion stemmed from the failure of the legislature to enact implementing legislation. That left unanswered the question of which agency was responsible for enforcing and monitoring the state's compliance with the amendment. The Missouri budget office, an executive-branch agency under the control of the governor, took upon itself the responsibility of fulfilling that crucial role. Nevertheless, the state Auditor's Office has also tried to define the revenue limit by producing its own annual reports on Hancock I. Those reports have often been in disagreement with the findings of the budget office. As a result, there is no consensus on what "total state revenue" is each year, nor on whether or how much the limit has been exceeded. Much of that confusion could have been avoided if the legislature had simply passed implementing legislation, something it still has not done after 14 years.
The problem was complicated by the passage, in November 1982, of Proposition C, the first major voter-approved tax hike since the passage of Hancock I. Proposition C was a $0.01 sales tax hike, 1/2ő of which was earmarked to roll back local property taxes and the other 1/2ő of which was devoted to public schools.(9) The Missouri budget office asserted that since Proposition C was approved by the voters, it was not subject to the revenue limit. The state Auditor's Office concurred, stating that "including voter approved increases as TSR achieves the illogical result that voters agreed to additional taxes so they could receive a refund."
That analysis misses the point. Proposition C did not include a provision excluding its revenue from the Hancock limit. Thus, all that voters approved in passing Proposition C was a statutory $0.01 sales tax hike earmarked for particular purposes. They clearly did not endorse excluding that revenue from the limit. Further, as a statute, Proposition C can have no bearing on the constitutional revenue limit that voters approved when they passed the Hancock amendment in 1980. If Proposition C had caused total revenue to exceed the limit, the legislature could have complied with Hancock I by cutting other nondedicated taxes.
Nevertheless, the Missouri Supreme Court, in Goode v. Bond (1983), agreed with the budget office's contention that voter-approved tax increases--even statutory ones--should not be subject to the revenue limit.(10) That ruling created a loophole in the Hancock amendment. Further, it indicated to state politicians who disliked the constitutional constraints of the Hancock amendment that they could evade those constraints without actually amending the constitution. That could be achieved by sending statutory tax increases--for example, ones dedicated to high-priority programs such as schools, roads, and prisons--to the voters for approval. If approved, those sources of revenue, as Proposition C was, would be exempt from Hancock's constitutional revenue cap. In essence, Goode v. Bond told politicians that they could amend the state constitution with a statute.
Not surprisingly, since that court ruling, numerous tax-hike proposals have appeared on the ballot. Three such proposals were approved by the voters as constitutional amendments, the language of which clearly excluded their revenues from the Hancock revenue limit.(11) However, like Proposition C, Proposition A--a motor fuel tax--was statutory and did not contain any provision for excluding its revenue from the Hancock revenue limit. Thus, although voters did approve those specific tax hikes, they did not approve excluding those revenues from the limit. Stated differently, by approving Propositions A and C, voters did not approve an overall increase in the tax revenue limit under Hancock, though in effect that is what they have gotten.
In FY95 alone those two sources of revenue that the court excluded from the limit are expected to cost Missouri residents over $650 million in extra taxes.(12) That amounts to $125 in higher taxes for every man, woman, and child in Missouri. The next section will shed more light on just how damaging the court's ruling in Goode v. Bond has been to Missouri's taxpayers.
The Cost of TEL Evasion
Most observers agree that the current tax burden in Missouri is lower than it would have been without the Hancock amendment.(13) Nevertheless, over the years, thanks to the loophole described above, the amendment's effectiveness at restraining the growth of taxes and spending has been substantially reduced. As a result, despite the fact that voters approved a constitutional limit to the growth of the state budget, taxes and spending have continued to climb in Missouri.
As Table 1 shows, from 1982--the year the Hancock amendment went into affect--to 1992, Missouri's spending growth far outpaced that of its Plains State neighbors and the rest of the country.(14) After adjusting for inflation:
* Missouri's state budget grew by 63 percent--the 15th fastest in the United States--while the Plains State average grew by only 40 percent.
* Per capita state spending in Missouri rose by 54 percent--8th fastest in the nation--compared to only 31 percent for the Plains State average.
* State spending as a share of personal income rose by 22 percent in Missouri--11th fastest in the country--while the Plains State average rose by only 13 percent and the U.S. average by only 12 percent.
As Table 2 indicates, the same pattern holds true for state revenue, which Missouri residents voted to cap in 1980.(15) From 1982 to 1992, after adjusting for inflation:
* Total own-source revenue in Missouri rose by 65 percent--15th fastest in the U.S.--while the Plains state average rose by only 45 percent.(16)
* On a per capita basis, state own-source revenue in Missouri climbed 56 percent--3rd fastest in the nation-- compared to only 31 percent for the Plains State average.
* State own-source revenue as a share of personal income soared by 24 percent in Missouri--10th fastest in the country--while the Plains State average rose by only 13 percent and the U.S. average by only 10 percent.
Clearly, taxes and spending continue to spiral out of control even with the Hancock limit. That growth of taxes and spending is not what Missouri voters intended when they approved Hancock I in 1980. Excessive growth has been caused largely by the court's ruling on the definition of revenue, which excluded revenue from voter-approved tax hikes. Table 3 shows the effect of that redefinition of "total state revenue." (Note: these figures are in current dollars, that is, they have not been adjusted for inflation. Thus the accumulated cost to the taxpayer of evasions of the Hancock limit is actually substantially larger than it appears herein.)
* The percentage of state own-source revenue(17) considered exempt from the cap skyrocketed from 2 percent in 1982 to 22 percent in 1987. Since then that figure has leveled off at about 18 percent, nine times higher than in 1982.
* Over the period FY1982-93, the redefinition of "total state revenue" exempted $4.9 billion in state revenue from the cap.
As Table 4 shows that , contrary to the voters' stated intent in passing the Hancock amendment, political end-runs and anti-taxpayer court decisions have allowed state revenue growth to significantly outpace the growth of Missourians' personal income. (Note: as in Table 3, these figures are in current dollars.)
* Total state revenue was supposed to increase only as fast as Missouri residents' incomes. However, between 1982 and 1993 state revenue grew by 134 percent while Missouri personal income grew by only 112 percent.(18)
* Beginning in FY83, only one year after the Hancock amendment went into effect, total state revenue has exceeded the cap every year. The most recent final budget numbers show that the cap was exceeded by nearly $400 million in FY93 alone.(19)
* If the intended definition of "total state revenues" had been adhered to, Missouri residents would have paid $3.7 billion less in taxes over the period 1982-93.(20)
* In FY95 alone, due in part to Senate Bill 380--a $310-million tax hike for education, passed, but not approved by the voters, in 1993--state revenue will rise 9.4 percent, more than double the 4.1 percent rise in Missourians' incomes.(21)
In sum, state politicians have been very successful at ignoring the original Hancock amendment's call for budget discipline. That amendment merely asked the state government to prevent the budget from growing faster than Missouri residents' ability to pay for it. Indeed, several states have more stringent caps, such as those that restrict revenue growth to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Nevertheless, even Missouri's modest provision could not be adhered to. Despite the clear pattern of abuses, Missouri's legislators continue to claim that the Hancock revenue limit has never been exceeded.(22)
Hancock II: Requiring Voter Approval for New Taxes
In Missouri, as in some 20 other states, politicians have thwarted the will of the people by plainly violating voter-imposed tax and spending limits. In many of those other states voters have approved new amendments to plug the loopholes that were created in their existing TELs. For example, just last year voters in Washington state approved an amendment that limits the growth of state spending to the growth rate of population plus inflation. A similar measure was passed in Colorado in 1992.(23)
This November Missouri's taxpayers will have an opportunity to tighten the constraints of Hancock. As the previous section has documented, the original Hancock amendment has been severely weakened, costing Missouri's taxpayers billions of dollars in higher taxes over the past decade. Those taxpayer losses continue to rise every year. In an attempt to restore the integrity of the original Hancock amendment, the Hancock II amendment has been offered. Hancock II would close many of the loopholes that court rulings and political end-runs have created over the years, thereby making it more difficult for politicians to defy the will of the people.
The new amendment is very similar to the first one. However, as have taxpayer activists in many states, those in Missouri have learned from past experience and written an amendment that is more precise and thus more difficult for politicians to evade. Hancock II would make two main changes:
1. Its definition of "total state revenue"--the specific item being limited--is significantly more precise. Unlike the original amendment, Hancock II explicitly provides that the constitutional revenue limit cannot be exceeded simply by the voters' passing a statutory tax hike (as occurred with Propositions C and A).
2. As did the original, Hancock II contains a voter approval requirement. If politicians wish to increase the percentage of residents' incomes taken as state revenue, they must first obtain the permission of the people who pay those taxes, the voters of Missouri. Such provisions are increasingly popular; they have recently been adopted by several other states and will be on the ballot in many more this year and in the years to come.
The Opposition to Tax Restraint
Despite the reasonableness of measures such as Hancock II, which cap revenue at the rate of income growth, the opposition to such measures is enormous. The most vocal opposition comes from those who benefit directly from government spending, including career politicians, lobbyists, teachers' unions, and government workers. Since those groups have a stake in seeing that government revenue and spending grow, they have tended to campaign strongly against fiscal limitations in Missouri and elsewhere.(24) To overcome the populist appeal of TELs, the opposition frequently resorts to trying to scare voters about the consequences of such measures. They often claim that the TEL would force politicians to make massive cuts in essential government services.
In Missouri the opposition to Hancock II is led by various Missouri educational associations, public employee unions, and organizations that do business with the state. Those groups have organized and funded the Committee to Protect Missouri's Future. That group commissioned a report estimating the impact of Hancock II on the state budget. The report, written by James Moody, a lobbyist in Jefferson City, has become known as the Moody report. Moody's clients have included several organizations seeking to do business with the state government (for example, firms seeking contracts or leases with state agencies). Moody has worked as a state government administrator for both Democratic and Republican administrations. He is the furthest thing from an unbiased observer.
The Moody report claims that, because Hancock II implements the original intent of Hancock I by eliminating existing loopholes in the definition of "total state revenue," the new measure will require a spending cut--and revenue refund--of $1.024 billion in FY96.(25) After accounting for monies that are constitutionally earmarked for specific purposes or otherwise exempt from spending reductions, Moody alleges that the result will be an across-the-board cut of 32.36 percent in spending for many of the most popular government services, such as highways, schools, colleges, and prisons. The report goes on to editorialize about the potential impact of those budget cuts. For example, Moody claims:
With this reduction, it appears certain that Missouri will not match all available federal [highway] funds, thereby eliminating necessary improvements to Missouri roads and sending the federal funds for Missouri to other states.(26)
Elementary and Secondary Education will be reduced by $284.6 million, and this reduction could renew litigation regarding the inadequacy of funding for this purpose.(27)
The quality and delivery system for higher education in Missouri would be shaken to its very foundation. The only feasible approach may to be consider the complete closure of state colleges or universities or community colleges.(28)
The likely policy reaction to a reduction of $55.42 million [for corrections] would be an enormous reduction in prison bed spaces and shorter sentencing due to a lack of capacity.(29)
The impacts on every department listed above would be dramatic, and may bring their activities nearly to a halt.(30)
The Moody report paints a frightening picture of what would happen if Hancock II passed, one that virtually no one would like to see become a reality. Those conclusions have received widespread media attention all over the state.
Fortunately for Missouri's taxpayers, Moody's analysis is seriously flawed. His assertion that the passage of Hancock II will require massive cuts in state services is inaccurate and misleading.
Assessing the Moody Report
The Moody report claims that the passage of Hancock II will require a tax refund (and thus a spending cut) of $1.024 billion in FY96. Table 5 shows how that number was derived. As discussed earlier, the main purpose of Hancock II is to return to Hancock I's intended definition of "total state revenue." As a result, certain revenues that the court has interpreted as exempt from the cap are intended to be brought back under Hancock II's cap. In Table 5, Moody's estimates of those amounts are shown as "new revenues included by Hancock II." According to Moody's calculations, adding that "new" revenue to "total state revenue" (as currently defined by the Missouri budget office) causes the sum to exceed the revenue limit by $516.7 million in FY95 and $507.2 million in FY96.
Moody assumes that Hancock II will take effect immediately and that the excess revenue from both FY95 and FY96 will be returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax refunds in FY96. (As Moody concedes, however, "an argument could be made that [the FY96] refund would be made in Fiscal Year 1997.")(31) Combining the FY95 and FY96 figures, Moody thus arrives at the sum of $1.024 billion, which he concludes must be refunded to the taxpayers and cut from the state budget in FY96.
Moody further estimates that the $1.024-billion budget cut would require a 32.36 percent cut in spending. Table 6 shows how that number was derived. Moody first assumes that, in response to Hancock II, the legislature will repeal two taxes that would have brought in $182 million in revenue in FY96.(32) Thus, that $182 million is subtracted from both the projected level of FY96 revenue and the amount of the spending cut. Moody then excludes $3,882.7 million in spending that he asserts is protected from spending cuts.(33) That reduces the pool of "unprotected spending," from which $841.9 million must be cut, to $2,601.6 million. As Table 6 indicates, and as the Moody report asserts, accomplishing that feat would require spending to be cut by 32.36 percent.
Flaws of Moody Report
Moody's analysis contains four major flaws. Table 7 indicates how those flaws inflate Moody's estimate of the FY96 tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II.
1. Moody incorrectly assumes Hancock II applies to FY95. As the text of the Hancock II amendment clearly states, it becomes "effective the first full fiscal year after adoption."(34) Since FY95 is already in progress, it cannot be the first full fiscal year after adoption. Thus, Hancock II would not take effect until FY96. Adjusting for that error lowers Moody's tax reduction estimate by $516.7 million, the amount of his FY95 tax reduction estimate.
2. Moody's "cut" is not what most people think of as a cut (i.e., it is not an actual reduction from the prior year's level). Moody's analysis employs the misleading "current services baseline" methodology made famous by the U.S. Congress. That is, when Moody claims that Hancock II will require spending to be "cut" by $1.024 billion, he does not really mean that after the cut the level of spending will be $1.024 billion less than the year before. Instead, he merely means that spending would be $1.024 billion lower than it would have been if politicians had continued to let the budget grow unchecked. Adjusting for that misleading accounting trick lowers Moody's estimate of the necessary tax reduction by $311.2 million, the amount that the Missouri budget office and the Moody report assume revenue would grow from FY95 to FY96 without Hancock II (see Table 5).
3. Moody ignores the 1 percent refund threshold. Hancock II stipulates that a refund is required only if total state revenue exceeds the limit by more than 1 percent.(35) (That is true of Hancock I as well.) Moody's estimates of the "required refund" ignore that 1 percent threshold. Moody incorrectly assumes that to avoid triggering a "required refund," FY96 revenue must be reduced to the level of the revenue limit, when in reality it must merely fall below the refund threshold. Adjusting for that discrepancy by subtracting the amount of the 1 percent refund threshold lowers Moody's estimate of the necessary tax reduction by $61.6 million.
4. Moody ignores one of his own assumptions. In calculating spending cut estimates, he makes the assumption that, in response to Hancock II, the legislature will repeal two taxes.(36) Those taxes were expected to bring in $182 million in revenue in FY96. Since by Moody's own assumption, that $182 million will never be collected, his estimate of FY96 revenue, and thus of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II, should have been reduced by the same amount.(37) (Note that since adjustment 2 above essentially employs a baseline of FY95 revenue rather than projected FY96 revenue, subtracting $182 million from Table 7's adjusted tax reduction estimate would involve an element of double counting, thus it is listed separately.)
In sum, as Table 7 indicates, the total effect of adjusting for the three main flaws in Moody's analysis would lower his estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II by $889.5 million. Rather than $1.024 billion, the necessary tax reduction would be only about one-eighth of that amount, or $134.4 million.
Furthermore, even ignoring the first three flaws, under Moody's own assumptions, his $1.024-billion estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II is incorrect. The correct figure is $841.9 million, nearly 20 percent lower than Moody claims.
Finally, Table 8 recalculates Moody's FY96 percentage spending cut estimate (from Table 6), correcting for the flaws described above. Assuming that 58.2 percent of the budget is protected from spending cuts (as Moody assumed for FY96),(38) and employing an FY95 baseline of $6,355.1 in revenue (the Missouri budget office's projection used in the Moody report), the amount of unprotected spending in FY95 would be $2,656.4 million. Using the corrected spending cut reduction figure of $134.4 million from Table 7, the percentage cut in unprotected spending necessary to comply with Hancock II would be 5.06 percent, less than one-sixth of the 32.36 percent cut Moody claims is required.
To summarize, while Moody asserts that Hancock II would necessitate revenue refunds and spending cuts of over $1 billion in FY96, in reality those cuts need be only $134.4 million. That is a far cry from a $1-billion cut. In addition, Moody's claim that a 32.36 percent reduction would have to be made in all areas of unprotected spending, including schools, colleges, prisons, and highways, is overstated by a factor of six. That reduction need be only about 5 percent.
Furthermore, reductions are only necessary because, despite the Hancock amendment's provisions, the Missouri legislature has refused to rein in the growth of the state budget. In fact, in FY95 alone, due in part to state senate bill 380--a $310-million tax hike for education, passed, but not approved by the voters, in 1993--state revenue will rise 9.4 percent, more than double the 4.1 percent rise in Missourians' incomes.(39) Thus, over the past two years Missouri state revenue has gone up by over $700 million. That amounts to a 12.2 percent tax increase, nearly double the U.S. average for that period.(40)
The Moody report claims that the passage of Hancock II will require a tax refund of $1.024 billion, or $194 for every resident of Missouri. Although that may sound very enticing to Missouri's taxpayers, those numbers are sheer fantasy. The huge tax refund and the corresponding deep spending cutbacks that Hancock II's opponents are predicting if the measure is passed are vastly overstated. Voting for Hancock II will not put a check for $194 into the hands of each Missouri resident. Nor will it require the massive cuts in government services that its opponents are alleging. In reality, the actual reduction required by Hancock II would be, at most, 5 percent. That cut would be necessary only to compensate for the years of accumulated overspending outlined in this paper.
Despite the alarmist claims of its opponents, by linking state revenue growth to the growth of state personal income, all Hancock II would really do is require politicians to live under the same set of rules that Missouri's taxpayers have been struggling under. Hancock II would merely restrain the ability of politicians to raise taxes and the budget faster than the growth of state taxpayers' incomes. It would not require legislators to make drastic reductions in revenue and expenditures. In fact, it would not even prohibit them from raising taxes faster than personal income. If the state legislature wanted to pass a budget with a larger than allowed increase in revenue, Hancock II would not prevent them from taking that action. All Hancock II would require is that the legislature first obtain the permission of the people who must pay those higher taxes, the voters of Missouri. That seems a sensible response to 12 years of inflated state budgets and rapidly rising tax burdens in Missouri.
Table 1 Growth of Missouri State Spending Since Enactment of Hancock Amendment, 1982-1992 |
Real Increase | U.S. Rank | Real per Capita Increase | U.S. Rank | Increase Per $1,000 Personal | U.S. Rank | |
Missouri | 63% | 15 | 54% | 8 | 22% | 11 |
Plains States Avg.* | 40% | 31% | 13% | |||
U.S. Average | 55% | 38% | 12% |
*"Plains States" refers to the Census Bureau's "West North Central" region
which is made up of seven states: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State Government Finances, 1982 & 1992 editions.
Table 2 Growth of Missouri State Revenues* Since Enactment of Hancock Amendment, 1982-92 |
Real Increase | U.S. Rank | Real per Capita Increase | U.S. Rank | Increase Per $1,000 Personal | U.S. Rank | |
Missouri | 65% | 15 | 56% | 3 | 24% | 10 |
Plains States Avg.* | 45% | 31% | 13% | |||
U.S. Average | 51% | 34% | 10% |
*Total revenue minus intergovernmental revenue from the federal government.
**"Plains States" refers to the Census Bureau's "West North Central" region
which is made up of seven states: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Table 3 The Effect of the Court's Redefinition of "Total State Revenue" |
Actual Amount of Total State Revenue (TSR) Under Differing Definitions | ||||||
Missouri budget office's definition* | $2,397 | $2,603 | $2,841 | $3,120 | $3,326 | $3,583 |
Hancock-I's intended definition** | $2,397 | $2,710 | $3,157 | $3,461 | $3,688 | $3,968 |
Amount of revenue exempted from Hancock-I's intended definition.*** | $0 | $107 | $316 | $341 | $362 | $385 |
Percentage of State Own-Source Revenue Exempted from the Revenue Limit Under Differing Definitions of TSR | ||||||
Missouri budget office's definition* | 2.1% | 6.5% | 15.5% | 14.5% | 15.9% | 22.1% |
Hancock-I's intended definition** | 2.1% | 2.7% | 6.1% | 5.2% | 6.8% | 13.7% |
FY1988 | FY1989 | FY1990 | FY1991 | FY1992 | FY1993 | 1982-93 Increase | |
Actual Amount of Total State Revenue (TSR) Under Differing Definitions | |||||||
Missouri budget office's definition* | $3,917 | $4,175 | $4,422 | $4,630 | $5,011 | 109.1% | 109.1% |
Hancock-I's intended definition** | $4,445 | $4,726 | $4,993 | $5,201 | $5,531 | $5,620 | 134.4% |
Amount of revenue exempted from Hancock-I's intended definition.*** | $528 | $551 | $571 | $571 | $586 | $609 | $4,926 |
Percentage of State Own-Source Revenue Exempted from the Revenue Limit Under Differing Definitions of TSR^ | |||||||
Missouri budget office's definition* | 18.7% | 16.8% | 17.3% | 16.0% | 17.1% | 17.9% | |
Hancock-I's intended definition** | 7.7% | 5.9% | 6.6% | 5.6% | 7.2% | 7.9% |
*Refers to TSR as defined by the Missouri budget office (Office of
Administration, Division of Budget and Planning).
**Hancock I's intended definition differs from the budget office's definition
only in that it includes the amount of revenue from Proposition C and
Proposition A.
***Equals the amount of revenue from Proposition C and Proposition A.
^"State Own-Source Revenue" excludes only federal funds.
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all figures are in millions of current
dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation).
Source: Office of the State Auditor of Missouri, annual Hancock reports,
FY1982-1993. Figures for 1989-93 taken from 1993 report, 1988 from 1992,
1987 from 1991, 1986 from1990,1985 from 1989, 1984 from 1988, 1983 from 1987,
and 1982 from 1986 report.
Table 4 Contrary to the Intent of the Hancock Amendment, Total State Revenues Have Outpaced Personal Income Growth |
State Personal Income* | $43,698 | $47,697 | $50,423 | $54,817 | $60,466 | $66,605 | $70,503 |
Annual Increas | 9.2% | 5.7% | 8.7% | 10.3% | 10.2% | 5.9% | |
Total State Revenue under intended definition of Hancock I (TSRH)** | $2,397 | $2,710 | $3,157 | $3,461 | $3,688 | $3,968 | $4,445 |
Annual Increase | 13.1% | 16.5% | 9.6% | 6.5% | 7.6% | 12.0% | |
Revenue Limit*** | $2,480 | $2,706 | $2,860 | $3,110 | $3,430 | $3,776 | $3,998 |
Annual Increase | 9.1% | 5.7% | 8.7% | 10.3% | 10.1% | 5.9% | |
Amount TSRH exceeded the limit | $4 | $297 | $351 | $258 | $192 | $447 | |
Percent TSRH exceeded the limit | 0.2% | 10.4% | 11.3% | 7.5% | 5.1% | 11.2% | |
TSRH as a share of personal income | 5.49% | 5.68% | 6.26% | 6.31% | 6.10% | 5.96% | 6.30% |
State Personal Income* | $74,825 | $79,458 | $84,864 | $89,611 | $92,733 | |
Annual Increas | 6.1% | 6.2% | 6.8% | 5.6% | 3.5% |
112.2% |
Total State Revenue under intended definition of Hancock I (TSRH)** | $4,726 | $4,993 | $5,201 | $5,531 | $5,620 | |
Annual Increase | 6.3% | 5.6% | 4.2% | 6.3% | 1.6% |
134.4% |
Revenue Limit*** | $4,242 | $4,507 | $4,814 | $5,082 | $5,258 | |
Annual Increase | 6.1% | 6.2% | 6.8% | 5.6% | 3.5% | 112.0% |
Amount TSRH exceeded the limit | $484 | $486 | $387 | $449 | $362 |
$3,716 |
Percent TSRH exceeded the limit | 11.4% | 10.8% | 8.0% | 8.8% | 6.9% | |
TSRH as a share of personal income | 6.32% | 6.28% | 6.13% | 6.17% | 6.06% |
*As stipulated by Hancock I, the personal income figures used for FY 1982 are
from calendar year 1980, for FY 1983: from CY 1981, etc. This is done
because fiscal years end before calendar years.
**Hancock I's intended definition differs from the budget office's definition
only in that it includes the amount of revenue from Proposition C and
Proposition A.
***As defined by the Missouri budget office (Office of Administration, Division
of Budget and Planning).
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all figures are in millions of current
dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation).
Source: Office of the State Auditor of Missouri, annual Hancock reports,
FY1982-1993. Figures for 1989-93 taken from 1993 report, 1988 from 1992,
1987 from 1991, 1986 from 1990, 1985 from 1989, 1984 from 1988, 1983 from 1987,
and 1982 from 1986 report.
Table 5 Moody Report's Estimate of "Tax Reduction" Necessary to Comply with Hancock II |
Annual Growth | |||||
State Personal Income* | $98,963 | $102,995 | $108,668 | 4.1% | 5.5% |
Total State Revenue** | $5,170.1 | $5,657.2 | $5,946.0 | 9.4% | 5.1% |
New revenues included by H-II** | $697.9 | $720.3 |
TSR plus new revenues** | $6,355.1 | $6,666.3 | +$311.2 | ||
Revenue Limit** | $5,610.3 | $5,838.4 | $6,159.1 | 4.1% | 5.5% |
Amount TSR would exceed the limit** | $516.7 | $507.2 |
Tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II*** | $1,023.9 |
*As stipulated by Hancock I, the personal income figures used for FY 1994 are
from calendar year 1992, for FY 1995: from CY 1993, etc. This is done because
fiscal years end before calendar years. Figures are official U.S. Department
of Commerce projections used by Missouri budget office and in the Moody Report.
**Figures are Missouri budget office projections of total state revenue subject
to Hancock II used in the Moody Report.
***This figure is merely the sum of the excess revenues from FY 1995 and FY
1996. Moody assumes that this amount would have to be refunded to the taxpayer
in FY 1996.
Note: This is an adaptation of Table 3 of the Moody Report. The Moody Report
uses the term "required refund" for the amount which revenue is projected to
exceed the limit. However, a refund would be required only if the legislature
votes to collect that excess revenue, in violation of Hancock II. All figures
are in millions of current dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation).
Source: Moody Report, Table 3, p. 7.
Table 6 Moody Report's Estimate of "Spending Cuts" Necessary to Comply with Hancock II |
Total state revenue subject to Hancock II* | $6,666.3 |
Spending cut necessary to comply with Hancock II** | $1,023.9 |
Projected FY 1996 revenue from taxes Moody assumes would be repealed*** | $182.0 |
Total state revenue subject to Hancock II (adjuste)^ | $6,484.3 |
Spending cut necessary to comply with Hancock II (adjusted)^ | $841.9 |
Moody's estimate of "protected expenditures" ^^ | $3,882.7 |
Amount of FY 1996 "unprotected spending"+ | $2,601.6 |
Spending cut as a % of "unprotected spending"++ | 32.36% |
*Missouri budget office projection used in the Moody Report and in Table 5 of
this report.
**Same as "tax reduction" figure from Table 5 of this report.
***In calculating his spending reduction estimates, Moody assumes that certain
taxes will be repealed. The expected revenue from those taxes must be
subtracted from both "total state revenue subject to Hancock II" and "spending
cut necessary to comply with Hancock II." According to the Missouri budget
office projections used in Moody's report, those taxes would have brought in
$182 million in FY 1996. (Moody Report, pp. 14-15.)
^These figures exclude the $182 million in FY96 revenue that Moody assumes will
not be collected.
^^This figure refers to spending on "a reasonable estimate of programs which
are protected by federal law, the Missouri Constitution, federal courts, or
Missouri state law or courts." (Moody Report, p. ii, and Table 4, pp. 13-14.)
+This figure is merely "total state revenue subject to Hancock II" minus
"protected expenditures."
++Note that this corresponds with Moody's estimate of the required cut in non-
exempted areas of spending. (Moody Report, p. 15.)
Note: All figures are in millions of current dollars (i.e., not adjusted for
Source: Moody Report, Tables 4 and 5, pp. 13-15.
Table 7 Adjustments to Moody's Estimate of the Tax Reduction Necessary to Comply with Hancock II |
Amount of Adjustment FY 1996 | FY 1996 Tax Reduction | |
Moody's estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II | -$1,023.9 | |
Adjustments: | ||
1) Hancock II does not apply to FY95 | $516.7 |
2) Projected FY 1995-96 revenue growth* | $311.2 |
3) Amount of 1% refund threshhold in FY 1996** | $61.6 | |
Total Adjustments | $889.5 | |
Corrected estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II | -$134.4 | |
Moody's estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II | -$1,023.9 |
4) Uncollected revenue from Moody's assumed tax repeals^ | $182.0 | |
Moody's estimate of the tax reduction necessary to comply with Hancock II, under his assumption of tax repeals | -$841.9 |
*Moody's FY 1996 "required reduction" is a reduction from the projected level
of FY 1996 revenue, rather than from the FY 1995 level. Since part of that
"reduction" represents the elimination of projected 1995-96 growth, it does not
measure the actual reduction from the prior year's level of revenue. The
number listed here represents the projected growth in "TSR plus new revenues"
from FY 1995 to 1996, used in the Moody Report. Subtracting that growth from
Moody's reduction makes it an actual reduction. See Table 5 of this report.
**Hancock II (and Hancock I) allows revenue to exceed the limit by up to 1%
without requiring a refund. The number listed is simply the amount of that 1%
refund threshhold by which FY 1996 revenue could exceed the limit without
requiring a refund.
^In calculating his spending reduction estimates, Moody assumes that certain
taxes will be repealed, however his "required refund" estimate of $1,023.9
billion does not exclude that revenue. According to the Missouri budget
office projections used in this report, those taxes would have brought in
$182 million in FY 1996. Note that since adjustment #2 above essentially
employs a FY 1995 baseline (rather that Moody's baseline of expected FY96
revenue), subtracting this $182 million, together with that adjustment,
from his estimated tax reduction would involve an element of double-counting,
thus it is listed separately. (Moody Report, pp. 14-15.)
Note: All figures are in millions of current dollars (i.e., not for
Table 8 How Moody's Flawed Tax Reduction Estimate Affected His Spending Cut Estimate | |
Moody's estimate of the percentage cut in FY96 spending necessary to comply with Hancock II* | 32.36% |
Revised Estimate of Spending Cut | |
TSR plus new revenues, FY 1995** | $6,355.1 |
Total "protected expenditures," FY 1995*** | $3,698.7 |
Amount of FY 1995 "unprotected spending" ^ | $2,656.4 |
Spending cut necessary to comply with Hancock II ^^ | $134.4 |
Spending cut as a % of "unprotected spending" | 5.06% |
(1) For a fuller discussion, see Dean Stansel, "Taming Leviathan: Are Tax and Spending Limits the Answer?" Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 213, July 25, 1994.
(2) Those 15 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washing ton.
(3) Stansel, p. 26.
(4) Note that, as stipulated by the Hancock amendment, the relevant personal income amount for the base year calcula tion was total personal income for calendar year 1979. Missouri State Constitution, article X, section 18(a).
(5) In future years, the relevant amount is for "the calen dar year prior to the calendar year in which appropriations for the fiscal year for which the calculation is being made [are made], or the average of personal income of Missouri in the previous three calendar years, whichever is greater." Ibid.
(6) Missouri State Constitution, article X, section 17(1).
(7) The official name of the Missouri budget office is the Division of Budget and Planning of the Office of Administra tion.
(8) James Antonio, "Review of the Hancock Amendment Two Years Ended June 30, 1982," Offices of the State Auditor of Missouri, Jefferson City, Report No. 83-35, March 16, 1983, p. 5.
(9) Proposition C did not require that local property tax cuts be made. Further, the state legislature subsequently reduced the amount of nonearmarked school funding.
(10) Goode v. Bond, 652 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1983).
(11) There is little disagreement that revenue that comes from a tax hike pursuant to a constitutional amendment, which specifically provides that said revenue be excluded from the limit, should indeed be excluded.
(12) Missouri budget office estimates used in James Moody, "The Impact of the Proposed Hancock II Amendment: Fiscal and Policy Implications for Missouri State Government," Commit tee to Protect Missouri's Future, Jefferson City, April 1994, Table 2, p. 5. Cited hereafter as Moody report.
(13) See, for example, Thomas Wyrick, "The Hancock Amendment and Economic Growth in Missouri," Heartland Institute Policy Study no. 49, June 25, 1992.
(14) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, State Government Finances, various editions.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Own-source revenue excludes intergovernmental revenue from the federal government (as defined by the Census Bu reau).
(17) Own-source revenues exclude federal funds.
(18) Hancock I's intended definition differs from the budget office's definition only in that it includes the amount of revenue from Propositions C and A, voter-approved statutory tax hikes.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Calculated from Missouri budget office figures used in the Moody report, Table 3, p. 7.
(22) In FY85, according to the state budget office, the revenue limit was exceeded by 0.3 percent. However, since that excess was less than 1 percent, no refund was required.
(23) Because they limit the growth of the state budget to the growth rate of population plus inflation, rather than to the growth rate of personal income--as Hancock II and many other TELs do--these two measures are actually somewhat stricter than Hancock II.
(24) For a recent discussion of this issue, see Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, "The Great Tax Revolt of 1994," Reason, October 1994, pp. 20-25.
(25) Note that the Democrat-controlled Legislative Oversight Committee, which produces the fiscal note for ballot initia tives and determines precisely how the initiative will appear on the ballot (i.e., decides what the specific lan guage will be), has estimated that the required cut will be between $1 billion and $5 billion. Those estimates include federal funds as part of total state revenue.
(26) Moody report, p. 16.
(27) Ibid., p. ii.
(28) Ibid., p. 17.
(29) Ibid., p. 16.
(30) Ibid., p. 17.
(31) Moody report, p. 9.
(32) Those two taxes are the local use tax and a gas tax hike that was scheduled to take effect in April 1996. According to the Missouri budget office projections used in the Moody report, those two taxes were expected to have brought in $182 million in FY96. Moody report, pp. 14-15.
(33) This figure is Moody's estimate of spending on "programs which are protected by federal law, the Missouri Constitu tion, federal courts, or Missouri state law or courts." Moody report, p. ii, and Table 4, pp. 13-14.
(34) Text of proposed Hancock II amendment, article X, section 18(a).
(35) Text of proposed Hancock II amendment, article X, section 18(b).
(36) Moody report, pp. 14-15.
(37) Moody's assumption clearly would lower the "reduction required to comply with Hancock II" by $182 million (from $1,023.9 million to $841.9 million). However, the number used throughout the Moody report is $1.024 billion, in direct contradiction of Moody's tax repeal assumption, which lowers the necessary reduction to $841.9 million.
(38) For the purposes of this paper, that assumption will be left unchallenged.
(39) Calculated from Missouri budget office figures used in Moody report, Table 3, p. 7.
(40) The U.S. average was 6.7 percent. Calculated from National Association of State Budget Officers, Fiscal Survey of the States, April 1994 edition, Tables A1, A3, pp. 22, 26.
© 1994 The Cato Institute
Please send comments to webmaster


text:
Image 4-988-34 | Photo ©David Sanger | California, Pacific Grove, Asilomar Conference Center
Stock Photo
License this stock photo of California, Pacific Grove, Asilomar Conference Center for publication for editorial and commercial uses including websites, books, magazines, brochures and advertising. Restrictions may apply for images which contain third party copyrighted material or sensitive subjects. Photos of artwork are for editorial use only. Contact the office for details.
Fine Art Prints
Standard Print
Price: $39.99
Shipping: $5.99
This stock photograph id 4-988-34 of California, Pacific Grove is © David Sanger Photography. All RIghts Reserved
Related Subjects
- More California Stock Photography
- More Pacific Grove Stock Photography
- More Asilomar Conference Center Stock Photography
America, California, travel, United States, US, USA, West, horizontal,


text:
KePRO Reviews
KePRO 6-
"Looks great from the outside, as long as you do not open the package. Once you do your rose colored glasses are shattere "
- Comp & Benefits
- Work/Life Balance
- Senior Management
- Culture & Values
- Career Opportunities
I worked at KePRO
ProsUse company computer and supplies
ConsTravel policy changed has meant more than 3.5 hours of driving before working. Minimal communication with management. They do not answer emails or phone calls. Tell you one thing and changes the next. No work life balance. I am called all hours of the day and every day of the week. Poor computer program that most of the work is done on.
Advice to ManagementAdviceCommunicate with your employee and possible act as if you care for their well being.
Doesn't RecommendNeutral Outlook -
3 people found this helpful
I have been working at KePRO full-time (more than 8 years)
ProsI have been an employee for several years. The major perks is the flexibility. Schedules are flexible with the option to work from home.
ConsThere has been a recent change in management. Promotions are only available if you are in a clique not according to qualifications. Lack of communication. Moral is down within the office. Never acknowledge for our hard work. The director walks around the office and only speaks to her friends and associates, everyone else appears to be invisible. Poor Management!
1 person found this helpful
"Would Not Recommend "
- Comp & Benefits
- Work/Life Balance
- Senior Management
- Culture & Values
- Career Opportunities
I have been working at KePRO full-time
ProsFlexible work schedule
401k plan has decent match with profit sharingConsHealth insurance is terrible, high deductible plan with 80% co-insurance and more expensive every year. You would be better off with Obama Care.
Company was purchased by a private equity firm
Low staffing levels mean more work for everyone
The best manager in my department was fired, along with a good portion of the staff
This was a good place to work at one time, but those days are long gone.Advice to ManagementAdviceHow can a healthcare company have such terrible health insurance? It is a disgrace.
Doesn't RecommendNegative OutlookDisapproves of CEO -
1 person found this helpful
I worked at KePRO
ProsI honestly cannot think of one other than I was thankful to be employed.
ConsMultiple cons. Benefits are unremarkable, sub par health insurance options ( the irony here is obvious). Management from office on up do not appear to have any regard for staff, who really are only as valuable as the contract. Dishonest, "sneaky" and secretive. Revolving door of employees- both local and C- level execs at corporate.
Advice to ManagementAdviceShow some interest in how your individual offices are managed by offering management feedback from staff, Be transparent in your communication. Employees outside Harrisburg know nothing about new contracts until jobs are posted.
3 people found this helpful
"One of the worst jobs I have ever had. "
- Comp & Benefits
- Work/Life Balance
- Senior Management
- Culture & Values
- Career Opportunities
I have been working at KePRO full-time (less than a year)
ProsThe office is reasonably close to where I live.
ConsExtremely understaffed. Nurses perform as social workers, review clerks and can rarely do "chart reviews". Nurses walk out.
Advice to ManagementAdviceBe realistic in expectations. Do not be condescending or nasty. Treat staff with the respect that you would like to be given. Senior management needs to come down to earth, see what is going on and staff adequately otherwise staff will simply leave to get a decent job.
Doesn't RecommendNegative OutlookNo opinion of CEO -
"A growing company, focused on quality "
- Comp & Benefits
- Work/Life Balance
- Senior Management
- Career Opportunities
I have been working at KePRO
ProsHealthcare opportunities, great staff, strong leadership, clinical foundation, solid IT services, staff feels they have committed leadership and a say in the future.
ConsThe company is growing - and going through growing pains - executive leadership is focused on revenue and growth, more emphasis on employees well being
Advice to ManagementAdviceTake time to understand the dynamics that play out on a daily basis with respect to the challenges facing the organization.
Recommends -
Is this helpful? The community relies on everyone sharing – Add Anonymous Review


text: CNN Student News - September 19, 2013By Updated 6:55 PM ET, Wed September 18, 2013Just WatchedCNN Student News - 9/19/13replayMore Videos ...CNN Student News - 9/19/13 10:00Story highlightsThis page includes the show Transcript, the Daily Curriculum, and MapsUse the Transcript to help students with reading comprehension and vocabularyThe Daily Curriculum offers the Media Literacy Question of the Day, Key Concepts, Fast Facts and Discussion Questions At the bottom of the page, please share your feedback about our show and curriculum September 19, 2013Economic stories take center stage in Thursday's program, as we report on a milestone for U.S. gas prices, we discuss a decision from the Federal Reserve, and we examine the percentage of Americans living in poverty. We also hear how a civil rights activist is promoting his message against sagging pants, and we share some students' methods for coping with a bad day.On this page you will find today's show Transcript, the Daily Curriculum, Maps pertaining to today's show, and a place for you to leave feedback. TRANSCRIPTClick here to access the transcript of today's CNN Student News program. Please note that there may be a delay between the time when the video is available and when the transcript is published.DAILY CURRICULUMClick here for a printable version of the Daily Curriculum (PDF).Media Literacy Question of the Day:What might be the pros and cons of using billboards to convey a message to young people? How might the effectiveness of billboards compare to that of other media?Key Concepts: Identify or explain these subjects you heard about in today's show:1. Federal Reserve Bank2. poverty line3. disaster declarationFast Facts: How well were you listening to today's program?1. What are some reasons given as to why gas prices have been higher than $3 since December 2010?2. What did the Federal Reserve decide to do yesterday?3. What U.S. state is known as the "Land of Enchantment"?Discussion Questions:1. What might be the effects of sustained, $3 gas prices on individuals, businesses, and the economy as a whole? How might people deal with these effects?2. What factors do you think might be contributing to the U.S. poverty rate? What might have contributed to lower-paying jobs in the wake of the "Great Recession"? In your view, is there anything individuals could do to put themselves in the market for higher-paying jobs? If so, what? If not, why not?3. What different perspectives might young people have regarding the anti-saggy pants billboard? What is your opinion on wearing saggy pants? To what extent might one person's appearance affect how others perceive his or her character?CNN Student News is created by a team of journalists and educators who consider the Common Core State Standards, national standards in different subject areas, and state standards when producing the show and curriculum. We hope you use our free daily materials along with the program, and we welcome your feedback on them.MAPSDownload PDF maps related to today's show: North AmericaMexicoColorado; New Mexico; Memphis, TennesseeFEEDBACKWe're looking for your feedback about CNN Student News. Please use this page to leave us comments about today's program, including what you think about our stories and our resources. Also, feel free to tell us how you use them in your classroom. The educators on our staff will monitor this page and may respond to your comments as well.Thank you for using CNN Student News!Click here to submit your Roll Call request. More from studentnewsCNN Student News - March 6, 2015CNN Student News - 03/06/15CNN Student News - March 5, 2015Powered by Livefyre


text:
Apple Mini DVI to VGA Adapter
Apple Mini DVI to VGA Adapter
Product Information
The Apple Mini-DVI to VGA Adapter is designed for use with the iMac (Intel Core Duo), MacBook, and 12-inch PowerBook G4. Connect the adapter to the Mini-DVI port of the computer and the VGA end of the adapter to an external VGA monitor or projector.
You can use this cable in both video mirroring and extended desktop modes.
Tech Specs
- Mini-DVI
Ratings & Reviews
Questions & Answers
Answers from the community
what cable do i need to hook up my mac book pro to my HD Television?
- Asked by Vanessa Y from Naughton
- 14-Jan-2010
Best Answer:
Moshi Mini DP to HDMI adapter its 35$ but used to connect your mac to an hd tv
- Answered by Marc O
- 29-Jul-2011
I bought an old 23' apple cinema display that I need to connect to a macbook pro. Can someone tell me what kind of connector i need?
- Asked by Tina R from Orlando
- 12-Nov-2014
what cable do I use to connect my 2011 macbook pro to my vizio flatscreen TV
- Asked by Christine C from Napa
- 18-Nov-2014
what cable do i need to connect my 2009 13" macbook pro to my Vizio tv or any tv?
- Asked by Ben S from Jacksonville
- 19-Jun-2014
Best Answer:
You need a "mini DisplayPort to HDMI cable". Google or search the Apple Store with that term in quot You need a "mini DisplayPort to HDMI cable". Google or search the Apple Store with that term in quotes and you will find many options. That's only half the issue for TV viewing with Macs older than 2010, however.
The 2009 MacBooks (and I'm 99.9% sure this applies to the Pros from then, too) won't pass sound through the mini DisplayPort, only video. So you will need a separate audio solution. You can listen through the computer's speakers if you want, but the sound won't be great. The only other option for sound output is to use the Mac's headphone port to connect a 3.5mm stereo cable to, well, something. I'll try to explain below.
Vizio TVs are not configured to allow you to pull a digital video signal off the HDMI input and an analog audio signal off a different input simultaneously, so if you connect the mini DisplayPort to one of the TV's HDMI ports you will not be able to get any sound through the TV speakers, and will need some other speaker somewhere in your setup. As I said above, this could just be the computer's speakers if you don't want to use any other cables, but if you want better sound you can run a headphone cable to something like a small portable speaker, or to a full-fledged stereo receiver. I ran a cable which split my 3.5mm headphone port into 2 standard red and white RCA stereo connections into the back of my surround sound stereo receiver and listened that way. It worked great for years. …- Answered by Patricia H from Ridgefield
- 29-Jun-2014
will this work for my 2009 macbook pro 15"?
- Asked by Ami J from Baytown
- 22-Mar-2010
what cable do I use from an imac to a HDMI port on my HDTV that is 6 feet away?
- Asked by Lois P from Volcano
- 31-Jul-2010


text:
Month starts with signs of strength
PUBLISHED: 10 Aug 2012 19:33:37 | UPDATED: 12 Aug 2012 00:47:23PUBLISHED: 11 Aug 2012 PRINT EDITION: 11 Aug 2012The August reporting season was expected to be downbeat. But the first week has seen signs of strength, even if they were not immediately obvious ones.
Already a subscriber? Please login here
Stay with the story for less than $1.90 a day
Read more
Companies | Telstra Corporation., Transurban Group, Bradken Ltd, Rio Tinto Ltd |
Topics | Financial Markets /Equities Markets , Economy /Trade , Company News /Earnings & Reporting |


text:
We're excited to announce that we'll be releasing Sauna Youth's new album 'Distractions' on 8 June.
Their colossal new song "Transmitters" just premiered over at The Quietus. You can listen to it above, pre-order the record or read all about now.
Ahead of their imminent European tour (full dates below), Deerhoof have just released the official video for "Black Pitch" from their recent 'La Isla Bonita' album.
It sees them take a boat journey along the River Thames and explore some lesser known spots on the foreshore.
The album is over in the shop right now and you can see Deerhoof in the following places shortly:
14.02 - Warszawa (PL), Dzik 16.02 - Berlin (DE), Lido 17.02 - Leipzig (DE), Conne Island 18.02 - Frankfurt (DE), Zoom 19.02 - Paris (FR), Petit Bain 20.02 - Mons (BE), Maison Folie 21.02 - Amsterdam (NL), Melkweg 23.02 - Bristol (UK), Marble Factory 24.02 - Glasgow (UK), Stereo 25.02 - Leeds (UK), Brudenell Social Club 26.02 - London (UK), Oval Space 28.02 - Saint Malo (FR), La Route Du Rock
News archive
96-98 Pentonville Road, Islington, N1 9JB | Map 8:00 | £6 | Buy tickets
MADALYN MERKEY makes spellbinding ambient/electro-acoustic music, flooded with exotic alien tones. As a student of the famous Mills College it's understandable that her work is rooted in academic process and research, yet her new album 'Valley Girl' (released on 'New Images') is also inspired by the agriculture and rolling landscapes of Madalyn's native California. Using computer generated tones and sequences, she spreads out a unique topography of phase-modulated triangle waveforms and sine tones serrated into small atolls or peaks and interspersed with human traces of her processed, siren-like vocals redolent of some vintage Hawaiian exotica. The result is a minimal but super rich and vibrant sound field, one constantly in motion and quivering with lush harmonics that keep the ear tracing its ambisonic trajectories. In other words, it's hugely recommended for drifting off, far and away.
MEDDICINE aka Monika Krol is a post-punk synthesist who plays fractured noise pop over a backing track of industrial soundscapes. With jackhammer drum machine patterns nailing down synth blasts that alternate between pulsing, menacing to full-blown white noise, Meddicine is a one-woman sound howl conjuring up Suicide or even TG. Clattering and oscillating her way through old sounds and new, Meddicine produces some of the darkest, most-damaged and affecting analogue electronic music you are likely to hear on this planet or any other.
RATTLE are a drumming duo based in Nottingham and comprised of Theresa J Wrigley and Katharine Eira Brown. Both musicians also play drums for two other well respected bands, with Theresa in Fists and Katy in Kogumaza. Far from the hippy bongo nightmare one might imagine from a band made up of only two drummers, Rattle instead play minimalist rhythms that remain both hypnotic and danceable heavily thanks to the delicate vocal melodies which accompany their beats. Their sound recalls This Heat or ESG whilst remaining uniquely their own.
96-98 Pentonville Road, Islington, N1 9JB | Map 7:00 | £7 | Buy tickets
CIAN NUGENT is a guitar player and composer from Dublin, Ireland who combines personal passions, such as suburban/coastal blues, traditional musics, late 1960s & '70s singer-songwriters, jazz ambitions, 20th century composition and the Takoma school into a deeply personal style. His music boasts an orchestrated and fully instrumented sound that is playful and eerie at the same time. Nugent's first widely available album 'Doubles' was released in 2011 to great acclaim from Pitchfork, NPR and The Wire, and rightly so. Nugent's playing is a glorious thing - it twists and turns as if telling a story, with each chord change revealing something new.
Over the past few years, he's also linked up with a 4-piece band called The Cosmos, a motley bunch interested in mining the same far out musical styles. 'Born With The Caul' was their resultant album released by No Quarterand sounds like it exists some place out of time. Not only is their music an era-less one but the songs themselves are never in a hurry as they build and unfold, never wasting a note. Since then Cian has toured Europe with The Cosmos and gone on a solo jaunt around the USA, this show also sees Cian in solo mode, reflective and resonating.
RED RIVER DIALECT are a five piece Cornish folk-rock band who have drawn comparisons to the Waterboys, The Dirty Three, Fairport and Arbouretum. Their self-released LP 'awellupontheway' was released in July 2012 and promptly sold out on vinyl, drawing many positive reviews. In fact The Quietus described it as "fusing folk-rock's past with its future, carrying forward the energy, urgency and melody that has long served the form well, and merging it with the more experimental, avant-garde approach of some of our most exciting guitar bands". They are currently working on a follow up.
5 Elephant Street, Elephant & Castle, SE17 1LB | Map 8:00 | £8 | Buy tickets
PURLING HISS' Mike Polizze has put in much time in the fried Philly blooze overdrive of the group Birds of Maya, but in his own vehicle he's expanded his grotty guitar wailing into the further cosmos, still shredding speakers aplenty. With releases out on Drag City, Richie, Woodsist Records, and a previous LP on Permanent, Purling Hiss became a full-fledged touring unit in 2010, revealing themselves to not only be purveyors of Rallizes Denudes/Vermonster-style guitar jams, but to have a serious 90's grunge/pop ethic not too far removed from bits of Bleach-era Nirvana. Lots of ooh-oohs to coincide with the growls, severe hooks to get lodged in your cranium.
Full-tilt with tunes, aggro riffs, feedback peals, stoned soul-searching, pop turnarounds and magisterial portraits of the go-nowhere lifestyle in abstract, new album 'Weirdon' is also a new-phase Purling Hiss album, using the songwriting and guitar style of Polizze to come up with a quicksilver sound touched on only briefly on previous records. Replete with handclaps, pounding pianos, tambourines and vocal effects, but steeped in guitar roar, Purling Hiss streamlines up nicely, serving the new songs and directions of 'Weirdon' while still slamming down hard on your ears like they like to do.
PRIMITIVE PARTS are three friends from London, consisting of Lindsay Corstorphine of Sauna Youth and Monotony, and Male Bonding's Kevin Hendrick and Robin Christian. Last year, they released their "Open Heads" b/w "Signal" 7″, and it proved really great. The band recently released a new 7" on Faux Discx too entitled "TV Wheels" b/w "The Bench," and is every inch the charged-up fuzz-bomb you'd expect, never stinting on melody.
KRISTIAN HARTING is inspired by sufi-music, mali-blues, western lo-fi pop and the avant-garde. His aim is pure, to write beautiful songs and music using what's at hand only pulled into the realms of the gritty, noisy and beautiful. Harting does this via the mediums of guitar, voice, circuit-bending, effects-pushing and diverse electronic and acoustic trips. 'Float' released by Exile On Mainstream last year is his most recent release and it's well worth checking out!
Chalk Farm Road, NW1 8EH | Map 7:00 | £20 | Sold out
22 Ashwin Street, Dalston, E8 3DL | Map 8:00 | £10 | Buy tickets
446 Kingsland Road, Dalston, E8 4AE | Map 8:00 | £5 | Buy tickets
96-98 Pentonville Road, Islington, N1 9JB | Map 8:00 | £5 | Buy tickets
54 Holywell Lane, Shoreditch, EC2A 3PQ | Map 7:30 | £12 | Buy tickets
44-46 Pollard Row, Bethnal Green, E2 6NB | Map 8:00 | £10 | Buy tickets
184 Camden High Street, Camden Town, NW1 8QP | Map 7:30 | £12 | Buy tickets
Pancras Road, King's Cross, NW1 1UL | Map 7:30 | £9 | Buy tickets
451 Queensbridge Rd, Dalston, E8 3AS | Map 7:30 | Sold out
451 Queensbridge Rd, Dalston, E8 3AS | Map 7:30 | £10 | Buy tickets
100 Oxford Street, W1D 1LL | Map 7:30 | £10 | Buy tickets
451 Queensbridge Rd, Dalston, E8 3AS | Map 8:00 | £6 | Buy tickets
7 Torrens Street, Angel, EC1V 1NQ | Map 8:00 | £9 | Buy tickets
100 Oxford Street, W1D 1LL | Map 8:00 | £12 | Buy tickets
289 Queen's Road, New Cross Gate, SE14 2PA | Map 7:30 | £6 | Buy tickets
UTR071 | CD / LP | Pre-order
UTR068 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR061 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR069 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR067 | 7" / Digital | Buy
UTR066 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR065 | LP / Digital | Buy
UTR064 | 7" / Digital | Buy
UTR062 | LP | Buy
UTR060 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR059 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR058 | LP | Buy
UTR057 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR056 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR055 | 7" | Buy
UTR054 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR053 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR052 | LP / Digital | Buy
UTR051 | LP / Digital | Buy
UTR049 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR048 | 12" | Buy
UTR047 | LP | Buy
UTR045 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR044 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR043 | 12" | Buy
UTR042 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR041 | 7" | Buy
UTR040 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR039 | 7" | Buy
UTR038 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR037 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR036 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR035 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR034 | 7" | Buy
UTR033 | Digipack CD | Buy
UTR032 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR031 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR030 | Digipack CD / 2 x 7" | Buy
UTR029 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR028 | LP | Buy
UTR027 | 7" | Buy
UTR026 | 7" | Buy
UTR025 | Gatefold LP | Buy
UTR024 | LP | Buy
UTR023 | Digipack CD | Buy
UTR022 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR021 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR019 | Mini LP | Buy
UTR018 | 7" | Buy
UTR017 | Digipack CD | Buy
UTR016 | Digipack CD | Buy
UTR015 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR014 | 12" | Buy
UTR013 | 12" | Buy
UTR012 | Double gatefold LP | Buy
UTR011 | 12" | Buy
UTR010 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR009 | 10" | Sold out
UTR008 | Digipack CD / LP | Buy
UTR007 | 12" | Buy
UTR006 | Digipack CD / 10" | Buy
UTR005 | CD / LP | Buy
UTR004 | Double gatefold LP | Buy
UTR003 | CD | Buy
UTR002 | 10" | Sold out
UTR001 | 10" | Sold out


text:
Lines of Business initiatives move ahead
OMB promotes Young to deputy administrator
E-Gov Act implementation picking up steam
Although forecasters generally expect the lines of business to survive, particularly those that provide shared-services centers to meet agency needs, there are some cautions. In a report released in June, Input warns about these factors.
E-Mail this page
Printable Format
Advanced Search
Meet 100 women and men who are doing great things in federal IT.
Click here for the full list
President Obama's proposal to boost government coordination with the private sector got a warm welcome in the House Homeland Security Committee.
The spy agency wants to better integrate cybersecurity into its traditional human intelligence operations.
Meet the women and men who are doing great things in federal IT.
The law's certification and approval provisions empower CIOs to end outdated software development projects, says Agilex's Roger Baker.
The new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee extends an olive branch to the minority, but keeps subpoena power for himself.
FCW investigated efforts by the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to improve a joint data repository on military and veteran suicides. Something as impersonal and mundane as incomplete datasets could be exacerbating a national tragedy.
Despite delays, the program is at a critical point for determining the ultimate impact of cloud technology in the government space.
In an interview with FCW, the Department of Veterans Affairs' chief technology officer talks about overhauling the digital experience for VA customers.
The National Information Exchange Model's usefulness extends far beyond its origins in justice and law enforcement.


text:
My name is Shalan. I'm a shimmery black bunny with a cute white dot on my nose, like a accidently dipped it into a little bowl of milk. I don't mind being called Star or Comet since my nose almost glows in the dark. I'm very sweet and gentle, but I can be playful and fun at times too. When I'm happy I do like to do my little bunny binky dance. I'm a young bunny and the world looks like a big exciting place for me. Won't you come visit me. I really like it if you came to sit with me so I could introduce myself and get to know you to see if I'm your dream bunny.
"Bunnies Gone Bad: The 7 Deadly Sins" is a wickedly funny and amazingly realistic portrait of the rabbit psyche.
Two each of seven for set of 14 cards representing each sin. Comes with seven bright green envelopes as well. Cards measure 5", by 7".


text:
WebMD – Trusted Health and Wellness Information
By WebMD
Open iTunes to buy and download apps.
WebMD for iPhone offers physician-reviewed health content and interactive tools in addition to on-demand healthy living information. The innovative design marries content and utility informed by more than five years of user insights and feedback.
WebMD for iPhone also features Healthy Target, an innovative health improvement program that will help you create and sustain healthy habits. By connecting an activity tracker, wireless scale, blood pressure monitor, or glucometer you'll be able to view all of your data in one location and receive WebMD contextual content and insights. Additionally, Healthy Target allows you to use HealthKit to sync with the Apple Health app.
Get access to your favorite WebMD health tools like Symptom Checker and local health listings, in addition to the most up-to-date information about medicine and first aid essentials. All in one elegant app. From the most trusted brand in health information.
Key Features:
• WebMD Symptom Checker – Select the part of the body that is troubling you, choose your symptoms, and learn about potential conditions or issues.
• Healthy Target – Create and sustain healthy habits by tracking your progress daily, connecting wearable devices, and getting actionable insights at the end of each week.
• Healthy Living – Choose the healthy living interests that matter most to you to customize a daily lifestyle magazine of tips, fun facts, articles, quizzes, and slideshows.
• Conditions – Find medically reviewed information about conditions relevant to you and learn more about causes, treatments, and related symptoms.
• Medicine – Search our extensive database for information on drugs, supplements, and vitamins. Read about uses, side effects, and warnings, and access our Pill ID tool.
• First Aid Essentials – Your handy guide for medical emergencies. From insect stings to broken bones, helpful treatment tips are always available, even without an Internet connection.
• Local Health Listings – Find the closest physician, hospital, and pharmacy based on your current location or search by city, state or zip.
• Create and save your conditions, medicine, first aid information, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and healthy living articles for secure, easy access and reference.
Additional Features:
• Email – Send conditions, medicine, first aid information, and Healthy Living articles to yourself or your family and friends.
• Social Media – Share Healthy Living articles on Facebook or Twitter.
About WebMD:
WebMD is the leading provider of health information services, serving consumers, physicians, other healthcare professionals, employers and health plans. The online healthcare information, decision-support applications and communications services that we provide:
- Help consumers take an active role in managing their health by providing objective healthcare information and lifestyle information.
- Make it easier for physicians and healthcare professionals to access clinical reference sources, stay abreast of the latest clinical information, learn about new treatment options, earn continuing medical education credits and communicate with peers.
- Enable employers and health plans to provide their employees and plan members with access to personalized health and benefit information and decision support technology that helps them make informed benefit, provider and treatment choices.
The WebMD Health Network includes WebMD Health, Medscape, MedicineNet, emedicineHealth, RxList, theheart.org, drugs.com and Medscape Education.
SOURCE WebMD Health Corp.
WebMD. Better Information. Better Health.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on the WebMD mobile application.
What's New in Version 5.7
- Support for iPhone 6 and 6 plus
- Performance enhancements and bug fixes
iPhone Screenshot
Customer Reviews
Not bad, but lacks some things
This app covers quite a bit, but does not allow adding drugs to the personal list that are not in their database. A basic drug for some coronary patients, linsinopril, is not there. Unable to use this app as a personal listing of medications. Been using this app for 2 years, now it won't even load. Reset my phone, still won't load. Don't waste your time with this app. Just added the update of 3/3/15 and it just crashes. Terrible app.
Love it
Easy to use, easy to search and of course I got the symptom checker, all of which I expected. I wasn't expecting the healthy target section of the app and I love it! I have a mood disorder and the habits and encouraging messages have really helped me.
Love it
For all the hypochondriacs out there, greatest app ever! I get to find out all of the terrible things wrong with me all in one place! So much fun. In all seriousness, this is a really great app and is very easy to use.
- Free
- Category: Health & Fitness
- Updated: Mar 02, 2015
- Version: 5.7
- Size: 30.7 MB
- Languages: Basque, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Ko, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, Vietnamese
- Seller: WebMD Health Corporation
- © 2014 WebMD, LLC.
Compatibility: Requires iOS 7.0 or later. Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. This app is optimized for iPhone 5, iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus.


text:
Dad feeds baby Gangnam Style Add to ... AP Video Published Wednesday, Oct. 03 2012, 1:37 PM EDT Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 03 2012, 1:37 PM EDT For a father living in North London, feeding his 10-month-old son was frustrating process. That changed when he starting playing the viral rap video "Gangnam Style" during mealtime. Watch More Video: Deep freeze across Canada puts maple syrup season on hold Get ready for the next big exercise craze: Bubble Soccer! Teaching little girls to be tough 'Tootsie Rollers' Ellen DeGeneres showers Alberta school teacher with gifts Pint-sized glamour: Kids dressed up to look like stars from the Oscars Walking distance to the beach sells a house, despite a busy street Taylor Swift wins Brit award for best international female artist Designs from graduate students showcased at London Fashion Week Prince William visits Japan Diver gets gentle hug from giant Pacific octopus Why you need to start saving for retirement right now Taylor Swift donates $50,000 to New York public schools Lego builds on movie success What does the Caesar salad have to do with Caesar? Tom Hanks reflects on WWII stories Giuliana Rancic apologizes to Disney star for offensive dreadlocks comments Bolivian grandmothers staying agile with handball Wine Basics - Pro tips on when and how you should cellar your wine Consumer Reports ranks 10 best used cars under $10,000 Check out these travel tips before your family vacation Comments AA
Convicted and jailed, the original rogue trader speaks 20 years later: 'The deterrent isn't good enough'


text:
Photo Galleries
< MyNorthwest
13 dead after rampage by gunman at Navy Yard
13 dead after rampage by gunman at Navy Yard
7 of 18 |
Security personnel respond near the Washington Navy Yard where a gunman was reported in Washington, on Monday, Sept. 16, 2013. At least one gunman opened fire inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning, and officials said six people were killed and as many as 10 were wounded, including a law enforcement officer. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta
Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta
7 of 18 |
More Photo Galleries
On stage & behind the scenes at the Oscars
Photos from the 87th annual Academy Awards in Los Angeles, Feb. 22, 2015. -
Oscar red carpet: Stars arrive at the Academy Awards
Hollywood's biggest stars walk the Oscar red carpet ahead of the 87th annual Academy Awards at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles.


text:
What does HDB mean in Airport Codes?
This page is about the meanings of the acronym/abbreviation/shorthand HDB in the Regional field in general and in the Airport Codes terminology in particular.
Find a translation for HDB in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss this HDB abbreviation with the community:
Use the citation below to add this abbreviation to your bibliography:
"HDB." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. <http://www.abbreviations.com/term/26943>.
HDB also stands for:
- Has Been Drinking
- High Density Biomass
- Hot Dogs and Buns
- Housing And Development Board
- Housing Development Board
... see them all »
Nearby & related abbreviations:
Alternative search:
- Search Heidelberg, Germany on Amazon
- Search Heidelberg, Germany on Google


text:
Two Guys, A Boat, And A Cause
April 25, 2011
WQED profiles Three Rivers Waterkeeper, a non-profit organization that serves as a voice for the waterways throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania. This episode of "Experience" follows the dedicated environmentalists on water, on land - and even to court - as they monitor and investigate potential threats to the region's waterways; empower citizens opposed to Marcellus Shale drilling; and fight to enforce the Clean Water Act. For more information and to view our other specials, visit our dedicated Managing Marcellus site.
Coming Up Next
Thursday, March 5, 2015
It's a celebration of winter, starting at a Pittsburgh Penguins' game. See what happens behind-the-scenes at Consol Energy Center come game time. Then it's off to Greenfield for a new winter hobby, beer making, at the Copper Kettle Brewing Company. Finally, we take a wintertime tour of the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium to see what your favorite animals do when the cold and snow arrives.


text:
Top seeds Serena Williams and Novak Djokovic will both grace Arthur Ashe Stadium on Thursday as they bid to book their place in the third round of the US Open.
World No 1 and two-time defending champion Williams resumes her US Open hat-trick attempt with a second-round clash against compatriot Vania King.
Five-time Flushing Meadows champion Williams roared to a 6-3 6-1 victory over Taylor Townsend in the opening round, while King overcame Italian Francesca Schiavone to book her mainstage date with the 17-time Grand Slam winner.
Belarussian 16th seed Victoria Azarenka is first up on the 22,547-capacity Arthur Ashe DecoTurf court as she takes on American Christina McHale in a precursor to home favourite Williams' second appearance.
Following Williams will be men's world No 1 Djokovic, whose quest for a second US Open crown brings him to a second-round clash with Frenchman Paul-Henri Mathieu.
British No 1 Andy Murray will then put his fitness to the test under the lights of the Arthur Ashe Stadium with a midnight (BST) clash against Germany's Matthias Bachinger.
As temperatures rose in New York eighth seed Murray, who broke his Grand Slam duck at Flushing Meadows in 2012, struggled with cramps in his legs, arms and side but eventually managed to prevail 6-3 7-6 (8) 1-6 7-5 against Robin Hasse to scrape through to the second round.
"It's frustrating to not be able to do the things that you want your body to do and that distracts you from what you should be doing on the court, which is trying to beat your opponent, not how you have to move to your backhand side or your forehand side or whatever the issue is," he said.
Wimbledon finalist Eugenie Bouchard, seeded eighth, completes Thursday's Arthur Ashe bill when she takes on Romania's Sorana Cirstea.
On the Grandstand court, women's third seed Petra Kvitova will take on Petra Cetkovska in an all-Czech affair. Their fellow countrywoman Karolina Pliskova opens proceedings on court Louis Armstrong with a clash against Serbian eighth seed Ana Ivanovic.
American teenager Madison Keys also features on Louis Armstrong as she takes on Aleksandra Krunic, while Australian 24th seed Samantha Stosur faces Kaia Kanepiof Estonia on Court 5.
Fellow women's seeds Flavia Pennetta, Carla Suarez Navarro, Ekaterina Makarova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova and Casey Dellacqua will also be in action on the outside courts.
Towering American John Isner is the first man on Louis Armstrong as the 13th seed takes on Jan-Lennard Struff of Germany, before Canadian Milos Raonic – seeded fifth – clashes with Peter Gojowczyk in the court's final match of the day.
Japan's Kei Nishikori, currently ranked 11th in the world, takes on Spain's Pablo Andujar in the opening match on the Grandstand court, with ninth seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga following against Aleksandr Nedovyesov.
After second-round exits at the French Open and Wimbledon, American hopeful Sam Querrey will look to reach the third round. To do so he will have to upset 28th seed Guillermo Garcia-Lopez when they lock horns on Court 17.
Other men's seeds in action include Tommy Robredo, Philipp Kohlschreiber, Leonardo Mayer and Fernado Verdasco, who take on Simone Bolelli, Michael Llodra, Matthew Ebden and Andrey Keznetsov respectively.


text:
Best Match
Local Businesses and Services
(1 - 15 of 52,224)-
Free Free Sonicare
Washington, DC -
Free Free No Obligation Property Evaluation
East Meadow, NY -
Free FREE Pure Romance Party
Griffith, IN -
$37 how to start a woodworking business
Abingdon, MD -
Charlotte Website Designers
Mooresville, NC -
$100 Casino Rentals (Blackjack, Poker, Roulette, Craps)
Grand Rapids, MI -
$19.95 Dental and Medical Plans Reduced Priced but Full Benefits
Minooka, IL -
$19.95 Affordable Dental & Medical Plans starting @
Channahon, IL -
$45.55 We create an application for your business
Biloxi, MS -
$900 Wedding photography
Detroit, MI -
Free Business Opportuity
Seattle, WA -
JZ MOTORS LLC. Mobile Service & Roadside Assistance
Oklahoma City, OK -
$150 Dee J Ray Entertainment
Brooklyn, NY
Find Listings on Oodle Marketplace
Baltimore Services | Cincinnati Services | Colorado Springs Services | Dallas Services | Denver Services | Detroit Services | Fort Myers Services | Fresno Services | Grand Rapids Services | Indianapolis Services | Orlando Services | Phoenix Services | Sarasota Services | Winter Haven Services | Woodbridge Services. Oodle Marketplace is a great place to find used cars, used motorcycles, used RVs, used boats, apartments for rent, homes for sale, job listings, and local businesses.