As an example, if a same sex couple is legally married in New York, the IRS will consider the couple married if they retire to Florida (a state that does not allow same sex marriage.)  

According to Treasury Secretary Lew, same sex couples can move freely throughout the country and their federal tax status will not change.  This includes income, gift and estate taxes.  And, for the the 2013 tax year (amended forms can be filed for past years, 2010, 2011 and 2012.  

Volume 111
Volume 110

And a last link to my mother's latest little documentary, SHOSHOLOZA (link), which just won Best Social Commentary at this year's Action On Film Festival.

Viva Mi Madre!!

Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the "Unaffordable Care Act."

Turns out, they might be right.

For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won't apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that's only if employers continue to offer that coverage--something that's looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage. And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

Economists largely agree there won't be a sea change among employers offering coverage. But they're also saying small businesses are still in play.

SNIP

Whether the quality of care in the new market is comparable to private offerings remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: The cost of care in the new market doesn't stack up. A single wage earner must make less than $20,000 to see his or her current premiums drop or stay the same under Obamacare, an independent review by National Journal found. That's equivalent to approximately 34 percent of all single workers in the U.S. seeing any benefit in the new system. For those seeking family-of-four coverage under the ACA, about 43 percent will see cost savings. Families must earn less than or equal to $62,300, or they, too, will be looking at a bigger bill.

Those numbers include the generous tax subsidies designed to make the new system more attractive to consumers.

Specifically, I consider The Hawaii Reporter -- which seems to be TPM's primary go-to on this sorry tale -- to be a pretty sketchy source of news. Its editor is Malia Zimmerman, a real wingbat who's no stranger to controversy. As a reporter for the Pacific Business News, she was fired by that publication in 2000 after its editors determined that she conspired with Deborah Phillips of the Voting Integrity Project and the Wall Street Journal's John Fund to manufacture a scandal about non-existent voter fraud in our 1998 gubernatorial election. She created such a public fuss that state election officials ordered an entire hand recount of all ballots cast, which merely reaffirmed the original results.

Further, the congresswoman's family is -- to put it politely -- a real piece of collective work. Her father Mike Gabbard is a state senator, and a well-known homophobe who is not well-liked by Democrats. The longstanding ties between the Gabbards and the right-wing Hindu sect headed by Chris Butler have been well known in Honolulu for the better part of two decades.

So, not to discount this story's overall veracity, but all the same, TPM should really consider the source.

I saw some media events in the google news feed, but had fast food for lunch and noticed nothing at all.

The new joke is "the coalition of one"

Is it really new though, this is exactly what happened going into Iraq?

Says the British governement:

Oliver Robbins, the deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, said in his 13-page submission: "The information that has been accessed consists entirely of misappropriated material in the form of approximately 58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents.

"I can confirm that the disclosure of this information would cause harm to UK national security.

"Much of the material is encrypted. However, among the unencrypted documents ... was a piece of paper that included the password for decrypting one of the encypted files on the external hard drive recovered from the claimant.

"The fact that ... the claimant was carrying on his person a handwritten piece of paper containing the password for one of the encrypted files ... is a sign of very poor information security practice."

He added: "Even if the claimant were to undertake not to publish or disclose the information that has been detained, the claimant and his associates have demonstrated very poor judgement in their security arrangements with respect to the material rendering the appropriation of the material, or at least access to it by other, non-State actors, a real possibility."

The government has been forced to assume that copies of the information held by Mr Snowden, who worked for the US National Security Agency, are now in the hands of foreign governments after his travel to Moscow via Hong Kong, Mr Robbins said.

First, nearly 70 senators ask their interns to perform a public service for free every summer. Over the same three-month period (August recess included), those senators earn $43,500 apiece. Needless to say, there is a distinct contrast between the leaders -- many of whom are proud of their own previous internships -- who perform "public service" for pay, and the youth they ask to do the same for free.

Second, and embarrassingly for Reid and the blue team, the vast majority of senators who do pay are Republicans. Of those 35 senators, only 11 are Democrats -- meaning almost 80 percent of Dems require volunteer participation (not counting Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats). This is peculiar and troubling for a party that elsewhere signals its commitment to fair pay, equal representation, economic inequality, and workplace welfare. When it comes to interns in the Senate, it seems that traditional beliefs about labor and economic opportunity are suddenly switched. Despite frequently proposing and voting in favor of legislation that opens the workplace door to all Americans, Democrats ignore the same values when it comes to their interns. Reid's office did not respond to requests for comments.*

Conversely, the ever budget-conscious GOP might consider taking a look at the extra expenses afforded to paid internships. One might argue that paying interns who would work for free is a prime example of "government waste." Nonetheless, half of senate Republicans have decided to pay interns, and should perhaps earn some rare positive reinforcement from labor activists.

Unpaid internships, besides the intrinsic problem of failing to pay for work that is necessary to the Senate, are some of the stronger remnants of socio-economic stagnation. For those who can afford to pay out of pocket for a summer in Washington, or are lucky to win a rare grant or scholarship, a Hill internship is a crucial first toehold in the political establishment. Full-time work for no pay clashes with liberal values, but it does perpetuate the cycle of socioeconomic privilege. Until they align their actions with their stated political goals, Democrats will have to confront the better, if confusing, behavior of their Republican colleagues.

Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have "no objective whatsoever."

"Let me be clear," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave."

"I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal," he said. "This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past."

[...snip...]

"Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that."