To save on energy costs, many Americans have installed weatherstripping and new insulation in their homes. For the owner of a large office building or manufacturing plant, the task can be much more daunting. According to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, commercial buildings and manufacturing plants account for nearly half of all U.S. energy consumption, as well as nearly half of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Altogether, energy usage at these buildings costs over $200 billion per year. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star certification system aims to inspire organizations to make building improvements to improve energy efficiency. California is leading the way in these certified buildings. Five Golden State cities are among the 25 U.S. metro areas with the most Energy Star buildings, including three California cities in the top 10.

[See a slideshow of the 10 cities with the most Energy Star certified buildings.]

Naturally, the most populous urban areas in the nation­—New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago—are among the 10 cities with the most certified buildings. But Sacramento, the 25th-most-populous metropolitan area (according to 2009 Census figures), came in at No. 8 for Energy Star buildings. In addition, Denver, the 21st-biggest city, comes in at No. 11 with 146 Energy Star buildings. Conversely, some of the largest cities in the nation are nowhere near the top of the Energy Star list. For example, Philadelphia, the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation, is 14th in terms of Energy Star buildings.

Organizations that want to show that they are working to be energy efficient can apply for Energy Star certification from the Environmental Protection Agency. A wide variety of facilities can apply for the distinction, including supermarkets, hospitals, food production plants, and manufacturing facilities. To apply, an organization submits detailed information on key factors in its energy usage. For example, for an office building, the EPA would want statistics on the amount of office and parking space, the number of computers in use within the building, and how much of the building is air-conditioned or heated. Buildings that earn the Energy Star certification must perform better than at least 75 percent of similar buildings nationwide. According to the EPA, certified buildilngs cost 50 cents less per square foot to operate than average buildings.

These are the 10 metro areas that had the most Energy Star-certified buildings in 2010.

Metro Area Number of Energy Star Buildings Total Floorspace (million sq. ft.) Cost Savings (millions) Emissions Prevented (equal to ___ homes’ electricity use)

1. Los Angeles 510 106.1 117.9 39,800

2. Washington, D.C. 301 75.2 74.2 42,600

3. San Francisco 248 61.4 75.1 25,600

4. Chicago 232 92.9 62.7 54,500

5. New York City 211 76.4 86.6 36,500

6. Atlanta 201 51.6 38.7 38,700

7. Houston 175 70.8 62.9 47,300

8. Sacramento 168 16.9 19.1 6,900

9. Detroit 151 27.4 18.7 17,400

10. Dallas-Fort Worth 148 40.6 35.2 26,300

Los Angeles is notable for having been the No. 1 city for three years in a row. It also saved the most money and had the most floor space in its Energy Star buildings out of all of the top 25 metro areas in the United States. Chicago, however, prevented the most emissions, blocking the equivalent of 54,500 homes’ worth of electricity use.

One factor that likely pushed some cities toward the top of the list is the number of commitments from some corporations to achieve certification in their buildings. The EPA counts JCPenney, Staples, Target, and USAA as companies that have set certification goals.

The environmental and budgetary incentives to get certified have helped to drive up the number of participants considerably. Last year saw sharp growth in the number of buildings achieving certification. More than 6,200 commercial buildings were certified last year, up 60 percent from 2009.

• See the states with the highest and lowest energy usage per capita.
• Read about what makes a livable city.
• Read more about industries that the EPA regulates.

The campaign fundraising community is puzzled over a new e-mail from President Obama’s team that warns supporters and media to look at the number of donors, not the size of the war chest, when quarterly totals are announced as early as Friday.

• See editorial cartoons about President Obama.
• Check out our gallery of political caricatures.
• See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.

A parade and an official Armed Forces farewell will be Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s sendoff on Thursday as the widely respected cabinet member retires after his four-and-a-half-year, two-administration tenure. He’ll leave to his successor, CIA Director Leon Panetta, a panoply of problems such as wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and an increasingly precarious defense budget. But for more than anyone, Gates’s departure presents Secretary of State Hillary Clinton an opportunity to reassert her department’s primacy in foreign affairs.

For years, and especially after the military surge brought on by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the State Department has generally played second fiddle to the Pentagon on foreign policy. The budgets of each tell that story best­—in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, for example, the base budget for Defense was about 10 times greater than the State Department’s. However, with Gates out the picture, Clinton will be the last high-profile international figure left standing in the cabinet, and now could be her window to assert more of her department’s influence over the nation’s security. “As Gates phases out this week and Panetta phases in, there’s going to be an opportunity for Secretary Clinton to really start making her voice even more heard in national security, and not just diplomacy and not just foreign assistance,” says Stephanie Sanok, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

How wide Clinton’s window is and how far any added influence will take her, however, depend on some unknowns. Panetta, himself, is one. Another, and perhaps more important, issue is whether the American public and members of Congress would even be willing to spend more—or at very least, not spend less—on the State Department. [Poll: Hillary Clinton Most Influential Woman]

To start, Clinton’s standing in the cabinet hinges partly on her relationship with Panetta, which goes back as far as her husband’s administration, when Panetta was pulled from Congress to work as Bill Clinton’s budget man and later chief of staff. Panetta, a veteran but low-key Washington hand, has remained mostly out of the public scene, even while making a name for himself as the CIA director in charge when America killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Contrast that with a current cabinet member who made a nationwide, headline run for the presidency just a few years ago.

Mark Helmke, spokesman for Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says it wouldn’t be surprising to see Panetta defer to Clinton as the cabinet’s international frontman. “Panetta’s really never been a very out-front kind of guy as much as Hillary has been, although he was a congressman,” Helmke says. “My guess, knowing Panetta, is that he would naturally let her take the lead on this stuff, as he manages other things.”

But, where Gates had been willing to rally along with Clinton for more foreign assistance under State as part of national security, Panetta hasn’t made his intentions clear, says Richard Weitz, director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, a conservative-leaning think-tank in Washington. As a result, Clinton may have to become more outspoken in order to bring attention to her department’s priorities abroad, particularly amid the budget-cutting atmosphere in Washington. “It’s not clear that Panetta has the same commitment to boosting the nonmilitary tools…especially if he’s going to make an effort, which he might, to cut back a lot on military spending,” says Weitz. “He may not want to further antagonize his military constituency by pushing for more funding going to State.” [Read more about national security, terrorism, and the military.]

As secretary of state, Clinton has already been rather bold in expressing her views on national security. Most recently, she drew ire from members of Congress after questioning their commitment to the NATO mission in Libya. “Whose side are you on?” she asked at a recent press conference in Jamaica. “Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?”

Correction 06/30/11: A previous version of this article misspelled the name Richard Weitz.

During his press conference on Wednesday, President Obama’s voice had a level of frustration that seemed unfamiliar to those who follow the normally cool communicator. He accused the Republicans of being childish and of putting corporate interests ahead of middle-class Americans. He blasted the Senate for its plans to vacation next week rather than work on passing a debt ceiling increase. “At a certain point, they just need to do their job,” Obama said.

In contrast to Republicans, the president issued few ultimatums. He cast himself as the responsible, bipartisan adult in a roomful of children. “If everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows, and do tough things, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done,” he said. Still, he tried his best not to draw lines in the sand. “I think he managed to be firm and reasonably bipartisan at the same time,” says William Galston, a former White House official for Bill Clinton and current fellow with the Brookings Institution. “I think he emphasized the equal responsibility of Democrats and Republicans to come off some of their positions that appeal to their respective bases in order to have a meaningful agreement. On the other hand, he suggested that Democrats have moved farther in the direction of fiscal bipartisanship than Republicans had.” [See editorial cartoons about President Obama.]

That’s been Obama’s approach all along in the seemingly endless series of standoffs with Congress: keep the red meat rhetoric to a minimum, let the House and Senate Democrats do the real fighting, and cast himself as an honest broker looking to make the best deal for the nation. While Republicans have refused to budge from their stance that a debt ceiling deal must include trillions of dollars in savings, and must not include tax hikes of any kind, Obama has shied away from making veto threats. Even in Wednesday’s speech, he said that the deal should preserve the “fundamental security” of Medicare and Medicaid, not necessarily ruling out overhauls or cuts to the programs. House Democrats welcomed Obama’s feistier tone, although they maybe wished it had come earlier. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in a press release praising Obama’s performance on Wednesday, seemed to imply that Obama was following their lead. “Bravo! This is the fight House Democrats have been making for the last six months under the Republican Majority as they move to end Medicare and continue tax breaks for Big Oil,” Pelosi said.

Left-leaning observers also wonder whether the president has missed his chance to use the bully pulpit to force the debt-ceiling issue. Even if a compromise is struck, the Republicans’ hard-line stance may have pushed the deal closer to their position. “Any time you’re negotiating with Congress, you have to involve the American people in the conversation. I think where the public comes down is often the critical factor in moving the negotiations the direction you want it to go,” says Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. “That has traditionally been one of the great powers of the presidency. … I don’t think that power has been used particularly effectively in this administration.” It’s not so much a choice that Obama made recently—it’s been his demeanor since he first became a major political figure on the national stage. “Obama was not elected to be a partisan warrior,” Galston says. “If he is seen as having become a partisan warrior, he stands to lose a lot.”

Obama’s press conference comes about one month before the Treasury’s deadline to raise the debt ceiling. The rhetoric on both sides has escalated, with little signs that the two sides are ready to make any concessions from their current stances. Though there’s time to strike a deal, congressional observers say, many have been left to question the prospects of a compromise on the full measure. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the best they can do right now is a smaller interim agreement, focused almost exclusively on discretionary spending,” Galston says. “In which case, the odds are the package would not be enough to see us through the presidential election.” A repeat of this fight during the 2012 elections would very likely be even more polarized and leave negotiators with even less wiggle room. It would require Obama to brandish more of his fighting spirit—whether or not he wants to.

• See editorial cartoons about President Obama.
• Check out our gallery of political caricatures.
• See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.

The East Coast stink bug epidemic has prompted the Environmental Protection Agency today to issue an emergency ruling allowing farms of apples, cherries, pears, and peaches to use two lethal insecticides. But it may be too late, since the stink bug has been seen on fruit in Virginia.

The new insecticide use was heralded by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf who has been leading the charge on the issue. “I commend the EPA for moving quickly to allow Virginia a temporary exemption to regulate the use of this insecticide while efforts continue on a permanent fix,” Wolf said.

Wolf recently told Whispers that the stink bug, imported accidentally from China, is rotting apples, pears, peaches, plums and berries. Also, he said, there are so many on grapes during fall harvests, that some get into the crushers and destroy local wine.

With peaches, apples, and even berries, the major issue is the visible damage a stink bug does. On apples, for example, the bug will insert its tongue into the fruit and suck, leaving a “corky dry area” that’s visible to shoppers, says Tracy Leskey, an Agriculture Department entomologist who’s co-leading a national working group researching the stink bug. “It looks bad,” she says, though it won’t affect the flavor.

Over time, it also rots the fruit.

Wolf adds that other crops are also now under stink bug attack, including corn, tomatoes, and soybeans. Leskey says the shield-shaped bug has also become a huge pest in homes, a double whammy few other insects pose, as it moves across the country.

It has no natural enemy in the United States. One possible foe under study is a tiny wasp, the size of a comma in this story, that is the stink bug’s natural predator in Asia where it helps to keep the offensive bug’s population in check. The non-stinging wasp lays its eggs in the eggs of the stink bugs, on which the baby wasps then chow down.

• See editorial cartoons about President Obama.
• Check out our gallery of political caricatures.
• See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.

It used to be said that when the president sneezed, the stock market caught a cold. And yet, while Washington’s blood pressure is rising, spurred by a congressional stalemate, escalating rhetoric on both sides, and a looming Treasury Department deadline to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling or watch the U.S. government go into default, Wall Street remains serene, with little effect on the stock or bond markets. Many D.C. political observers are beginning to wonder whether investors’ confidence is prescient, or misplaced. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress raise the debt limit?]

“I’m absolutely mystified in the level of confidence that Wall Street seems to have that this deal is going to get done,” says Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Even if Obama and the Republican leadership strike a deal by Treasury’s August 2 deadline, Lilly questions whether they will they be able to sell it to their respective caucuses, which very likely feel that they’ve already compromised enough. “I think that you have a very strong possibility that whatever they come up with will fail to get a substantial number of Republican votes, but will contain so many onerous policy choices that a lot of Democrats will vote against it as well.” Barry Bosworth, a former economic adviser to President Carter and a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, questioned whether either side could afford to back down. “I’m just beginning to become impressed with the flatness of the statements that politicians are making,” Bosworth says. So far, investors haven’t begun to unload their U.S. bonds, or make investments such as credit default swaps to hedge against a possible default. “So far, it seems pretty clear that investors just think this will never happen, because ‘they can’t be that stupid,’ ” Bosworth says. “But these things don’t tend to happen gradually. I think that sentiment could change pretty fast.”

One reason Wall Street may not be reacting is that, historically, Congress has always found a way to raise the debt ceiling no matter how hard it is politically. “We’ve been here before,” says Kent Smetters, a professor at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “This is not a new game that’s played, where both sides play chicken.” In 1995 and 1996, President Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich squared off over the debt ceiling, but ultimately resolved it without a default. Another reason, Smetters says, is backup plans the Treasury Department might use to ward off a possible default, including issuing I.O.U.’s instead of bonds to get around the debt limit. So far, the Obama administration hasn’t revealed any possible backup plans if a deal isn’t reached, insisting that the August 2 deadline can’t be broken, and also reportedly warning Congress that a deal needs to be in place by July 22 in order to be passed in time. “When you plan a game of chicken, you never want to reveal all of your cards,” Smetters says. “You basically want to have something that looks like mutually assured destruction.” [See a slide show of 6 ways to raise the debt ceiling.

But any sign that a deal might not be reached, or that Washington will have to use creative legal technicalities to get out of the situation, could be the tipping points for the markets. In fact, a common idea in Washington is some type of market reaction is necessary to jolt Congress into action, just as the stock market crash pushed the House of Representatives to pass the financial bailout in 2008. The country is waiting to see who will blink first—Democrats, Republicans, or Wall Street. 

• See a slide show of 6 ways to raise the debt ceiling.
• See a slide show of 6 consequences if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
• Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress raise the debt limit?

Still shunned as fringe ideologues, or worse, by Democrats and much of the formal scientific community, skeptics of global warming were nonetheless celebratory as they gathered in Washington last week for the conservative Heartland Institute’s annual climate change conference. And for good reason. Climate change legislation has been on the back burner since 2009 and an increasing number of Republican lawmakers now call themselves skeptics as well. Indeed, the tide of the debate—at least politically—has turned in their favor. [See a slide show of 10 animals that are threatened by global warming.]

Political experts say that with the economy at the forefront of the nation’s focus, concerns over global warming won’t carry much weight in the 2012 election. At most, climate change will be just another place for candidates, especially those in the GOP, to distinguish themselves from their opponents, if they dare. “[Climate change is] part of an undercurrent. The race is going to be about the economy and the fiscal crisis. So to the degree that one or several of the candidates can work the story line that some of these concerns are having an impact on the economy, that will be a marginal help,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. “But it’s not a central issue by any stretch of the imagination.”

Since as far back as 2009, when Republicans led the fight against cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, the party as a whole has been reticent to say global warming is a problem. For instance, when voting on legislation in March that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases, every Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee refused to acknowledge by vote that climate change exists and is caused by humans.

This reflects a trend toward skepticism among voters too. Public opinion polls show that Republicans are more unsure about climate change than ever. And last year’s midterms also demonstrated that climate change advocates, like former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, who lost his seat, aren’t so popular within the party anymore. [See a slide show of 10 reasons Americans aren't talking about climate change.]

The current front-runner in GOP primary polls, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, seems to have the most to lose from his position on the issue, says David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative research organization based in Massachusetts. In the first town hall meeting of his campaign, Romney stood by his long-established belief that global warming is real and that humans contribute to the problem. “For Romney to do that is for Romney to take responsibility for Romneycare. It doesn’t help his campaign a bit,” says Tuerck. “This is not going to do anyone good to attach oneself to that crusade.”

While former ambassador to China and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has a similar position, the rest of the top GOP contenders have decided to take sides with the skeptics. Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, for instance, has made her point clear on the House floor, saying she believes warming is due to natural causes. She adamantly opposed cap-and-trade back in 2009 and has been one of the harshest critics of the Environmental Protection Agency, calling it the “job-killing organization of America” in the GOP primary debate last month. [Check out our new energy intelligence blog.]

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has also stood firm with the skeptics. “There is climate change. There’s always been climate change,” he said on Fox News last week. “The science indicates most of it, if not all of it, is caused by natural causes. And as to the potential human contribution to that, there’s a great scientific dispute to that issue.”

Regardless of where candidates stand, few primary voters will make climate change a deciding factor, says Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and blogger at the prominent skeptics blog Watts Up With That? “While there may be some candidates that get pooh-poohed because they might embrace the global warming issue, it won’t be a deal-breaker,” he says.

• See a slide show of 10 reasons Americans aren’t talking about climate change.
• See a slide show of 10 animals that are threatened by global warming.
• Check out our new energy intelligence blog.

Team,

You can be the spark that becomes a grassroots revolution helping to ignite, solidify, inform, and unify Americans around the values that Sarah Palin represents, and, frankly, it isn’t that terribly hard!.

Team Sarah wants to see The Undefeated become a BIG success and we are treating this like OPENING DAY in a long battle to promote the VALUES we see that Sarah Palin represents!

But, we need to ACT!

Please don’t waste time.

Click on the link below and start purchasing your tickets for Opening Weekend July 15, 16, and 17:

We need to SELL OUT the evening shows on July 15th and 16th if you BELIEVE IN THE MESSAGING and VALUES OF THIS FILM. if you believe in Sarah Palin and the values she represents in the country today, now is YOUR CHANCE to stand up and make a HUGE IMPACT with what amounts to only a little effort.

The Undefeated needs strong attendance to roll out across the country in subsequent weeks. Your fellow Americans DESERVE to see this movie just like you did. Strong attendance, we believe, will also send a strong message to the liberal media elites and their political cronies- that Americans are hungry for REAL leaders who can navigate tough storms instead of sound-biting their way along to pander for votes or media support.

As one of Sarah Palin’s supporters, only YOU can help make this happen!!!

Watch what Gov. Palin Says about the film.

Together we can make this happen, and it starts by getting people in to see this movie. Please click on the link now and purchase your first chunk of tickets to take family, friends, co-workers and others to see the movie July 15, 16, and 17.

Encourage other Sarah Palin supporters to purchase a minimum of 5 tickets to the first nights Friday evening performances.

Team Sarah Groups for The Undefeated

If you can commit to reserving 5 seats for The Undefeated on the OPENING NIGHT in one of the 10 first cities, JOIN the appropriate group and post a message there letting others know that you will be coming and bringing 4 friends!

ARIZONA

Phoenix AZ

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedphoenixaz

CALIFORNIA

Orange CA

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedorangeca

COLORADO

Highland Ranch CO

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedhighlandsranchco

FLORIDA

Orlando FL

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedorlandofl

GEORGIA

Kennesaw GA

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedkennesawga

INDIANA

Indianapolis IN

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedindianapolisin

MISSOURI

Impendence MO

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedindependencemo

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma City OK

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedoklahomacityok

TEXAS

Grapevine TX

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedgrapevinetx

Houston TX

http://teamsarah.ning.com/group/theundefeatedhoustontx

Thanks for ALL you do!

The Tiny Team Behind the Team!

Visit Team Sarah at: http://teamsarah.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Senators have come back early from the holiday to continue working on a resolution to the partisan deadlock over raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, the legal limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow. For the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an advocacy group that represents the interests of businesses and trade organizations, that agreement cannot come soon enough. Since the start of the debate, the chamber has been pushing for an increase to the debt ceiling, a position that pits the business organization against some of the very lawmakers it helped to elect in 2010.

[Read about President Obama's role as the "adult" in the debt ceiling negotiations.]

Republican representatives like North Dakota’s Rick Berg, Ohio’s Steve Stivers, and Colorado’s Cory Gardner are a few of the many representatives who benefited from the chamber’s ads in 2010 and have also spoken out against raising the debt ceiling without preconditions like heavy spending cuts. Indeed, in May, all 236 current House Republicans voted against a “clean” debt ceiling increase; that is, an increase without any substantial spending cuts or reforms.

At the heart of the divide is a fundamental disagreement over what is a greater priority: maintaining the nation’s creditworthiness or addressing growing deficits and debt. In the May letter to Congress, Josten emphasized that to not raise the limit could have a profound negative impact. Failure to raise the debt limit by August 2, the Treasury Department’s deadline to prevent a default, “would create uncertainty and fear, and threaten the credit rating of the United States,” Josten wrote. Though the chamber is in favor of deficit reduction, raising the debt ceiling is priority one, according to Blair Latoff, its director of communications. “It would be great if Congress would go along with spending cuts but we also believe that getting the debt limit raised is imperative,” she told U.S. News in an e-mail. She added, “We’ve consistently conveyed our belief that the debt limit should not become a political football. The consequences are great if we don’t increase the limit and given where we are today, there is no other option.”

[Read about why Obama wants all eyes on the flagging economy.]

But conservative Republicans who refuse to raise the limit without major cuts say the issue is a matter of principle, not political gamesmanship. According to Brian Straessle, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee, a conservative House caucus, getting government spending under control is the “foremost priority.” He continues, “From our point of view, the worst possible outcome is not to address the debt crisis. If you do not address that, the economic pain that we face will be horrendous.” The Republican Study Committee backs a plan called Cut, Cap, and Balance, which proposes major cuts to federal spending, caps on future spending, and the introduction of a balanced budget amendment. The pledge, sponsored by prominent conservative organizations like Club for Growth, the 60 Plus Association, and several Tea Party groups, has also gained the support of 12 senators, 26 House members, and six 2012 Republican presidential candidates, including former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Republican pollster John McLaughlin says that Republicans who apply conditions to raising the debt ceiling are using the larger dispute as a means to an end: “This seems to be the only way to get the president’s attention that he has to stop the spending spree.”

You’re in a lousy mood. Justifiably so. It’s been two years since the recession ended and a recovery supposedly began, yet the job market still stinks, housing remains a mess, and the bozos in Washington seem to do more harm than good. Consumer confidence is getting worse, not better, and talk of a double-dip recession hovers like a thunderhead over a summer barbecue.

[See why U.S. companies aren't so American anymore.]

There is considerable hope amid all this gloom, however. Here’s the catch: The good news largely amounts to bad things that haven’t happened—the kind of good news that’s hardest to appreciate. Part of the reason for the economic pullback this year is fear over a steady stream of turbulent events that could upend the global economy–if they hit critical mass. But so far, virtually every one of those things has come and gone while producing ripples, but not waves. “We’ve had a series of modest shocks that are slowing things down,” says Ethan Harris of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The question is, when do the shocks go away?”

The answer is that some of them are already dissipating. And when it starts to look like there’s more turbulence behind than ahead, it could mark the moment when the economy turns the corner in earnest. Here are five potential disasters that have worried economists but failed to materialize:

A major spike in oil prices. At the beginning of the year, oil was about $90 per barrel. As unrest in the Middle East intensified, prices peaked at more than $113 per barrel. Economists think that $120 oil might be the tipping point at which a double-dip recession becomes likely. But even below that level, rising energy prices cut into disposable income, which means people have less money to spend on other stuff. And $4 gas in particular tends to depress consumer confidence far more than other types of price increases. So, much of the economic weakness so far this year is due to the real and psychological impact of rising oil and gasoline prices.

[See why gas and food prices are likely to drop.]

But those worrisome price spikes have reversed course over the last several weeks, with oil now trading around $95 and gas prices retreating from the $4 mark in early May to about $3.65 today. That downward trend may continue. The recent coordinated release of 60 million barrels of oil from the reserves of the United States and other nations didn’t amount to a significant new supply source, but it did signal the willingness of governments to intervene in markets, if necessary, to push energy prices down. That dampened speculative fervor that may have been contributing to rising prices. Slow growth in many of the world’s biggest economies—such as Europe, Japan, and the United States—ought to keep demand for oil from overheating, as well. Discord in OPEC means it will be harder for the oil cartel to deliberately limit supplies and boost prices. Oil prices are volatile and will probably continue a gradual rise over time, but for now, consumers seem to have gotten a respite. Investment bank UBS recently advised its clients that the downward trend in energy prices should put more money in consumers’ pockets, boost spending, and help goose economic growth in the second half of 2011.

Financial panic in Europe. It’s beginning to seem like an annual summer ritual: Greece or some other peripheral European nation nearly goes bankrupt, roiling markets until policymakers sweep in at the last second with a bailout. But the longer this goes on, the less likely a crisis actually becomes. One of the big problems with the financial situation in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and perhaps Spain is that European banks hold much of their debt and would incur steep losses if those nations default on their obligations. That leads to the “contagion” scenario, in which banks across Europe, and perhaps the world, begin to call in their loans and refuse to lend to each other. But every time Europe’s bailout barons forestall the day of reckoning by six or 12 months, they give the banks more time to offset potential losses and prepare for a default, if it happens.

[See why Europe's debt crisis will keep coming back.]

The biggest worry is that a debt restructuring–or worse, a chaotic, unplanned default—by one of these troubled nations would produce a global panic similar to what happened after Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. But Lehman failed abruptly, with its many global creditors stunned to discover that there would be no bailout for the troubled firm. The Greek situation, by contrast, has been telegraphed for months, with detailed public analysis of Greece’s liabilities and the benchmarks it must hit to keep earning its bailout payments. “Commentators blame euro zone policymakers for kicking the can down the road,” says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “But buying more time is quite sensible if they use that time to build resilience against contagion.”

Runaway inflation. Since the Federal Reserve began “printing money” in 2008—through the huge bond-buying program known as quantitative easing—inflation hawks have been warning that the United States is on its way to becoming Weimar Germany. It hasn’t happened, not yet anyway. In fact, the bigger worry for a while wasn’t inflation, but deflation, since demand for many products fell so sharply during the recession that some prices plunged. Now, inflation has picked up enough to suggest that deflation isn’t a problem. But widespread inflation doesn’t look like much of a problem either. It is now about 3.5 percent on an annual basis, with gasoline and some food items rising by more than that over the last year. But many economists expect gas and food prices to come down over the next several months, which ought to produce tamer inflation of 3 percent or so.

[See who inflation hurts the most.]

It’s still possible that the Fed’s critics might be right, with all that extra money–which is mostly sitting on banks’ balance sheets–working its way into the real economy and producing problematic levels of inflation. But for that to happen, wages need to start going up as well, since a spike in wages is usually what triggers prolonged inflation at the consumer level. Anybody gotten a big raise lately? Hardly. With high unemployment leaving a glut of workers in most industries, it’s hard to see how wages could rise by much. Many consumers, in fact, struggle with the opposite problem: Their pay has stagnated, and many are getting by with reduced incomes. Fairly low inflation, meanwhile, means that interest rates are likely to stay low, since there’s no need for the Fed to raise rates to combat rising prices.

A plunging stock market. As it became apparent earlier this year that the Fed would end its second quantitative easing program—”QE2″—on schedule at the end of June, some analysts worried that the stock markets would nosedive. The Fed used quantitative easing to boost demand for stocks and other risky assets, by buying up many safer investments, such as treasury securities and other types of bonds. That left investors with little choice but to put their money into the stock market, and the Fed’s program did in fact coincide with a huge bull market in stocks. So it stood to reason that investors would bail out of stocks once the Fed stopped buying bonds.

[See how to ride out the "soft patch."]

But investors who own stocks have mostly stuck with them. Stocks were flat in June, but they rose about 4 percent during the last week of the month. And despite other unnerving events, such as the Japanese earthquake and the turmoil in the Middle East, stocks are up about 6 percent so far this year. The Fed made a deliberate effort to announce its plans to end QE2 well in advance, which gave investors time to prepare and helped eliminate last-minute speculation. The end of the controversial quantitative easing programs is also good news in itself, because it signals that the Fed feels the economy is strong enough to stand on its own two feet for the first time in three years. Many stock analysts are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for stocks in the second half of the year, partly because of the shocks they weathered in the first half.

A housing-led depression. The housing market usually springboards the economy out of recession, since pent-up demand for homes triggers a surge in spending on real estate and everything related to it, from HVAC units to furniture and appliances. Obviously that hasn’t happened this time around. The housing bust is now in its fifth year, with average home prices down by more than 30 percent and continuing to fall. Economists have repeatedly underestimated the severity of the housing bust, predicting that prices would bottom out in 2009, then in 2010, and now in 2011. They’ve been repeatedly wrong, and the falling value of homes is one of the heaviest stones around the necks of consumers right now, since it reduces household wealth and makes people feel gloomy about the future.

[See why baby boomers are bummed out.]

It’s a wonder that the economy has been able to grow despite the dreadful housing market. That indicates that the recovery, even though it’s subdued, is being led by businesses rather than consumers. It can’t go on like this forever, but housing must pick up eventually. When it does, it could add a second punch to the business spending that’s driven economic growth over the last two years.

There’s still much that could go wrong and surprise the cautious optimists. There could be a bursting asset bubble in China, a revolution in Saudi Arabia, a Middle East war, a devastating terrorist attack in Europe or the United States, a self-inflicted debt default by Uncle Sam or something totally unforeseen. But the longer an economic disaster doesn’t happen, the closer we get to a recovery that actually feels like one.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

• 11 Business Leaders Who Profited After Failure
• How Greece Has Outperformed Washington
• Career Lessons From Conan O’Brien
• 5 Reasons Taxes Are Going to Rise

On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state’s divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

[Read about why Hispanics are key to victory in the 2012 presidential race.]

In early 2010, the New York Times’s Nate Silver (then writing at his blog, fivethirtyeight.com) analyzed state divorce rates over time and noted a similar correlation. He found a statistically significant relationship between states’ gay marriage laws and changes in divorce rates over a five-year span.

But the above data is from 2009–a year in which only two states performed gay marriages for the full year, joined later by Iowa and Vermont. And Gary Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar at the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, a think tank that works to advance sexual orientation law, says that same-sex couples divorce at rates comparable to those of different-sex couples. Data from Massachusetts, the state with the longest track record on gay marriage, seems to support this. The numbers show that divorce rates in that state have not changed since same-sex unions became legal in 2004. Though it fluctuated in the intervening years, the rate of 2.2 divorces per 1,000 people in 2004 was the same in 2009.

So why does there seem to be correlation but no causal linkage? The answer is that there appear to be many other related factors at play. Untangling the correlation between gay marriage and divorce rates means examining other interrelated demographic factors that are associated with a state’s politics as well as its residents’ propensity to divorce. Two chief explanatory variables among these are marriage age and education.

According to D’Vera Cohn, a senior writer at the Pew Research Center, there is a link between education, marriage age, and divorce rates. “From what I understand from the research, people who take the time and have the discipline to complete a college degree or more advanced education­­­–those personality traits are also useful in sustaining a marriage,” she says.

Some studies have also shown rates of higher education to be related to gay marriage support. A 2009 University of Florida study, for example, found that for every additional 1 percent of a given county’s population with a bachelor’s degree, there was a nearly equal decrease in support for an amendment that would have enacted a gay marriage ban. Daniel Smith, one of the study’s authors, posited that education “increases exposure to those who are different” and added, “Studies show very clearly that the more educated people are, the more tolerant they are of differences.” Indeed, according to data from the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Communities Survey, of the 10 states (plus the District of Columbia) with the highest rates of residents 25 and older with bachelor’s degrees or higher, seven allow or recognize gay marriage.

Was the Chrysler bailout worth it? Tough question, with strong opinions on both sides. But American taxpayers are finally getting a glimpse of what they paid for.

[See why U.S. companies aren't so American anymore.]

For anybody whose memory of the shotgun marriage between Fiat and Chrysler is a little hazy, here’s a quick recap. When the Obama administration had to decide whether to save General Motors and Chrysler in 2009, it made some tough distinctions between the two. GM was considered so big and essential that saving it was an easy, if unpopular, call. Chrysler was smaller and more expendable. What clinched the Chrysler bailout was an agreement by Italy’s Fiat to take a minority ownership stake in the company, infuse it with small-car technology, and hopefully increase its control as Chrysler recovered from bankruptcy. All of that happened. Chrysler has now repaid about 80 percent of its government aid, with Fiat set to buy out the government’s share in Chrysler and increase its stake to about 53 percent. A Chrysler employee group and the Canadian government own the rest, and Fiat could eventually buy their shares, too. Or, the company could go public. Meanwhile, Chrysler has reached another key milestone: It’s become profitable.

The cutesy-tootsie Fiat 500 is the most visible manifestation so far of what the new Chrysler can do. The design and overall concept are imported from Europe, where the Cinquecento is a popular runabout. To retool it for the U.S. market, Fiat included a new engine manufactured in Michigan, enlarged cupholders and seats (sorry to say), and a stiffened rear axle, for more stable cruising on wind-blown highways. The result is a modish hipster of a car that’s cooler than the Honda Fit, more muscular than the pipsqueaky Smart fortwo, and a better value than the overhyped Mini Cooper. Here’s what it will do for Chrysler:

Freshen the brand. When it emerged from bankruptcy, Chrysler had the most tired lineup of any major automaker, with aging trucks and SUVs, rental-quality sedans and also-ran compacts. Since then, Chrysler has revitalized a few models, such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango and Dodge Charger, earning improved marks from Consumers Reports and other reviewers. But those have mostly been incremental improvements to models whose reputations Chrysler is trying to revive. The 500, by contrast, is brand new to America, with no old baggage to unpack. “It gives Chrysler fresh appeal, with a high-style aspect that’s European and chic, says analyst Bill Vinsic of car-research site Edmunds.com. “Chrysler has not been much about chic.

[See why gas and food prices are likely to drop.]

Enhance its credibility. Critics lampooned Chrysler in 2009 when it announced plans to bring the 500 to North America, as if a single European model smaller than 99 percent of the cars on U.S. roads could fix the fortunes of a manufacturing dinosaur. Fiat had been here before, leaving behind a reputation for temperamental rustbuckets when it pulled out of the U.S. market in the early 1980s. Fiat changed over the years, building a reputation for trendy, affordable designs and innovative technology. But American car buffs have long memories, and many gleefully recalled the days when Fiat was synonymous with “Fix It Again, Tony, the fond if pejorative putdown for spicy cars that always seemed to be in the shop.

The 500 easily exceeds those meager expectations, with a crisp and spirited ride, funky interior, and generous set of standard features, including Bluetooth connectivity and a full suite of safety gear, for prices that start at about $16,000. It will still take a year or two to gauge the car’s reliability, but early returns are encouraging. In U.S.News’s car rankings, for instance, the 500 ranks 11th out of 33 cars in its category, ahead of popular models like the Mazda2 and Volkswagen Jetta. Chrysler has delivered a fun little car that holds its own on American roads, which is what it said it would do.

[See why car buyers should wait 6 months to buy.]

Attract small-car buyers. The 500 arrived just in time for the latest run-up in gas prices, and it’s an appealing choice for buyers looking for good mileage in a car that’s still enjoyable to drive. The 500 averages 30 mpg in the city and 38 on the highway, which makes it one of the most efficient gasoline-powered models in any showroom. The tradeoff, of course, is space. Though it has a back seat and, in theory, holds four passengers, the 500 is tiny by American standards, smaller even than the Mini or Fit. The back seat is inhospitable to adults, and there’s no four-door model, which limits the 500s appeal to people who will rarely need it to haul people or stuff.

Those types of limitations are a reminder that the 500, for all its heart, is far from a cure-all for the still-struggling automaker. Here’s what it won’t do for Chrysler:

Significantly boost profitability. Even though interest in small cars spikes every time gas drifts upward toward $4 per gallon, compacts and subcompacts are not big moneymakers. Many automakers barely break even on small cars, and earning money at the bottom end of the lineup usually requires a high volume of sales. “We’re not going to see the kind of numbers with the 500 that will make much of an impact on the bottom line, says Vinsic of Edmnuds. Top-selling small cars, like the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, typically notch annual sales of more than 200,000, while Chrysler expects sales of the 500 to be just 80,000 or so by 2013, when Fiat has about 165 dealers in place. So while it might draw admiring glances, the 500 on its own won’t be nearly enough to keep Chrysler afloat.

[See 10 reasons you don't need a hybrid.]

Draw buyers to other Chrysler products. Most automakers have a layering strategy in which smaller, less profitable cars are meant to introduce buyers to the brand so they can upgrade to more upscale—and more profitable–cars down the road. Some automakers do that with different brands under the same corporate umbrella, like Toyota does with its Scion brand or BMW does with Mini, which it owns. Other manufacturers have a single brand with clear upward steps, like Ford does with its Fiesta entry-level car, the Focus compact, and the more upscale Fusion sedan. For now, Chrysler’s Fiat strategy seems to have a few missing links. While there are several trim lines, the 500 is likely to be the only Fiat model available for a few years at least, so there are no other Fiats to upgrade to, if buyers should feel so inclined. Fiat might bring its Alfa Romeo brand to the United States in the future, so those might serve as the move-up cars for Fiat owners. But not for several years.

In the meantime, most Fiat showrooms—known as “studios—are co-located with Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealerships, which is sort of like selling cappuccinos at a hot-dog stand. The culture clash may not harm any of the four brands, but it’s hard to see much synergy, either, since there’s probably little overlap between the psychographic of a Fiat buyer and somebody who might buy a Dodge Challenger muscle car or a Chrysler Town Country minivan.

[See why Europe's debt crisis will keep coming back.]

Improve the rest of Chrysler’s lineup. What Chrysler needs most of all is a full lineup of vehicles that are competitive in their class, with a few home runs mixed in. It’s still far from that goal. Despite improvements, Chrysler ‘s sedans and crossovers are still middling. Its minivans remain popular, but that segment is shrinking. And Chrysler is still overreliant on pickup trucks and SUVs. Chrysler says several new and compelling products are on the way. If the 500 is an indication, then American taxpayers ought to get some interesting new cars to choose from. Let’s just hope they don’t put Tony back in business.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

• Read about 11 business leaders who profited after failure.
• Find out how to ride out the soft patch.
• See 10 reasons you don’t need a hybrid.
• Read bad advice about three big purchases.

As Congressional leaders confer with President Obama at the White House today on the debt negotiations, they’ve shown their cards a bit, and there’s finally some clarity to go along with the red-hot rhetoric. Obama is reportedly still thinking big, pushing a debt ceiling compromise which would cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security in exchange for raising more taxes by eliminating corporate tax preferences, other deductions, or allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. Republicans, meanwhile, indicated some flexibility on eliminating distasteful corporate tax subsidies—but also publicly clarified their position that such tinkering with the tax code shouldn’t raise any new taxes. There’s talk of a grand bargain in the air, but the gulf between the two parties has never been more clear.

[Read how the debt ceiling issue reveals chamber-GOP rift.]

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor blasted Obama Wednesday for attributing the breakdown of negotiations to tax breaks for things like corporate jets. “We’ve said all along that preferences in the code aren’t something that helps economic growth overall,” Cantor said. “But, listen, we are not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else.” Although ostensibly indicating a willingness to deal on tax breaks, Cantor’s comments—echoed by other GOP lawmakers throughout the day–made it even more clear that Republicans won’t allow any federal revenue enhancements through overhauling the tax code. Both sides may well back down and compromise before letting the nation go into default, but it will take a lot of face-saving spin.

According to Cantor, the bipartisan talks with Vice President Joe Biden produced a plan with the “potential” to cut $2 trillion off the deficit over 10 years. the discretionary spending cuts agreed to could become the basis for a shorter term deal which would entail the debt ceiling issue being revisited again next year, though neither side likes the idea. In fact Cantor joked with reporters Wednesday that the only thing he and the president agree on is that a short term deal would be a nonstarter.

For his part, Obama is looking to deal with the issue for good, with a $4 trillion deal which would both raise taxes and slash entitlement programs. It’s an ambitious goal, but even if the deal is finalized with party leaders, it will likely be met with strong opposition from rank-and-file Democrats looking to guard social programs, and Republicans opposed to any type of tax increase.

[Read about President Obama's role as the "adult" in the debt ceiling negotiations.]

No one on Capitol Hill wants to relive this fight again next year. There will be fewer options left to cut a deal, and the election season will make compromise harder. There’s plenty left to fight over this year–sometime this fall, lawmakers will have yet another showdown over the federal budget, with yet another threatened government shutdown on the horizon.

Whereas this showdown has, so far, avoided rattling the market or panicking Americans, an election-year showdown adds an element of uncertainty to the equation.

It’s an option that everyone would like to avoid, but it may be the only way out.

• Vote now: Will there be a debt ceiling deal?
• Slide Show: 6 Ways to Raise the Debt Ceiling
• See a gallery of cartoons on the budget and deficit.

All that hot air coming from the White House and Capitol Hill has had an impact on Washington, D.C.: The Weather Channel has crowned the city the hottest in the Northeast and one of America’s six hottest cities. Hot as in heat, not the hipness factor.

• See the month’s best editorial cartoons.
• Check out our gallery of Whispers political caricatures.
• See who’s been visiting the White House.

After news broke that the White House is contemplating a possible deal including Social Security cuts, reaction was swift and angry on Capitol Hill. House Democratic leaders made clear that they’re opposed to cuts to the Medicare or Social Security, and some progressive rank and file lawmakers began to prepare a revolt.

[Read how both sides are playing their cards in the debt fight.]

The House Progressive Caucus, lead by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva began to circulate a letter promising to oppose “ideologically driven” cuts to the social programs. For many Congressional Democrats, it’s not just the idea of cutting Social Security that’s difficult to tolerate. It’s the idea of cutting Social Security as a part of an overall deficit reduction plan, rather than dealing with it as its own self-funding program. Although actuaries worry about the long-term solvency of the program, its trust fund is currently in good shape, especially when compared with the rest of the federal government. “In fact, Social Security, which is perhaps the most successful federal program in the history of our country, has not contributed one penny to our deficit or our national debt,” independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said on the Senate floor, in reaction to the news that Social Security cuts might be in the mix. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that Social Security cuts “should be on their own table,” not part of a broader discussion.

While some liberal lawmakers are fuming, other Democrats are waiting to see how any possible Social Security cuts will play in the overall package. Although no particulars have leaked yet, one strong possibility is an adjustment to the cost-of-living index, which would slowly slice benefits for Social Security recipients while also slowly raising income taxes. That proposal, while still controversial, has a chance of passage, especially if lawmakers follow the lead of the president’s fiscal commission and pair a cost-of-living decrease with increased benefits for poor and older recipients.

[Read how the debt ceiling issue reveals a chamber-GOP rift.]

Social Security has long enjoyed an image as a politically untouchable program. It’s an accurate, but incomplete picture. True, past attempts at privatizing or significantly altering Social Security have ended in failure. But lawmakers have reached compromises to extend the life of the program, including overhauls made in 1983, some of which are still taking effect today. While the mood seems much more partisan today than in decades past, there is a growing sense in Washington that some type of bipartisan deal might be possible.

After lawmakers left the White House meeting today, it wasn’t clear they were any further to a deal than when they entered it. Obama said that the meeting was “very constructive,” but didn’t elaborate on what was discussed. The parties returned to their talking points swiftly after they were over, with Democratic Congressional leaders vowing not to cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare. According to sources with knowledge of the negotiations, the discussions at the White House today still haven’t settled on specifics, but rather are focused on identifying the size of a potential deal. Lawmakers are looking at a compromise package that cuts anywhere from $2 trillion to $4 trillion off of the national debt over the next 10 years, with President Obama refusing to sign anything that doesn’t extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 election. But reaching those numbers would require some cuts to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security or Medicare—if Congress can stomach them.

• Vote now: Will there be a debt ceiling deal?
• Slide Show: 6 Ways to Raise the Debt Ceiling
• See a gallery of cartoons on the budget and deficit.

June data from payroll accounting firm ADP suggest that the job market is bouncing back from its abysmal performance in May. The new figures provide a hopeful prelude to Friday, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the government’s official June employment numbers. But the emerging employment scene is distinctly different from the one the country knew before to the recession.

Today, ADP released figures estimating private-sector job growth of 157,000 in June, nearly three times the size of May’s total job growth figure. And the Department of Labor reported that last week, initial unemployment claims dropped 14,000 to land at 418,000—a number all the more positive given that last week’s shutdown of the Minnesota state government added 2,500 new unemployment claims in that state. Altogether, tomorrow’s unemployment report is expected to be a welcome relief from May’s figures, with unemployment staying steady at 9.1 percent. [Read more about unemployment]

Of course, job growth will have to pick up substantially before the economy is healthy again. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth in the recovery has not outpaced population growth. The ratio of employed people to total U.S. population has been flat for nearly a year and a half. And even once the economy starts adding jobs at a healthier clip, the result will be a jobs market much changed from that the country knew in 2006­—one with anemic to nonexistent construction growth, shifting gender representation, and prolonged high natural rates of unemployment. Here are five ways the job market has changed since the recession began:

Construction Jobs Still Far From Recovery

The construction industry currently has nearly 2.2 million fewer jobs than it did at its pre-recession peak in 2006. But then, the housing bubble of 2006 and 2007 gave the industry far to fall. A combination of economic growth and financial innovation encouraged home-buying pre-recession, driving housing demand—and thus, construction–sky high, according to Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic consulting firm. In order for construction jobs to grow again, the current glut of unoccupied houses will first have to be purchased, and demand for new homes will also have to drastically increase. “The previous peak [in housing] was unsustainable,” summarizes Prakken. “I hope we learned that lesson and won’t drive back toward that peak unless there’s demographic reason to build houses.”

Healthcare an Even Bigger Part of Economy

Statistics from the Department of Labor show that throughout the recession and recovery, employment in healthcare and social assistance has trended steadily upward, uninterrupted, even as other industries have suffered. According to John Ryding, chief economist at economics consulting and advisory firm RDQ Economics, healthcare can expect to see continued job growth, as graying baby boomers create increased demand for healthcare services. “When you look at demographics, we’re going to have resources shifting toward dealing with an aging population,” says Ryding.

A Bigger Place for Women (but Maybe Not for Long)

As the U.S. economy hemorrhaged jobs in 2008 and 2009, the phrase “mancession” was coined to describe a wave of job losses that disproportionately affected men. During the recession­—that is, between December 2007 and June 2009—men lost nearly 5.4 million jobs, compared with 2.1 million for women. But a new report from the Pew Research Center shows that this tide may be turning. Since the recovery started in June 2009, men have fared better, regaining 768,000 jobs, compared to a loss of 218,000 for women. Though Pew did not find definitive answers as to why men are bouncing back, the report lists several possible reasons that may be contributing to this phenomenon. For example, women are more heavily concentrated in the government sector, which has been facing steady job cuts in recent months as many state and local governments in particular face budget crises. Men are also making gains in manufacturing, retail trade, and finance, while women are losing ground in those sectors.

The president has said that he hopes to bring about “sustained economic growth,” a critical goal if he hopes to sustain his place in the White House. But with a full economic recovery will likely take years, or even a full decade, and the November 2012 elections only 15 months away, Obama’s challenge is not only about jobs, but about perception.

There is much work to do on both the economic and political fronts. This week brought news of increased jobless claims, as well as decreased growth forecasts from the Federal Reserve. Even Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke appears stumped. “We don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting,” he told reporters at a press conference. The public is clearly discouraged; a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday shows that 91 percent of Americans see the economy as “only fair” or “poor,” and 69 percent believe the economy will be “worse” or “about the same” in a year. To counteract all these forces, the White House is working not only to improve the economy, but also its image, political strategists say. [Check out editorial cartoons about the economy.]

The president’s announcement that the United States would release 30 million barrels of oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of a an international agreement to release a total of 60 million was just the latest example. Oil prices have risen by 25 percent over the last year, leading to soaring gas prices that are still over $4 per gallon in some parts of the country. A June 16-20 AP-GfK poll showed that gas prices are where the president polls the worst, with only 34 percent of respondents saying they approved of his handling of the issue. By taking measures to lower gas prices, the president can quickly and directly affect both Americans’ pocketbooks and psyches, says Democratic strategist Peter Fenn (who also blogs for U.S. News World Report). “[The price of gas] really affects Americans’ psychology. It really makes them pessimistic towards the economy, towards the future,” says Fenn. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agrees that gas prices play a major role in how people view their economic well-being. “Clearly this White House is concerned about addressing public perceptions,” she says. “As all of us have to fill up our gas tanks, it’s not surprising that they’re trying to address it.”

[See how different states are coping with the prolonged crisis.]

Driving down gas prices is a short-term fix, but longer-term, sustainable economic growth will require greater efforts. The president today extended new assistance to the hard-hit manufacturing sector, with the announcement of the creation of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. This $500 million program intends to bring together the federal government, universities, and major manufacturing corporations like Caterpillar, Intel, and Procter Gamble in identifying and investing in new technologies to “drive a revitalization of American manufacturing,” as Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy Ron Bloom described it. Manufacturing companies have historically criticized the administration over regulations, the corporate tax structure, and trade agreements that they perceive to be harmful to their bottom lines. Winning over the support of business is crucial for the White House not just for garnering votes or campaign donations, but also to show more broadly that the president is working to create jobs.

Obama also used the economy as a rationale for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, highlighting the war’s high cost and the need to focus American attention elsewhere in his Wednesday prime time address. “Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource–-our people.” He added, “America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.” Bowman says that mentioning the economy during a foreign policy-focused speech shows the extent to which the White House is emphasizing its economic efforts. “I think we’re going to hear about that every day going forward,” she says.

Just when it was looking as though the two parties were moving ahead with a debt ceiling deal, negotiations between Republicans and the White House broke down on Thursday over taxes. Belying reports that the GOP might be softening its stance on whether a debt ceiling deal could include some form of tax hikes, the GOP leadership claimed that it couldn’t continue discussions until Democrats took tax increases off the table. According to Republicans, a deal is almost in place, but the tax issue could sink it. [Check out our collection of political cartoons on the debt and deficit]

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced early Thursday that he was bailing on the discussions, which were supposed to continue that afternoon. Although a “blueprint” to cut spending was in place, Cantor said, the Democrats’ insistence on some type of tax increase was causing an impasse. “There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation,” Cantor said in a released statement. His statements were echoed by House Speaker John Boehner. “It’s not just a bad idea,” Boehner told reporters. “It doesn’t have the votes, and it can’t happen.” Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the other Republican negotiator, issued a statement with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, blasting the Democrats over the tax issue and calling on President Obama to step in. “President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit,” the statement read. His statement did not address reports that he too was dropping out of the discussions. As the Republican position hardens, so does that of the Democrats, who are increasingly unwilling to consider cuts to entitlement programs without some measure to raise revenues. “I think we’ll walk away if it doesn’t include some revenue increases,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Allyson Schwartz at a breakfast with reporters at the centrist D.C. think tank Third Way.

According to the U.S. Treasury, Congress must raise the $14.3 trillion limit on debt by August 2, or the federal government will either have to drastically halt spending, or neglect its interest payments and go into default. Vice President Joe Biden has overseen negotiations between the two parties over some type of deficit reduction package to accompany a bill to raise the debt ceiling, with GOP leaders insisting that the vote must come with trillions of dollars in savings. So far, the disagreement between the parties has focused on taxes –Republicans insist that the savings must come from cuts to federal spending alone, while Democrats argue that a debt reduction package should include a mix of cuts to spending and measures to enhance government revenue. That likely wouldn’t be an increase to taxation rates, which are politically unrealistic, but rather measures to eliminate so-called tax expenditures, the loopholes and preferences that reward specific industries and activities.

Political observers wondered whether the standoff is truly an impasse or rather a bit of well-timed drama to help sell the final deal to disillusioned Republican rank-and-file members. When Cantor was assigned to the debt negotiating team earlier this year, Hill staffers were skeptical that the ambitious, unabashedly partisan lawmaker could strike a deal with Democrats. If he could, his involvement in the plan could help sell a debt ceiling increase to Tea Party lawmakers. “There’s some degree of chest-beating going on,” one GOP aide says. If so, it wouldn’t be too surprising. The negotiations to prevent a government shutdown earlier this year were also rocky, with standoffs and breakthroughs until a deal was struck in the 11th hour. “We’ll have people walk out of negotiations maybe a dozen times before a deal is finally cut,” says Michael Tanner, a congressional analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute.

• Slide Show: 6 Consequences if the Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
• Slide Show: 6 Ways to Raise the Debt Ceiling
• Check out our collection of political cartoons on the debt and deficit

“Why now?”—that’s the question many energy experts were asking Thursday after the Obama administration’s surprise announcement that it plans to release 30 million barrels of oil from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

But timing aside, experts say the move is a short-term win for consumers, as the release of oil and its effect on gas prices could act as a small stimulus in an otherwise lagging national economy. [See the 10 priciest years in history for gas.]

Oil and gas prices have been on a gradual downward slope since mid-May, when markets were most feeling the shocks of the disrupted supply from Libya. The administration’s decision today could help that downward trend continue for at least a couple of months, says Chris Lafakis, an economist with Moody’s.

According to Lafakis, while average national gas prices in May bordered on $4 per gallon, he guesses they could go down as far as $3.50 per gallon as a result of the decline that was already happening and the added oil supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. That price drop, from the current average price of $3.61, is expected to be only temporary, he says. But the administration’s decision could still have the same stimulative effect as a multibillion dollar tax cut for consumers around the country. “It’s not like a game-changing, groundbreaking effect, but it will help,” says Lafakis. “It’s something that will allow the economy to grow faster than it otherwise would have.”

Lower gas prices tend to have the most effect on lower-income people, who are more apt to spend their extra savings than save more. That extra spending could give the economy a short-term boost. According to Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com, it won’t change most people’s driving habits, but they should notice the extra cash. “Gas prices are still so high, people aren’t just going to go drive. The difference is small enough that people aren’t making many changes yet, and they’ll just keep the extra money in their pocket to spend elsewhere in the economy.” [Check out our gallery of editorial cartoons on gas prices.]

Lower gas prices also have a psychological effect on consumers, DeHaan says. “It changes their mood, and to see lower prices, it will certainly stimulate or make people excited,” he says. “The psyche behind lower gas prices will certainly help the economy.”

Not surprisingly, lawmakers, are taking advantage of the news to push their agendas. Republicans have used it as a hook to promote their drilling interests and the need for greater domestic oil supply. Democrats, on the other hand, are lauding the decision as proof of their party’s commitment to fixing the economy, which on Wednesday took a hit as the Federal Reserve announced its estimates for lower expected growth through 2012 and jobless claims increased.”We are sending a clear message to speculators: We stand with American consumers and businesses; we will keep working to alleviate their economic struggles; and we will place our families’ interests ahead of Big Oil’s bottom line,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a statement Thursday afternoon. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]

Bidding to finally kill development by General Electric and Rolls Royce for a second Joint Strike Fighter engine, the Pentagon is stepping up claims that the parallel project will jump the price of the jet and slow down development of the aircraft several services need.

In a letter to Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose state of Connecticut is home to the main JSF engine builder, Pratt Whitney, Under Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter decried House Armed Services Committee language that would keep the GE engine alive, even after the House killed it and the Pentagon canceled it this year. “If enacted, this provision would scientifically delay, disrupt and increase the cost of the JSF program.”

At issue are provisions in the committee bill acknowledging GE’s plan to “self fund” continued development of its jet at far less than the government was paying before the House and Pentagon killed the engine program.

Carter said that the committee’s plan is “simply not realistic,” and he also hit a provision that would require GE to get back into a parallel development with Pratt Whitney if major changes to engine thrust were made, a likelihood.

The fight is long from over: The Senate also has to consider the GE self-funding plan which the firm says is a way to keep competition going at a taxpayer-friendly cost.

See Carter’s letter here.

• See the month’s best editorial cartoons.
• Check out our gallery of Whispers political caricatures.
• See who’s been visiting the White House.

War defined the presidency of George W. Bush. Now, his successor is striving to make sure it doesn’t do the same to him.

President Obama speaks to the nation tonight, outlining his plans for withdrawing troops in Afghanistan. The chief executive who was seen by voters as an antidote to the war cabinet of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Obama does so presiding over three conflicts—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. There’s also the ongoing drone campaigns against al Qaeda militants in Pakistan and Yemen. For Obama, the challenge will be convincing the public that he’s not the kind of war-mongering president he criticized in the past. [Check out our roundup of Afghanistan political cartoons.]

In recent days, top administration officials have hinted that Obama’s initial drawdown plan in Afghanistan will be modest, with only about 10 percent of the approximately 100,000 troops coming home by the end of the year. Reports also suggest that the president intends to bring home the remainder of the more than 30,000 troops sent as part of the surge, which Obama began in 2009, by the end of 2012. [See photos of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.]

While this gradual drawdown is favored by military leaders, including outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama will have a harder time convincing war-tired voters, particularly his past supporters. “We knew that this was what the president was committed to doing, but we’re also weary of this war, and don’t see it bringing success,” says David Cortright, the director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and author of Ending Obama’s War. “It’s not worth it.”

The American people, now more than ever, want U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 39 percent of Americans want to “keep the troops there until the situation has stabilized,” while more than half (56 percent) want as quick a withdrawal as possible. That’s a reversal from the same poll taken just before Obama was elected president in September 2008 in which 61 percent favored a continued troop presence and 33 percent favored withdrawal.

Many analysts predict the Taliban will simply wait for American troops to leave and then take control of the country. Adding to the chorus of calls for withdrawal have been comments from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who recently referred to U.S. soldiers as occupiers and made public the fact that America had held talks with the Taliban.

As if Afghanistan were not a big enough headache for Obama, there’s the not-so-small matter of Libya. Many in Congress are upset with the undeclared war there, which is officially a NATO action but relies heavily on U.S. assistance. With Election Day less than 18 months away, Obama needs a course correction if he is going to position himself as more peacemaker than warmonger.

Part of Obama’s problem in both these conflicts, Cortright says, is that the president has deferred too readily to the pressures of NATO and his own military leaders rather than to the changing will of the American people. “In Afghanistan, even with the troop reduction, there’s no fundamental shift in strategy,” he says. “That suggests that he continues to believe the military pressure is the thing that somehow is going to bring the positive result. And that’s clearly what he’s following in Libya as well.” [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Middle East uprisings.]

Now Vice President Joe Biden is pushing Obama donors to pony up $5 or more at a chance of having dinner with President Obama. “The president and I have a routine—we get lunch together almost every Friday,” Biden wrote to those on the Obama campaign email list. “But all I get is lunch. You could be one of four supporters to have dinner with him soon. Donate $5 or more today to have your name automatically thrown in the hat here.”

• See who’s been visiting the White House.
• See the month’s best editorial cartoons.
• Check out our gallery of Whispers political caricatures.

As the deadline to raise the debt ceiling nears, there are signs that the GOP’s hard stance against tax hikes of any kind may be softening. The party’s focus on deficit reduction has uncovered a GOP fault line splitting the deficit hawks from the anti-tax true believers.

The virtues of tax cutting–and the corollary, that raising taxes is verboten—remain articles of faith in the GOP. But what is at issue now is the definition of “tax increase”—whether it only includes actual raising of rates, or whether any measure to raise tax revenues—including eliminating loopholes—should be taboo in the conservative movement. [Read: Momentum Grows for Payroll Tax Cut]

The answer could be key to solving the impasse over raising the debt ceiling, where Republicans have pushed for deep spending cuts but Democrats have countered that any deal to reduce the deficit must address both increasing revenues as well as cutting spending. While House Republicans have ruled out any increase in tax rates, Democrats, and a few Republicans, have been pushing for eliminating billions in so-called tax expenditures, or tax breaks that reward specific industries or activities. Republican leaders aren’t against reforming the complex and loophole-ridden corporate tax code, but they say they want the savings to be offset by an overall cut in the rate, so the reforms will be “revenue-neutral.”

The fight over the definition of “tax increase” played out in the Senate last week when that body voted 73-27 o eliminate ethanol tax subsidies. During that debate key Republican senators indicated that they are open to further reducing such tax preferences as a way to tackle the debt.

But anti-tax activists claim that they’re not softening their position and that in fact they don’t need to. Ryan Ellis, tax policy director for the conservative economic group Americans for Tax Reform, pegged the chances for any type of tax increase passing the House of Representatives at “virtually nonexistent.” Ellis cited the group’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which most Republican candidates for office sign, promising not to raise taxes. “The guys who run the House believe in [the pledge], and even if they had a moment of indiscretion, they’ve got 100, 150 House conservatives who would skin them alive, and would prevent them from doing it,” Ellis says.

Tax incentives could be a key part in striking a deal between the two party’s over the debt ceiling. Republicans are insisting on deep cuts for a debt ceiling compromise. Democrats haven’t shown much willingness to make deep cuts, especially to entitlement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, unless the cuts come paired with some type of measure to raise revenue, such as an overhaul of the corporate tax system. Anti-tax conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, have found themselves in an increasingly bitter feud with some Senate Republicans, such as Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has said that Congress must look at raising revenues by eliminating tax expenditures. [Read: Why the GOP's Medicare Strategy Just Might Work]

Increasingly, the internal Republican debate has pitted GOP senators against their House counterparts. For instance, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham threw his support behind Coburn on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “No one on the Republican side’s going to vote to raise taxes,” the South Carolina senator said. “But I think many of us would look at flattening the tax code, doing away with deductions and exemptions, and take that revenue to help pay off the debt.” The Senate’s vote last week to eliminate ethanol tax credits may only be symbolic–it was attached to a bill with an uncertain future—but it is being hailed by supporters as signs of a sea change in the thinking on taxes. “Conservatives are no longer going to be badgered into defending tax earmarks,” one GOP Senate source says. But House Republicans haven’t budged yet. Conor Sweeney, spokesman for Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, a key Republican voice on deficit matters, says that any tax reform that does not offset eliminating tax preferences with an overall tax cut, so it does not raise tax revenue overall, is a non-starter. “If the president is having trouble finding places to cut, our House Budget included $6 trillion in savings,” Sweeney says.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s stepping into the presidential ring today is sure to bring notice of his foreign policy cred. Coming off his tenure as U.S. ambassador to China, Huntsman has the experience that others in the current GOP field seem to lack. But with the economy driving the political cycle, will foreign policy experience even matter?

On its own, foreign policy probably won’t give any Republican, Huntsman included, a huge advantage, especially given there are no new surprises in the global landscape before next November. But as far as the president’s foreign policy decisions affect the national economy, contenders who take a distinct stance against the administration could use the issue to their advantage. [Read additional coverage on national security, terrorism and the military.] “The economy is the most important issue,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster who’s signed onto team Huntsman for the 2012 race. “But it’s not the only issue, particularly when it comes to America’s fiscal solvency and our role in the world.”

Unlike in midterm elections in 2002 and 2006 which hinged on the Bush administration’s “war on terror” efforts, the elections in 2010 demonstrated that voters are generally more concerned with the economy and jobs than anything else. So, according to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, rather than “national security,” voters can expect to hear calls for “economic security” from Republican campaigns this time around also.

On some issues, like Libya and Afghanistan, for example, foreign policy is already being used a tool for Republicans to highlight Obama administration. By voicing support for withdrawal of troops and U.S. military force in these countries, like some candidates have done recently, they can appeal to some of the more fiscally conservative Republican voters. “You get the sense that a lot of the Republicans are taking foreign policy positions just because they think with the debt and deficit that people are just tired of foreign engagement,” says Gary Schmitt, director of advanced strategic studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “So, a lot of underlying rationale for the foreign policy drawback that you’re hearing is really probably economic in its origins.”

Katulis argues that even before the 2010 election, fissures had begun to show in the Republican Party on foreign policy issues. Without a clear party line, GOP candidates now have the challenge of developing their own strategies around the world. Beyond basic support for the American troops themselves, Republicans’s positions on national security issues have been across the board, and in the case of some candidates—like Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul—they are even to the left of President Obama. Paul, for example, has advocated for a more isolationist approach, preferring to lessen the U.S. military role in the rest of the globe. [Read more about the Republican Party.]

According to Schmitt, some of the more careful foreign policy positions, like the economic argument for troop withdrawal in Afghanistan made recently by Huntsman, may work politically leading up to the GOP primary, since Republican voters are not likely to use them as deciding issues. However, he says, a candidate may have to make his or her stance clear when he or she is up against Obama in the general election. “It will depend on who the candidate is, and then once they’re a candidate, they’ll have a much harder time being flippant about the U.S. role in the world,” says Schmitt. “It’s too easy a line now to say, ‘Think how much money we’ll save to get out of Afghanistan.’” [See our roundup of Afghanistan cartoons.]

As for Huntsman, his foreign policy experience could actually hurt him in the primary, as others will be eager to relate him to Obama, his erstwhile boss. “It would be interesting to see how he squares what he achieved on the ground in China for the United States as Obama’s ambassador there, with the general criticisms of the Republican party about Obama being weak in the face of China and not having an effective response on China’s role in the global economy,” Katulis says.

• See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.
• Read additional coverage on national security, terrorism and the military.
• See our roundup of Afghanistan cartoons.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s stepping into the presidential ring today is sure to bring notice of his foreign policy cred. Coming off his tenure as U.S. ambassador to China, Huntsman has the experience that others in the current GOP field seem to lack. But with the economy driving the political cycle, will foreign policy experience even matter?

On its own, foreign policy probably won’t give any Republican, Huntsman included, a huge advantage, especially given there are no new surprises in the global landscape before next November. But as far as the president’s foreign policy decisions affect the national economy, contenders who take a distinct stance against the administration could use the issue to their advantage. [Read additional coverage on national security, terrorism and the military.] “The economy is the most important issue,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster who’s signed onto team Huntsman for the 2012 race. “But it’s not the only issue, particularly when it comes to America’s fiscal solvency and our role in the world.”

Unlike in midterm elections in 2002 and 2006 which hinged on the Bush administration’s “war on terror” efforts, the elections in 2010 demonstrated that voters are generally more concerned with the economy and jobs than anything else. So, according to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, rather than “national security,” voters can expect to hear calls for “economic security” from Republican campaigns this time around also.

On some issues, like Libya and Afghanistan, for example, foreign policy is already being used a tool for Republicans to highlight Obama administration. By voicing support for withdrawal of troops and U.S. military force in these countries, like some candidates have done recently, they can appeal to some of the more fiscally conservative Republican voters. “You get the sense that a lot of the Republicans are taking foreign policy positions just because they think with the debt and deficit that people are just tired of foreign engagement,” says Gary Schmitt, director of advanced strategic studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “So, a lot of underlying rationale for the foreign policy drawback that you’re hearing is really probably economic in its origins.”

Katulis argues that even before the 2010 election, fissures had begun to show in the Republican Party on foreign policy issues. Without a clear party line, GOP candidates now have the challenge of developing their own strategies around the world. Beyond basic support for the American troops themselves, Republicans’s positions on national security issues have been across the board, and in the case of some candidates—like Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul—they are even to the left of President Obama. Paul, for example, has advocated for a more isolationist approach, preferring to lessen the U.S. military role in the rest of the globe. [Read more about the Republican Party.]

According to Schmitt, some of the more careful foreign policy positions, like the economic argument for troop withdrawal in Afghanistan made recently by Huntsman, may work politically leading up to the GOP primary, since Republican voters are not likely to use them as deciding issues. However, he says, a candidate may have to make his or her stance clear when he or she is up against Obama in the general election. “It will depend on who the candidate is, and then once they’re a candidate, they’ll have a much harder time being flippant about the U.S. role in the world,” says Schmitt. “It’s too easy a line now to say, ‘Think how much money we’ll save to get out of Afghanistan.’” [See our roundup of Afghanistan cartoons.]

As for Huntsman, his foreign policy experience could actually hurt him in the primary, as others will be eager to relate him to Obama, his erstwhile boss. “It would be interesting to see how he squares what he achieved on the ground in China for the United States as Obama’s ambassador there, with the general criticisms of the Republican party about Obama being weak in the face of China and not having an effective response on China’s role in the global economy,” Katulis says.

• See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.
• Read additional coverage on national security, terrorism and the military.
• See our roundup of Afghanistan cartoons.

July 17, 2008 still reigns as the date for the highest recorded gas prices around the country, with regular gasoline priced on average at $4.11 per gallon. Fortunately for U.S. drivers, as gas prices continue to decline this summer, that day should keep its title.

The average national price for regular unleaded gasoline dropped another cent from yesterday, down to $3.68 per gallon, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report. That’s down five cents from last Friday, and about 25 cents from a month ago, making it the fifth straight week the United States has seen gas prices fall. So, while Americans are still finding gas prices to be relatively high—gas is still almost a dollar more per gallon than it was a year ago—they can at least be encouraged that they’re on the downswing for now. [See the 10 priciest years in history for gas.]

According to Neil Gamson, a gasoline price expert at the Energy Information Administration, the fall in the global price of crude oil, a central component of gasoline, has contributed to this trend. But he says that increased refining capabilities within the United States over the last couple months can account for the changes in price as well, especially in certain regions like the Great Lakes. “Crude is the big driver, but for certain localities, for certain regions, supply issues were [significant],” he said.

Earlier this year, refineries in the Midwest experienced unplanned shutdowns, which led to shocks in some areas, like Chicago and its suburbs, where average prices skyrocketed as high as $4.50 per gallon back in May. Prices also increased in the spring due to refineries going offline for planned maintenance shutdowns in preparation for the summer driving season. These refining issues, mixed with problems caused by the floods along the Mississippi, accounted for a shortage in gasoline supply and an increase in regional prices, Gamson says.Now that the refineries are back to business, gasoline inventories have increased, lowering prices in these regions and around the country. [See editorial cartoons about gas prices.]

As for crude oil, Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com, says that the world markets have adapted to the jolt in late January and February that rapidly raised prices in the first place, namely the outbreak of the Arab Spring. By April and May, the price of crude oil had started to level out. “It was a shock factor because something unexpected happened in the Middle East. Now, we’re used to a little bit of yelling, if you will, in the Middle East,” says DeHaan. “Nobody knew when the dominoes would stop falling, and it seems that things have quieted down now. It’s not so much of a shock.” [Check out our photo gallery on the unrest in Libya.]

Both Gamson and DeHaan agree that neither Congress nor the president had much to do with the decrease. Efforts to increase oil exploration wouldn’t have had any immediate effect anyway, Gamson says. And according to DeHaan, the markets had already begun to ignore calls for opening the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves, an idea floated by the Obama administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill when gas prices were still rising. “We’ve yet to see the Strategic Petroleum Reserves open. Traders now, when they hear the government say they’re going to do this, it’s more like the boy who cried wolf,” he says.

While the $4 per gallon barrier has been avoided for now—the peak on May 11 was just shy at approximately $3.97—U.S. consumers aren’t completely in the clear. Global demand for crude oil is still high, particularly from countries like China and India. There’s also still chance of supply disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa. The value of the dollar on global markets can also push gas prices up or down for Americans.

At home, the Energy Information Administration warns against fluctuations due to weather, as oil producers and refineries in the Gulf region are expected to face harsh tropical weather during the upcoming hurricane season.

• See editorial cartoons about gas prices.
• See our slide show: The 10 Priciest Years in History for Gas
• Check out our photo gallery on the unrest in Libya.

Rep. Anthony Weiner‘s political career is seemingly over following his resignation. What began three weeks ago as an Internet curiosity grew into a cause celebre among right-wing Internet pundits, and quickly snowballed into a tabloid media obsession. Was there any way that the shamed Democratic New York congressman could have survived the scandal? And, if not, what is survivable today?

[See 8 politicians who survived their political scandals.]

Weiner’s scandal was perhaps the first where the conduct and reaction was mostly online, making it difficult to compare with past scandals. But the basic elements—a sex scandal with lying and a coordinated coverup—are common ingredients of political scandals going back decades. Past politicos have survived much worse. In the example most often cited by Democrats, Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana admitted frequenting prostitutes as part of the 2007 “D.C. Madam” scandal. Not only did Vitter continue to serve, but he was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2010. But when New York Republican Rep. Chris Lee was also caught sending lewd photos of himself online, he resigned quickly under GOP leadership pressure. Democrats also had little patience for Weiner, calling for his ouster once the scandal got out of control.

Media exposure is one of the biggest reasons why scandals like this don’t die down, according to some political observers. In the past, philandering politicos could hope that their activities wouldn’t gather much notice. “It’s just so much harder to avoid being seen, doing whatever it is you’re doing,” says Chris Deering, a political science professor at George Washington University. Scandals which previously relied on written descriptions in printed media now can thrive through salacious photos in the tabloid-oriented Internet. “I suppose he would have survived it in the pre-Internet days, but that’s not where he’s living,” says Bill Harlow, an ex-CIA spokesman and public relations consultant. “You had the fact that there were pictures, and the misfortune of his name being what it is, adding to the headline-writers glee.” [Check out the month's best political cartoons.]

But ultimately, lying to his constituents and his colleagues was the mistake which lead to Weiner’s downfall, Harlow says. After having duped his fellow Democrats into defending him, they weren’t likely to cut him much slack once the truth came out. “He poured gasoline on the flames,” Harlow says. “Once he went down that slope, I think it was definitely a self-inflicted wound.” Weiner, who was moving up in the House ranks despite a reputation as a light-weight legislator, lost whatever goodwill he had with his Democratic colleagues, especially as the scandal flattened their political momentum following a special election victory. It made Weiner’s survival chances much lower than, say, President Bill Clinton, who Democrats strongly defended as the figurehead of his party when he became ensnared in a sex scandal during his second term.

Deering also noted the social changes of the past decades, including more women in Congress, as another reason why scandals are harder for politicians to survive. “A larger range of behavior became more and more in the public sphere,” Deering says. “What used to be OK in the old-boys network isn’t OK anymore. I don’t think that’s particularly a bad thing. Clearly, the level of tolerance has shifted.”

• Slide Show: 8 Politicians Who Survived Their Political Scandals
• Read: Mary Kate Cary: Weiner Should Have Resigned Quietly
• Check out the month’s best political cartoons. 

WASHINGTON — New York Rep. Anthony Weiner has decided to resign his seat in Congress after a two-week scandal spawned by lewd and even X-rated photos the New York lawmaker took of himself and sent online to numerous women, relieved Democratic officials said Thursday.

Weiner, 46, has been at a treatment facility at an undisclosed location since last weekend, and has not been seen in public since telling reporters last Saturday he intended to return to work. [Read: Little Evidence Weiner Broke Law in Twitter Photo Scandal.]

One official said Weiner telephoned House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Steve Israel of New York, the head of the party campaign committee, on Wednesday evening to tell them of his plans to quit. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the private nature of the conversations.

Weiner’s decision to give up his House seat marks the end of a scandal without the sex—an event that resulted from the brash New Yorker’s use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. [Read Whispers: Weiner's Sassy Twitter Pals.]

He at first denied having sent any inappropriate photos, then recanted in a remarkable news conference 10 days ago at which he admitted having exchanged inappropriate messages with several women.

His confession triggered a tabloid-style frenzy in print and online that only grew more pronounced a few days later when an X-rated photo of the 46-year-old lawmaker surfaced on a website.

• Vote now: Should Weiner resign over lewd photos?
• Read: Little Evidence Weiner Broke Law in Twitter Photo Scandal.
• Check out a roundup of this month’s best political cartoons.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t lose her cool, but her frustration level was clearly rising. The House minority leader was addressing the media during her weekly press conference, but her appearance came only minutes after news broke that Rep. Anthony Weiner, the embattled New York Democrat, would be stepping down. Pelosi had hoped to push a Democratic bill on Chinese currency manipulation, but the larger-than-usual crowd of reporters and cameras had other plans.

Pelosi told the crowd she wouldn’t talk about Weiner until he had made his announcement on Thursday afternoon, but the questions came anyway. “Perhaps I was unclear,” she responded, reiterating the refusal. Reporters tried different tacks–would she comment on congressional ethics, generally? “No.” Ultimately, the press conference was dominated by questions about Weiner and the congressional showdown over the conflict in Libya, with only one jobs-related question and none at all about currency manipulation. At one point, Pelosi admonished the press corps to keep the economy in mind. “We will not be deterred from our quest for jobs, and I wish that the ardor for information on our job issue was as strong as it was for this subject,” Pelosi said. [Vote now: Is Weiner's political career over for good?]

And that, in a nutshell, was why Weiner became too much of a liability for the Democrats to be able to survive the scandal. When he admitted a week and a half ago that he had meant to send a female supporter a lewd picture of himself, it didn’t seem out of the question that he might be able to hang on. It wasn’t clear that he had done anything illegal or against the congressional rules of ethics, and other representatives, such as fellow New Yorker Charlie Rangel, had survived much worse. But with today’s rowdy, uncontrollable Internet media environment, the Democratic Party simply couldn’t afford to have the ethically compromised congressman continue to blunt whatever political momentum they had gained from the New York 26th special election, and the voter dissatisfaction with the GOP‘s Medicare plan. Weiner, once an effective advocate for the Democratic message on cable news and the Internet, was now the biggest thing holding it back.

With voters increasingly anxious about the economy, the Washington discussion has abruptly shifted from the national debt to jobs. Early Tuesday morning, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican leadership used their weekly press conference to blast President Obama’s economic performance at the one-year anniversary of his “Summer of Recovery,” but barely made a mention of the deficit, the GOP’s one-time talking point. For Boehner, the Weiner issue proved to be an annoyance as well. Without commenting directly on the issue, Boehner said, “It’s just been a distraction. [Voters] want us to focus on job creation.” [Read: Little Evidence Weiner Broke Law in Twitter Photo Scandal.]

Pelosi, along with virtually all of the Democratic House leadership members and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had called for Weiner to step down. Obama stopped short of calling for his resignation, but claimed that, if he were in Weiner’s shoes, he would step down. Weiner himself, in announcing his resignation, claimed the scandal had become too much of a distraction from the issues he cares about.

• Vote now: Is Weiner’s political career over for good?
• Check out a roundup of this month’s best political cartoons.
  
• Read Whispers: Weiner’s Sassy Twitter Pals.
• Read: Little Evidence Weiner Broke Law in Twitter Photo Scandal.

Readying for an expected announcement next week about his 2012 presidential candidacy, former ambassador to China and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has taken a stand against keeping American troops in Afghanistan.

“If you can’t define a winning exit strategy for the American people, where we somehow come out ahead, then we’re wasting our money, and we’re wasting our strategic resources,” Huntsman told Esquire in a recent interview, according to the magazine’s blog. “It’s a tribal state, and it always will be. Whether we like it or not, whenever we withdraw from Afghanistan, whether it’s now or years from now, we’ll have an incendiary situation…Should we stay and play traffic cop? I don’t think that serves our strategic interests.” [See our roundup of political cartoons on Afghanistan.]

Huntsman’s foreign policy experience is expected to help him stand out among the growing pool of GOP presidential contenders. But as far as Afghanistan goes, his stance reflects a growing trend in the GOP to advocate for a quicker exit for American soldiers.

President Obama has set July as the starting point for drawing down the 100,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan. He’s expected to give more details in the coming weeks as he works with his national security team to develop a withdrawal policy. If recent messaging from outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates is any indication of the administration’s stance, that withdrawal may be modest, at least in the next year leading up the 2012 elections. On his recent farewell trip to Afghanistan, Gates warned that withdrawing troops too quickly could reverse the gains that American forces have already made in their effort to hand over security efforts to Afghan forces by 2014.

For several of the Republican candidates, like Huntsman, it appears, a slower withdrawal might not be enough, especially given the circumstances at home. This mirrors a growing sentiment among deficit-wary Republicans in Congress to push for withdrawal on the basis of economic shortages. [See who in the GOP is in and out in 2012.]

Since even before the start of America’s 10-year conflict in Afghanistan, the Republican party had generally identified with a strong national security policy and had readily supported military intervention in other countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the Republican party appears to be more split on the use of military force.

The perspective of the presumed front-runner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has also turned some GOP heads. At Monday’s CNN GOP primary debate, Romney said that while he wants the troops home as soon as possible, he wants the strategy to be “based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.” Deferring the decision to military personnel, as GOP candidate and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has also done in the past, is a relatively safe stance. But Romney’s comments in the debate that American troops “shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation” has drawn the ire of more hawkish elements in the GOP. [Read more about national security, terrorism, and the military.]

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham, considered a neoconservative on the Hill, said he was “incredibly disappointed” by what he saw at the debate, according to the Wall Street Journal. “No one seemed to have a passion for the idea that we’re fighting radical Islam and the center of that battle is Afghanistan,” he said.

Among other GOP presidential candidates, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a staunch antiwar libertarian, has argued strongly for a rapid pullout of troops. At the debate on Monday, he said he wouldn’t wait around for the generals to make the decisions if he were commander-in-chief. “I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible,” he said, adding that he’d also get troops out of Iraq and end military intervention in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan as well. [Vote now: Is Obama handling the Libya crisis the right way?]

Not even the blistering summer hear has thawed the housing market, which has been kept frozen for two years by underwater homeowners and tight credit. Every month brings new numbers and guesses about when the thaw will come, and Thursday’s data on new residential construction will shed some light on the health of the U.S. housing market. [See a slide show of 6 ways to fix the housing market.]

According to experts, a variety of factors could be key to dragging the housing market out of the doldrums: improved economic fortunes, greater assistance to indebted homeowners, and simple patience may be necessary to remove this heavy weight on the economic recovery. Here are six ways to help speed the recovery of the U.S. housing market. [See a slide show of 9 cities where home values are holding strong.]

It’s the Economy, Stupid

Fixing the rest of the economy first is admittedly more easily said than done. But the key point is that housing will most likely follow, not lead, the rest of the economy out of a slump. “Housing prices are going to be driven by the health of the economy,” says . “It’s become a following indicator. … In the past, housing was a major part of the economic expansion.”

Jobs are perhaps the area of the economy most inextricably linked to the housing sector. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, says that jobs are the most significant weight on housing right now. “People can’t buy a home unless they have a job or are confident that they will hold onto a job,” says Zandi. And people with homes that cannot sell are limited in their mobility and cannot cast wide nets in their job searches. Additionally, the housing market’s poor health, and particularly the lack of new housing starts, is making the construction industry one of the toughest in which to find a job. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

Trim the Fat

Earlier this month, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Janet Yellen told an audience at the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank that housing recovery would take time. She elaborated, “Even once it begins to take hold, recovery in the housing market likely will be a long, drawn-out process.” Even with fixes to the rest of the economy, some economists estimate that full recovery will take as long as five years.

One reason behind that long recovery period is the excess of vacant homes on the market. Even once credit is freed up enough for would-be buyers to begin house-hunting in earnest, the market will have to be cleared of those empty properties before home-building can pick up again. Shrinking the oversized supply of housing will also better allow housing prices to increase, so current owners will be more able and willing to sell their homes.

Depend on Uncle Sam

Zandi says that governmental intervention options are limited given the current political and budgetary constraints. But one low-cost option would be to maintain the current limits on conforming loans, which are mortgages that are equal to or less than the conforming loan limit set by the government. Starting in 2008, the government temporarily increased the limits on these loans. But on October 1, the loan limit will drop again to the permanent limit. The increased loan limits were generally established on a county-by-county basis, and in some places, the decrease that will happen on October 1 will be substantial. For example, in some places designated as “high-cost” areas, the maximum loan will drop from $729,750 to $625,500. Zandi estimates that the new loan caps will affect 5 to 10 percent of the housing market nationwide, particularly high-priced markets like the Northeast and the West.

A new congressional report sure to stir up the heated immigration debate finds that about 1 in 4 foreigners in America are here illegally and that 62 percent of them come from Mexico through America’s most porous border. Using brand new data, the Congressional Budget Office also reports that 25 percent of “noncitizens,” or those here illegally or with temporary passes, live in poverty.

The CBO said that foreigners of all sorts gather in just a few states. For example, 1 in 4 people in California are foreign-born. In New York, it’s 1 in 5. [Check out a slide show of the 11 U.S. cities with the largest Hispanic populations.]

The states with the highest numbers of illegals: California (2.6 million), Texas (1.7 million), Florida (700,000), and New York (600,000). Some 61 percent are aged 35-44.

From the CBO report, Director Douglas Elmendorf highlighted the following points on his blog:

• In 2009, about 38 percent of foreign-born people in the United States were from Mexico or Central America; the next-largest group came from Asia and accounted for 27 percent of the total foreign-born population.
• About one-fifth of naturalized U.S. citizens were from Mexico or Central America; more than one-third were from Asia. About half of the noncitizens living in the United States in 2009 were from Mexico or Central America, and about one-fifth were from Asia. An estimated 62 percent of noncitizens unauthorized to live in the United States were from Mexico.
• From 2000 to 2009, more than 10 million people were granted legal permanent resident (LPR) status in the United States. Legal permanent residents are permitted to live, work, and study in the United States. Over the past two centuries, the main areas of origin of legal permanent residents in the United States have changed from primarily Europe and Canada to Asia, Mexico, and Central America.

…

• In 2009, more than one in four people in California and more than one in five people in New York and New Jersey were born in another country. Conversely, in 31 states, fewer than one person in 20 was foreign-born. The foreign-born share of the population increased in all but three states between 1999 and 2009.
• The four states with the highest concentrations of unauthorized residents in 2009 were Nevada, California, Texas, and Arizona. Almost half of all unauthorized residents of the United States were living in those states.
• Compared with the native-born population, relatively few foreign-born people are under the age of 25. In 2009, only 15 percent of the foreign-born population was under that age, compared with 37 percent of the native-born population. In contrast, nearly three-quarters of the foreign-born population was of working age (between 25 and 64 years old), compared with about half of the native-born population.
• Marriage and fertility rates are generally higher among young foreign-born women than among their native-born counterparts.
• In 2009, 29 percent of the foreign-born population between the ages of 25 and 64 had not completed high school, compared with 8 percent of the native-born population. Some groups of foreign-born people, however, had more education than their native-born counterparts. About 55 percent of people from Asia had at least a bachelor’s degree, as did 47 percent of people from Europe and Canada; just 32 percent of the native-born population had earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

…

• Foreign-born men are more likely to be working or looking for work (that is, to be in the labor force) than are native-born men. Foreign-born women, however, are less likely than native-born women to be in the labor force. [Read four roadblocks to Obama's immigration reform.]
• Workers from Mexico and Central America are concentrated in a different set of occupations than people from other regions of the world. In 2009, 21 percent of workers from that region were in construction, mining, agriculture, or related occupations, compared with 5 percent of native-born workers. Reflecting their high level of educational attainment, 39 percent of workers from Asia were in the professional or technical occupations, compared with 30 percent of native-born workers in those occupations.
• The amount of annual earnings among foreign-born workers varied greatly by country of origin. For example, in 2009 the median annual earnings of male workers from Mexico and Central America was $22,000. Among male workers from Asia, the median was $48,000; among male workers from Europe and Canada, it was $53,000; and among native-born male workers, it was $45,000.
• In 2009, 25 percent of noncitizens lived in poverty, compared with 11 percent of naturalized citizens and 14 percent of native-born people.

With fears of a double-dip recession growing after a series of disturbing economic reports and a second round of stimulus spending out of the question, talk in Washington has turned to a familiar subject—the tax cut—as a way to protect the poorest Americans and create jobs. The stalemate over a national debt ceiling, however, means many hurdles must be cleared before that little extra showed up in your paycheck. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

In theory, a payroll tax cut could please both antitax Republicans and Democrats worried that the lower and middle classes are being squeezed by the recession. But the idea may have a rocky road in Congress, especially if lawmakers are looking to use it as part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling. Further cutting the payroll tax—which funds Social Security—would raise questions among budget hawks worried about the cost to the deficit. But it also will find opposition among some liberals worried about the future of Social Security. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who last year strongly opposed a compromise measure that included a 2 percentage point payroll tax cut, said he’s still against tinkering with Social Security’s revenue stream. “This is a bad idea,” Sanders said in a statement released by his office. “I understand the need in the midst of a recession to put money in the pockets of working people, but this is not the way to do it. We shouldn’t be diverting resources from Social Security.”

So far, the proposal is only in the whispering stage. The White House has said it’s looking at whether the payroll tax cut included in last year’s deal with Republicans, which lowered the rate to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent, should be extended past 2011. In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, former White House economic adviser Larry Summers advocated temporarily lowering the rate to 3.2 percent and adding a similar cut to the portion of the payroll tax paid by businesses. Currently, businesses pay the full 6.2 percent rate. According to some reports, the tax cut is being discussed in bipartisan negotiations over the debt ceiling, which the parties are hoping will wrap up with a compromise deal soon. But the complexity of adding billions of dollars in tax cuts to legislation meant to cut the deficit could be a significant roadblock. One congressional source guessed that the proposal had about a 50 percent chance of getting through. [Read about how odds are just 1 to 3 on deal to raise debt ceiling.]

The idea is not opposed by all liberals. On ABC’s This Week, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocated temporarily exempting the payroll tax for everyone’s salary up to $20,000. Supporters say it could provide relief to those most affected by the recession while also helping to spur the economy with more spending. “The hike in gas prices has really offset the employee [tax cut] that’s in place right now, so it would be good to expand that to provide a spending boost,” says Chuck Marr, a former congressional economic staffer and current official at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “A payroll tax cut has something that could get support from both parties and could get business community support. From a practical perspective, I think it’s one that should be strongly considered.”

It would not necessarily need to hurt Social Security’s viability, according to Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The cost of the cut could be shifted around, so it is added to the $14.3 trillion national debt, not the Social Security Trust Fund. But as a political reality, temporary tax cuts have a way of becoming permanent, as neither party wants to preside over a tax increase. That reality becomes even starker during a recession.

• Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.
• Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Congress Raise the Debt Ceiling?
• Vote Now: Should Paul Ryan’s budget plan become law?

After months of protests and violence triggered by the region’s Arab Spring, Yemen’s best hope for change came with an explosion on June 3 that injured the nation’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh and sent him to neighboring Saudi Arabia for treatment. However, uncertainty remains over what Saleh’s recent departure really means and how it could affect his country’s future. [Check out our roundup of cartoons on the Arab Spring uprisings.]

A weakened political environment in Yemen could also harm international shipping in the region’s seas as it gives rise to piracy. [Read more about national security, terrorism, and the military.]

But what the U.S. Congress and President Obama can do in the Yemen is limited given the internal uncertainties about a post-Saleh regime. Many of the major problems, namely economic issues, predate the recent developments in the region. “It would be wrong for the United States to simply view Yemen through the lens of a security threat or a terrorism threat,” Gude says. “For us to gain credibility with the Yemeni people, we have to start addressing the problems that are at the top of their list, which is a collapsing economy, a humanitarian situation that is very serious, with a lack of freshwater becoming a real problem and an economy that is going to run out of oil, its main source of revenue, within 10 years.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, last fiscal year, the United States gave just over $200 million–less than what it spends daily in Afghanistan–to Yemen, the Middle East region’s poorest nation, in direct aid and military support. Based purely on numbers, it would seem that the United States could afford to increase economic support to the country. But according to a congressional aide who works on issues involving the region, even attempts at providing more humanitarian and security assistance would likely fall short due to the on-the-ground political realities in the country. Without clear leadership in Yemen, it would be difficult to say where aid would be directed and how it would affect the country’s economic problems.

One way the United States and its regional allies could help the country transition is by the ouster of Saleh, his family members, and his regime’s top officials, as they did with President Hosni Mubarek in Egypt and with Col. Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. And although their advocacy may be minimal, they could also work to help the opposing forces, particularly the popular youth protesters who have been advocating on the streets of Yemen for greater freedom and transparency in their government. According to Chris Boucek, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan foreign policy research group, the protesters carry little weight compared with the rest of Saleh’s opposition, so it’s even more important that the United States and its democratic allies speak out on their behalf. “Their voice is the one’s that’s going to get squeezed out,” Boucek says. “We have to make sure that voice doesn’t get drowned out by the elites just reshuffling the deck chairs and restating the status quo.”

Saleh’s team still says it’s just a matter of days before the ruler returns. For now, it’s left to Yemenis, the United States, and others in the region to contemplate a Yemen without the Saleh family in charge, and whether it’s worth acting for.

• See photos of the 2011 uprisings in Egypt.
• Check out our roundup of cartoons on the Arab Spring uprisings.
• Read more about national security, terrorism, and the military.

The baby boomer population is edging into retirement. But is the United States ready?

The Census Bureau defines baby boomers as Americans born between 1946 and 1964, meaning that the oldest boomers are 66 and entering retirement age. But as the beginning of this mass retirement coincides with the country’s greatest economic crisis in decades, the nation is asking itself whether it will have the institutional capacity to handle a flood of 60- and 70-somethings. Roughly 25 percent of the U.S. population consists of baby boomers, but that proportion can vary widely from place to place. Census data suggests that cities with the most boomers to accommodate are in the eastern United States, led by Portland, Maine, where baby boomers make up nearly 30 percent of the population. Meanwhile, those cities with the smallest boomer populations are in the West, clustered in Texas, Utah, and California. [See a slide show of the 10 cities with the highest concentrations of baby boomers.]

On a national level, perhaps the biggest concern about keeping up with the nation’s aging boomers is that of entitlements. Projections of a national debt spiraling ever upward have prompted politicians to consider cuts to benefits for Social Security and Medicare, two entitlement programs that cater specifically to an aging population. The boomer population will very likely have a loud voice in those negotiations, as it has proven itself a political force to be reckoned with. Most boomers are eligible for the American Association of Retired Persons, open to Americans 50 and older. With 40 million members, AARP is one of the largest and most powerful special-interest groups in the nation. It was the sixth-highest spender on lobbying in 2010, laying out nearly $22.1 million in advocacy surrounding dozens of bills, particularly those dealing with health care-related issues. [See a slide show of the 10 cities with the lowest concentration of baby boomers.]

But local politics and programs are also of particular consequence to the boom generation, particularly as the budget fight that rages on Capitol Hill and in many states also affects municipalities and counties. According to a June report by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for programs benefiting aging Americans, financial and funding shortages are the No. 1 challenge that communities have to meeting the needs of elderly Americans. A survey of 1,459 municipalities and counties nationwide showed that fiscal difficulties were the top obstacle to meeting the needs of older Americans. One major way in which that played out was in a decline in property tax relief for older adults. Seventy-two percent of surveyed local governments provided this in 2005, compared to just 54 percent in 2009.

Still, many cities have weathered their fiscal woes admirably, in terms of the services they maintained for their aging populations through the recession. Jo Reed, a senior program manager at the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, says that in 2010, many cities had “pretty much the same level of programs, services, and policies that seemed to particularly benefit older adults” that they had in 2005. But those systems won’t be sustainable for long: “Given this tremendous dramatic growth in the older population, that’s just not going to be enough.” [Read about the 10 cities with the highest and lowest real incomes.]

Two areas that may particularly suffer are transportation and housing, which the survey showed to be localities’ second- and third-biggest challenges to planning for an aging population. Three-quarters of communities have not yet begun to provide mobility management services to older adults, helping them to understand their transit options and how to use them. And subsidized housing availability benefiting older adults slipped to 63 percent in 2010 from 70 percent in 2005. Though these concerns may not currently be pressing concerns to many boomers, particularly those on the younger end of that generation, Allen says that such programs must be improved in many places in order to accommodate the coming wave of senior citizens.

According to a U.S. News analysis of census data, these are the 10 metropolitan areas (population 300,000 or greater) with the largest proportions of baby boomers.

As the United States continues to weigh its nuclear energy policy in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant crisis, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been dealing with a small disaster of his own. His job may be at stake after a recent inspector general’s report revealed that he kept fellow commissioners in the dark about his actions to slow the approval of a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the report, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko—who was not present—came under attack, mostly from Republicans, over the findings. The inspector general’s report says that Jaczko broke no laws, but several lawmakers, including a leading Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, Kentucky Rep. Ed Whitfield, are calling for his resignation. [Read more coverage about energy and the environment.]

“After a year in limbo, it now appears that the NRC Chairman devised a complex, calculated strategy to kill the license application without consideration by the Commission,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, in his opening statement Tuesday.

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, meant as a national repository for storing spent fuel rods, has been harshly fought since even before it was assigned to the site in 1987. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who represents constituents in Nevada, has been one of those most staunchly opposed, and the president in 2010 announced plans to terminate the project by requesting an end to its funding.

Republicans are now saying that Jaczko, who previously worked as Reid’s science policy adviser, used “intimidation” through his post to inappropriately stop the regulatory committee’s review of a Department of Energy license application for the facility. Many are concerned by the money already spent by taxpayers and nuclear utilities to fund the Yucca project since the 1980s, and others are unhappy with the overall management at the commission. [Read more recent coverage about the Republican Party.]

“This is more than Chairman Jaczko. This is about the American people and the American taxpayer, who have already spent over $10 billion preparing for Yucca Mountain,” said Whitfield on the panel. “It’s an abuse of his authority.”

However, Democrats, like California Rep. Henry Waxman, defended Jaczko, saying that his actions were consistent with law.

Jaczko will be on the hot seat on Thursday when he appears in the Senate to testify about the commission’s nuclear safety review in the United States following the Japan nuclear emergency. [See photos from the disasters in Japan.]

• From the Archives: Lessons From the Yucca Mountain Debate
• Read more about energy and the environment.
• See photos from the disaster aftermath in Japan.