777pub app download One of our favorite iPads just crashed to lowest price ever in epic Black Friday dealAbortions are up in the US. It's a complicated picture as women turn to pills, travel

By Kemberley Washington, CPA, Bankrate.com The IRS Direct File program, which lets taxpayers file their federal income tax return directly with the IRS for free, is doubling its reach to 24 states for the 2025 tax season, up from 12 states in 2024, the program’s pilot year. The Direct File program will also accept more types of tax situations for the 2025 tax season. While taxpayers who used the system in 2024 could claim a handful of tax credits, including the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit , that list is expanding in 2025 to include the child and dependent care credit , among others. An estimated 30 million taxpayers will qualify for the Direct File program in 2025, the IRS says. More than 140,000 taxpayers filed their federal tax returns through the Direct File program in 2024. About 90% of users said their experience was excellent or above average, according to a survey of about 11,000 Direct File users in 2024, conducted by the General Services Administration. “We’re excited about the improvements to Direct File and the millions more taxpayers who will be eligible to use the service this year,” said Danny Werfel, the IRS commissioner, in a statement. “Our goal is to improve the experience of tax filing itself and help taxpayers meet their obligations quickly and easily.” The IRS says that taxpayers can use Direct File when the 2025 tax season kicks off in January, and it will be available until Oct. 15, 2025. But the program’s future is somewhat unclear: In December, 29 Republican lawmakers sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump, calling for him to end the Direct File program on his first day in office. Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives also introduced legislation in July to end the Direct File program. For now, here’s what you need to know about how the IRS Direct File program works, and how to qualify for it. The Direct File program is a new initiative, about to enter its second year, that allows taxpayers to file their federal tax returns electronically with the IRS. The no-cost tool guides taxpayers through every part of their federal income tax return. Taxpayers can file using a smartphone, computer or tablet. One of the program’s advantages is that, if you have questions as you’re working on your return, you can get live support directly from the IRS via chat or phone. IRS representatives can answer basic tax questions and help with technical issues in English and Spanish. The Direct File program has income limits, as well as limits on the types of income, deductions and credits you can enter on your tax return. For the 2025 tax season: To be eligible for Direct File, your income can come from the following sources: But if you’re self-employed, or have business or rental income, you can’t use Direct File . Same goes for IRA contributions or distributions: If you have either, you can’t use Direct File. You can use the IRS Direct File program only if you claim the standard deduction — the program isn’t available to people who itemize. But you can claim certain above-the-line deductions: student loan interest , educator expenses and health savings account contributions . You can’t use Direct File if you want to deduct your IRA contributions. The Direct File program allows for the following tax credits in 2025: However, if you want to claim education credits , credits for energy efficient home upgrades or the adoption expense credit , you can’t use the Direct File program. More taxpayers will have access to the IRS Direct File program in 2025. In 2024, the IRS kicked off the program with only 12 states; that number has expanded to 24 states for the 2025 tax season. For some of the states that participate in the IRS Direct File program, your federal return information will be transferred automatically to the state tax website, but in some cases you’ll have to re-enter your information. Visit this IRS Direct File page to get the details for your state. Here is a list of the participating states: If you don’t qualify for the IRS Direct File program, you may have other options to file your tax return for free. In addition to Direct File, the IRS offers the Free File program, in which it partners with online tax software providers to provide free federal income tax return filing. Some providers also allow you to file a state income tax return. For the 2024 tax season, your adjusted gross income had to be less than $79,000 to qualify for the Free File program. That dollar threshold is likely to rise slightly for the 2025 tax season. The IRS also offers the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program, which provides certified volunteers to prepare basic tax returns if you earn less than $67,000 a year, are disabled, or speak limited English. You can find a site near you by visiting this IRS page . ©2024 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The grumbles about Christmas arriving ridiculously early with TV adverts for big High Street names being screened and cards, tinsle, baubles and trees being on sale almost two months before December 25th are getting louder. Comedian Dawn French launched the first of a six-part M&S Xmas food campaign on November 4th. The company's festive fashion and home advert first went out on November 7th. A week later the John Lewis Christmas advert, titled The Gifting Hour - a two-minute story about a woman searching for the perfect Christmas gift for her sister was aired. Now, in the middle of Twixmas the country's supermarket giants have eclipsed that - by stocking their shelves with Easter eggs. With Easter Sunday falling on April 20 next year, customers have shared their confusion on social media after finding chocolate eggs and hot cross buns already for sale in shops including Morrisons, Tesco and Asda . One user, @Jingle1991, shared an image of Malteser Bunnies in Sainsbury’s on Christmas Eve and pointed out: “Jesus hasn’t even been born yet.” Easter Eggs on the shelves in Morrisons this weekend in Chippenham (Image: Mike Chalmers PA) Meanwhile, Gary Evans from Margate shared a shot of Creme Eggs on display in Morrisons in Margate on Boxing Day. “I just think its crazy that everything is so superficial and meaninglessly commercial... (there’s) something quite frantic about it,” the 66-year-old told the PA news agency. Joseph Robinson found Easter confectionary including Cadbury Mini Eggs, and themed Kit-Kat and Kinder Surprise products at his local Morrisons in Stoke-on-Trent on Friday evening. “It’s funny, as they’ve not even managed to shift the Christmas chocolates off the shelves yet and they’re already stocking for Easter,” the 35-year-old admin support worker told PA. “I wish that Supermarkets weren’t so blatantly consumerist-driven and would actually allow customers and staff a time to decompress during the Christmas period.” Asked if he was tempted to make a purchase, Mr Robinson added: “As a vegan it holds no appeal to me!” Mike Chalmers, a devout Christian from Chippenham, Wiltshire, was slightly less critical after spotting a display entitled: “Celebrate this Easter with Cadbury.” “Christmas and Easter are the two centrepoints of the Christian good news story so it’s no bad thing to see the connections,” the 44-year-old said. "It’s about more than shapes of chocolate though!” One person's reaction to Easter eggs appearing on supermarket shelves. Marketing consultant Andrew Wallis admitted he was surprised to see Easter eggs in the Co-op in Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire, but added it also illustrates “forward-thinking” from big businesses. “It made me reflect on how big brands are always thinking ahead and planning early,” the 54-year-old from the Isle of Man, who provides marketing advice to the fitness industry, told PA. "My message to retailers would be: while planning ahead is important, it’s also essential to be mindful of consumer sentiment. “Some might feel it’s too early for seasonal products like this but others might see it as a sign of forward-thinking. Striking the right balance is key to keeping customers happy.”

Investors have been hit with an increased amount of short reports from some of the most well-known names in the space, which could be due to high valuations for stocks or could be coming after the 2024 presidential election results . What Happened: Over the past three months, big names in the short report space have taken on small and large companies claiming high valuations, accounting irregularities and other reasons that the stocks should trade lower. Muddy Waters recently issued a short report on e.l.f. Beauty , which was the first report from the short seller in months. Kerrisdale Capital recently issued a short report on Oklo , its first published report since June. Hindenburg , who has been issuing short reports on a monthly basis was the talk of the investing world when they took on technology company Super Micro Computer SMCI , accusing the company of accounting, governance and compliance problems. While the call was not popular at the time, given the company's soaring valuation, the stock is now down 28% over the last month after some of the alleged claims from Hindenburg were amplified with the resignation of the company's independent auditor. Citron Research published an update on their Geo Group bullish case in September, the last post made on the company's website. However, the firm led by Andrew Left has been active on social media, with a post this week announcing the firm had shorted shares of the high-flying software company and Bitcoin BTC/USD holder MicroStrategy Inc MSTR . The announcement of the short report by Left comes as the investor recently pleaded not guilty to fraud charges in July. Along with the recent growth of short reports from the firms who hadn't published in awhile, there are also regular short reports coming monthly from Grizzly Research and bi-weekly reports from The Bear Cave. Read Also: ‘Dead Company Walking’: Short Seller Sets Sights On ViaSat, Expects Elon Musk’s Starlink To Take Share After Trump Win Why It's Important: While short reports have been a regular fixture for investors for years, both from investors who are betting against the stocks themselves with their own short positions, newer reports from the likes of The Bear Cave by Edwin Dorsey come from an investor who claims to never take stakes in the companies he writes about. Whether short reports are being done to make profit betting against the stock or to provide public information for investors to make their own decisions on investments, the big question is why the increase in reports over the last several months. There's likely two big reasons why. The first big reason for the increase could be because of the narrative that short sellers and short reports will be targeted by the new White House administration. Muddy Waters' CEO Carson Block said Elon Musk and Donald Trump have both publicly criticized short sellers in the past. "We've already had some rhetoric, we might have some more anti-short seller rhetoric," Block told Bloomberg . Block said Republican-led administrations are often lighter on enforcement, but he's not sure if Trump will roll back regulations. "It is a question as to who is going to head the SEC," Block added. The comment comes as SEC Chairman Gary Gensler recently announced he will step down on Trump's inauguration day, ahead of the assumption that Trump was going to replace him with a new leader. Trump Media & Technology Group DJT , which was co-founded by Trump, has targeted short sellers and alleged that naked short selling is the reason the stock has fallen in price several times. Musk, who has often publicly criticized short sellers, recently said he wanted to "obliterate" short sellers. The other reason for the increased short report volume could be due to stock market indexes trading near all-time highs and strong year-to-date gains. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust SPY , which tracks the S&P 500, is up 26.0% year-to-date. This return is currently the fourth best in the last 10 years and the ETF could still pass the returns of 26.2% (2023), 28.8% (2021) and 31.2% (2019) to move up the list. Read Next: Musk, Ramaswamy Should Target TransDigm In Budget Cuts, Short Report Says: ‘Target #1’ For D.O.G.E. Image: Shutterstock © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.-- Shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Email This article originally appeared at TomDispatch . Gaza , Haiti, Iran, Israel , Lebanon, Russia , Syria , Ukraine and Venezuela: President-elect Donald Trump will face no shortage of foreign policy challenges when he assumes office in January. None, however, comes close to China in scope, scale or complexity. No other country has the capacity to resist his predictable antagonism with the same degree of strength and tenacity, and none arouses more hostility and outrage among MAGA Republicans. In short, China is guaranteed to put Trump in a difficult bind the second time around: He can either choose to cut deals with Beijing and risk being branded an appeaser by the China hawks in his party, or he can punish and further encircle Beijing, risking a potentially violent clash and possibly even nuclear escalation. How he chooses to resolve this quandary will surely prove the most important foreign test of his second term in office. Make no mistake: China truly is considered the Big One by those in Trump’s entourage responsible for devising foreign policy. While they imagine many international challenges to their “America First” strategy, only China, they believe, poses a true threat to the continued global dominance of this country. “I feel strongly that the Chinese Communist Party has entered into a Cold War with the United States and is explicit in its aim to replace the liberal, Western-led world order that has been in place since World War II,” Rep. Michael Waltz, Trump’s choice as national security adviser, declared at a 2023 event hosted by the Atlantic Council. “We’re in a global arms race with an adversary that, unlike any in American history, has the economic and the military capability to truly supplant and replace us.” Related So who understands the Chinese economy? Definitely not China As Waltz and others around Trump see it, China poses a multi-dimensional threat to this country’s global supremacy. In the military domain, by building up its air force and navy, installing military bases on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, and challenging Taiwan through increasingly aggressive air and naval maneuvers, it is challenging continued American dominance of the western Pacific. Diplomatically, it’s now bolstering or repairing ties with key U.S. allies, including India, Indonesia, Japan and the members of NATO. Meanwhile, it’s already close to replicating this country’s most advanced technologies, especially its ability to produce advanced microchips. And despite Washington’s efforts to diminish a U.S. reliance on vital Chinese goods, including critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, it remains a primary supplier of just such products to this country. Fight or strike bargains? For many in the Trumpian inner circle, the only correct, patriotic response to the China challenge is to fight back hard. Both Waltz, Trump’s pick as national security adviser, and Sen. Marco Rubio, his choice as secretary of state, have sponsored or supported legislation to curb what they view as “malign” Chinese endeavors in the U.S. and abroad. Waltz, for example, introduced the American Critical Mineral Exploration and Innovation Act of 2020, which was intended, as he explained , “to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of critical minerals and bring the U.S. supply chain from China back to America.” Rubio has been equally combative in the legislative arena. In 2021, he authored the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which banned goods produced in forced labor encampments in Xinjiang Province from entering the U.S. He also sponsored several pieces of legislation aimed at curbing Chinese access to U.S. technology. Although these, as well as similar measures introduced by Waltz, haven’t always obtained the necessary congressional approval, they have sometimes been successfully bundled into other legislation. Howard Lutnick, the billionaire investor Trump chose as commerce secretary, claims that the incoming president "wants to make a deal with China," and will use tariffs as a bargaining tool. In short, Trump will enter office in January with a toolkit of punitive measures for fighting China ready to roll along with strong support among his appointees for making them the law of the land. But of course, we’re talking about Donald Trump , so nothing is a given. Some analysts believe that his penchant for deal-making and his professed admiration for Chinese strongman President Xi Jinping may lead him to pursue a far more transactional approach, increasing economic and military pressure on Beijing to produce concessions on, for example, curbing the export of fentanyl precursors to Mexico, but when he gets what he wants letting them lapse. Howard Lutnick, the billionaire investor from Cantor Fitzgerald whom he chose as commerce secretary, claims that Trump actually "wants to make a deal with China," and will use the imposition of tariffs selectively as a bargaining tool to do so. What such a deal might look like is anyone’s guess, but it’s hard to see how Trump could win significant concessions from Beijing without abandoning some of the punitive measures advocated by the China hawks in his entourage. Count on one thing: This complicated and confusing dynamic will play out in each of the major problem areas in U.S.-China relations, forcing Trump to make critical choices between his transactional instincts and the harsh ideological bent of his advisers. Trump, China and Taiwan Of all the China-related issues in his second term in office, none is likely to prove more challenging or consequential than the future status of the island of Taiwan. At issue are Taiwan’s gradual moves toward full independence and the risk that China will invade the island to prevent such an outcome, possibly triggering U.S. military intervention as well. Of all the potential crises facing Trump, this is the one that could most easily lead to a great-power conflict with nuclear undertones. When Washington granted diplomatic recognition to China in 1979, it “ acknowledged ” that Taiwan and the mainland were both part of “one China” and that the two parts could eventually choose to reunite. The U.S. also agreed to cease diplomatic relations with Taiwan and terminate its military presence there. However, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, Washington was also empowered to cooperate with a quasi-governmental Taiwanese diplomatic agency, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., and provide Taiwan with the weapons needed for its defense. Moreover, in what came to be known as “strategic ambiguity,” U.S. officials insisted that any effort by China to alter Taiwan’s status by force would constitute “a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area” and would be viewed as a matter “of grave concern to the United States,” although not necessarily one requiring a military response. Will Trump embrace "strategic clarity," guaranteeing Washington’s automatic intervention should China invade Taiwan? That would be certain to provoke fierce, hard-to-predict responses from Beijing. For decades, one president after another reaffirmed the “one China” policy while also providing Taiwan with increasingly powerful weaponry. For their part, Chinese officials repeatedly declared that Taiwan was a renegade province that should be reunited with the mainland, preferably by peaceful means. The Taiwanese, however, have never expressed a desire for reunification and instead have moved steadily towards a declaration of independence, which Beijing has insisted would justify armed intervention. As such threats became more frequent and menacing, leaders in Washington continued to debate the validity of “strategic ambiguity,” with some insisting it should be replaced by a policy of “ strategic clarity ” involving an ironclad commitment to assist Taiwan should it be invaded by China. President Biden seemed to embrace this view, repeatedly affirming that the U.S. was obligated to defend Taiwan under such circumstances. However, each time he said so, his aides walked back his words , insisting the U.S. was under no legal obligation to do so. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism The Biden administration also boosted its military support for the island while increasing American air and naval patrols in the area, which only heightened the possibility of a future U.S. intervention should China invade. Some of these moves, including expedited arms transfers to Taiwan, were adopted in response to prodding from China hawks in Congress. All, however, fit with an overarching administration strategy of encircling China with a constellation of American military installations and U.S.-armed allies and partners. From Beijing’s perspective, then, Washington is already putting extreme military and geopolitical pressure on China. The question is: Will the Trump administration increase or decrease those pressures, especially when it comes to Taiwan? That Trump will approve increased arms sales to, and military cooperation with, Taiwan essentially goes without saying (as much, at least, as anything involving him does). The Chinese have experienced upticks in U.S. aid to Taiwan before and can probably live through another round of the same. But that leaves far more volatile issues up for grabs: Will he embrace “strategic clarity,” guaranteeing Washington’s automatic intervention should China invade Taiwan, and will he approve a substantial expansion of the American military presence in the region? Both moves have been advocated by some of the China hawks in Trump’s entourage, and both are certain to provoke fierce, hard-to-predict responses from Beijing. Many of Trump’s closest advisers have, in fact, insisted on “strategic clarity” and increased military cooperation with Taiwan. Waltz, for example, has asserted that the U.S. must “be clear we’ll defend Taiwan as a deterrent measure.” He has also called for an increased military presence in the Western Pacific. Similarly, last June, Robert C. O’Brien, Trump’s national security adviser from 2019 to 2021, wrote that the U.S. “should make clear” its “commitment” to “help defend” Taiwan, while expanding military cooperation with the island. Trump himself has made no such commitments, suggesting instead a more ambivalent stance. In his typical fashion, in fact, he’s called on Taiwan to spend more on its own defense and expressed anger at the concentration of advanced chip-making on the island, claiming that the Taiwanese “did take about 100% of our chip business.” But he’s also warned of harsh economic measures were China to impose a blockade of the island, telling the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, “I would say [to President Xi]: if you go into Taiwan, I’m sorry to do this, I’m going to tax you at 150% to 200%.” He wouldn’t need to threaten the use of force to prevent a blockade, he added, because Xi “respects me and he knows I’m [expletive] crazy.” Such comments reveal the bind Trump will inevitably find himself in when it comes to Taiwan this time around. He could, of course, try to persuade Beijing to throttle back its military pressure on the island in return for a reduction in U.S. tariffs — a move that would reduce the risk of war in the Pacific but leave China in a stronger economic position and disappoint many of his top advisers. If, however, he chooses to act “crazy” by embracing “strategic clarity” and stepping up military pressure on China, he would likely receive accolades from many of his supporters, while provoking a (potentially nuclear) war with China. Trade war or economic coexistence? The question of tariffs represents another way in which Trump will face a crucial choice between punitive action and transactional options in his second term — or, to be more precise, in deciding how severe to make those tariffs and other economic hardships he will try to impose on China. If Trump follows the advice of the ideologues in his circle and pursues a strategy of maximum pressure on Beijing, he could precipitate nothing short of a global economic meltdown. In January 2018, the first Trump administration imposed tariffs of 30% on imported solar panels and 20% to 50% on imported washing machines, many sourced from China. Two months later, the administration added tariffs on imported steel (25%) and aluminum (10%), again aimed above all at China. And despite his many criticisms of Trump’s foreign and economic policies, Biden chose to retain those tariffs, even adding new ones, notably on electric cars and other high-tech products. The Biden administration has also banned the export of advanced computer chips and chip-making technology to China in a bid to slow that country’s technological progress. Accordingly, when Trump reassumes office on Jan. 20, China will already be under stringent economic pressures from Washington. But he and his associates insist that those won’t be faintly enough to constrain China’s rise. The president-elect has said that, on day one of his new term, he will impose a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports and follow that with other harsh measures. Among such moves, the Trump team has announced plans to raise tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, revoke China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (also known as “most favored nation”) status, and ban the transshipment of Chinese imports through third countries. Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter , Crash Course. Most of Trump’s advisers have espoused such measures strongly. “Trump Is Right: We Should Raise Tariffs on China,” Marco Rubio wrote last May. “China’s anticompetitive tactics,” he argued, “give Chinese companies an unfair cost advantage over American companies... Tariffs that respond to these tactics prevent or reverse offshoring, preserving America’s economic might and promoting domestic investment.” But Trump will also face possible pushback from other advisers who are warning of severe economic perturbations if such measures were to be enacted. China, they suggest, has tools of its own to use in any trade war with the U.S., including tariffs on American imports and restrictions on American firms doing business in China, including Elon Musk’s Tesla, which produces half of its cars there. For these and other reasons, the U.S.-China Business Council has warned that additional tariffs and other trade restrictions could prove disastrous, inviting “retaliatory measures from China, causing additional U.S. jobs and output losses.” As in the case of Taiwan, Trump will face some genuinely daunting decisions when it comes to economic relations with China. If, in fact, he follows the advice of the ideologues in his circle and pursues a strategy of maximum pressure on Beijing, specifically designed to hobble China’s growth and curb its geopolitical ambitions, he could precipitate nothing short of a global economic meltdown that would negatively affect the lives of so many of his supporters, while significantly diminishing America’s own geopolitical clout. He might therefore follow the inclinations of certain of his key economic advisers like transition leader Lutnick, who favor a more pragmatic, businesslike relationship with China. How Trump chooses to address this issue will likely determine whether the future involves increasing economic tumult and uncertainty or relative stability. And it’s always important to remember that a decision to play hardball with China on the economic front could also increase the risk of a military confrontation leading to full-scale war, even to World War III. And while Taiwan and trade are undoubtedly the most obvious and challenging issues Trump will face in managing (mismanaging?) U.S.-China relations in the years ahead, they are by no means the only ones. He will also have to decide how to deal with increasing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, continued Chinese economic and military-technological support for Russia in its war against Ukraine, and growing Chinese investments in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. In these, and other aspects of the U.S.-China rivalry, Trump will be pulled toward both increased militancy and combativeness and a more pragmatic, transactional approach. During the campaign, he backed each approach, sometimes in the very same verbal outburst. Once in power, however, he will have to choose between them — and his decisions will have a profound impact on this country, China and everyone living on this planet. Read more from Michael Klare on the world of war Swarms of AI "killer robots" are the future of war: If that sounds scary, it should Spurring an endless arms race: The Pentagon girds for mid-century wars Ukraine isn't the world's only nuclear flashpoint: Taiwan crisis is getting ugly By Michael Klare Michael T. Klare is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is " All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change ." He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy . MORE FROM Michael Klare Related Topics ------------------------------------------ Analysis China Donald Trump Foreign Policy Marco Rubio Michael Waltz Nuclear War Tomdispatch Trade War War Xi Jinping Related Articles Advertisement:

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Get our free Inside Washington email SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy President-elect Donald Trump discussed Melania's plans during his second term in a sweeping interview with Time as he was named 2024 "Person of the Year." The magazine honored Trump with the esteemed title for the second time — the first was after his 2016 election win — Thursday. The president-elect sat down with a Time reporter to discuss his successful presidential campaign, his ambitions for his second term, and Melania's plans to return to the White House. While she appeared with Trump as he rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange Thursday, the former first lady was notably absent from the campaign trail, so much so that at one point missing persons posters and banners asking "Where's Melania?" cropped up. Her absence has sparked speculation over whether she wants to return to the White House this time around. Multiple sources told CNN in November after Trump's victory that Melania was unlikely to return to Washington, DC for his second term. But when Time asked whether Melania would be joining him in the White House, Trump offered a very different answer: "Oh yes." "She actually became very active towards the end, as you saw with interviews. And she does—she does them well. People really watch. She's very beloved by the people, Melania. And they like the fact that she's not out there in your face all the time for many reasons," the president-elect continued. "They really love her. Actually, in many ways, when I make speeches, we love our First Lady. They have signs [that... Kelly RissmanCBTG, METALOR & SWISS Better Gold Brainstorms On Responsible Small Scale MiningSANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) — San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy will miss Sunday's game against the Green Bay Packers with a sore throwing shoulder. Purdy injured his right shoulder in last Sunday's loss to the Seattle Seahawks . Purdy underwent an MRI that showed no structural damage but the shoulder didn't improve during the week and Purdy was ruled out for the game. Coach Kyle Shanahan said star defensive end Nick Bosa also will miss the game with injuries to his left hip and oblique. Left tackle Trent Williams is questionable with an ankle injury and will be a game-time decision. This will be the first time Purdy has missed a start because of an injury since taking over as the 49ers’ quarterback in December 2022. Brandon Allen will start in his place. The Niners (5-5) are currently in a three-way tie for second in the NFC West, a game behind first-place Arizona, and have little margin for error if they want to get back to the playoffs after making it to the Super Bowl last season. Purdy has completed 66% of his passes this season for 2,613 yards, 13 TDs, eight interceptions and a 95.9 passer rating that is down significantly from his league-leading mark of 113 in 2023. Allen has been mostly a backup since being drafted by Jacksonville in 2016. Allen last started a game in Week 18 of the 2021 season for Cincinnati and has thrown just three passes the last three seasons — including none since joining San Francisco in 2023. Joshua Dobbs will be the backup on Sunday. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL

How long do FBI directors normally serve? What to know as Wray announces resignationWomen will for the first time make up a majority of state legislators in Colorado and New Mexico next year, but at least 13 states saw losses in female representation after the November election, according to a count released Thursday by the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. While women will fill a record number of state legislative seats in 2025, the overall uptick will be slight, filling just over third of legislative seats. Races in some states are still being called. "We certainly would like to see a faster rate of change and more significant increases in each election cycle to get us to a place where parity in state legislatures is less novel and more normal," said Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the CAWP, which is a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. As of Wednesday, at least 2,450 women will serve in state legislatures, representing 33.2% of the seats nationwide. The previous record was set in 2024 with 2,431 women, according to the CAWP. The number of Republican women, at least 851, will break the previous record of 815 state lawmakers set in 2024. "But still, Republican women are very underrepresented compared to Democratic women," Debbie Walsh, director of the CAWP, said. From left, House Maj. Whip Reena Szczepanski, D-Santa Fe, Rep. D. Wonda Johnson, D-Church Rock and Rep. Cristina Parajon, D-Albuquerque, talk July 18 before the start of a special session, in Santa Fe, N.M. By the most recent count, 19 states will have increased the number of women in their state legislatures, according to the CAWP. The most notable increases were in New Mexico and Colorado, where women will for the first time make up a majority of lawmakers. In New Mexico, voters sent an 11 additional women to the chambers. Colorado previously attained gender parity in 2023 and is set to tip over to a slight female majority in the upcoming year. The states follow Nevada, which was the first in the country to see a female majority in the legislature following elections in 2018. Next year, women will make up almost 62% of state lawmakers in Nevada, far exceeding parity. Women in California's Senate will make up the chamber's majority for the first time in 2025 as well. Women also made notable gains in South Dakota, increasing its number by at least nine. Four of South Carolina's Sister Senators, from left, Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Walterboro, Sen. Mia McLeod, I-Columbia, Sen. Katrina Shealy, R-Lexington, and Sen. Penry Gustafson, R-Camden, stand in front of the Senate on June 26 with their John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award in Columbia, S.C. At least thirteen states emerged from the election with fewer female lawmakers than before, with the most significant loss occurring in South Carolina. This year, the only three Republican women in the South Carolina Senate lost their primaries after they stopped a total abortion ban from passing. Next year, only two women, who are Democrats, will be in the 46-member Senate. No other state in the country will have fewer women in its upper chamber, according to the CAWP. Women make up 55% of the state's registered voters. Half the members in the GOP dominated state were elected in 2012 or before, so it will likely be the 2040s before any Republican woman elected in the future can rise to leadership or a committee chairmanship in the chamber, which doles out leadership positions based on seniority. A net loss of five women in the legislature means they will make up only about 13% of South Carolina's lawmakers, making the state the second lowest in the country for female representation. Only West Virginia has a smaller proportion of women in the legislature. West Virginia stands to lose one more women from its legislative ranks, furthering its representation problem in the legislature where women will make up just 11% of lawmakers. Many women, lawmakers and experts say that women's voices are needed in discussions on policy, especially at a time when state government is at its most powerful in decades. Walsh, director of the CAWP, said the new changes expected from the Trump administration will turn even more policy and regulation to the states. The experiences and perspectives women offer will be increasingly needed, she said, especially on topics related to reproductive rights, healthcare, education and childcare. "The states may have to pick up where the federal government may, in fact, be walking away," Walsh said. "And so who serves in those institutions is more important now than ever." November 7, 2024: Trump Victory Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

Taking into account disposable income, average commute time, average hours worked per week, workplace safety, and happiness levels by state, the weighted analysis by Vaziri Law ranks Hawaii, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Nevada, Vermont, Indiana, West Virginia, Arizona, and South Carolina as the worst states in which to work. Many of the study’s findings are unsurprising, given the financial hardship reported in most of those states, with the notable exception of Vermont. For example, Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia have some of the highest poverty rates in the nation, while Tennessee and Nevada have some of the highest numbers of residents in financial distress, according to a study by personal finance website WalletHub. But the Vaziri Law analysis actually ranks Hawaii, which consistently scores low marks for economic freedom , as the number one worst state to work. The rating is slightly skewed by the state having the lowest average disposable income, $5,929 per working resident. Hawaiian workers do have good workplace safety rates, ranking 13th out of all 50 states, and a relatively high happiness score of 66.31 out of 100, with 100 being the happiest. In the second worst state to work in, Louisiana residents have the longest average working hours on the list at 44.3 per week, and also face poor workplace safety conditions, ranking 40th out of 50. Additionally, workers in the Bayou State are some of the most depressed in the nation, reporting a happiness index of 34.81. But they have roughly triple the disposable income of Hawaiian workers, at $15,364. “This research highlights the significant challenges workers face across the U.S., from financial strain to poor work-life balance," a spokesperson from Vaziri Law told The Center Square. "States like Hawaii, with the lowest disposable income, and Louisiana, with extended work hours and low happiness levels, underscore the need for systemic changes to improve workplace conditions, safety, and overall quality of life for employees.” Tennessee, coming in third, has a good workplace safety ranking of 11 out of 50 but a happiness index of 43.35. The average worker has a disposable income of $18,078 and works just over 40 hours a week with a 26-minute commute. In Kentucky, workers dedicate an average of 40.8 hours to work per week and have around $15,982 in disposable income. The happiness index rating is low, sitting at 38.36. By contrast, Nevada’s happiness index is ten points higher, but the average disposable income is more than $2,000 lower. Both states have decent workplace safety ratings. Despite having the highest workplace safety rate in the country and a 37.8 hour work week on average, Vermont ranks low due to the 48.46 happiness index and $15,263 average disposable income. Indiana does better at $17,293, but workers put in more hours and have slightly lower happiness and safety rankings. West Virginia ranks dead last on the list for both workplace safety – 45 out of 50 – and happiness levels at 33.83; plus, it has the longest average commute time. But a West Virginia resident’s average disposable income of $14,309, nearly is triple that of Hawaii. Arizona, in ninth place on the list, reports that its average worker has a disposable income of $18,764 and works 40.6 hours per week. It has a relatively high workplace safety rank of 9 and a mediocre happiness index of 50.22. Residents of South Carolina have an average of $15,824 in disposable income on hand. They face worse safety conditions, ranking 16, and have a lower happiness index, 49.62, than Arizonans. But South Carolina workers also clock in two hours less on average, around 38.2 hours per week. Even with less-than-ideal work conditions, Arizona and South Carolina, as well as Tennessee and Nevada, continue to be some of the top destinations for domestic migration, according to the IRS and 2024 Census Bureau data. Other factors, like safety, job opportunities, political climate and more play a factor in-migration.

Stock market today: Wall Street wavers at the start of a holiday-shortened weekMayra Guillen, Sister of Soldier Whose Death Highlighted Fight Against Military Sexual Assault, Endorses Pete Hegseth

Gold Flora Reports on Voting Results from a Special Meeting of Stockholders