Updated October 1, 2013, 7:26 PM As the economy continues to recover, legislators in 22 states have been looking into starting state-owned banks, similar to the Bank of North Dakota, as a way to encourage economic development and generate revenue. The Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank operating in the United States, primarily aims to promote agriculture, commerce and industry, and to stimulate economic development through several lending programs. Unlike infrastructure banks that operate more as finance authorities, the Bank of North Dakota is a depository institution. And unlike other financial institutions, the state bank is not F.D.I.C. insured; its deposits instead are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the state of North Dakota. With 12 bills introduced in 2013, other states could decide to follow the path that North Dakotas legislature took in 1919. Proponents of state-owned banks argue that they create new jobs and encourage broader economic growth by providing more loans to small businesses at a time when commercial financial lending is limited. State-owned banks generate revenue for states without raising taxes (through the banks dividends) and may offer affordable alternatives for public infrastructure projects at lower borrowing costs. Proponents also contend that these institutions strengthen local banks by acting as a bankers bank, lending to commercial financial institutions. Critics counter that state-owned banks require significant start-up capital from public coffers and could disrupt the economy because they would withdraw the public funds now held by large commercial banks. Because there would be no F.D.I.C. insurance, these institutions pose a risk to states in the event of any bank losses. Critics also assert that state-owned banks are unnecessary because commercial financial institutions already lend to qualified borrowers meaning a state-owned bank would unfairly compete against commercial banks.
United States roster falling to pieces ahead of remaining 2014 World Cup qualifiers
/quotes/zigman/10294855/quotes/nls/teva TEVA -0.24% announces the launch of the generic equivalent to Zemplar(R) (paricalcitol) tablets in the United States as of September 30, 2013. Teva was first to file, making the product eligible for 180 days of marketing exclusivity. Zemplar(R) (paricalcitol) Capsules are an active form of vitamin D used to prevent and treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (increased parathyroid hormone levels) in patients with Stage 3 or Stage 4 chronic kidney disease and in Stage 5 patients on dialysis. It is an active form of vitamin D. Marketed by AbbVie Inc., Zemplar(R) had annual sales of approximately $115 million in the United States, according to IMS data as of June 30, 2013. About Teva Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. /quotes/zigman/10294855/quotes/nls/teva TEVA -0.24% is a leading global pharmaceutical company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic drugs as well as innovative and specialty pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Headquartered in Israel, Teva is the world’s leading generic drug maker, with a global product portfolio of more than 1,000 molecules and a direct presence in about 60 countries. Teva’s branded businesses focus on CNS, oncology, pain, respiratory and women’s health therapeutic areas as well as biologics. Teva currently employs approximately 46,000 people around the world and reached $20.3 billion in net revenues in 2012. Teva’s Safe Harbor Statement under the U. S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This release contains forward-looking statements, which express the current beliefs and expectations of management. Such statements are based on management’s current beliefs and expectations and involve a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our future results, performance or achievements to differ significantly from the results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include risks relating to: our ability to develop and commercialize additional pharmaceutical products, including our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell biopharmaceutical products, competition for our innovative products, especially COPAXONE(R) (including competition from innovative orally-administered alternatives, as well as from potential purported generic equivalents), competition for our generic products (including from other pharmaceutical companies and as a result of increased governmental pricing pressures), competition for our specialty pharmaceutical businesses, our ability to achieve expected results through our specialty, including innovative, R&D efforts, the effectiveness of our patents and other protections for innovative products, decreasing opportunities to obtain U.S.
View gallery Lewis Neal (R) DC United tries to tackle Sebastian Velasquez Real Salt Lake during their match on October 1, 2013 in Sandy, Utah (AFP Photo/Gene Sweeney Jr.) 7 hours ago Salt Lake City (United States) (AFP) – Englishman Lewis Neal scored in the 45th minute and DC United won the 100th US Open Cup final, taking the trophy with a 1-0 triumph at Real Salt Lake. United has won only three times in 30 Major League Soccer matches this season, adding six draws for a league-worst 15 points. While there is no danger of the team from the US capital sweeping the American double by capturing the MLS crown, United does earn a bid in the next North American (CONCACAF) Champions League competition. Real Salt Lake ranks second in MLS with 51 points, sharing the most wins in the league so far this season with Seattle and New York at 15, but the loss shattered their dreams of a double this year. It was the third all-time US Open Cup triumph for United, which the club did by winning five tournament matches in a row, two of them on the road. Neal, a 32-year-old midfielder who made his pro debut for England’s Stoke City at age 19, sent a left-footed shot to the far post to net the decider just ahead of half-time on Tuesday. It was his first goal of the season and third for United, the other two being game winners last season. Sports & Recreation When the NFL releases its schedule each year, certain matchups clearly are compelling. They stand out to players, coaches and fans – not to mention league officials and TV network executives – for one reason or another. The Associated Press Belichick considers options for injured Wilfork The SportsXchange
Why the United States should merge its Ground Forces
Either way, if Jones has a knee issue, its fair to wonder if Schalke will be excited about extra travel and matches that are, officially speaking, meaningless. U.S. center back Clarence Goodson was a scratch from Sundays match at Chivas USA after suffering a bone bruise on the knee in the Earthquakes previous contest. Goodson, recall, was the starter alongside Omar Gonzalez as the United States clinched its spot earlier this month with the win over Mexico. Goodson may have slipped lately on the depth chart (blame young up-and-comer Anthony Brooks for that), but his steady night against El Tri reminded everyone that a tested, reliable veteran is great to have around. Word came Monday that Fabian Johnson has an ankle injury and may not be available for Hoffenheims match Saturday at Mainz 05. If Johnson does not play there, expect some reluctance from Hoffenheim to release their left-sided defender-midfielder for international duty. Landon Donovan (pictured below) was back on the field for the Galaxy on Sunday in Seattle, so he is likely to be on Klinsmanns list when the team gathers next week in Kansas City. But whether the Galaxy man will be at full-fitness (and therefor full effectiveness) is another matter. There is one other element potentially destructive to Klinsmanns plan: how will MLS teams feel about losing players for meaningless contests with significant implications in their one, league contests on the line? Think about Graham Zusi, Matt Besler, Landon Donovan, Eddie Johnson and Clint Dempsey, all locks to make the final 23-man roster for Brazil. If there isnt some push back from Sporting Kansas City, the LA Galaxy and Seattle, Ill be surprised. (Goodson, too, for that matter, as San Joses playoff chances remain in the balance, and the Earthquakes are sure to want their best bunch whenever possible.) There will still be plenty to work with in the U.S. camp. Jozy Altidore will likely relish some time away from the pit of despair that Sunderland has become.
MLS-worst DC United beats Real Salt Lake for US Open Cup
Deni, a research professor at the U.S. Army War Colleges Strategic Studies Institute, the answer seems to lie in the Army-led military-to-military activities which may provide stability in politically volatile regions if only because most military forces around the globe are army-centric. Others beg to differ. Generals James Amos and Raymond Odierno and Admiral William McRaven seem to second Admiral Winnefelds claim when they argue that today the need to conduct large-scale aid and consequence management missions, both within the United States and internationally, is certain to grow. General James Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant, also recently echoes this view when he advocates a lighter but mobile Marine Corps because he believes tomorrows conflicts will likely involve violent extremism, battles for influence, disruptive societal transitions, natural disaster, extremist messages and manipulative politics. However, if the United States Armed Forces are truly concerned about raising a cost-efficient and versatile ground force, it can merge the Army, the SOCOM and the Marine Corps into one unified service branch. This idea is not new. As far back as 1994, the late Colonel David Hackworth advocated the merger of the Army and the Marine Corps because their missions seemed to overlap. He went so far as to claim that the Department of Defense (DoD) could save around $20 billion a year. Nevertheless, absent in Hackworths column was a coherent blueprint for how the DoD could effectively unify its ground components into a cohesive service because Hackworth did not flesh out his strategic vision for what 21stCentury wars may look like. Which raises a very salient question as to what Americas strategic priorities should be. In a perceptive op-ed, Mark Fitzgerald, David Deptula and Gian P. Gentile aver that the United States must choose to go to war as a last resort and not a policy option of first choice. To this must be added another imperative. The United States Armed Forces must prioritize homeland defense as its primary mission and rethink the mistaken belief that the United States can somehow secure its interests through lengthy military occupations of foreign lands. Thus, this newly merged service must redirect its focus towards countering cyber warfare and CBRNe (Chemical, Biological, Radiation, Nuclear and explosives) attacks and should work towards bolstering its counterterrorism (CT) capabilities. This is because, due to the convergence of the global community , the United States may be vulnerable to attacks from within by homegrown terrorists and drug cartelsall of which may wreak havoc and may even cripple Americas domestic infrastructures. Reorientation of its mission focus may also require that the new service reconfigure its size. After all, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey wrote inForeign Affairs, Washington should remember that the size of the armed forces is not the most telling metric of their strength. One solution is to adopt the so-called Macgregor Transformation Model (MTM) centered around the combat group concept which may reduce the strength of the new service yet in the end produce a force that has greater combat capability[and] more sustainable. This model may provide the United States with a deployable fire brigade in the event of a national emergency or an international crisis. Already, the bases from which to adopt this viable model exist in the form of Army brigade combat teams (BCTs) and Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) of various sizes . Should the United States decide that it needs to project its hard power abroad to guard its interests, it could deploy the Special Operations Forces (SOF) components of the new service in tandem with UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to selectively target and neutralize potential threats.