JPMorgan Chase & Co. notified about 1,000 First Republic Bank employees that they arent being given jobs even temporarily following its takeover of the failed lender.

The biggest US bank on Thursday offered full-time or transitional roles to almost 85% of the nearly 7,000 employees still working at First Republic when it collapsed, while the rest were told they wouldnt get offers, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The temporary jobs will be for three, six, nine or 12 months, depending on the position, the person said, asking not to be identified discussing private information.

Since our acquisition of First Republic on May 1, weve been transparent with their employees and kept our promise to update them on their employment status within 30 days, a spokesperson for New York-based JPMorgan said in a statement. We recognize that they have been under stress and uncertainty since March and hope that today will bring clarity and closure.

Former First Republic employees who werent offered jobs at JPMorgan will receive pay and benefits covering 60 days and will be offered a package that includes an additional lump-sum payment and continuing benefits coverage, the spokesperson said.

First Republic said in late April it would cut as much as 25% of its workforce, one of a series of actions intended to bolster the troubled bank and reassure investors. Those measures ultimately werent enough, and the San Francisco-based firm was seized days later. Most of the employees who didnt get an offer Thursday from JPMorgan had been identified as part of First Republics planned cuts, but had yet to be notified when the bank failed, the person said.

JPMorgan, which had 296,877 employees at the end of March, beat out rivals in a government-led auction for First Republic. As part of its winning bid, JPMorgan acquired about $173 billion of First Republics loans, $30 billion of securities and $92 billion in deposits and then had to decide what to do about its employees, dozens of whom were reeling in more than $10 million a year, Bloomberg News reported earlier Thursday. 

Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up today.

More and more Americans are moving from Democratic-leaning blue states to Republican-voting red ones, and one of the effects of this change is that they are relocating to places with lower life expectancy.

Idaho, Montana and Florida, all red states, had the greatest population growth among U.S. states between 2020 and 2022. Meanwhile, New York and Illinois, both blue states, and Louisiana, a red state, suffered the biggest population losses. California, another blue state, has experienced significant recent population loss as well.

One key reason for this migration is the high cost of living in places like New York and California, compared with the lower cost of living in red states such as Georgia or Indiana.

I am a scholar who studies the intersection between politics, media and psychology. I think it is important to note that another trend, though, is that people are largely migrating to places with lower life expectancies.

Understanding demographics

There is a large difference in expected life spans for people living in certain states, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

For instance, people born in New York and California two of the richest states in the country, which largely vote Democratic have a life expectancy of 77.7 and 79 years, respectively. But people in Mississippi and Louisiana two of the poorest states, which tend to vote Republican live, on average, until they are 71.9 and 73.1 years old.

People who live in Republican-leaning states tend to have less money, worse health conditions, higher rates of gun-related deaths and lower levels of education than people living in Democratic states.

On average, people in red states have higher rates of poverty than residents of blue states.

Poverty is an indicator for life expectancies in the U.S. the poorer someone is, the more likely to die younger.

But there are likely other issues at play in people in red states having lower life spans.

Health differences

Research in 2020 showed that Americans in blue states tend to live longer than people in red states, primarily because of state policies on everything from seat belt laws to abortion laws. That research also identified health policies as a major factor.

People in blue states also tend to have higher rates of health insurance than people in red states.

Moreover, when looking at the rates of people who are diagnosed with cancer in each state, it is clear that people in red states are generally less healthy than people in blue ones. Red-state residents are also more likely to die from heart disease than people in blue states.

But health rates vary greatly across racial and ethnic groups. Black and Hispanic people are far more likely than white and Asian people in the U.S. to not have access to quality affordable health care, regardless of their state of residence.

And Black people remain more likely than white people to have high blood pressure and to die from heart disease, among other health conditions.

Lower education levels

Another key factor in this life span trend is that people in red states have lower levels of education than people in blue states.

This matters, since some recent research has shown that education levels are the best predictor of a persons life span for a variety of complex, interconnected reasons, including an increased likelihood that receiving a higher education will lead to a boost in income.

Experts also often consider race and ethnicity another major factor, in part because of structural inequalities facing people of color that may place access to quality affordable education out of reach, for example.

Lack of education may be the most direct reason for lower incomes and shorter lives but it is not clear if attaining a higher level of education makes people wealthier, or if people who are born into wealth receive more and better education.

Are people moving to die young?

There are other reasons that factor into the complex question of life expectancy, and discrepancies in longevity across states.

One reason identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, is that there are more gun deaths by homicide and suicide in red states than blue states.

People are moving to different states in the U.S. for a variety of reasons including, in some cases, political ideologies. While blue ZIP codes have been found to be getting bluer, red ones are becoming even more red.

But it is important to keep in mind that data on life spans and health are simply averages, and so there can be a high variation within particular locations.

Thee are people in red and blue states who defy these statistics many people living long lives in poor red states, and people dying younger in rich blue ones.

Still, the overall trends are clear. People living in blue states by and large tend to live longer, healthier and wealthier lives.

Robert Samuels is Continuing Lecturer in Writing, University of California, Santa Barbara.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. accused the former first lady of the US Virgin Islands of aiding Jeffrey Epsteins sex trafficking in a number of ways, including helping to arrange visas, jobs and travel for some of his victims and assisting him in skirting the territorys sex-offender monitoring law.

According to the bank, Cecile de Jongh, the wife of former USVI Governor John de Jongh, was Epsteins primary conduit for spreading money and influence throughout the USVI government. 

She managed Epsteins USVI companies, receiving $200,000 in compensation in 2007 alone, and he also paid tuition for her children, JPMorgan contends. She in turn explicitly advised Epstein on how to buy control of the USVI political class, the bank said.

The bank made the allegations in a Thursday court filing that was a less-redacted version of one it filed earlier in the week. The filing was made in opposition to USVIs motion to block JPMorgan from arguing an unclean hands defense to the territorys lawsuit accusing the bank of knowingly benefiting from Epsteins sex trafficking.

Read More: USVI Seeks to Bar JPMorgans Unclean Hands Epstein Defense

According to JPMorgans lawyers, de Jongh helped obtain student visas for three young women connected to Epstein, arranging their enrollment in the University of the Virgin Islands. Perhaps cognizant of the risk in having a registered sex offender sign the letter, the first lady offered to have someone else to sign letters for the women showing their ability to pay tuition, the bank said. 

Epstein donated heavily to USVI politicians and the government itself, according to the filing. That included $30,000 to the campaign of Representative Stacey Plaskett, the USVIs non-voting delegate to Congress, a $25,000 gift to current Governor Albert Bryans inaugural committee and donations to a school library. De Jongh also suggested that Epstein put USVI Senator Celestino White on some sort of monthly retainer to get loyalty and access, the filing states.

De Jongh also acted as a conduit between Epstein and the USVI Port Authority, which managed the airport Epstein used. 

Based on his government connections, when traveling through the USVIs airport accompanied by young women as a registered sex offender, Epstein could count on his great relationship with the officials there to avoid scrutiny or detection, the filing states. In 2010, Epstein emailed de Jongh to complain about a difficult customs officer at the airport. Two years later, he asked her about the possibility of sending all 78 customs officers turkeys for Thanksgiving.

Will It Work for You?

In 2011, De Jongh and Epstein also communicated about the wording of a bill before the USVI legislature to increase monitoring of sex offenders. Epstein was registered as a sex offender following his 2008 conviction in Florida for soliciting a minor for prostitution. 

This is the suggested language; will it work for you? de Jongh allegedly asked Epstein in an email about the draft. When the bill subsequently passed, she apologized to him for how things panned out, JPMorgan claims.

However, all is not lost and we will figure something out by coming up with a game plan to get around these obstacles, she wrote, according to the bank. JPMorgan alleges that de Jongh then crafted a plan to facilitate Epsteins easy travel to and from the USVI by working with specific politicians and officials in the territory.

The case is USVI v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 22-cv-10904-UA, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).  

Rare diseases have gained more attention in recent years, perhaps in part due to the high price tags often associated with approved therapies. But the cost of rare disease drugs is dwarfed by the cost of not having them.

Our recent study shows that a lack of treatment for a rare disease is associated with a 21.2% increase in total costs per patient per year. That places a significant burden on the healthcare system. While rare diseases impact a small population, the cost to society is staggeringwe estimate that the societal cost in the U.S. for all 7,000 known rare diseases may be in the range of $7.2-$8.6 trillion per year.

Historically, there has been a lack of shared responsibility for alleviating the burden of rare diseases by different stakeholders, including industry, government bodies, policymakers, and society. But a societal approach is essential to address this growing public health crisis and will need to include improved healthcare policies. The good news is that the substantial economic burden that rare diseases impose can be reduced by treatment availability, and pharma and biotech companies are increasingly focusing on rare disease populations. Policymakers may be interested to know that based on the study, productivity-related economic losses dropped from about $61,000 for both patients and caregivers when no treatment was available to about $22,000 for patients and $5,000 for caregivers with treatment.

These and future economic data can help justify increased government investment to ensure broader patient access to safe and effective therapies and policy proposals that reflect the unique challenges in the rare disease community. And it seems that government leaders are listening. Existing U.S. policy incentivizes rare disease R&D, and new bills introduced to Congress will help further drive rare disease drug development by, for example, restoring the Orphan Drug Tax Credit from 25% to its original 50% and extending exclusivity for rare disease clinical trials stalled during the pandemic. In addition, the bipartisan bicameral BENEFIT Act would allow patients and advocates to play a larger role in the FDAs benefit-risk framework for drug approvals.

Regulators are hearing the calls to action as well. According to remarks from Peter Marks, director of the FDAs Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the agency is preparing a pilot program to encourage the development of new drugs for rare diseases, similar to what Operation Warp Speed was for COVID-19 vaccines.

Meanwhile, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) reports advances in its Accelerating Rare disease Cures (ARC) program, which was launched to speed and increase the development of effective and safe treatment options addressing the unmet needs of people with rare diseases. As part of the ARC program, there is also the initiative Learning and Education to Advance and Empower Rare Disease Drug Developers (LEADER 3D) to help identify and address knowledge gaps when it comes to rare diseases and better understand the challenges rare disease drug developers face.

Both CDER and CBER are involved in the Rare Disease Endpoint Advancement (RDEA) Pilot Program, another initiative offering drug developers increased support in developing efficacious endpoints for clinical trials in rare diseases. And recently the FDA and NIH announced the launch of the Critical Path for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases (CP-RND)a public-private partnership aimed at advancing the understanding of neurodegenerative diseases and fostering the development of treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other rare neurodegenerative diseases. 

These are important strides but there is still a long way to go. Proposals limiting reimbursement for rare disease therapies granted accelerated approval pose a continuing threat to fostering and sustaining innovation, despite the positive economic return of these therapies.

Congress should increase funding for the FDAs Orphan Disease Grant Program, increase NIH rare disease research and funding, position rare disease clinicians and researchers to review rare disease applications and advise regulatory agencies, permanently reauthorize the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, and fully engage with the rare disease patient community to better understand their unique experiences.

Funds for rare diseases should also be allocated on par with mass health conditionsincluding diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers disease, different types of cancer, and arthritisto reduce the associated significant societal burden. Social infrastructure must be adapted to increase caregiver resources and relieve families affected by rare diseases, as they bear especially high indirect or non-reimbursed expenses.

It is critical that pharma and biotech companies bring important new therapies to market and concurrently collaborate with government bodies, advocacy groups, regulators, and other stakeholders to ensure policies increase, not decrease, patients access to new and promising therapies.

There are clear positive returns from rare disease therapies to society, justifying an increase in government investment in rare diseases, not only for R&D but for diagnosis, including screening. The sooner patients are diagnosed and put on available treatment, the more society will benefit.

Giacomo Chiesi is the head of global rare diseases at the Chiesi Group, where he leads the team developing and commercializing treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

Lawmakers in several states are embracing legislation to let children work in more hazardous occupations, longer hours on school nights and in expanded roles including serving alcohol in bars and restaurants as young as 14.

The efforts to significantly roll back labor rules are largely led by Republican lawmakers to address worker shortages and in some cases run afoul of federal regulations.

Child welfare advocates worry the measures represent a coordinated push to scale back hard-won protections for minors.

The consequences are potentially disastrous, said Reid Maki, director of the Child Labor Coalition, which advocates against exploitative labor policies. You cant balance a perceived labor shortage on the backs of teen workers.

Lawmakers proposed loosening child labor laws in at least 10 states over the past two years, according to a report published last month by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Some bills became law, while others were withdrawn or vetoed.

Legislators in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa are actively considering relaxing child labor laws to address worker shortages, which are driving up wages and contributing to inflation. Employers have struggled to fill open positions after a spike in retirements, deaths and illnesses from COVID-19, decreases in legal immigration and other factors.

The job market is one of the tightest since World War II, with the unemployment rate at 3.4% the lowest in 54 years.

Bringing more children into the labor market is, of course, not the only way to solve the problem. Economists point to several other strategies the country can employ to alleviate the labor crunch without asking kids to work more hours or in dangerous settings.

The most obvious is encouraging immigration, which is politically divisive, but which has been a cornerstone of the countrys ability to grow for years in the face of an aging population. Other strategies could include incentivizing older workers to delay retirement, expanding opportunities for formerly incarcerated people and making child-care more affordable, so that parents have greater flexibility to work.

In Wisconsin, lawmakers are backing a proposal to allow 14-year-olds to serve alcohol in bars and restaurants. If passed, Wisconsin would have the lowest such limit nationwide, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The Ohio Legislature is on track to pass a bill allowing students ages 14 and 15 to work until 9 p.m. during the school year with their parents permission. Thats later than federal law allows, so a companion measure asks the U.S. Congress to amend its own laws.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, students that age can only work until 7 p.m. during the school year. Congress passed the law in 1938 to stop children from being exposed to dangerous conditions and abusive practices in mines, factories, farms and street trades.

Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law in March eliminating permits that required employers to verify a childs age and their parents consent. Without work permit requirements, companies caught violating child labor laws can more easily claim ignorance. Other measures to loosen child labor laws have been passed into law in New Jersey, New Hampshire and Iowa.

Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law last year allowing teens aged 16 and 17 to work unsupervised in child care centers. The state Legislature approved a bill this month to allow teens of that age to serve alcohol in restaurants. It would also expand the hours minors can work. Reynolds, who said in April she supports more youth employment, has until June 3 to sign or veto the measure.

Republicans dropped provisions from a version of the bill allowing children aged 14 and 15 to work in dangerous fields including mining, logging and meatpacking. But it kept some provisions that the Labor Department say violate federal law, including allowing children as young as 14 to briefly work in freezers and meat coolers, and extending work hours in industrial laundries and assembly lines.

Teen workers are more likely to accept low pay and less likely to unionize or push for better working conditions, said Maki, of the Child Labor Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy network.

There are employers that benefit from having kind of docile teen workers, Maki said, adding that teens are easy targets for industries that rely on vulnerable populations such as immigrants and the formerly incarcerated to fill dangerous jobs.

The Department of Labor reported in February that child labor violations had increased by nearly 70% since 2018. The agency is increasing enforcement and asking Congress to allow larger fines against violators.

It fined one of the nations largest meatpacking sanitation contractors $1.5 million in February after investigators found the company illegally employed more than 100 children at locations in eight states. The child workers cleaned bone saws and other dangerous equipment in meatpacking plants, often using hazardous chemicals.

National business lobbyists, chambers of commerce and well-funded conservative groups are backing the state bills to increase teen participation in the workforce, including Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political network and the National Federation of Independent Business, which typically aligns with Republicans.

The conservative Opportunity Solutions Project and its parent organization, Florida-based think tank Foundation for Government Accountability, helped lawmakers in Arkansas and Missouri draft bills to roll back child labor protections, The Washington Post reported. The groups, and allied lawmakers, often say their efforts are about expanding parental rights and giving teenagers more work experience.

Theres no reason why anyone should have to get the governments permission to get a job, Republican Arkansas Rep. Rebecca Burkes, who sponsored the bill to eliminate child work permits, said on the House floor. This is simply about eliminating the bureaucracy that is required and taking away the parents decision about whether their child can work.

Margaret Wurth, a childrens rights researcher with Human Rights Watch, a member of the Child Labor Coalition, described bills like the one passed in Arkansas as attempts to undermine safe and important workplace protections and to reduce workers power.

Current laws fail to protect many child workers, Wurth said.

She wants lawmakers to end exceptions for child labor in agriculture. Federal law allows children 12 and older to work on farms for any amount of time outside of school hours, with parental permission. Farm workers over 16 can work at dangerous heights or operate heavy machinery, hazardous tasks reserved for adult workers in other industries.

Twenty-four children died from work injuries in in 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Around half of deadly work incidents happened on farms, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office covering child deaths between 2003 and 2016.

More children die working in agriculture than in any other sector, Wurth said. Enforcement isnt going to help much for child farm workers unless the standards improve.

___

Harm Venhuizen is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Venhuizen on Twitter.

Watching Taylor Swift perform live is a dream for millions of her fans. And they go to great lengths to realize it by waiting hours in virtual ticketing queues, shelling out thousands of dollars for seats, and even standing in parking lots outside her concert venues to listen from afar.

But in some ways, Swifties may have turned out to be anti-heroes. Many of them have become ticket resellers through ticket sites like StubHub, and thats unleashed chaos in the form of invalid or duplicate tickets and unfulfilled orders. This is why we cant have nice things, as Swift puts it in one of her hit songs, but in a more general sense.

We are experiencing record-breaking demand for Taylor Swifts Eras Tour, which is driving an unprecedented number of fan sellers, StubHub told the Wall Street Journal. The company noted that 70% of Swifts concert ticket orders on StubHub come from fan sellers rather than ticket brokers, which is double the norm for other live acts. Moreover, about 63% of the Eras Tour orders causing troubles are those sold by inexperienced fan sellers, the Journal reported.

Swifts long-awaited tourher first in five yearswas a blockbuster from the get-go, when pre-sale tickets went live on ticket seller Ticketmaster in November. At the time, extraordinarily high demand caused glitches, ultimately leading to Ticketmaster canceling general ticket sales. Even after the initial outrage among fans was quelled, the appetite for tickets among Swifties remained high. Concert tickets were selling at exorbitant pricessome as high as $45,000.

This time, the deluge of Swift fans managing resale of tickets for the Eras Tour created new hurdles for services including StubHub. Many fans, who are trying ticket reselling for the first time, are not communicating promptly with StubHub about transferring their tickets to buyers, leading the company to prompt buyers to look for new tickets on the platform. Resellers are also listing tickets on multiple platforms and failing to take the posting down after the tickets are sold, adding to the confusion on StubHubs end, the ticketing platform told the Journal.  

For StubHub, the confusion has forced it to pay thousands of dollars in refunds to fans who lost their seats. In other cases, the company has had to pay the difference in price for the newly secured tickets that fans caught in the tumult end up buying. To manage the glut of fan resellers, StubHub has implemented deadlines for sellers to deliver tickets to buyers and is now making sure it calls sellers who dont confirm ticket transfers on time, according to the Journal. The company is also helping buyers look for replacement tickets when applicable.  

StubHub did not immediately return Fortunes request for comment, nor did other resale platforms including Vivid Seats and SeatGeek.

In its previous pre-sale ticketing fiasco involving Swift, Ticketmaster said its system was overwhelmed by bots that inundated its servers where nearly 3.5 million fans had already registered. The company, widely used to purchase sports, Broadway shows, and concert tickets, said it experienced unprecedented demand for Swifts Eras Tour tickets, and that its Verified Fans system, which gives fans invite codes to buy tickets, had worked well in the past for other concert tour ticket sales. Following the initial cancellation of general sale tickets for Swift, Ticketmaster tried again and eventually sold tickets to some of its registered fans, according to the Journal. 

Ticketmaster, which controls about 70% of the primary ticketing and live event venues market, told the Journal that it didnt offer resale tickets for the Eras Tour. Of the tickets it sold, Ticketmaster told Fortune that only 5% of them landed in the secondary market owing to the Verified Fans system, compared to 20-30% in the case of non-verified counterparts. But the disappointment among fans following the failed pre-sale attempt left many customers on edge for subsequent concert ticket sales, including for Beyoncés Renaissance tour that began earlier this month. 

https://twitter.com/ratdaddy_/status/1592534853542883329?s=20

After the meltdown, Tennessees attorney general said in November he would investigate Ticketmaster, and top ticketing executives were called in to testify before the Senate in January amid complaints that Ticketmaster is a monopoly.

In November, Swift expressed her frustration about the ticketing chaos on social media.

Im not going to make excuses for anyone because we asked them, multiple times, if they could handle this kind of demand and we were assured they could, she wrote on Instagram. Its truly amazing that 2.4 million people got tickets, but it really pisses me off that a lot of them feel like they went through several bear attacks to get them.

Shares of Nvidia, already one of the worlds most valuable companies, skyrocketed Thursday after the chipmaker forecast a huge jump in revenue, signaling how vastly the broadening use of artificial intelligence could reshape the tech sector.

The California company is close to joining the exclusive club of $1 trillion companies like Alphabet, Apple and Microsoft, after shares jumped 25% in early trading.

Late Wednesday the maker of graphics chips for gaming and artificial intelligence reported a quarterly profit of more than $2 billion and revenue of $7 billion, both exceeding Wall Street expectations.

Yet its projections for sales of $11 billion this quarter is what caught Wall Street off guard. Its a 64% jump from last year during the same period, and well above the $7.2 billion industry analysts were forecasting.

It looks like the new gold rush is upon us, and NVIDIA is selling all the picks and shovels, Susquehanna Financial Groups Christopher Rolland and Matt Myers wrote Thursday.

Chipmakers around the globe were pulled along. Shares of Taiwan Semiconductor rose 3.5%, while South Koreas SK Hynix gained 5%. ASML based in the Netherlands added 4.8%.

Nvidia founder and CEO of Jensen Huang said the worlds data centers are in need of a makeover given the transformation that will come with AI technology.

The worlds $1 trillion data center is nearly populated entirely by (central processing units) today, Huang said. And $1 trillion, $250 billion a year, its growing of course but over the last four years, call it $1 trillion worth of infrastructure installed, and its all completely based on CPUs and dumb NICs. Its basically unaccelerated.

AI chips are designed to perform artificial intelligence tasks faster and more efficently. While general-purpose chips like CPUs can also be used for simpler AI tasks, theyre becoming less and less useful as AI advances, a 2020 report from Georgetown Universitys Center for Security and Emerging Technology notes.

Because of their unique features, AI chips are tens or even thousands of times faster and more efficient than CPUs for training and inference of AI algorithms, the report adds, noting that AI chips can also be more cost-effective than CPUs due to their greater efficiency.

Analysts say Nvidia could be an early look at how AI may reshape the tech sector.

Last night Nvidia gave jaw dropping robust guidance that will be heard around the world and shows the historical demand for AI happening now in the enterprise and consumer landscape, Wedbushs Dan Ives wrote. For any investor calling this an AI bubble we would point them to this Nvidia quarter and especially guidance which cements our bullish thesis around AI and speaks to the 4th Industrial Revolution now on the doorstep with AI.

Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up today.

More Articles ...

  1. Tech giants have gutted publishing. Now digital fatigue is giving print a new lease on life
  2. Why Reid Hoffman believes A.I. should stand for amplification intelligence
  3. The falling price of copper is trying to tell us something about a recession
  4. Kevin McCarthy vows to work '24/7' on a debt ceiling solution but House Republicans are about to take a Friday-Monday long weekend
Page 149 of 1160

Newspapers

Spinning loader

Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. IdigNews.com is the leading news source for the internet  users...

           

Business

Entertainment

POST GALLERY