Mega Millions Winning Numbers, March 30, 2012: Here They Are!

If you have these Mega Millions winning numbers, you are now at least a part owner of the biggest jackpot ever, estimated at $640 million.

Just hours before the drawing, a Mega Millions spokesperson said there was a 95% chance someone would win the jackpot tonight based on all the combinations sold.

Take a deep breath.

The winning numbers for Mega Millions tonight, March 30, are as follows:

46 - 23 - 38 - 4 - 2 - (Mega Ball) 23

As stated by the official website for Mega Millions, if no one wins the jackpot, the money will be added to the jackpot for the next drawing. The pot could climb to an estimated $975 million.

UPDATE: From the AP: "An official with the Maryland lottery says a record $640 million winning lottery ticket has been sold in Maryland, and there could be others nationwide." Read more here.

Exxon Valdez Sold For Scrap Decades Later For $16 Million

More than 20 years later, a ship best known for causing an environmental catastrophe is finally being put to rest.

The Exxon Valdez, which spilled 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989, is being bought for $16 million by Global Systems Marketing Inc., a firm that purchases ships for demolition, Bloomberg reports. 

 The vessel, now known as the Oriental Nicety, has changed names and owners four times since the infamous disaster.

At the time, the Exxon Valdez spill was the largest in U.S. history and resulted in Exxon having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid criminal prosecution, as well as to resolve civil claims made by federal and state governments, according to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Office. 

In addition, the company paid nearly $4 billion in cleanup costs.

Still, Exxon avoided a larger punishment. In 1994, an Anchorage jury awarded victims of the spill $5 billion, but after a 15-year legal battle the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices awarded the victims just $507 million, according to CBS.

The long and protracted legal battle waged by victims may have helped shaped the decision by fishermen affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 -- now the largest in U.S. history -- to settle quickly with BP, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

 A group of fishermen agreed earlier this month to drop litigation against BP in exchange for a $7.8 billion payout.

The Exxon Valdez spill cost tens of thousands of people who depended on fishing for a living a total of $300 million, according to the Center for American Progress. In addition, tourism in southwest Alaska plunged 35 percent in the year immediately following the spill.

But Exxon still managed to take home billions of dollars in the spill’s aftermath and today is currently in a back-and-forth battle with Apple for the title of most valuable company in the world.

Income Tax Dilemma Faces Gay Couples Who File Jointly And Defy Federal Law

Newlyweds Ruth Berman and Connie Kurtz are gearing up to file their first tax return as a married couple.

Typically, couples grapple with the financial pros and cons of filing separately or jointly. Though either way, they tell the IRS they are married.

However, for Ruth and Connie, prominent gay activists who were married last summer in New York after the state approved gay marriage, income taxes are far more fraught.

The U.S. government does not recognize their marriage. By law they must file their federal income tax returns individually.

The trouble is, they believe that to do this would be a lie.

"My taxes are usually at my accountant by beginning of February," said Connie, 75, in telephone call with The Huffington Post late last week. "I can't seem to pull it off. I keep thinking about what should we do.

What about the legal part?"

The tension between what is legal and what is truthful when it comes to taxes and gay marriage is in the spotlight this tax season, as an increasing number of states -- six plus Washington, D.C. -- sanction same-sex unions.

While there are no statistics available on the number of gay married couples who do file joint federal income taxes, a website launched last April called Refuse to Lie offers advice and testimonials from couples who have decided to defy the law.

"[Federal income tax forms] tell gay people to discriminate against themselves," said Nadine Smith, who founded Refuse to Lie and is the director of the gay advocacy group Equality Florida. "We are not going to treat our marriages like they don't matter."

The gay rights community is divided on the issue, however. Many say that following the law when it comes to taxes is the first priority for married couples.

"If you get audited and they discover that you should have filed separately, you could owe them money plus the interest," said Bruce Bell, a spokesperson with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a legal rights organization. "You're breaking the law and if you're caught, you will pay."

It's not clear that anyone actually gets caught, however. The Internal Revenue Service does not ask for gender on tax returns. And it's not always easy to tell if a couple is same-sex or not (Ruth and Connie? Jamie and Pat?)

"I have never once, in filing returns for heterosexual couples, seen the IRS question if someone is married," said Tina Salandra, an accountant who works extensively with same-sex couples in the New York area.

"The IRS has never asked for a marriage certificate, and the same is true for divorce."

Other accountants reached by The Huffington Post said that while it's against the law for same-sex couples to file as married for their federal tax returns, it is unlikely the IRS would investigate.

Of course, it's still a risk, particularly as the issue gains national attention. "There could be some cross-checking in regard to filing status with the marriage license to see if [the couple] used the proper filing method," said Donald Anspauch Jr., an enrolled tax agent in West Hollywood, Calif., who has been doing tax returns for more than 20 years.

The IRS for its part would not comment on whether it investigates tax returns based on marriage, but reiterated its support of federal laws.

"The IRS follows the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and as such, same-sex partners cannot file their federal income tax returns using the married filing jointly or the married filing separately filing status," said IRS spokeswoman Sara L. Eguren in an email.

Bottom line, if a tax return is unlawfully filed, it will be rejected by the IRS. Each person must re-file individually and could be on the hook for penalties and accrued interest on an old tax bill.

 Anspauch said it can take more than a year for the IRS to kick back a return, which can add up to significant interest.

In other words, that little tax bill could become a very big tax bill.

Financially, gay couples who are married in states that sanction their union face a double whammy at tax time.

 Federal returns must be filed individually, but state income taxes must legally be filed as married, either as a joint tax return or as "married filing separately.

" This typically means that a same-sex couple must fill out a dummy joint federal tax form in order to generate the figures that are necessary to file a state tax return as a couple.

In practice that means completing four tax returns: one dummy federal return, one state return and two individual federal returns.

Anspauch said same-sex couples' tax returns cost around $1,200 to prepare because of the paperwork, time and level of detail it takes to complete. For a married opposite-sex couple, a similar return might cost $500 to prepare, he said. "It's like making your mama's favorite cake recipe: you have to pay attention to detail."

Ruth and Connie, the New York newlyweds, were profiled in a 2010 documentary and have spoken widely on gay civil rights and marriage. They are still weighing the risks (tax fraud and penalties) against the benefits.
"We are totally supportive of refusing to lie, but it's illegal for us," Connie said.

Married couples who file together do not necessarily have a financial tax advantage. In cases where both spouses are high earners, filing together could throw them into a higher tax bracket.

For couples with more unequal incomes -- say, if one spouse takes care of a child and does not work outside the home -- there are clear benefits.

Melba and Beatrice Hernandez-Abreu were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex unions.

 Melba, 56, and Beatrice, 50, said they forfeited $25,359 between 2004 and 2008 in federal tax refunds.

"The inability to file our taxes according to our civil status has very practical implications for us," Beatrice
said in a phone call. "It not only represents the loss of the earnings, it has a place in our future years because [of retirement]."

Stress Tests: Citigroup, Three Other Major Banks Fail

All is not well with the Too Big To Fail set.

Four of the biggest U.S. banks failed the latest round of Federal Reserve stress tests, the Fed said Tuesday, meaning they'll have to give up hopes of giving more money to shareholders, and may even have to go hat in hand to those shareholders for more cash.

The Fed's goal is to make sure the banks have enough cash to survive another financial crisis, making it less likely the government has to bail them out again.

The tests seemed fairly rigorous -- arguably more rigorous than other stress tests since the financial crisis.

But those tests were based on certain models and assumptions about the strength of bank balance sheets, and as we learned in the financial crisis, models and assumptions can go out the window in a hurry.

For now, the Fed says banks have significantly bigger cash cushions than they did heading into the crisis. Still, the Fed said the financial plans of Citigroup, Ally Financial, SunTrust and MetLife left those banks without enough of a cash cushion to survive a severe economic downturn.

That means Citi, the third-biggest U.S. bank, won't be able to raise its dividend or buy back more of its stock from shareholders without first raising more capital.

Fifteen other banks passed the Fed's test, including the biggest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, which earlier on Tuesday announced it planned to raise its dividend and boost a share-buyback program -- essentially declaring to the world that it had passed the Fed's stress test.

JPMorgan's announcement boosted its stock price and lifted the shares of other banks and the entire stock market -- which apparently assumed that every other bank must have passed the stress tests, too.

 The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished the day up 217.97 points at 13177.68, its highest close since 2007. The Nasdaq blasted to 3039.88, its first close above 3000 in 11 years.

JPMorgan's announcement also seems to have forced the Fed into hurrying up its own announcement of the stress-test results, which was originally scheduled for Thursday.

The Fed's revelation that Citi and the other banks had failed the stress tests sent the shares of those four banks sharply lower in after-hours trading. Shares of the other 15 banks were flat after hours after jumping in regular trading.

MetLife, in a press release, blasted the stress-test results, arguing it was unfair to compare an insurance company to commercial banks:

"MetLife is financially strong and well positioned for both the current environment and a potential further economic downturn," the company wrote. "We are deeply disappointed with the Federal Reserve's announcement."

Ally Financial, which is majority owned by the U.S. government, said it took issue with some of the assumptions in the Fed's tests, including what it called "dramatically" overstated mortgage losses. "Ally continues to have ongoing constructive discussions with its regulators surrounding these matters, and the company will submit a revised capital plan in the near future," the company wrote.

 "Further, the Federal
Reserve has not objected to the ongoing payments of preferred dividends and interest on the trust preferred securities and subordinated debt."

Citigroup said it would pass the Fed's stress test as long as it doesn't raise its dividends or buy back stock.

"In light of the Federal Reserve's actions, Citi will submit a revised Capital Plan to the Federal Reserve later this year, as required by the applicable regulations," Citi wrote.

"The Federal Reserve advised Citi that it has no objection to our continuing the existing dividend levels on our preferred stock and our common stock, and we plan to do so, subject to approval by the Board of

Directors each quarter."

The Wall Street Journal's Deal Journal blog is compiling the responses of the other banks -- so far SunTrust has not yet responded.

Meanwhile, the major banks that passed the stress tests hustled to tell the market they planned to do shareholder-friendly stuff like raising dividends and buying back shares.

 Goldman Sachs, for example, said it plans to buy back stock and might raise its dividend. Wells Fargo plans to raise its dividend to 22 cents from 12 cents a share.

The Fed tested bank capital-management plans under a set of extreme economic conditions, including 13 percent unemployment, a 50 percent collapse in the stock market and a new 21 percent drop in home prices. The goal was to see how well banks were prepared to survive another crisis like the one in 2008.

The Fed's previous round of stress tests were arguably not all that stressful, allowing some big banks to give money back to shareholders over the objections of then-FDIC chair, Sheila Bair, ProPublica has reported.

Jesse Eisinger, the author of that report, pointed out that SunTrust passed last year's stress test, over Bair's objections. SunTrust failed the latest test.

The latest round of stress tests at least appears to be somewhat more deserving of the name. Citi's failure comes as a particular surprise. Market hopes had risen lately that the bank would get the Fed's OK to raise its nominal dividend of a penny per share.

In contrast, Bank of America, which has more famously been saddled with bad mortgages after its purchase of Countrywide during the financial crisis, passed the stress test.

Buford, Wyoming Put On Sale By Sole Resident Don Sammons

The sole resident of one Wyoming town has called himself its owner, and mayor, for years.

 But now, for a relative bargain, you could take that title away from him.

Don Sammons, the sole resident of the town of Buford, Wyoming, is putting his property, and hence entire town, up for auction at the starting price of $100,000, the Wyoming Times reports (h/t The Atlantic).

 The deal includes a U.S. zip code, a historic school building, a three-bedroom home and the town's only source of revenue, a gas station and convenience store called the Buford Trading Post.

Sammons purchased the town in 1992 with his wife and son, but after his wife passed away several years ago and his son moved out, he says it's about time to move away from what some say is among the smallest towns in the country.

 It may come as no surprise that one of the smallest towns in America is located in Wyoming -- the state has the lowest population in the nation with an estimated 509,293 people, according to TIME.

But the town wasn't always so tiny. It was once home to a booming population of about 2,000, attracting guests like the honorable President Ulysses S. Grant, and the not-so-honorable Butch Cassidy, the bandit immortalized on the big screen by Paul Newman, according to the Wyoming Times.

That the asking price for Buford is so low may be surprising, even when taking into account that its 8,000 foot elevation can make for some seriously inclement whether. Still, a prospective buyer could potentially purchase the entire 10 plus acre town for a little more than the average price of a new home in 2010 at $272,900.

In fact, Buford is a real bargain compared to many other towns that have recently gone up for sale. Even a medieval town in France, home now to "thieves, drunks and squatters" as well as some crumbling buildings, according to nearby residents, was put up for sale last month for the asking price of $436,370 -- more than four times that of Buford's starting price.

But if you've got some extra cash to splash, why not buy a personal island? Red Rock Island in San Francisco bay, rumored to be the home of buried pirate treasure, was recently put on the market for $9 million.

American Apparel Gets $80 Million From George Soros-Backed Firm

Looks like billionaire George Soros and American Apparel CEO Dov Charney now have more in common than the lawsuits they both currently face with former romantic partners.
Through Crystal Financial, a Boston firm of which the hedge fund manager is the top investor, Soros is set to extend a credit line worth $80 million to the Los Angeles-based retailer known for its hipster base and racy ads, the New York Post reports.

Soros, among the most successful hedge fund managers of all time, has never been one to fear the unconventional business move. He recently increased his stake in Israeli tech company Comverse, despite the fact it had been delisted from the NASDAQ over a backdating scandal in 2007.

Soros similarly bought $2 billion of MF Global's European bounds after the company's now-infamous collapse late last year.

Yet American Apparel's recent troubles extend far beyond their founder's very public personal drama. The company has struggled to avoid bankruptcy since 2010, all while confronting a series of scandals that have undermined a once-favorable reputation. On multiple occasions, former employees have accused Charney of sexual harassment , while the company itself has been criticized for its "Teenagers Do It Better" T-shirts.

Then, less than a year ago, a Los Angeles factory worker died while trying to fix a company knitting machine.

Could the Soros investment be a sign of an American Apparel rebound? Despite concerns that the company may have alienated its hipster base by cracking down on shoplifting, sales did indeed increase last month by 13 percent compared to last year, according to MarketWatch.

Still, the American Apparel bet is small potatoes when compared to the biggest bet of Soros' career. In 1992, he made his riskiest bet ever when he placed a $10 billion bet against the British pound. He walked away with $1 billion in profits.

Soros is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with a former girlfriend for allegedly going back on a promise he made to to give her an almost $2 million Manhattan apartment.

Some of American Apparel's moves have given it a less-than-stellar reputation. Here are 11 other companies with bad reputations:

Rite Aid's White-Coat Problem: That's Not a Pharmacist

Headed to Rite Aid (RAD) to get something for your pounding headache or flu symptoms? When you sidle up to the counter to discuss your symptoms with the helpful Rite Aid employee clad in a white coat, do you know if you're speaking to a pharmacist or just one of Rite Aid's "wellness ambassadors"?

Two U.S. senators say that the distinction isn't clear enough.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) sent a letter Thursday to Rite Aid CEO John Standley, expressing concern about potentially deceptive marketing in the use of the wellness ambassadors.

At issue is a new store format Rite Aid adopted last spring that includes "wellness ambassadors" and "wellness stations" as part of its customer service strategy. Currently, Rite Aid operates its wellness program at 300 of its 4,700 stores.

 

Bitter Pill

The congressmen expressed concern that consumers would seek medical advice from wellness ambassadors, who wear white coats similar to those of the pharmacists and whose wellness stations are located within close proximity to the pharmacy desk. In particular, they raise concerns about recommendations being made by wellness ambassadors for non-FDA-approved dietary supplements.

In their letter, the senators state:

We are concerned that Rite Aid customers seeking a prescription or an over-the-counter drug are misled into believing the wellness ambassador is a pharmacist or health professional qualified to dispense medical advice. This potential for confusion could result in dramatic and dangerous consequences for consumers.

Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that wellness ambassadors could be making false and misleading claims by marketing dietary supplements as treatments for health conditions. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits marketing products through "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," such as making explicit or implied medical claims that a dietary supplement can treat, prevent, or cure a specific disease or condition

Because wellness ambassadors field questions from Rite Aid customers about treatments for symptoms and health conditions, we are troubled that customers could be directed to purchase dietary supplements, which have not been reviewed by the FDA or approved to be marketed like drugs.

There are serious questions about whether dietary supplements actually improve the health of the individuals who take them -- and, in some cases, reports have linked them to harmful outcomes.

Say Aaah...

In their letter, the senators ask Rite Aid to ease their concerns by answering a half dozen or so questions on topics that range from the training ambassadors receive in handling customers' questions seeking medical advice to whether these ambassadors mostly direct consumers to dietary supplements as health aids.

Rite Aid, however, contends that its patient safety is always a priority and that the role of its wellness ambassadors is to serve as liaisons to pharmacists, locate products and serve as store greeters.

"Our ambassadors do not give counseling or advice," says Ashley Flower, a Rite Aid spokeswoman. "If patients have questions, like how a product may interact with another, they are referred to a pharmacist."

She added that the wellness ambassadors are often walking throughout the store, rather than standing near the wellness stations, which are used to hold brochures and other resources. The wellness station, Flower notes, is often located in the center of the store, but depending on space, could be set up near the pharmacy.

Rite Aid's Reputation

With stores like Walmart (WMT) encroaching on its prescription business, Rite Aid is right to try to step up its game in differentiating itself from competitors. Unfortunately, this attempt is getting the wrong kind of attention. (Several websites are already posting various Rite Aid complaints.)

When consumer health is on the line, you can't afford to make any customer relations missteps. Maybe Rite Aid should take a cue from Walmart: The stores have greeters, but they're not wearing white coats.

Motley Fool contributor Dawn Kawamoto does not own any stock in the companies listed. The Motley Fool owns shares of Walmart. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of and creating a diagonal call position in Walmart.

Reclusive Heiress Leaves Behind 5 Homes Worth $180 Million

When Huguette Clark died in spring 2011, she left behind a massive fortune, two conflicting wills, the mysterious aura of recluse, and some of New York City's choicest real estate.

Now the fates of three apartments owned by the famed philanthropist, who was last photographed more than 80 years ago, are set to be settled: The residences are on sale for $55 million.

As perhaps befits the homes of a noted recluse, the apartments are said to be frozen in time, stuck somewhere around the Gilded Age and therefore in need of "significant work," according to the Daily Mail. Located at 907 Fifth Avenue, they include a total of 42 rooms and take up 17,000 square feet.

 Two of them together comprise the building's eighth floor, while the third occupies half of the 12th and top floors.

Also among Clark's assets are a $100 million estate on the Pacific Coast in Santa Barbara, Calif., and a $24 million country house in New Canaan, Conn.

Clark's New York properties in the prewar limestone building are described in the listing brokers' description as "a diamond in the rough" -- presumably a polite reference to their eccentric provenance and need of renovation. They command views of Central Park, in particular the sailboat pond known as the Conservatory Water, near the statute of Alice in Wonderland.

The New York Post reports that at the time of Clark's death, "real estate insiders gushed that her apartments ... could be worth $100 million." But the property is now appraised at $45 million to $60 million, since the apartments are unconnected and the building's co-op board has not yet decided whether the two eighth-floor flats can be combined.

Brokers told the Post these two units could command a total of $20 million to $35 million if sold unjoined; combined, they'd be worth more.

Clark, who was born in Paris in 1906, was the second daughter of former U.S. Sen. William A. Clark, a Montana businessman involved in mining and railroads. Following his retirement, the family moved to a Fifth Avenue mansion that boasted 121 rooms.

Huguette moved with her mother to 907 Fifth Avenue after the death of her father in 1925; they occupied the 12th floor, which had been marketed as "the finest apartment in the world." She was involved in music and art -- her mother gave her a Stradivarius violin for her birthday, and she exhibited seven paintings at Washington, D.C.'s Corcoran Gallery of Art in 1929 -- but grew increasingly suspicious that others, even relatives, were after her money. She is said to have lived in hospitals since leaving 907 Fifth Avenue in an ambulance in 1988.

Faatima Evans, Extreme Couponer, Says Saving Is "Like An Orgasm"

For Detroit's Faatima Evans, shopping with coupons is like having sex.

"When you get to the checkout and everything is free or nearly free," said Evans, 34, "it's like an orgasm."

A self-proclaimed coupon addict, Evans began scouring for deals in 2009, when an illness prevented her from working her day job as a tax adviser. With only her husband, a Greyhound bus driver, to bring home a paycheck, Evans urgently needed to cut costs. After about three months of experimenting, she was nailing deals.

By September 2011, Evans went public with her couponing habits, earning a profile on TLC's reality show, "Extreme Couponing" after she sent the show a video of her bringing a $900 grocery bill down to $100. Evans, who was not paid to go on the show, said she didn't think anything would come of her submission. "I'm an ordinary person," she said about her thinking back then.

But Evans' spending habits are anything but ordinary: On her public Facebook page, The Coupon Addict, Evans shows off what appears to be a small convenience store in her basement: Dozens of jugs of laundry detergent, piles of razor blades, bars of soap, scores of bottles of hot sauce, hundreds of bottles of water and a large stash of Hamburger Helper and other packaged convenience foods. (See photos below.)

Evans hardly ever lays out cash, she said. "I always stock up when they're free or nearly free," she said. She saves $1 per gallon of gas by using her supermarket's loyal shopper card, she said. The basics? "Milk -- I would use my store rewards so can get it free or dirt cheap," she said. "Cereal -- I have a stockpile of as well, and it was all free."

"I'm not a hoarder at all," Evans said. "My slogan is, An extreme couponer is an extreme giver." She sends some items to her niece living in London and donates excess items to local food pantries.

These days, Evans spends less time clipping and shopping for herself. She says couponing now occupies only three hours of her day, and most of her time is spent sharing deals via her website and Facebook page.
But when she was first starting out, Evans would spend 40 hours a week looking for deals.

Evans would spend more than 10 hours a week shopping. When a store was out of something advertised in a coupon, she would return again and again until the inventory turned over and shelves were restocked with discounted goods.

She has used coupons to help pay for everything from beauty products to a trip to Hawaii, Evan said.

"Extreme Couponing," which premiered in December 2010 and will begin airing a third season this May, profiles people who competitively hunt deals to score the best discounts. The show has garnered criticism for encouraging shoppers to hoard items, often buying more than they need and wiping out stores' inventories.

The New York Times journalist Virginia Heffernan described the show as a "deceptively simple look at the complex drama of American spending and the paradoxes of parsimony."

Couponing, of course, is nothing new. But today, the Internet makes it simple for companies to disseminate coupons and encourages coupon clippers to share deals with one another. On top of that, the recent recession resulted in people becoming more thrifty.

 According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of coupons used in 2009 at the peak of the recession grew 27 percent to 3.3 billion from the year prior.

Today, a trend toward buying in excess and using coupons has caused some retailers to crack down. Stores such as Rite Aid, Target and Publix have reconsidered their coupon policies so as to restrict the number of items that can be bought on discount per visit.

Evans says she's less aggressive when she is shopping at small businesses, because she says these shops have families to support and bills to pay.
Her advice to coupon newbies? "Do not be afraid to ask about coupons, deals or rebates. You'll never know until you ask!"
Also, it takes time to master the art of couponing, she says.
"Some people just run out because of what they see on ["Extreme Couponing"] she says. "If you want to start learning how to coupon, first thing you need to do is learn about coupon policies."

 

Amanda Clayton, Michigan Lottery Winner, Using Food Stamps Despite $1 Million Jackpot (VIDEO)

Even with an extra million or two, it seems that some lottery winners are still trying to finding ways to save money -- on the government's dime.

Amanda Clayton of Lincoln Park, Michigan won a lottery jackpot worth $1 million, but a local TV news station recently discovered that despite her winnings, she's still using a state-sponsored welfare card to buy $200 of food every month,  

The Daily Mail reports. As a local reporter points out, those tax dollars could go a long way for residents in a state particularly hard-hit by the recession, but Clayton doesn't seem to see it that way, even though she recently purchased both a new house and a new car with her prize money.

"I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay," she told local news WDIV. "I have two houses. I'm still struggling."

Turns out Clayton isn't the only one with a big lottery win dipping into the government's coffers. In May 2011, Leroy Fick, also of Michigan, faced criticism for continuing to buy food on the taxpayers' dime after he won a $2 million jackpot, NBC25 reports. Fick said it's not his fault he can still use government benefits, despite his huge win, instead, the "state has got a problem with its laws."

But that problem may soon be solved. Lawmakers in the state's House of Representatives voted to approve legislation that would include lottery earnings when determining residents' income, and their eligiblity for food benefits, CBS Detroit reports.

 The state is adopting stricter guidelines in general for determining who is eligible for benefits, cutting food stamps for 30,000 college students last year, and limiting the amount of time residents can receive cash from the state.

Instead of taking state money, some jackpot winners are giving away part of their prize. Last December, three money managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, who won $254 million Powerball, established a charitable trust that has already donated $1 million to five separate charities that support veterans and military members. The group says they plan on making more donations in the future.

Powerball Jackpot: Louise White, 81-Year-Old Woman, Wins $336.4M, Slept With Ticket In Bible

CRANSTON, R.I. -- An 81-year-old woman from Newport won last month's $336.4 million Powerball jackpot, sleeping with the winning ticket in her Bible before coming forward to claim the sixth-largest U.S. prize on Tuesday, a family representative said.

At a news conference at state lottery headquarters in Cranston, Louise White said little, calling herself "very happy" and "very proud."

"This will make my family very happy. We are truly blessed," White said.

Her attorneys said she was a regular lottery player who bought the winning ticket at a Stop & Shop supermarket in Newport where she had stopped for rainbow sherbet, her son's favorite flavor. The ticket is being claimed in the name of the Rainbow Sherbert Trust.

White kept the winning ticket in a Bible after she realized she won and later locked it up in a safe-deposit box.

The winning ticket was among three tickets with random numbers purchased on a $9 wager and was bought on the night of the Feb. 11 drawing, officials said.

"It was unbelievable," White said in a statement released Tuesday by her attorneys. "None of us can believe it yet. We're excited, very blessed and will determine in the coming months how we'll spend the money but we know we'll always have rainbow sherbert."

White said she wrote down the numbers when they were read on television after the drawing, but missed a few – so she waited 10 minutes to hear them again. She didn't check her ticket immediately.

When she did, each of the numbers was the same. "Is anybody awake – I want you to come look at something," she yelled.

Not believing she was the winner, she said, she checked the numbers online. Still the same.

"We still didn't believe it, so we turned off the computer and turned it back on and went back to the website and my numbers were still there," White said in the statement.

"We hugged each other and jumped up and down screaming!! ... We hid the ticket in the Bible and went for breakfast on Sunday since we couldn't do anything with it."

White is the mother of LeRoy White, a well-known Newport musician, said Barbara Martocci, a family spokeswoman. Louise White declined to comment through Martocci.

White's lawyers did not offer specifics about how she plans to spend her fortune, but said "charity begins at home."

"I'm sure she'll be taking care of her family," attorney Gregory F. Fater said.

William Barber Jr., 16, who says he's a cashier at Stop & Shop, recalled seeing White at a supermarket cash register on the day she purchased the winning ticket.

"It's kind of inspiring," said Barber, who lives in the same neighborhood where LeRoy White resides in a modest home with a front-yard garden.

Louise White will take a lump sum payment of $210 million, the highest ever for Powerball, officials said. The jackpot was the third largest in Powerball history and the largest ever won in Rhode Island, officials said.

The top lottery jackpot in U.S. history was a $390 million Mega Millions prize won in March 2007.

The Powerball jackpot win is the first since the ticket price increased from $1 to $2 in January. Rising sales nearly doubled the jackpot from $173.5 million on Feb. 1.

The Power Play option, which White selected, costs an extra $1 per ticket.
There is no bonus for the supermarket for selling the winning ticket. Instead of paying out a bonus, Powerball retailers in Rhode Island get eight cents on the dollar for every ticket sold.

Rhode Island will get about $14.7 million in taxes on the prize in a lump-sum payment, lottery officials said Tuesday.

Powerball is played in 42 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The chance of matching all five numbers and the Powerball is about 1 in 175 million.

David Englett Fined For Not Cutting Grass Of His Foreclosed Home

Mowing the lawn may be an awful chore, but imagine having to pay a fine for not cutting the grass of a house from which you were evicted.


David Englett of Crowley, Texas is being charged after he didn't pay a series of Arlington city fines for, among other things, not mowing the lawn of a home he had already lost to foreclosure, local news CBS 11 reports (h/t The Consumerist).

Englett had also been fined for owning an alarm without the necessary permit and for a fence in bad shape.
Although it's possible Englett isn't responsible for the infractions, don't be surprised the city of Arlington is giving it a try.

 "You have to remember cities are all about grabbing money from you," CBS 11's legal advisor Jerry Loftin said . "They try anyway they can."

Property maintenance and associated fines have become a complicated legal area during the foreclosure crisis. Millions of homes have been abandoned at a time when cash-strapped cities have come to see fees as an attractive way to close budget gaps.

 Maintaining abandoned properties is also of importance for any city that hopes to make the best of struggling housing market.

In New York City, for example, banks have reclaimed some 2,000 homes with property violations, amounting to 3,700 fines, according to a survey by state Senator Jeff Klein (D-Bronx), cited by the New York Daily News. In hundreds of cases, those banks have refused to pay up.

 Deutsche Bank is the greatest offender, owning 211 properties with open fines. U.S. Bank, meanwhile, reportedly has yet to pay some $40,000 worth of fines to the city, according to the same report.

It's not just New York. Towns across the country are getting increasingly serious about property maintenance violations.

 In the past two weeks alone, the Connecticut towns of Stonington and Woodbury have proposed blight ordinances in addition to Bellows Falls, Vermont. Meanwhile, the town of Rocky Hill, Rhode Island, is considering increasing the severity of the blight ordinance violations it already has in place.

Even at the federal level, the cost of owning real estate is getting higher. In 2010, the government paid $30.7 billion to maintain the 3.3 billion square feet of property it owns, up from $29.2 billion in 2009, according to a recent report from the General Services Administration, the Federal Times reports.

House of the Day: David Hyde Pierce's Spanish Palace

It's a home that even the obsessively picky Dr. Niles Crane would love.

Which is a shame, because it appears that his off-screen self, the Emmy Award-winning actor David Hyde Pierce, is over it.

AOL Real Estate has learned that Pierce has just listed his exquisite, Spanish Colonial-style mansion in Los Angeles for $7.5 million. Granted, Pierce has owned the house for nine years (a lifetime in the fickle world of Hollywood real estate), but if that house were ours, we'd never want to leave.

With 1920s-Spanish features like a grand rotunda entrance, a stunning baronial fireplace, and a gorgeous spiral staircase rising to a stained glass ceiling, the home is anything but your typical California McMansion.

The home is decked out in warm, earthy tones and each room is beautifully illuminated by chandeliers or other artful fixtures.

NASCAR wise to keep 'General Lee' in park Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nascar/story/2012-02-19/nascar-wise-to-keep-general-lee-in-park?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl8%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D137010#ixzz1mzcyDB5U

Hold your fire, flag wavers.

NASCAR is just taking care of business. Let’s face it, alienating the majority of American consumers is no way to make money. The fact it’s also the right thing to do is beside today’s point.

Not surprising, a lot of people aren’t seeing it that way. To them, banning General Lee is just another case of NASCAR spitting on its heritage.

General Lee, you may recall, was probably the finest actor on the '80s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard. Pro golfer Bubba Watson bought the 1969 Dodge Charger for $110,000.

He was supposed to drive it on the parade lap before the Subway Fresh Fit 500. The problem is that General Lee has a big rebel flag painted on its roof.

“The image of the Confederate flag is not something that should play an official role in our sport as we continue to reach out to new fans and make NASCAR more inclusive,” spokesman David Higdon said.

To which the flag-wavers say, well, they can barely talk at the moment.
“It makes me want to vomit.”

So read one of the many Internet comments. Based on my unscientific survey they are running about 102.7 percent against the decision. More samples:

“This isn’t America. It’s Communist Russia.”
“Just one more example of NASCAR abandoning its traditional fans. Bill France Sr. is rolling over in his grave.”

A former U.S. congressman has even weighed in.

“It is a disgraceful and gratuitous insult to a lot of very decent people. It is prejudicial toward those good-hearted folks, who, like Uncle Jesse Duke, are in fact, ‘never meaning’ no harm.’ ”

So said former Georgia representative Ben Jones. He’s better known as ace mechanic “Cooter” Davenport on The Dukes of Hazzard, so he’s not exactly emotionally detached.

When it comes to the rebel flag, few people are. We’re not going to settle the Heritage-vs.-Hate debate here, though feel free to bombard us with your views on what a great guy Robert E. Lee was.

Heck, you don’t have to convince me. I graduated from Robert E. Lee High. My great-great-grandfather fought for the South. I honor his courage and know the Civil War was more complex than anti-flag groups care to ponder.

But the bottom line is that battle is over. Just ask Johnny Rebel at Ole Miss or anyone who has visited the South Carolina State House.

 Waving the flag doesn’t stamp you a racist, but it has become a symbol of intolerance and slavery to millions of people.

Why insult them?

That’s NASCAR’s calculation, and Big Bill France was nothing if not a good calculator. He took a ragtag bunch of moonshiners and started a multibillion dollar enterprise.

Now his grandson, Brian, is running the business. Business hasn’t kept booming the past few years, which critics say proves NASCAR’s attempts at “inclusiveness” have backfired.

I think it’s more because of the economy, boring races and a business hitting its growth ceiling. Despite all that, International Speedway Corp.

 profits were up 4.5 percent last year. And 71 percent of that stock is owned by Big Bill’s heirs.
I doubt profits would have improved if NASCAR went back to the good ol' boy days. If you want a good chuckle, check out this video of the 1968 Southern 500.

You have to admire how an obviously spent Cale Yarbrough found the strength to carry the rebel flag on his victory lap.

 And how some flunkie held it as a backdrop as Yarbrough and Miss Southern 500 sat on the roof posing for pictures.

That didn’t bother too many people back then. Neither did all-white college football teams.
But imagine a Southern 500 replay at the upcoming Daytona 500.

 Talk about marketing suicide. The CEOs of every NASCAR sponsor would storm France’s skybox and throw him off the roof.

But wait, you say. General Lee was just a mechanical character on a goofy TV show.

“Obviously, I don’t stand for the Confederate flag,” Watson said. “The Confederate flag was not used (in the show) for what people see it as today.”

He’s right, but a whole lot of people would not get the distinction. Uncle Duke and Cooter should accept that this ain’t 1968 anymore.

NASCAR values your business. But if it has to choose between you and appealing to the anti-flag demographic, visit Big Bill France’s grave.

That noise is not a rebel rolling over.

It’s the sound of a businessman nodding his head in approval.

Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought

In last year's Trustees Report, the Social Security Administration warned that the program's trust fund was likely to run out of money in 2036, leading to deep cuts in benefits.

 If that weren't bad enough for anyone expecting to be alive then, a more recent projection from the Congressional Budget Office paints a much worse picture.

This year's CBO report forecasts that by the end of this decade, the combined Social Security Old Age and Disability Trust Funds will be about $800 billion smaller than last year's SSA projections.

That's a very substantial drop -- and a sign that this year's Trustees Report will likely bring another downward revision to the year it expects those Trust Funds to dry up and benefits to be cut.

What a Difference a Year Makes

The table below shows that widening chasm between last year's SSA projections and this year's CBO projection:

Year	2011 Social Security Trustee's Report, Intermediate Projections (in billions)	2012 Congressional Budget Office Baseline Projections (in billions)	Difference (in billions)
2011	$2,678	$2,654	($24)
2012	$2,773	$2,709	($64)
2013	$2,874	$2,743	($131)
2014	$2,984	$2,762	($222)
2015	$3,096	$2,776	($320)
2016	$3,210	$2,791	($419)
2017	$3,322	$2,807	($515)
2018	$3,431	$2,818	($613)
2019	$3,526	$2,817	($709)
2020	$3,599	$2,802	($797)

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration.

Sure, they're different agencies and may have different methods behind their projections. But last January's CBO numbers put the combined Trust Fund balances at $3,409 billion in 2020 -- much closer to what the SSA was projecting. That suggests that when the 2012 Trustees Report comes out, its own projections will probably be revised downward as well -- closer to the CBO numbers.

A downward revision wouldn't be anything new for the Social Security Administration. Check out the trend over the past five years:

Trustee Report Year	Estimated "Run Dry" Date
2011	2036
2010	2037
2009	2037
2008	2041
2007	2041

Source: Social Security Administration.

With several hundred billion in projected 2020 dollars vanishing in less than a year, it wouldn't be surprising to see the 2012 Trustees Report lopping another year or two off the projected run-out-of-cash date. And remember, when the Trust Fund runs out of cash, benefit payments are expected to fall, too.

Time is running out

If you're expecting to retire and are planning to rely significantly on Social Security, this is bad news indeed. Quite simply, it means time is becoming your enemy on both sides.

 

 On one side, you're a year closer to your anticipated retirement date. On the other side, the day you can no longer count on your full anticipated Social Security benefit keeps getting pulled closer, too.

 

 Put the two together, and the message gets crystal clear: Save more for your own retirement, or face a scary -- and rapidly approaching -- future.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that Social Security's 2012 projection moves the Trust Fund expiration date closer by two years to 2034. That's still 22 years away -- enough time to do something about it, but approaching the point where it gets significantly tougher to catch up.

As of January 2012, the average Social Security check for a retired worker was around $1,229 per month. When the Trust Fund is gone, that amount is expected to fall by about a quarter.

 

 That works out to a shortfall of around $307.25 per month. Using what's known as the 4% rule, covering that gap from your own investments will require $92,175 in additional savings.

 

 The table below shows how much you'd need to save each month to reach that number, depending on how many years head start you get and what rate of return you achieve:

Years to Go	10% Annual Return	8% Annual Return	6% Annual Return	4% Annual Return	2% Annual Return
24	$77.48	$106.36	$143.77	$191.13	$249.62
22	$96.70	$128.59	$168.75	$218.31	$278.24
20	$121.38	$156.49	$199.50	$251.31	$312.67
15	$222.39	$266.37	$316.95	$374.56	$439.53
10	$449.97	$503.84	$562.46	$625.98	$694.51
5	$1,190.32	$1,254.48	$1,321.13	$1,390.29	$1,462.00

Source: Author's calculations.

The bottom line is simple: Social Security's Trust Fund is on borrowed time. You still have the opportunity to save enough to make up for what you'll be missing when it's gone, but you need to get started on it now, or it'll soon become an impossibly high hurdle to clear.