济南医院 泌尿外科(济南男性性疾病的检查) (今日更新中)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it sought to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation.A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the Trump administration violated federal law when it tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program without adequately explaining why. The ruling overturns a lower court ruling a judge in Maryland made last year, which Trump had previously praised via Twitter.Friday's ruling will not have any immediate effect as other federal courts have already ordered that DACA be kept in place.The 4th Circuit ruling said the Department of Homeland Security did not "adequately account" for how ending DACA program would affect the hundreds of thousands of young people who "structured their lives" around the program."We recognize the struggle is not over and there are more battles to fight in the Supreme Court on this road to justice, but our families are emboldened by knowing that they are on the right side of history," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa de Maryland, the lead plaintiff in the case.Trump and his Justice Department have argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. The Justice Department declined to comment.Preserving DACA is a top Democratic priority, but discussions between Trump and Democrats on the issue have gone nowhere.Trump's latest immigration plan, unveiled Thursday, does not address what to do about the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that "every single time that we have put forward or anyone else has put forward any type of immigration plan that has included DACA it's failed."DACA's fate could be decided by the Supreme Court, which is weighing the Trump administration's appeals of other federal court rulings.The justices have set no date to take action.If the high court decides it wants to hear the appeals, arguments would not take place before the fall. That means a decision is not expected until 2020, which could come in the thick of next year's presidential contest.___Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report. 2362

Rising prices and plummeting listings — not to mention a global pandemic, record unemployment and recession — didn’t keep first-time home buyers from the market in the second quarter of 2020.Ordinarily, in April, as the second quarter of the year begins, homebuying season is well underway, and inventory and prices are both rising toward a summer peak. But the second quarter of 2020 was unusual, to say the least.Across the nation and among the most populous metropolitan areas, prices increased modestly in the second quarter and inventory became even more constrained in an already sparse market. Homeowners who’d been planning to sell reconsidered — though listings ticked up slightly in April, they fell sharply in May and June — and people who’d been thinking of buying, at a minimum, took a beat. But real estate professionals scrambled to implement virtual tours and finalize home purchases in parking lots, and market participants, particularly economically secure buyers, cautiously came out of hiding.Lured in part by record low mortgage rates, first-time home buyers made up 35% of existing home sales in June, according to the National Association of Realtors, a higher share than in the past several years. For first-timers who have stability in the COVID-19 economy, and the wherewithal to stomach a highly competitive market, buying can still make sense.In this quarterly report, we analyze median incomes in the first-time home buyer age range (25-44) compared with listing prices among the 50 most populous metro areas to come up with an affordability ratio. Budgeting for a home that costs roughly three times your annual income (an affordability ratio of 3.0) has been a rule of thumb for years, but first-time buyers often have to stretch beyond this to account for higher prices in metro areas and their lower incomes compared with repeat buyers. By weighing the affordability ratio versus home availability in the largest metro areas, we can get an idea of the conditions first-time buyers are facing when they set out to become homeowners.By looking at both quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year changes, we can get a better picture of the effects of the COVID-19 economy on this year’s homebuying market. The former can provide insight into chronological market responses to the pandemic — our first-quarter affordability report captured data only through March, just the beginning of 2020’s atypical spring season. The latter can show how this year’s second quarter contrasts with similar periods in relatively normal times.Affordability down overallHouses got slightly more out of reach for first-time home buyers in April through June, rising nationally from 4.5 times first-time home buyer income in the first quarter to 4.7 times in the second, and among the 50 largest metros from 5.1 to 5.2 times first-time buyer income. This trend is expected at this time of year. Home prices rise as the housing market heats up in the late spring and summer, but incomes don’t rise in a similar seasonal fashion. If anything, we might’ve expected a more dramatic change, but economic uncertainty on the part of sellers could have kept steeper list price increases at bay.Nine of the 50 metros analyzed bucked this trend and saw affordability improve, but barely, sometimes only by a fraction of a percent.The five most affordable metros for first-time home buyers in the second quarter include Pittsburgh (homes listed at 3.1 times first-time buyer income), St. Louis (3.4), Cleveland (3.5), Hartford, Connecticut (3.5), and Buffalo, New York (3.6). The least affordable, all in California, include Los Angeles, topping the list for the second quarter in a row, with homes listed at 12 times first-time buyer income; San Diego (9.0); San Jose (8.2); San Francisco (7.6); and Sacramento (6.6).First-time buyer guidance: Homes get less affordable in late spring to early summer, and in this regard, the second quarter of 2020 is no different. First-time buyers who are economically secure may be able to make up for the rise in home prices by qualifying for record low mortgage rates. For example, the monthly payment on a 0,000 mortgage at 4.1% interest — roughly the average rate a year ago — is ,160 per month, with 7,483 in interest over the 30-year life of the loan. However, at today’s rate of 3.1%, you’d pay ,025 per month and 8,942 in interest over the life of the loan — nearly ,000 in savings, total, and a 5 monthly break on your payment. Use a mortgage calculator to see what the difference in rates means for your budget.Unseasonal scarcity in the second quarterEven in years when supply is limited, an influx of homes hits the market during the spring homebuying season. Nationally, inventory grew 10% from the first to the second quarter of 2018, and 6% during that period last year. But in 2020, nationwide inventory dipped, albeit slightly, by about 2% quarter-over-quarter.Half of the largest metros in the country saw a decrease in average active listings from Q1 to Q2, with the largest quarter-over-quarter declines in Cleveland (-17%), Louisville, Kentucky (-14%), and Memphis, Tennessee (-14%). However, other large metros saw remarkable increases: San Jose (+62%), Denver (+47%) and San Francisco (+39%), for example. These dramatic climbs helped push the average quarter-over-quarter change among the largest 50 metros to +4%.Stepping back to look at year-over-year changes and how the supply of homes changed from Q2 2019, we found inventory dropped 23% among the 50 largest metros, on average, with 21 metros witnessing a decrease in available homes of 25% or more. Active listings in Las Vegas decreased 8%, the smallest quarterly drop of any metros analyzed and the only one of less than 10%.We’ve been in a strong seller’s market for some time now, as the supply of homes hasn’t kept pace with demand. Having fewer homes hitting the market during the first months of the pandemic only stood to worsen the situation. A highly competitive market has grown even more so, and buyers without room to negotiate could be priced out entirely.First-time buyer guidance: If you’re at all uncertain about your economic security this year and buying would mean an increase in overall housing costs or leave you with no source of emergency funds, you may want to postpone your first home purchase. The low supply of homes means you’re less likely to find a home that checks all the boxes on your wish list. A loss of income, a bout of poor health or caring for a sick loved one could be overwhelming on top of a down payment, closing costs and the expenses associated with moving.Home prices rise, as expectedWe expect prices to rise as the housing market heats up, and if 2020 is sticking to the script in any way, this is it. From the first quarter to the second, national median list prices grew 7% in 2018 and 8% in 2019. This year, they grew 7% nationally, and slightly less, 5%, on average, among the largest metros, quarter-over-quarter.Year-over-year growth was similar, rising about 3%, on average, among the 50 largest metros, after adjusting for inflation.This overall relatively unremarkable growth in prices is one silver lining for first-time buyers. Having a dramatic shortage of homes for sale could drive prices up, but it doesn’t appear that sellers are listing their homes disproportionately higher than last quarter or than at this time last year. That said, list prices are only part of the story, and there’s little doubt that the lack of supply is driving hard bargaining in the negotiation process.First-time buyer guidance: The price you see on a listing doesn’t tell the whole story. If you’re shopping in a seller’s market, be ready to act fast with an offer and compete with other buyers. You may end up paying more than list price, so shopping for homes listed under your max budget will give you a little more wiggle room if you find yourself in a bidding war.Metro spotlight: Cincinnati, Cleveland and ColumbusOhio has three metro areas in our analysis. It was also among the first states to begin canceling large events, declare a state of emergency and issue statewide restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19. These factors may have played a role in changes in the local housing markets.Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus were some of the more affordable populous metros in the second quarter, with home prices averaging 4.7, 3.5 and 4.5 times the median first-time home buyer income, respectively. Even so, all three showed rising prices compared with the same period last year. Median home prices in Cincinnati rose 12%, the third-highest increase of all metros analyzed.But the big story in these Ohio metros is a lack of availability. Though inventory among all metros analyzed fell 23%, on average, compared with last year, it fell 34% in Cincinnati, 33% in Cleveland and 25% in Columbus.When comparing this quarter’s listed homes with last quarter’s, we find a similarly dramatic decrease. Cleveland saw the largest quarter-over-quarter dip in active listings among all metros analyzed: inventory fell 17% from the first quarter. Active listings fell 10% in Cincinnati and 7% in Columbus at the time of year when most markets would typically be flooded with home listings.The one thing saving buyers from being completely locked out of homeownership: affordability. So while finding a home will prove tricky due to a lack of inventory, homes on the market are more likely to be within budget for first-time buyers.Analysis methodology available in the original article, published at NerdWallet.More From NerdWalletMortgage Outlook: A Light Lift to September RatesSmart Money Podcast: Lower Mortgage Rates, and Moving During a PandemicMortgage Outlook: Recession Presses Down on August RatesElizabeth Renter is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: elizabeth@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @elizabethrenter. 9901

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Twenty-three states have sued to stop the Trump administration from revoking California's authority to set emission standards for cars and trucks.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the lawsuit filed Friday, along with Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board.The Trump administration on Thursday revoked California's authority to set its own auto emission standards. The state has had that power for decades under a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.The lawsuit argues that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver.Becerra says the Trump administration's action fails to respect states' authority to protect public health.Four automakers have said they would voluntarily follow California's standards. 842

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's leaders are getting a raise.A state commission voted Friday to increase Governor Gavin Newsom's salary from 2,000 to around 0,000 in December.The Citizens Compensation Commission also agreed to give a 4% raise to legislators and other state elected officials, such as the lieutenant governor and treasurer.Chairman Tom Dalzell cited the health of the state's economy and California's budget surplus for the move."California remains high," he said of pay for state officials. "So is our cost of living."Newsom will not be the highest-paid governor, however. While America's most populous state currently has the highest-earning chief executive, the New York Legislature voted this year to pay Gov. Andrew Cuomo a salary of 5,000 in 2020 and 0,000 in 2021.But the governor will still earn far more than California's median income, which is around ,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.This will mark the seventh year in a row California's governor has gotten a raise and Newsom's pay will near a previous peak for the job of around 2,000.Rank-and-file members of the 120-seat Legislature earn around 0,000, still below a past peak of around 6,000. The lieutenant governor is paid around 1,000, the attorney general around 5,000 and the controller and treasurer around 1,000.Created in 1990 following a statewide vote, the commission is appointed by the governor and usually meets once a year to set the salaries as well as benefits for California's elected officers. The Legislature was previously responsible for setting the salaries of state elected officials. 1644

来源：资阳报