濮阳东方医院看男科技术值得放心濮阳东方看妇科评价很不错,濮阳东方专业吗,濮阳东方医院男科咨询免费,濮阳东方医院割包皮价格标准,濮阳东方看妇科评价高,濮阳东方医院治早泄评价很好,濮阳东方医院妇科很正规

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says it’s sticking with its July 15 deadline for Americans to file and pay their federal taxes.The original filing deadline and payment due date for 2019 was postponed from April 15 to July 15 due to the coronavirus pandemic.However, the IRS says taxpayers who are unable to meet the July 15 deadline can request an automatic extension of time to file until Oct. 15. You can file for an extension here.Those filing for an extension must do so by July 15. The IRS says the extension provides additional time to file a tax return, but it’s not an extension to pay any taxes due.The IRS urges people who owe taxes, even if they have a filing extension, to carefully review their situation and pay what they can by July 15 to avoid penalties and interest.“The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative.”While the deadline for federal taxes remains on April 15, states may have different deadlines for their taxes. A list of state tax division websites is available through the Federation of Tax Administrators.Click here for more information from the IRS, including payment options. 1442

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Monday, 17 states and the District of Columbia announced they are suing the Trump administration over the president’s plan to revoke foreign student visas if they only take online classes.Along with D.C., the lawsuit was filed by these states: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. California has also filed a similar lawsuit.Last week, ICE announced international students would have to return home or risk deportation if their universities switch to online-only courses come fall and they cannot find alternative plans. “It’s really hard and really painful,” said Maha AlHamoud, an incoming senior from Saudi Arabia at the University of Washington in Seattle. "No one should have to really make a choice between their health and their education.” At 17%, the University of Washington has one of the highest percentages of the more than 1 million international students in the United States. In 2018, the Institute of International Education estimated they contributed more than billion to the U.S. economy. "This has thrown into a little bit of chaos the reopening plans that higher education institutions had for the fall,” said Theresa Brown, Director of Immigration and Cross Border Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “We could lose a generation of students who come to the U.S. and spend money to support their education, which supports the education of Americans in many instances.” ICE has always required international students take in-person classes if they hope to get a visa. What’s unprecedented in this case, says Brown, is the short time students have to make other arrangements. She says they could apply to other schools that have in-person courses, but that is assuming those universities are welcoming students and their credits would transfer. They could go to other countries like Canada, but that requires starting life over in a country they are not accustomed to.Brown adds foreign-exchange students could also apply to have their temporary status in the United States change, but that requires time, particularly since U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services intend to furlough 70% of its workforce next month. “This could have long-standing implications,” said Brown. “If you are a foreign national looking where to pursue your education, and you’re looking at the U.S. maybe you think about it again. Maybe you rethink the U.S. is really where you want to be when all these changes come very quickly.” “We really want the institutions that we’ve contributed so much to to protect us,” added AlHamoud. For AlHamoud, the decision on what to do next is particularly tough. During her freshman year, she was diagnosed with a form of blood cancer. It means her decision now is guided as much by her future as it is her health. “I was fighting for my life away from my family and friends,” she said. “But I made that sacrifice for my education hoping I would never have to make that choice again. So now, to be forced into a situation where I have to risk my health to attend my classes seems unfair.” One more caveat, according to Brown, is the ability for these students to go back to their home country if they cannot find a viable alternative. Many, she says, will not accept their own nationals because they have closed off their borders due to the pandemic. 3489

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, revealed Wednesday that he's the anonymous senior Trump administration official who wrote a scathing book last year that criticizes the president."Donald Trump is a man without character. It’s why I wrote “A Warning”...and it’s why me & my colleagues have spoken out against him (in our own names) for months," Taylor announced on Twitter. "It’s time for everyone to step out of the shadows."Read Taylor's full statement here.Taylor's anonymously written book “A Warning” paints a chilling portrait of President Donald Trump as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation he was elected to lead, The Washington Post reports.The book’s description on Amazon says it was meant to motivate readers to “consider how we judge our nation's leaders, and illuminate the consequences of re-electing a commander in chief unfit for the role.”The book was published in November 2019, more than a year after The New York Times published a bombshell op-ed essay by the same anonymous author.In the op-ed, the author claimed to be among a group of people in the White House who were working to keep Trump’s reckless impulses in check for the good of the country.As “part of the resistance inside the Trump administration,” the article’s author said the group believed Trump acts in a manner that is “detrimental to the health of our democracy” and that they vowed to do what they can to “preserve our democratic institutions.”The book and article have been criticized by the president and members of his administration. It also sparked a long guessing game in Washington to figure out who the author was.The Times reports that Taylor resigned from DHS in June 2019 and then went public with his criticism of Trump this past summer. He has since endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president. 1890

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump thinks it's a good idea if daylight saving time becomes permanent.A federal law specifies that daylight time applies from 2 a.m. on the second Sunday of March until 2 a.m. on the first Sunday of November in areas that do not specifically exempt themselves. More than two dozen states are considering measures to avoid the twice-yearly clock change.Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Vern Buchanan, both of Florida, introduced measures last week to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide. While federal law allows states to opt into standard time permanently — which Hawaii and Arizona have done — the reverse is prohibited and requires congressional action.Trump tweeted Monday that making daylight saving time permanent is "O.K. with me!" 787

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration's proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.The excerpts also show the administration plans to challenge California's long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021 through 2026 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.RELATED: California sues over plan to scrap car emission standardsThe Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration in May.Overall, "improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward" in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don't have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.RELATED: EPA moves to weaken Obama-era fuel efficiency standardsAt the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said he's doubtful about the administration's estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022. "They're making assumptions about stuff that may or may not be the same," he said.Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn't hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.RELATED: President Trump, California clash over key issues"Allow me to be skeptical," said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that's a stretch."Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates also are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, high-strength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It's engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. "You want to be in the newer vehicle," he said.RELATED: Nearly every governor with ocean coastline opposes Trump's drilling proposalAn April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people ,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to ,100 and even as high as ,700 by 2025.Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more due to higher mileage is "tiny and maybe even negligible."Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn't change through 2026.California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its chronic smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California's standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country's new-vehicle market.Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters at EPA headquarters last week, "I think we need to go where the technology takes us" on fuel standards.Wheeler did not elaborate. Agency spokespeople did not respond when asked specifically if the EPA acting chief was making the case that modern cars could be both fuel efficient and safe.Wheeler also spoke out for what he called "a 50-state solution" that would keep the U.S car and truck market from splitting between two different mileage standards.The Department of Transportation said in a statement that the final fuel economy standards would be based on sound science. The department cautioned that a draft doesn't capture the whole picture of the proposed regulation.The draft said a 2012 analysis of fuel economy standards under the Obama administration deliberately limited the amount of mass reduction necessary under the standards. This was done "in order to avoid the appearance of adverse safety effects," the draft stated.___Krisher reported from Detroit. 5642