Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, said he discovered the shares for Diebold Inc. while preparing a required filing for the Ohio Ethics Commission.

"While I was unaware of this stock in my portfolio, its mere presence may be viewed as a conflict and is therefore not acceptable," he said in a letter included in his filing.

Blackwell said his investments are directed by an accountant and financial adviser without his knowledge or help, "similar to a blind trust."

He said a manager of his investments account at Credit Suisse First Boston bought 178 shares of Diebold stock at $53.67 per share in January 2005. Blackwell said the manager did not follow instructions to avoid such investments.

He said 95 shares were later sold at a loss but he still held 83 shares until discovering them and liquidating them Monday, also at a loss.

The state negotiated a deal with Diebold last year for $2,700 per touch-screen machine. In a statement given in May as part of a lawsuit, Judith Grady, who oversees the secretary of state's compliance with the 2002 federal voting act, said Blackwell was not involved with price negotiations.

What had been a mundane political duty took on new meaning last year after Gov. Bob Taft's failure to report several golf outings led to his no contest plea to ethics violations. He was fined the maximum $4,000.

Bob Paduchik, a spokesman for Attorney General Jim Petro, Blackwell's rival in the GOP primary, called for further investigation.

Democrats weren't buying Blackwell's explanation.

"If he can't manage to know what's in his checkbook, why would the people of Ohio want to trust this man with the state's checkbook?" said Brian Rothenberg, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share goes to each income group have not been known.

As Congress debates whether to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, The Times analyzed I.R.S. figures for 2003, the latest year available and the first that reflected the tax cuts for income from dividends and from the sale of stock and other assets, known as capital gains.

The analysis found the following:

- Among taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million, the amount by which their investment tax bill was reduced averaged about $500,000 in 2003, and total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

- These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

- Americans with annual incomes of $1 million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped 43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003. The savings for these taxpayers averaged about $41,400 each. By comparison, these same Americans received less than 10 percent of the savings from the other Bush tax cuts, which applied primarily to wages, though that share is expected to grow in coming years.

- The savings from the investment tax cuts are expected to be larger in subsequent years because of gains in the stock market.

The Times showed the new numbers to people on various sides of the debate over tax cuts. Stephen J. Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, and other supporters of the cuts said they did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more would go to investments that produce jobs. For investment income, Mr. Entin said, "the proper tax rate would be zero."

Opponents say the cuts are too generous to those who already have plenty. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said after seeing the new figures that "these tax cuts are beyond irresponsible" when "we're in a war; we haven't fixed Social Security or Medicare; we've got record deficits."

Because of the tax cuts, even the merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, are falling behind the very wealthiest, particularly because another provision, the alternative minimum tax, now costs many of them thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars a year in lost deductions.

About 3.5 million taxpayers filing their returns for last year are being hit by the alternative tax. But that figure will balloon this year to at least 19 million taxpayers, making as little as about $30,000, unless Congress restores a law that limited its effects until now, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, whose estimates the White House has declared reasonable.

The tax cut analysis was based on estimates from a computer model developed by Citizens for Tax Justice, which asserts that the tax system unfairly favors the rich. The group's estimates are considered reliable by advocates on differing sides of the tax debate. The Times, which also did its own analysis, asked the group to use the model to produce additional data on the effect of the investment tax cuts on various income groups. The analyses show that more than 70 percent of the tax savings on investment income went to the top 2 percent, about 2.6 million taxpayers.

By contrast, few taxpayers with modest incomes benefited because most of them who own stocks held them in retirement accounts, which are not eligible for the investment income tax cuts. Money in these accounts is not taxed until withdrawal, when the higher rates on wages apply.

Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts, for a total of $435 in total income tax cuts, according to the computer model.

During last week's debate on whether to restore limits on the alternative minimum tax or make permanent the cuts in investment income taxes, House leaders chose as their spokesman Representative David L. Camp, a Michigan Republican. He said Republicans favored continuing investment tax cuts because that would help more people and would especially benefit those making less than $100,000.

"Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends," he said on the House floor.

But I.R.S. data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.

Mr. Camp, who had said in an interview that his figures were correct, said Monday through a spokesman that he had been misinformed by the staff of the House Ways and Means Committee. But his office said he supported making the investment tax cuts permanent because cutting these rates was "good policy and good for our economy."

President Bush, in his budget, urged Congress to make permanent the reduced taxes on investment income. He also proposed limiting the effects of the alternative minimum tax through next year, saying a permanent solution "is best addressed within the context of fundamental tax reform."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that making the investment tax cuts permanent would cost the government $197 billion over 10 years. But advocates of eliminating taxes on investments say there is no cost to the government because lowering taxes on such income encourages more investment, which should lead to more and higher-paying jobs. Taxes on wages from those jobs should more than offset the tax savings to investors, said Mr. Entin, an advocate of eliminating taxes on most investment income as a way of promoting economic growth.

However, the Congressional Research Service, an arm of Congress that analyzes issues, concluded in a January report that lower taxes on investment income may translate into lower savings because people need fewer investments to earn the same after-tax income. In another report, the research service showed how lower taxes on investment income can encourage investment outside the United States, creating jobs, but not for Americans.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for the poor, and several mainstream policy research organizations say the investment tax cuts will have insignificant positive effects and may even damage long-term economic growth by contributing to soaring budget deficits. In an era of budget deficits, "the net effect is a wash or may even be negative," said Robert Greenstein, the executive director of the center.

There have been three tax cuts for individuals under President Bush. The top tax rate on compensation was trimmed twice and is now 35 percent, from 39.6 percent when President Bush took office. Most compensation also faces a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, which is matched by the employer, making the effective federal tax rate on high earners 37.9 percent.

Then, the top rate for most investment income was reduced to 15 percent in 2003, from the 39.6 percent for dividends and 20 percent for profits on asset sales that were in effect when Mr. Bush took office.

A result is that the wealthiest Americans now pay much higher direct taxes on money they work for than on money that works for them.

Maxtor in late January had forecast a loss of 17 cents to 21 cents per share and revenue of $950 million to $975 million for the first quarter.

Maxtor cited lower-than-expected unit volume growth, which when combined with merger-related market share losses, placed pressure on its cost structure. It also said it did not realize some component cost improvements as had been expected.

Because of the decrease in volume, Maxtor said it significantly cut its production schedule in the first quarter and plans to eliminate 900 jobs at its Singapore manufacturing facility over the next several weeks. As a result, it will take a $6 million reserve in the first quarter for severance-related expenses.

The first time I encountered Mexican workers was in 1975, when I came home to Idaho Falls from college in Moscow, Idaho, looking for work for the summer. The first place I could find that would hire me was a potato warehouse out on Lindsey Boulevard, next to the rail tracks.

Most of my co-workers were from Mexico, were likely illegal immigrants, and most of them spoke only Spanish. But they were friendly and tried to help me and my friend Scott, who had also gotten a job there. We both towered over them, and we were both in pretty good shape; I was 18 at the time, and had spent the previous summers hauling pipe in potato fields, so I knew what hard work was about. But we weren't quite prepared for this work.

Basically, the job entailed loading 100- and 50-pound gunny sacks of potatoes into rail cars: stacking them onto a dolly, rolling them into the car, and stacking them up. This is a reasonable job when the stack is less than chest high, but loading them over our heads was a real test.

After two weeks, I failed it. I was completely exhausted and broken down by the end of that time. I called in, said thanks for the opportunity, and quit. (So did Scott.) I wound up setting up my own house-painting business that summer and making my tuition that way.

But I'm sure that most of those Latino co-workers not only stayed on, they probably worked at the warehouse year-round. Because they were simply unfazed by it all. They could load, stack, and load some more, all of it far more efficiently than I ever could. And at the end of every day, as I collapsed in a heap, they were still in good spirits.

Not only were they the hardest-working people I ever met, they also had the best work ethic I ever saw. That is, not only did they work hard, they worked smart. I muscled those 100-pound sacks of spuds up to the top row, while they simply tossed them up with a little leverage and technique.

Oh, and my old boss back at the potato farm where I hauled pipe? Within a couple of years after I left that farm, he went to an all-Latino crew, and he admitted to me that they were mostly illegals. But, he said, they worked harder and better and far more reliably than any crew of teenagers ever had for him. Having been one of those teenagers, I knew exactly what he meant.

Since then, I have had many other encounters with immigrant Latino workers -- as well as many working-class people living in Mexico -- and my experience has been uniform. These are hard-working, decent people. America can use more people like them.

Yes, they are often poor, and poverty does spawn crime. But the notion that they are innately criminal is absurd.

And the notion that they are lazy? On what planet?

But reading Limbaugh's rant, the big question that lingers is: How does he propose "getting rid" of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually?

"It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat.

If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

On Tuesday, the House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote and the Senate endorsed it 37-0. A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008, would sign the bill but would make some changes that wouldn't "affect the main purpose."

The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.

"What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they're crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that's all unique," said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

The bill requires all residents to be insured beginning July 1, 2007, either by purchasing insurance directly or obtaining it through their employer.

The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.

Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

"The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, 'Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, 'Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."

The state's poorest - single adults making $9,500 or less a year - will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.

Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.

The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.

Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.

Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation "something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity."

John McDonough of Health Care for All called the bill "promising."

"If it can be achieved as outlined, it would be an enormous step forward for Massachusetts," he said.

One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.

"One thing we are reviewing is how we can even increase our humanitarian assistance because we don't want to send a negative message to the Palestinian people about their humanitarian needs," Rice told a congressional budget hearing.

The United States hopes to isolate Hamas and pressure it to recognize American ally Israel, renounce violence and abide by peace accords. So far the Islamic militant group has refused, although its leaders have said they would continue to observe a ceasefire with Israel.

The United States has banned its officials and contractors from having contact with Palestinian ministries after a Hamas-led government was sworn in late last month facing a budget crisis.

The order could complicate Rice's plan to help Palestinians combat the deadly bird flu virus, which has spread from Asia to the Middle East, Europe and Africa in recent months.

It was not immediately clear if Rice would make an exception to allow some U.S. coordination over bird flu with Palestinian officials in a Hamas-led government.

"I can assure you that we are doing everything that we can to avoid any assistance to the Palestinian government that is Hamas-led," she said. "I might note that the only time that emergency situations -- for instance we are dealing right now with an avian flu outbreak in the Palestinian territories. I think we will want to do whatever is necessary to deal with that avian flu outbreak."

In Israel, which has taken the same no-contact policy with Hamas as the United States, health and agriculture officials initially had coordinated over bird flu with low-level Palestinian officials. But this week Israel decided such coordination should be done only through U.N. agencies or nongovernmental groups.

Mostly through such groups, the United States has given $1.5 billion in aid to the Palestinians in the last decade. The Bush administration has also given some financial assistance directly to the Palestinian Authority.

Before Hamas won the January election, the Bush administration had decided to request $150 million from Congress for this year's budget for the Palestinians, to be given in direct aid to the government and humanitarian assistance.

But after the election, Rice said the administration would review its plans.

The government said it had taken the step after failing to agree a deal with the two firms which would give it a majority stake in new ventures.

President Hugo Chavez has been working to strengthen state control over oil production in the country.

So far, 16 oil firms have agreed to change their operations into joint ventures with state oil firm PDVSA.

US based Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Repsol are among the companies that signed the agreement on Friday.

Chavez rules out cheap oil

In an interview on state television, Minister Rafael Ramirez said the government took over the fields operated by Total and Eni on Saturday.

"We are waiting for a resolution with these operators after they exhausted the possibility of entering into the mixed companies," Mr Ramirez added.

Legal action?

Total's Jusepin field produces about 30,000 barrels of oil a day, while Eni's Dacion field produces almost 60,000 barrels per day (bpd).

Eni has vowed to fight the takeover which it declared illegal.

"Eni believes that this action by PDVSA is a violation of Eni's contractual rights," it said in a statement.

The company added it was considering possible legal action and would be seeking compensation.

Total confirmed its oil field had been taken over, but declined further comment.

Tighter controls

Last year, Mr Chavez declared 32 oil exploration deals in the country illegal - prompting the change to the contracts.

PDVSA officials had voiced fears that the previous agreements were disguised attempts to privatise the country's oil industry.

However, some oil firms have refused to sign new deals, arguing that they have pumped millions into operations in Venezuela, and now may not see any return on their investment.

Venezuela is currently the world's number five crude oil exporter.

The government has been tightening its grip on the oil sector to raise additional funds to fight poverty in the country.

As well as demanding firms give up majority control of their Venezuelan oil ventures, the government is also demanding firms pay more taxes.

Last month, BP was slapped with a back tax bill of $61.4m (£35m) covering 2001 to 2004.

"As far as China is concerned, to foster friendship and cooperation with the Pacific island countries is not a diplomatic expediency," Wen told the opening of the China-Pacific Islands Countries Economic Development and Cooperation conference.

"Rather it is a strategic decision. China has proved and will continue to prove itself a sincere, trustworthy and reliable friend and partner of the Pacific island countries forever."

China and Taiwan have been vying for diplomatic recognition in the Pacific, and six island states which recognise Taipei did not attend the meetings at the luxury resort island of Denarau, near the Fiji capital Nadi.

Wen has not referred to the Taiwan issue in speeches during his 23-hour visit but emphasised the prospect of growing economic links between China and the Pacific Islands.

"Our respective economies are mutually complementary. China has funding and technical expertise. The island countries are rich in natural resources," he said.

Wen announced China would provide three billion yuan (375 million dollars) in preferential loans in the next three years to increase cooperation in resources development, agriculture, fisheries and other key industries.

It would also offer tariff concessions for exports from the least developed countries in the region which recognise Beijing.

He also announced free anti-malaria medicines would be provided to affected Pacific countries over the next three years and training for 2,000 government officials and technical staff.

The visit saw dark-suited Chinese and Pacific officials mixing with a horde of security officers and tourists wearing shorts and T-shirts in the lobbies of the hotels used as meeting venues.

Pacific leaders welcomed the visit as an historic event and Fiji Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase said it reflected shifting diplomacy and political realignments in the region.

He said China had emerged as a major presence in international affairs and a powerful and vital force in the Pacific.

"For the island countries, traditional trade and diplomatic ties with bigger nations remain; some are still strong, some are weakened as strategic interests and priorities change," he said.

"China defines a new and compelling reality, politically and economically."

Qarase said Pacific Island countries wanted to limit or remove their dependency on aid and this could only happen through increased international trade.

"This is what we would like to engage on with China as we increasingly look north for the answers to our trade and investment aspirations."

A regional framework agreement for economic cooperation between China and the tiny nations was also signed.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare said island countries hoped the agreement would help them close the trade gap with China, with expected trade this year of over one billion dollars expected to be dominated by Chinese exports.

Wen left Fiji late in the afternoon for New Zealand where he will spend two nights on his tour of the region.

The charges follow an investigation - Operation Hobein - into pricing and market sharing by suppliers of the drugs between 1996 and 2000.

The SFO named the nine people who will be charged with conspiracy to defraud when they surrender their bail over the next three days.

They are Denis O'Neill and John Clark, both of Kent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Jonathan Close and Nicholas Foster, both formerly of Norton Healthcare Limited, Luma Auchi, formerly of Regent-GM Laboratories Limited (now in liquidation), Michael Sparrow, formerly of Generics (UK) Limited, Anil Sharma, formerly of Ranbaxy (UK) Limited, and Ajit Patel and Kirti Patel, both of Goldshield Group plc.

The drugs involved were warfarin, the branded drug Marevan and the penicillin-based antibiotics amoxicillin, ampicillin, flucloxacillin and phenoxymethylpenicillin.

Summonses issued by Bow Street magistrates on Monday were being served on five companies - Kent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Norton Healthcare Limited, Generics (UK) Limited; Ranbaxy (UK) Limited and Goldshield Group plc (formerly Goldshield Pharmaceuticals (Europe) Limited).

The nine individuals will be bailed to attend Bow Street Magistrates' Court on April 27, when the companies are also required to be represented.

"This important case, involving an allegation of dishonest price-fixing by companies, is likely to have a significant impact upon the business culture of this country," the case controller, assistant director Philip Lewis, said.

The SFO has been investigating allegations of a drugs cartel set up to swindle the NHS for a number of years.

In April 2002, police raided six drug companies as part of a probe into an alleged multimillion-pound scam.

The case was referred to the fraud office after initial inquiries carried out by the counter-fraud directorate of the Department of Health. The department has been suing over alleged agreements between companies to restrict the supply of warfarin and fix its price.

Three companies have since offered multi-million pound, no-liability compensation deals, totalling around £30m, to the NHS over the issue.

Civil claims were made in connection with the alleged price-fxing of drugs delivered to Britain's 28 strategic health authorities between 1996 and 2000.

All the firms involved have denied any wrongdoing.