The Employee Benefit Research Institute is reporting that today's typical Medicare-covered retired couple needs $295,000 in the bank just to cover health care throughout retirement. And that's assuming that they have Medicare to depend on.

The bottom line? That retirement savings plan you're contributing to every month is not just for green fees and gifts for your grandchildren; it's for doctors' visits and medicine. It makes sense to save and invest more than the minimum, and think about earmarking some of your money for health care.

One of the best ways is using a high-deductible health care savings account now as your medical insurance.

If your employer offers one, that's great. If not, consider buying one on your own instead of using your company's insurance plan. It might be a good idea if your employer-provided plan is not that good or if you see job changes in your future.

If you have one of these high-deductible insurance plans, without a second policy, you can use it to accumulate health-earmarked savings for retirement.

These plans let you salt away as much as $5,450 for couples ($2,700 for singles), plus an extra $700 a year for anyone over 55. The money you contribute is tax deductible; when you withdraw it to pay for health care, it is not taxable. That makes it better than tax-deferred retirement accounts.

You can shop for HSAs at a few different Web sites, including http://www.hsainsider.com, http://www.hsafinder.com, and http://www.ehealthinsurance.com.

Put the money in, but don't use it for your annual health care expenses. Let it grow until you retire, when you really need extra cash for health care.

Consider an HSA that comes with an investment account, so you can put the money in something likely to grow faster than a bank account. Look for one that allows easy and inexpensive investing in mutual funds.

What if you're not eligible for an HSA? Just invest in after-tax dollars so you'll have more cash ready when the cartilage in your knees and the federal health care budget both start wearing away at the same time.

You can simply buy a low-fee index mutual fund or a low-fee exchange traded mutual fund for your HSA. Both of these investments track movements of a stock index for a fraction of what you'd pay for active management. With that HSA cap, you won't have enough money for the first few years to build a diversified portfolio any other way.

There's also a certain logic to indexing your health care savings to health care costs. It's not exactly a proxy for health care inflation, but it might come close. As health care companies become more and more profitable, your health care investments in them will go up and up.

You can do that by investing in a health index fund or a mutual fund that focuses on health care companies. Some to consider are Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals (FPHAX, up almost 18 percent in a year, according to Morningstar); Vanguard Health Care, (VGHCX, up almost 15 percent), or T. Rowe Price Health Sciences.

Exchange traded funds that focus on health care stocks include Vanguard Health Care Vipers, Health Care Select Sect SPDR, and the iShares S&P Global Healthcare Sector.

And remember to take good care of yourself. Yeah, yeah, you've heard it before. But those bad health habits you're sneaking by with now are really going to cost you in 2020.

After the employment report, U.S. interest-rate futures showed less than a 15 percent perceived chance the Fed will raise rates by 25 basis points on Tuesday, compared with a chance of about 43 percent before.

Investors have been trying to guess when the central bank might pause in its rate-hiking campaign, and have been anticipating for months that the end of the tightening cycle is near. The Fed has raised interest rates 17 consecutive times since June 2004, driving its benchmark fed funds rate for overnight bank loans up to 5.25 percent from 1 percent, nearly a 40-year low, when the tightening cycle began.

"Right now topic A is the Fed, and we're looking at jockeying for position ahead of the Fed meeting and announcement on Tuesday," said Fred Dickson, market strategist and director of retail research at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

EARNINGS SLOW TO A TRICKLE

The earnings agenda is expected to be light, with the second-quarter reporting period near an end. Among top companies expected to report results are El Paso Corp., a natural gas producer and pipeline company; Cisco Systems Inc., the Nasdaq stalwart and network equipment maker, and American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer. All three companies are part of the S&P 500. AIG also is a Dow component.

Most forecasts show profit growth for S&P 500 companies of at least 11 percent for the second quarter from the year-ago period, which would mean roughly four years of double-digit gains.

Reuters Estimates' latest forecast puts earnings growth at 12 percent, up from a forecast of 11.7 percent a week ago, senior market analyst Ashwani Kaul said.

FRIDAY'S EARLY RALLY FADES

Rising interest rates are a negative for stocks because they mean higher borrowing costs for corporations and consumers. Worries that U.S. economic growth has slowed too fast also have kept investors on edge.

Stocks rallied early on the jobs report, then reversed course to end down slightly as concerns about slowing growth offset optimism about the possible pause in rate hikes.

Before the opening bell, the Labor Department reported U.S. employers added 113,000 workers to their payrolls in July. Economists were expecting a gain of 142,000.

The Dow Jones industrial average slipped 2.24 points, or 0.02 percent, to end at 11,240.35. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 0.91 of a point, or 0.07 percent, to finish at 1,279.36. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 7.29 points, or 0.35 percent, to close at 2,085.05.

For the week, the Dow rose 0.18 percent, the Nasdaq fell 0.43 percent and the S&P 500 inched up 0.07 percent.

"Our sense is the market will remain right where it is now until that (Fed) announcement comes out, so the beginning of the week is going to be kind of quiet, with no significant price movement," Dickson said.

WAR AND TRADE

While the Fed meeting is expected to take center stage next week, investors also will keep a close eye on the Middle East as Israel continued to fight Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas. The conflict has caused concerns about oil supply disruptions in the region.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair delayed the start of his holiday on Friday to work on a United Nations cease-fire for Lebanon. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch will visit Beirut on Saturday for talks with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora on ways to end the war.

"Investors are hanging on to the most recent news to see if the situation stabilizes or escalates into something more serious," Dickson said.

U.S. crude oil for September delivery fell 70 cents to settle on Friday at $74.76 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after Tropical Storm Chris got downgraded to a depression. For the week, the price of NYMEX September crude was up 2.1 percent.

While analysts agree the Fed meeting will be the main event next week, there will be a few other numbers that will merit attention. A preliminary second-quarter report on U.S. productivity and unit labor costs is expected on Tuesday, the day of the Fed's meeting, while the
Commerce Department's report on the U.S. international trade deficit for June is scheduled for Thursday. July retail sales are due on Friday.

The Fed could "make a statement that still leaves people a little uncertain," so "people will still be scrutinizing indicators," said Peter Dunay, chief investment strategist at Leeb Index Trader in New York.

Unit labor costs will attract the Fed's attention, and by extension, Wall Street's, because they're regarded as a way to keep tabs on whether rising wages may be contributing to inflationary pressures. Economists surveyed by Reuters believe that unit labor costs rose at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the second quarter, while they see productivity increasing 0.9 percent.

The U.S. international trade deficit is expected to have widened to $64.4 billion in June from $63.84 billion in May, according to the Reuters poll of economists.

For the month of July, U.S. retail sales are expected to rise 0.8 percent, the Reuters poll showed. Excluding autos, July retail sales are forecast to rise 0.5 percent.

New families live in the neighborhood's only three houses that have been repaired. Every other building is still empty, and many have seen no repairs at all.

Cauldfield has fixed her roof but is back in her house only part time. The back of the house still needs to be shored up. She has electricity but no gas. To get that turned on, she first must get a licensed plumber to certify the structure is safe. She says that will cost another $600.

The street remains forlorn. Potholes mark the pavement, trash fills the gutters, a telephone pole still lies on the sidewalk.

Despite the heat and dirt, Cauldfield likes to sit on her porch. She watches workers remove piles of debris, then watches other workers make new piles as they gut houses - a process that fills the hot air with the sounds of bulldozers, saws and hammers.

Where Cauldfield, 63, would really like to be is next door in her restaurant, Gloria's Restaurant - "Home of the $1 Breakfast."

"I wish I could go in there today and work, 'cause that's my life, and my living," she said. "If I could get back to work, it would be therapy for me."

Five feet of water stayed for weeks in her restaurant. It covered the massive stove, the deep fryers, the grill. Mold grew on the walls, the tile buckled on the floor. The grease in the deep fryers floated out in the flood water and coated everything.

Green Stevens Jr., Cauldfield's cousin and a contractor, has gutted the restaurant.

"It won't take but maybe two to three weeks to get it back up and running once we start," Stevens said. "That's with doing all new electrical, framing, drywall, the floors and whatever else needs to be done."

Stevens estimates the work will cost $25,000 to $35,000.

Dorothy Poydras, Cauldfield's sister and the owner of the building, has been fighting her insurance carrier for months over the damage estimate. Her carrier, she said, gave her only $15,000 to fix the restaurant and another home.

"That's what my problem is," Poydras said. "I turned it over to an attorney and he's trying to get my money now."

Shirley Jackson, who lived in an apartment next to the restaurant for the last 15 years, is also eager to see the building repaired.

"I get homesick every day," Jackson said. "When I come back here I feel better. Back here, I can walk around because I know everybody."

Jackson, who divides her time between suburban Jefferson Parish and Jackson, Miss., hopes to move back into her old apartment once it's repaired. Poydras said she'd like to hold the rent down for Jackson, but with the cost of building materials and work rising daily, she's not sure she can.

"Everything has gone up, everything," Poydras said.

Tenants aren't the only ones feeling the financial pinch.

Dorothy Diaz owns the house at 3111 Broadway. Dorothy Warren, who lived there with her mother and five children before Hurricane Katrina, is in Dallas and longing to return. But the now-moldy clothes, furniture, appliances and toys that Warren left behind_ all the things that made up her family's life - are keeping anyone from moving back in.

Many landlords have simply dumped tenants' abandoned property, but Diaz has been slogging through the courts to get a proper order.

"It's already cost me quite a few hundred," said Diaz, 71, who's now living in Mississippi. "And I haven't even touched the house."

Diaz's New Orleans house was severely damaged, as were the four rental properties she bought with the insurance money she got after her husband died. When she retired from Charity Hospital, she thought the properties would provide for her retirement, but now she's struggling - especially without adequate insurance on the rentals.

"I invested the money (in property) rather than go buy a new wardrobe or something," she said, pointing to the dilapidated house. "I said, 'Well, I've got everything taken care of.'"

Unfortunately for Diaz, Katrina took care of that.

Congress has written its own accounting rules - which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel.

Last year, the audited statement produced by the accountants said the government ran a deficit equal to $6,700 for every American household. The number given to the public put the deficit at $2,800 per household.

A growing number of Congress members and accounting experts say it's time for Congress to start using the audited financial statement when it makes budget decisions. They say accurate accounting would force Congress to show more restraint before approving popular measures to boost spending or cut taxes.

"We're a bottom-line culture, and we've been hiding the bottom line from the American people," says Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a former investment banker. "It's not fair to them, and it's delusional on our part."

The House of Representatives supported Cooper's proposal this year to ask the president to include the audited numbers in his budgets, but the Senate did not consider the measure.

Good accounting is crucial at a time when the government faces long-term challenges in paying benefits to tens of millions of Americans for Medicare, Social Security and government pensions, say advocates of stricter accounting rules in federal budgeting.

"Accounting matters," says Harvard University law professor Howell Jackson, who specializes in business law. "The deficit number affects how politicians act. We need a good number so politicians can have a target worth looking at."

The audited financial statement - prepared by the Treasury Department - reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA TODAY analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion. The difference is equal to an entire year's worth of federal spending.

Surplus or deficit?

Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.

The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.

In addition, neither of these figures counts the financial deterioration in Social Security or Medicare. Including these retirement programs in the bottom line, as proposed by a board that oversees accounting methods used by the federal government, would show the government running annual deficits of trillions of dollars.

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.

Policing the numbers

The government's record-keeping was in such disarray 15 years ago that both parties agreed drastic steps were needed. Congress and two presidents took a series of actions from 1990 to 1996 that:

- Created the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to establish accounting rules, a role similar to what the powerful Financial Accounting Standards Board does for corporations.

- Added chief financial officers to all major government departments and agencies.

- Required annual audited financial reports of those departments and agencies.

- Ordered the Treasury Department to publish, for the first time, a comprehensive annual financial report for the federal government - an audited report like those published every year by corporations.

These laws have dramatically improved federal financial reporting. Today, 18 of 24 departments and agencies produce annual reports certified by auditors. (The others, including the Defense Department, still have record-keeping troubles so severe that auditors refuse to certify the reliability of their books, according to the government's annual report.)

The culmination of improved record-keeping is the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," an annual report similar to a corporate annual report. (The 158-page report for 2005 is available online at fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html.)

The House Budget Committee has tried to increase the prominence of the audited financial results. When the House passed its version of a budget this year, it included Cooper's proposal asking Bush to add the audited numbers to the annual budget he submits to Congress. The request died when the House and Senate couldn't agree on a budget. Cooper has reintroduced the proposal.

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, established under the first President Bush in 1990 to set federal accounting rules, is considering adding Social Security and Medicare to the government's audited bottom line.

Recognizing costly programs

Adding those costs would make federal accounting similar to that used by corporations, state and local governments and large non-profit entities such as universities and charities. It would show the government recording enormous losses because the deficit would reflect the growing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.

The government would have reported nearly $40 trillion in losses since 1997 if the deterioration of Social Security and Medicare had been included, according to a USA TODAY analysis of the proposed accounting change. That's because generally accepted accounting principles require reporting financial burdens when they are incurred, not when they come due.

For example: If Microsoft announced today that it would add a drug benefit for its retirees, the company would be required to count the future cost of the program, in today's dollars, as a business expense. If the benefit cost $1 billion in today's dollars and retirees were expected to pay $200 million of the cost, Microsoft would be required to report a reduction in net income of $800 million.

This accounting rule is a major reason corporations have reduced and limited retirement benefits over the last 15 years.

The federal government's audited financial statement now accounts for the retirement costs of civil servants and military personnel - but not the cost of Social Security and Medicare.

The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit alone would have added $8 trillion to the government's audited deficit. That's the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning interest, to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars the benefit will cost in future years.

Standard accounting concepts say that $8 trillion should be reported as an expense. Combined with other new liabilities and operating losses, the government would have reported an $11 trillion deficit in 2004 - about the size of the nation's entire economy.

The federal government also would have had a $12.7 trillion deficit in 2000 because that was the first year that Social Security and Medicare reported broader measures of the programs' unfunded liabilities. That created a one-time expense.

The proposal to add Social Security and Medicare to the bottom line has deeply divided the federal accounting board, composed of government officials and "public" members, who are accounting experts from outside government.

The six public members support the change. "Our job is to give people a clear picture of the financial condition of the government," board Chairman David Mosso says. "Whether those numbers are good or bad and what you do about them is up to Congress and the administration."

The four government members, who represent the president, Congress and the Government Accountability Office, oppose the change. The retirement programs do "not represent a legal obligation because Congress has the authority to increase or reduce social insurance benefits at any time," wrote Clay Johnson III, then acting director of the president's Office of Management Budget, in a letter to the board in May.

Ways of accounting

Why the big difference between the official government deficit and the audited one?

The official number is based on "cash accounting," similar to the way you track what comes into your checking account and what goes out. That works fine for paying today's bills, but it's a poor way to measure a financial condition that could include credit card debt, car loans, a mortgage and an overdue electric bill.

The audited number is based on accrual accounting. This method doesn't care about your checking account. It measures income and expenses when they occur, or accrue. If you buy a velvet Elvis painting online, the cost goes on the books immediately, regardless of when the check clears or your eBay purchase arrives.

Cash accounting lets income and expenses land in different reporting periods. Accrual accounting links them. Under cash accounting, a $25,000 cash advance on a credit card to pay for a vacation makes the books look great. You are $25,000 richer! Repaying the credit card debt? No worries today. That will show up in the future.

Under accrual accounting, the $25,000 cash from your credit card is offset immediately by the $25,000 you now owe. Your bottom line hasn't changed. An accountant might even make you report a loss on the transaction because of the interest you're going to pay.

"The problem with cash accounting is that there's a tremendous opportunity for manipulation," says University of Texas accounting professor Michael Granof. "It's not just that you fool others. You end up fooling yourself, too."

Federal law requires that companies and institutions that have revenue of $1 million or more use accrual accounting. Microsoft used accrual accounting when it reported $12 billion in net income last year. The American Red Cross used accrual accounting when it reported a $445 million net gain.

Congress used cash accounting when it reported the $318 billion deficit last year.

Social Security chief actuary Stephen Goss says it would be a mistake to apply accrual accounting to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are not pensions or legally binding federal obligations, although many people view them that way, he says.

Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you go programs and should be treated like food stamps and fighter jets, not like a Treasury bond that must be repaid in the future, he adds. "A country doesn't record a liability every time a kid is born to reflect the cost of providing that baby with a K-12 education one day," Goss says.

Tom Allen, who will become the chairman of the federal accounting board in December, says sound accounting principles require that financial statements reflect the economic value of an obligation.

"It's hard to argue that there's no economic substance to the promises made for Social Security and Medicare," he says.

Social Security and Medicare should be reflected in the bottom line because that's the most important number in any financial report, Allen says.

"The point of the number is to tell the public: Did the government's financial condition improve or deteriorate over the last year?" he says.

If you count Social Security and Medicare, the federal government's financial health got $3.5 trillion worse last year.

Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a certified public accountant, says the numbers reported under accrual accounting give an accurate picture of the government's condition. "An old photographer's adage says, 'If you want a prettier picture, bring me a prettier face,' " he says.

"We regret that it is necessary to take this action and we apologize to the nation and the State of Alaska for the adverse impacts it will cause," newly appointed BP America Chief Executive Bob Malone said in a statement.

U.S. crude oil prices surged above $76 per barrel amid fears that the shutdown could be lengthy. Shares of BP, already the focus of a criminal probe into a much bigger pipeline rupture at the same field in March, were down 2 percent.

The jump in oil prices sent U.S. stock markets lower on Monday as investors weighed the impact on consumers of higher oil prices, which hit a record above $78 a barrel in July.

In response to the surge in oil prices, the U.S. Department of Energy said it was ready to release crude from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to supply refineries on the West Coast that rely heavily on Alaskan crude oil.

The closure was the latest incident to hit BP's Alaskan operations, a cornerstone of its global upstream portfolio, and deals another blow to its U.S. image following a deadly refinery explosion last year and a trading scandal.

BP has come under intense regulatory scrutiny since another pipeline leaked at least 200,000 gallons of crude oil onto the Arctic tundra in March, the worst oil spill ever on the Alaska North Slope. Regulators and U.S. lawmakers have questioned the effectiveness of BP's corrosion prevention practices.

U.S. Department of Transportation pipeline inspectors were heading to Prudhoe Bay on Monday to assess the extent of the corrosion problems.

RESTART UNKNOWN

The federal government said in June that it would permit BP to continue to operate its oil pipelines in Alaska despite the company's inability to perform special internal corrosion detection operations. But it warned it could order the field shut if additional tests showed a risk of further leaks.

The unprecedented step of shutting down production at Prudhoe Bay was expected to take several days and BP officials said they could not provide a timetable for a possible restart until more was known about the damage on the pipeline.

"It will depend on the rate at which we can complete the inspection of these lines and satisfy ourselves and state and federal regulators that they pose no risk to the environment," BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said.

A senior delegate of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said Saudi Arabia, the world's top exporter, and fellow OPEC producers were ready to meet any shortage in crude oil supply following the shutdown.

"Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers are willing and capable of replacing any missing oil when the market demands it," the delegate told Reuters, when asked about the supply loss from the shut U.S. oil field.

BP pledged last month to spend an extra $1 billion on top of the $6 billion it has earmarked for upgrading safety at its U.S. refineries and to repair and replace Alaskan pipelines.

Prudhoe Bay is operated by a BP-led group that includes ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp., which was involved in Alaska's biggest oil spill when the 11-million-gallon tanker Exxon Valdez was grounded in 1989.

After failing to pass his "Tax Relief for Multi-Millionaires" bill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "the "death tax" has meant that "90 percent of family businesses do not survive that third generation" because they either cannot afford the steep taxes or the expensive procedures to find legal tax shelters."

Keeping in mind that the "family businesses" Sen. Frist refers to are estates of greater than five million dollars in value, he apparently feels that multi-millionaire heirs who are not able to afford expensive tax shelters are victims, worthy of protection from the Federal government.

But is there another reason for the "third generation's" inability to hang onto their inherited estates?

The book, "The Millionaire Next Door", looks at self-made American millionaires. It identifies, among other things, the characteristics and differences between self-made millionaires and their heirs. It also looks at why many third generation heirs do not continue the wealth building success of the preceding generations, although they have every possible advantage handed to them on a platinum platter.

The first generation, the self-made millionaires, frequently live below their means. They have a staunch work ethic and surmount all obstacles, although they often start with little or nothing. They save and invest. They pay cash. They own instead of owe.

The second generation, raised during the wealth building phase, frequently carries on this tradition of thrift and hard work and further builds and consolidates the family wealth.

The third generation grows up already wealthy. Unlike the first generation, they generally do not live below their means. They feel entitled to their wealthy lifestyle and more frequently squander the family fortune instead of increase it. More than any other characteristic, they feel a sense of entitlement.

They seem to believe in their inherent right to a life of wealth and privilege, no matter how little they do to earn it themselves. They believe rules and even laws are for other people. Having always lived protected lives, they assume that they always should, and that their estates should also be protected, by law, if necessary. It is the natural order of their world.

Forget about Reagan's Cadillac-driving "Welfare Queens". Bill Frist, George W. Bush, and the Republicans in control of Congress want to create a permanent class of tax exempt, "Welfare Lords and Ladies"; multi-millionaire heirs, incapable of generating the kind of wealth their forebears generated, and protected from having to try. Who expects Paris Hilton to actually earn enough to maintain, let alone increase, the Hilton wealth? Who would be surprised to find that she feels completely certain that she is entitled to always have her wealthy lifestyle, even if she never works a day in her life?

When Bill Frist frets about third generation heirs failing to hang on to the family wealth, what he really seems to be saying is this: while the first generation - despite all obstacles - could build extraordinary wealth with little or no help, the third generation - despite all advantages - is incapable of growing sufficient wealth to maintain their inheritance, and therefore, the government must guarantee it to them tax-free, or, according to Sen. Frist's statistics, 90% of them will fail. And our "poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" Republican leadership, the group that hates all things eco-friendly and conservationist, treat these heirs as though they are a fragile endangered species, and want to grant them Federal protection for their Lifestyles of the Eternally Rich.

But, if Grandpa could do it with nothing, why can't the grandchildren do it with everything? And, if they can't, why should the Federal government step in?

How pathetic is it to hear a multi-millionaire heir like Sen. Frist, who has had every advantage that great wealth can buy, whine about the cost of expensive tax shelters? Look at a few of the great wealth builders of Bill Frist's generation: Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey. They all started with little or nothing. Typical first generation wealth builders, their focus is on building wealth, not finding tax shelters for what someone else made.

Personally, I think a little economic "tough love" is needed for these multi-millionaire heirs. By bailing them out with tax free inheritances, we may actually be hindering their personal growth, enabling generations of developmentally delayed entrepreneurs to hide behind their trust funds. What a waste! Aren't we depriving them of the joy of building their own empires if we help them hide, tax free, behind the gates of grandpa's estate?

This country needs "first generation" hard working entrepreneurs and innovators a lot more than it needs a permanent class of "third generation" landed aristocracy, wilting at the thought of having to work as hard as their grandparents did.

Maybe Oprah should have an intervention with Bill.


Ruth Lopez, an orphan, was raised in Rangoon by wolves until captured by a tribe of cannibals, from whom she cleverly escaped. Today she lives off the grid in a remote corner of New Mexico. OK, OK....She's actually lives in Orlando. She graduated from the University of Central Florida. She's been married for 25 years; is an artist, mother of three and Christopher's gramma. From a military family, Ms. Lopez, her husband and daughter are veterans of the U. S. Navy. Her son is currently in the Marines. She has the coolest dog in the world; a Dingo named Ein.