comparative and superlative forms: more significant; most significant

Meanings: 1 : large enough to be noticed or have an effect ‡ A significantnumber of customers complained about the service. ‡ He won asignificant amount of money. ‡ There is a significant difference in prices between the two stores. ‡ The study found a statisticallysignificant decrease in symptoms in patients who had taken the drug. ‡ His influence on me was significant. = He had a significantinfluence on me. 2 : very important ‡ a significant event in the history of our nation ‡ Fish is a significant part of their diet. ‡ It is significant that she never mentioned him. 3 : having a special or hidden meaning ‡ He gave us a significantwink/look. ‡ a significant [=suggestive] glance

1,000 Days Under President Obama
Today marks the 1,000th day of Barack Obama's presidency, and unfortunately for America, those days have been marked by deeper deficits, lost jobs, prolonged unemployment, and bigger government. Meanwhile, many of those charged with leading the federal government have all but abdicated their responsibilities. The national debt stands at $14.9 trillion--$4.2 trillion of which has been added since Obama took his oath of office. Fourteen million Americans are unemployed--that's 9.1 percent of the workforce. The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months. All told, 2.2 million jobs have been lost under Obama's watch, despite the White House's claims that the President's $787 billion stimulus would create 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Unfortunately, instead of leading America toward fiscal sanity and a stronger economy, the President is taking the country in the opposite direction. Last week, his latest proposal to "stimulate" the economy with another $447 billion in spending failed to pass the Senate, but instead of recognizing that more taxing and spending is not what America wants or needs, he's redoubling his efforts. Today, the President is starting another bus tour to sell a different version of the same plan--this time broken up into pieces of taxing and spending still big enough to choke a horse. It's the same plan, only in different packaging. Former Congressman Ernest Istook explains the danger: Even segmented versions of Obama¶s $447 billion plan can be used to squeeze in those worst parts. That¶s because it¶s almost impossible to get both the House and the Senate to

enact identical versions of a bill, thus requiring a conference committee to "work out the differences"--which sometimes includes adding distasteful details. While it's good news that the Senate rejected the President's jobs plan, the bad news is that the Senate has utterly failed to help put America back on a strong fiscal path. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) point out that it's been 900 days since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan, calling it "a national disgrace." As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan ² in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. What we have seen from the Obama Administration is bigger government, more regulations, and massive amounts of government spending in the hopes of stimulating the economy. The trouble is that it hasn't worked, as the numbers show. Obama promised that his $787 billion stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. It didn't, and given the jobs that were lost, he came up 7.3 million jobs short of his goal. His health care plan, better known as Obamacare, did not reduce health care costs as promised and is in fact responsible for increasing costs in 2011. On top of that, the law will price many unskilled workers out of full-time employment. And those are just the big-ticket items. Over the last 1,000 days, America has seen increased regulations, a 9,000-earmark omnibus bill, a government union bailout, a Wall Street reform bill that will do more harm than good, a nuclear arms treaty that is detrimental to missile defense, a refusal to expand domestic energy production, federal overreach into education, an undermining of the rule of law, and a dark cloud hanging over our military's future due to a failure to ensure adequate defense spending. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, James Freeman writes of an interview with billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman--Democrat, real-estate mogul, and New York Daily News owner. "Among business executives who supported Barack Obama in 2008, [Zuckerman] says, 'there is enormously widespread anxiety over the political leadership of the country.' Mr. Zuckerman reports that among Democrats, 'The sense is that the policies of this government have failed.'" Given the track record of the Obama Administration over the last 1,000 days, they would be right. Bigger government has not put America on a stronger fiscal path, it hasn't created jobs, and it hasn't built a stronger economy. There is a better way. Heritage's Saving the American Dreamplan charts a course that fixes the debt, cuts spending, and restores prosperity. It redesigns entitlement programs, guarantees assistance to those who need it, and saves the American dream for future generations. If Congress and the President want to move America forward, create new jobs, and spur businesses to grow and invest, then piling on debt, raising taxes, and increasing spending is not the answer--no matter how much Obama would like it to be.



verb [with object]

comparative and superlative forms: estimates; estimated; estimating

: to give or form a general idea about the value, size, or cost of (something) : to make an estimate of (something) ‡ They estimatedthe distance at/as about three miles. ‡ We need to estimate how much paint we¶ll need for the job. ‡ The cost of the project has beenestimated at/as about 10 million dollars. ‡ He estimates that current oil reserves are 20 percent lower than they were a year ago. ‡ Damage from the hurricane is estimated (to be) in the billions of dollars.

² estimated adjective ‡ An estimated 50,000 people were in attendance. ² estimator / st me t / noun, plural estimators [count] Learn about estimate as a noun.

plural researches 



1 : careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something [noncount] ‡ cancer/AIDS/drug research ‡ medical/scientific/scholarly research ‡ She conducts researchinto/on the causes of Alzheimer¶s disease. ‡ Recent researchshows/indicates that the disease is caused in part by bad nutrition. ‡ The study is an important piece of research. ² often used before another noun ‡ research data/findings ‡ a researchgroup/organization/scientist ‡ a research assistant ‡ a researchprogram/project ‡ a research lab/laboratory/library/center ‡ aresearch paper/report [plural] ‡ (formal & oldfashioned) We read about Sigmund Freud¶s researches into the human psyche. 2 [noncount] : the activity of getting information about a subject ‡ He did a lot of research before buying his car. ² researcher noun, plural researchers [count] ‡ Medicalresearchers say that the drug is useless.

Why Obamacare Might Cost You a Job
Back in February 2010, when Congress was still debating the Obamacare legislation, thenSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed to America that the law "will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately." But according to a new report by Heritage's James Sherk, Obamacare will have the opposite effect, pricing many unskilled workers out of fulltime employment due to the law's requirement that employers offer health benefits to fulltime employees.

According to Sherk, the minimum cost of employing full-time workers under Obamacare amounts to an average of $27,500, more than what many unskilled employees produce. He explains in his paper, "Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs" why increased costs will lead employers to shift to employing part-time workers: After paying the new health premiums, the minimum wage, payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes, hiring a full-time worker will cost employers at least $10.03 per hour. Full-time workers with family health plans will cost $13.75 per hour. Employers who hire workers with productivity below these rates will lose money. Businesses employing less skilled workers will probably respond by dumping their employees onto the federally subsidized health care exchanges and replacing full-time positions with part-time jobs. Fewer full-time jobs in favor of more part-time positions is not what America needs, particularly as it struggles with a stagnant economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, and 14 million people out of work. But just when the United States needs businesses to expand, grow, and invest, Obamacare is piling on the costs and regulations--making it more difficult for businesses to create new jobs. Under the law, businesses with more than 50 workers must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty, thereby reducing the amount of capital they have to invest in expanding and hiring new workers. That requirement also has the effect of incentivizing businesses with fewer than 50 employees to maintain their size to avoid the costs. And then there's the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought about-businesses don't know what their future costs will be under the legislation, making it difficult for them to plan for the future. America might already be seeing the job-killing effects of the President's signature law. Sherk writes that following Obamacare's passage, economic growth in America changed course: Initially, the economy appeared on track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009--the recession's low point--to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010... Within two months of Obamacare's passing, the recovery stalled... In May 2010, the job situation stopped improving. Job creation dropped to just 48,000 net private sector jobs, and private-sector hiring took a new course. From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month--less than one-tenth the previous rate. Though correlation doesn't prove causation, the economy's slowdown following the passage of Obamacare, when considered alongside complaints from business owners about the law's effects on new hiring, should cause alarm for anyone who cares about unemployment in

America. Heritage's Nina Owcharenko explains why the law is the wrong prescription for turning the economy around: Obamacare is perhaps the most damaging of the Administration's policies that are impeding the country's recovery. At a time when there should be a focus on cutting spending, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes, Obamacare does the complete opposite. It spends more, imposes costly new mandates and regulations, and raises taxes on individuals and businesses. This is no way to get the economy up and running again. Unfortunately, Obamacare will make an already bad economic picture worse. Unskilled workers are struggling to find employment, and the President's health care law will make finding full-time jobs even more difficult. If President Obama truly wants to reduce unemployment and help businesses grow, he should admit that Obamacare was a mistake and work with Congress to repeal it.

connect the dots
Status: chiefly US, informal


: to learn or understand how different things are related ‡ The information about these events is not new but no one had everconnected the dots until today.

House to Vote on Closing Obamacare Abortion Loopholes
Today, the House of Representatives will vote on the Protect Life Act introduced by Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA)²designed to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used to fund abortion through the new healthcare law. The bipartisan bill,H.R. 358, is also sponsored by Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and 144 additional co-sponsors. Problems with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare," abound. In addition to the many fiscal and legal concerns raised by law, Obamacare represents a historic departure from the federal government¶s traditional stance on abortion funding and provides new avenues to promote elective abortion. Since 1976 the Hyde Amendment, which forbids taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother¶s life, has been included in federal appropriations bills. When negotiations to include the full Hyde Amendment language in Obamacare failed, President Obama signed anExecutive Order prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Unless Congress acts to make the application permanent, however, this order is subject to reversal by either executive decision or judicial intervention.

Obamacare includes multiple problematic provisions with respect to the federal role in funding elective abortion. As a result of the defects in the law, a federal tax credit will be made available to assist in the purchase of private health plans that cover abortion. Additionally, the limited and loose conscience protections outlined in Obamacare could leave pro-life medical professionals with no protection to practice their profession in accord with their personal beliefs. Implementation of Obamacare to date, including the most recent preventive care mandates from HHS, has demonstrated that abortion-funding features permeate the law. The bill before the House today would apply Hyde Amendment language to the entirety of Obamacare, prohibiting use of any federal funds for abortion even through use of the new affordability tax credit. The Protect Life Act also ensures that the conscience rights of medical professionals who decline to participate, refer, or perform abortions are respected by any government entity receiving funding under Obamacare.

Jobs Plan Fails, but Obama Doesn't Get the Message
When President Barack Obama began his Midwest "jobs tour"in August, he set out to campaign for the passage of a yet-to-be-released plan to turn around the country's stagnant economy. But after the details of that plan emerged--more stimulus spending and higher taxes--and when the Democrat-controlled Senate put the measure up for a vote this week, the President's plan was defeated. Even members of the President's own partyopposed more taxing and spending as a way of pulling America out of its unemployment ditch. Take Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), for example. The Hill reportsthat he opposes raising taxes on ordinary income during a time of recession and that the federal government should encourage people to invest in the economy instead of raising their income taxes. In Webb's own words: I strongly believe that the way to bring good jobs back is to improve our economy in the private sector, and that means more capital investment. Winston Churchill once said something to the effect that you can't tax your way out of an economic downturn any more than you can pick up a bucket if you're standing in it. Others from the left, too, staked out opposition to the bill. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) took issue with the new spending the President proposed. "The bottom line here is that I don't believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $500 billion to our almost $15 trillion national debt."

There's good reason to stand against the President's plan. For one thing, it is hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on more of the same "stimulus" that has left America with virtually zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. And it's paid for with a massive tax increase on job creators--the very people who would be investing their money to expand businesses and put more Americans back to work. The President proposed permanently raising taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with most of the burden falling on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 per year, all in the name of "fairness." In a new paper, Heritage's Curtis Dubay explains that the supposed "fairness" of the new rule is anything but fair: To President Obama, it is 'fair' to raise taxes on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 a year by raising their income tax rates and limiting their deductions. That must also mean he believes that they currently pay too little in taxes. Yet the data show the highest-earning families and businesses already pay the lion's share of the federal income tax burden. According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners-those earning more than $380,000 in 2008--paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income. The top 10 percent ($114,000 and above) earned 45 percent of income and paid 70 percent of all taxes. At the same time, the bottom 50 percent of income earners--those earning less than $33,000--earned 13 percent of all income and paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. Then there was Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to impose a millionaire tax--a 5.6 percent surtax on incomes of married filers earning over $1 million starting on January 1, 2013, pushing the average top U.S. income rate to 55 percent, higher than all but two of the 30 most economically developed countries in the world. Dubay explains how the tax would negatively impact job creation: Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year are investors and businesses that are directly responsible for creating jobs. Investors provide the capital to existing businesses and startups so they can expand and add new workers. Raising their taxes would deprive them of resources they could invest in promising businesses that are looking to add employees. Raising their tax rate would deter them from taking the risk to invest. It's this philosophy of soaking the rich to pay for more wasteful government spending that has ginned up opposition to the President's jobs plan. The White House, though, isn't getting the message, and it's totally glazing over the bipartisan opposition. White House communications director Dan Pfeifferlaid the blame squarely on Republicans and wrote, "We can't take 'no' for an answer." The President, too, lashed out at the GOP, painting them as a minority that "got together as a group and blocked this jobs bill from passing the Senate." The New York Times got in on the act, too, lambasting the right for its opposition, without acknowledging opposition on the left. Instead of playing the blame game, the President should take a step back and understand why Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle oppose his plan. Raising taxes to pay for stimulus spending that has proven to be a failure simply will not get the economy back on track.



verb [with object]

inflected forms: suspects; suspected; suspecting

1 a : to think that (someone) is possibly guilty of a crime or of doing something wrong ‡ He¶s suspected in four burglaries. ² often followed by of ‡ The police suspect him of murder. ‡ No onesuspects you of cheating. 1 b : to think that (something) is possibly the cause of something bad ² usually followed by of ‡ The pesticide is suspected ofcausing cancer. 1 c : to think that (a crime) has possibly been committed ‡ The police do not suspect murder in this case. ‡ The fire chief suspectsarson. 2 : to think that (something, especially something bad) possibly exists, is true, will happen, etc. ‡ We suspected a trap. ‡ I suspectit will rain. ‡ Call the doctor immediately if you suspect you¶ve been infected. ‡ The latest research confirms what scientists have long suspected. ‡ I suspect she¶s not who she says she is. ‡ ³We haven¶t done our homework.´ ³I suspected as much.´ 3 : to have feelings of doubt about (something) : to be suspicious about (something) ‡ I suspected his motives in giving me the money. ‡ I have reason to suspect her sincerity when she makes promises like that. ² suspected /s sp kt d/ adjective, always used before a noun ‡ a suspected arsonist ‡ The pesticide is a suspected carcinogen. ‡ a suspected case of smallpox

Obama's Failure to Confront the Iranian Threat
Yesterday, America learned that Iran conspired to launch a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., with a planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador and bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies. U.S. authorities disrupted the plot and have brought charges against the men who planned to carry out the attack, but the audacity of Iran's actions highlights a disturbing truth: The Obama Administration has done far too little to deter state-sponsored terrorism, and it has utterly failed to confront the Iranian threat. Not one month ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City and delivered a speech rife with hatred of the United States, September 11 conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denials. His diatribe at the U.N. has become an annual ritual, but as we learned yesterday, this year's performance occurred all while Ahmadinejad's government was seeking to attack the United States--a fact that President Barack Obama was made aware of in June of this year. It is being reported that following the charges against Iran, the Obama Administration is seeking to use the development as leverage to "unite the world" against Iran, with Vice President Biden saying, "That's the surest way to be able to get results." Meanwhile,

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that the plot "crosses a line that Iran needs to be held to account for." Iran, however, crossed the line long ago, be it the country's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, its calls for the eradication of Israel, its support of terrorism, its meddling in Iraq, or its interference with the movement toward democracy in the Middle East. Even without yesterday's charges, the Obama Administration has had plenty of reason to take the lead on confronting the Iranian threat, but it has utterly failed to do so. On June 28, 2011, the White House released its "new" National Strategy for Counterterrorism. The 19-page document makes exactly one reference to Iran. The subject of state-sponsored terrorism is virtually ignored. In August, The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force criticized the Administration for failing to address the threat: The President's strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its proteges--both Hamas and Hezbollah--represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks. Now we see that those criticisms are well-founded, and the threat of Iran launching a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland very nearly became a deadly reality. The Heritage task force wrote that it's a threat that can't be ignored: The iron triangle of state-sponsored terrorism--Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah--is potentially as significant a threat to U.S. interests as a reconstituted al-Qaeda. Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Breaking the triangle apart can only be accomplished by bringing freedom to the people under the tyranny of the leadership in Tehran--change that has to come from within the country. The Obama Administration, to date, has pursued the Obama Doctrine--a foreign policy that calls for the United States to engage with its enemies instead of confronting the threat of state-sponsored terrorism head on. It's an attitude and a posture that has been pervasive in President Obama's rhetoric--abjuring American exceptionalism, passing on the opportunity to speak loudly to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East, failing to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's ruthless regime, offering weak support to Israel and failing to condemn those who threaten the country's very existence, and presenting a face of international accommodation and ambivalence. Obama's strategy invites aggression and leaves the American people less secure as a result. The Administration must finally change direction. Heritage's James Carafano writes that it should take strong measures to respond to Iran's actions, including conducting a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets (in many ways the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al Qaeda in Pakistan). It should impose and enforce the strongest sanctions, target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses, reduce Iran's meddling in Iraq, and rescind and rewrite its counterterrorism strategy. The time for flowery speeches and benevolent engagement with America's avowed enemies is over. President Obama must wake up to the fact that Iran and countries like it pose a very

real threat to America, its friends, and its allies, and it must take proactive action to protect itself from those who seek to do it harm.

Status: formal 

G  PD ]

noun [singular]

1 : an end of life : death ‡ She had/owned no property at the time of her demise. ‡ The musician met an untimely demise. ‡ There are several theories about what caused the demise [=extinction] of the dinosaurs. 2 : the end of something that is thought of as being like a death ‡ We have not had truly local news coverage since the town newspaper¶s demise three years ago. ‡ the company¶s imminentdemise ‡ Losing this game will mean/spell the team¶s demise.

Who Is Responsible for Protecting America?
On October 25, 1983, the first of 7,000 U.S. troops landed on the shore of Grenada under the command of President Ronald Reagan. The goal of the mission? Put down a violent coup that threatened to put the country in the Communist bloc and give the Soviet Union another foothold in America's backyard. Just as President Reagan acted decisively to protect American interests in 1983, so too must America today be prepared to respond to the threats of terrorist forces in the wake of September 11, 2001. But who bears the responsibility for ensuring America's security? The President? Congress? Today at The Heritage Foundation, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III, John D. Ashcroft, and Michael B. Mukasey will discuss that question and their views on the Constitution as it pertains to presidential power and the role of Congress and the Supreme Court during war time. (Click here to watch the event live online from 12 to 1 PM ET.) Following September 11, questions of the proper balance between Congress and the President--as well as the role of the courts--came to the fore. Issues including the capture and treatment of detainees, interrogation techniques, surveillance, the Geneva Conventions, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or the role of the courts during war time all became subjects of intense debate--and the 2008 presidential election. The question of who is responsible for America's security dates back to the Declaration of Independence, which announced the sovereignty of the United States and, with it, the "full Power to levy War." The Framers viewed the security of the nation to be the federal government's foremost responsibility, and it devised a series of checks and balances to

ensure that the powers reside neither in committee alone nor the hands of just one person. Meese describes that balance in a specialUnderstanding America report: In theory, these delegations give rise to a tension between the President and the Congress. The former has ultimate discretion over the deployment of soldiers and nearly all aspects of the conduct of war. The latter holds the power of the purse, by which it may stymie executive initiative. Yet in practice, rather than stand in opposition, the two branches' respective powers over national security have proved complementary, and rare disputes have been settled in compromise, not duel. That control of the greatest force ever known to mankind should be governed by compromise for over two centuries would be a miracle if it were not by design. Meese also points to the President's authority under the Constitution to act swiftly and decisively in ensuring America's security as a key element of the Founders' genius design. It is a power that enabled Reagan to execute the Grenada operation, and it is a power that will help the President protect America in the wake of September 11. Though the Framers could never have imagined the events of September 11, 2001, or the terrorist forces that have made America their enemy, they built a republic that could endure and defeat all external threats and prosper. The war on terrorism, being fought against an enemy with few assets and dead aim on soft targets, has only increased the importance of swiftness and secrecy. The President has the power, and bears the responsibility, to make tough decisions at a moment's notice--whether to trust fresh but uncertain intelligence, bomb an al-Qaeda safe house, target a terrorist for drone attack, or arrest a terror suspect. These decisions are not subject to legislative check or veto. Nor, in an age where a rogue state or stateless terrorist group may threaten the lives of million of Americans, could they be, if the safety of the nation is to be maintained. James Madison wrote, "Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union." Today, as America continues its worldwide fight against terrorist forces, it is vital to remember who is ultimately responsible for America's security, what the Constitution provides, and what the Founders intended.




comparative and superlative forms: more gruesome; most gruesome

: causing horror or disgust ‡ The police report described the scene in gruesome detail. ‡ a gruesome murder

plural traumas 



1 : a very difficult or unpleasant experience that causes someone to have mental or emotional problems usually for a long time [count] ‡ She never fully recovered from the traumas she suffered during her childhood. [noncount] ‡ She never fully recovered from the trauma of her experiences. 2 medical : a serious injury to a person¶s body [noncount] ‡ an accident victim with severe head trauma ‡ repeated trauma to a knee [count] ‡ The accident victim sustained multiple traumas.



verb [with object]

inflected forms: infects; infected; infecting

1 : to cause (someone or something) to become sick or affected by disease ‡ If you¶re sick you should stay home to avoid infectingother people in the office. ‡ The virus has infected many people. ‡ They were unable to prevent bacteria from infecting the wound. ² often used as (be) infected ‡ He was infected by a coworker. ‡ Hewas infected with AIDS. 2 a : to cause (someone) to feel an emotion ² usually followed bywith ‡ She has infected everyone with her enthusiasm. [=her enthusiasm has made other people feel enthusiastic too] 2 b of an emotion : to spread to (other people) ‡ Her enthusiasm has infected everyone. 3 of a computer virus : to cause (a computer or computer file) to stop working as it should ‡ The virus has infected many computers. ‡ All the computers in the office were infected by/with the same virus.

Differ There are two phrasal verbs coined from this verb that are quite often confused. To differ from means 'to be dissimilar or unlike', e.g.Her house differs from mine in that it has the staircase at the front.

To differ with, on the other hand, is a formal word used when someone disagrees with somebody, e.g.He differs with me over the value of nuclear weapons.