Fiscal Policy
Lois Lerner –Top IRS Official — To Take The Fifth Amendment — House Hearing On IRS Targeting Conservative Groups — Videos
Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration
Office of Audit
Original Inspector general’s report on the IRS
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/700665/treasury-inspector-general-report.pdf
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
Inspector general’s report on the IRS
http://documents.latimes.com/inspector-general-report-irs/
Mad at the IRS? Blame It on the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision
“The Other IRS Scandal”: David Cay Johnston on Dark Money Political Groups Seeking Tax-Exemption
How Republicans Have Abused 501(c)(4) Applications Since Citizens United
Dan Pfeiffer on IRS Scandal During ‘This Week’ Interview
IRS’s Tea-Party AUDIT: Explaining a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)
IRS in the spotlight: What’s a 501(c)(4)? By Martina Stewart, CNN
Glenn Beck » IRS, ObamaCare, And The White House
Dobson–I Was Targeted By IRS – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.20
Rand Paul Suggests IRS Has ‘Written Policy’ About Targeting People ‘Opposed To The President’
Rand Paul on Benghazi and IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups – State of the Union 5/19/2013
Paul Ryan Angry Over IRS, Benghazi on Fox News
Obama Has Declared WAR on American Values in IRS Scandal – Fox News Lou Dobbs
Jay Sekulow on Fox News: IRS Hearings Arrogant & Embarrassing
Heller Questions Secretary of the Treasury About IRS Scandal
C-SPAN Senator Hatch Opening Statement – IRS Hearing
A opening statement at the IRS scandal hearing by U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee.
IRS Commissioner: I Orchestrated Planted Q&A On IRS Scandal
House hearing on IRS scandal
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 1
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 2
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 3
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 4
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 5
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 6
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 7
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 8
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 9
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 10
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 12
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 13
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 14
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 15
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 16
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 17
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 18
HOUSE HEARING ON IRS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS PT 19
NOT REALLY FIRED YET Steven Miller Outgoing Acting IRS Commissioner
May 17 2013 House Ways and Means Hearing – Steven Miller testifying
IRS HEATED on Capitol Hill: IS THIS STILL AMERICA? Government Threatens average Americans?
IRS Commissioner: Targeting Conservatives is “Absolutely Not Illegal”
Luke Russert: IRS Official ‘Winging This’ In Testimony, Saying ‘Hey, I’m The Fall Guy For This’
Jay Sekulow on Fox News: IRS Knew About Tageting Conservative Groups
Background Articles and Videos
How to Assert Your Rights with the Police
David Allen – Does the Fifth Amendment Apply to Tax Preparation Records
In Praise of the 5th Amendment – part 1
In Praise of the 5th Amendment – part 2
In Praise of the 5th Amendment – part 3
In Praise of the 5th Amendment – part 4
In Praise of the 5th Amendment – part 5
Top IRS official will invoke the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearing about tea party targeting program
By David Martosko
The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Lois Lerner, who heads up the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division, plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.
The Fifth Amendment provides that U.S. citizens may not be compelled to offer testimony if telling the truth would incriminate them.
Lerner’s defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III, wrote to the committee on Tuesday that his client would refuse to answer questions related to what she knew about the extra levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations that applied for tax-exempt status beginning in 2010.
She also will decline to say why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress, according to the LA Times.
Lerner ‘has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,’ Taylor’s letter read, ‘but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.’
He is asking the oversight committee to excuse Lerner from testifying, claiming that calling her in a congressional hearing would ‘have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her’ since members would not expect her to answer questions.
Ahmad Ali, a committee spokesman, told MailOnline that ‘Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow’s hearing – the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight.’
‘Chairman [Darrel] Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.’
The IRS applied special criteria to conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status, putting them on a ‘Be On The Lookout’ (BOLO) list, based on the groups’ names and political philosophies.
President Barack Obama has said he was unaware of the program until May 10, when excerpts of an IRS Inspector General Report on the practice were leaked to reporters.
But Jay Carney, the president’s chief spokesman, confirmed Monday that senior White House staff, including White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, knew about the IRS’s habits as early as April 24, and chose not to tell Obama.
The Inspector General report found that Lerner and other IRS were notified in or before June 2011 that some staff in the agency’s Cincinnati, Ohio office were using ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots’ and other key words to add applicants to the BOLO list.
Once on that list, the groups were subjected to additional auditing of their financial practices, their membership and their political activities.
Despite knowing about the program, Lerner and other senior IRS staffers withheld the information from Congress despite receiving several requests from House committees whose members heard from constituents that their tea party groups’ tax-exempt approvals were taking as long as two years to be resolved.
The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee was among those that specifically asked the IRS whether it was inspecting tea party groups more closely than other applicants, including those on the political left.
Lerner herself launched her agency’s scandal with a planted question-and-answer exchange during a May 10 American Bar Association conference.
Asked the pre-arranged question, Lerner responded by conceding that her employees had acted inappropriately.
‘Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list,’ she told the assembled tax lawyers.
‘They used names like “tea party” or “Patriots,” and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title.That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.’
She later claimed that the increase in scrutiny of tea party groups was due to an influx of new applications from right-wing organizations, following the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ ruling, which opened the floodgates to greater political participation by nonprofit advocacy groups.
The Washington Post called that claim bogus, however, with the newspaper’s fact checker awarding it a ‘four Pinocchios’ rating for dishonesty.
Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment
By Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani May 21, 2013, 1:17 p.m.
WASHINGTON — A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.
DOCUMENT: The Inspector General’s report on the IRS
Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.
Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.
According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.
But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including the House Oversight panel, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
IRS’s Lois Lerner to take the Fifth
By LAUREN FRENCH and GINGER GIBSON
Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner will invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself when she appears before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
In a letter to Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Lerner’s attorney William W. Taylor III cites the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the issue of whether the IRS singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner will invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself when she appears before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
In a letter to Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Lerner’s attorney William W. Taylor III cites the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the issue of whether the IRS singled out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
“Just when you think things can’t get any stranger around here, they take a twist,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told POLITICO, adding, “this is a very serious matter.”
Taylor’s letter requests that Lerner be excused from testifying, but Issa has issued a subpoena to compel her appearance.
“Requiring her to appear at the hearing merely to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege would have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her,” Taylor wrote.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Lerner’s decision shows she is “afraid” to face Congress and account for her actions.
The decision to take the fifth is a “slap in the face” to Americans, said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.).
“What’s she hiding?” Buchanan asked. “The American people demand and deserve answers. Pleading the Fifth is a direct slap in the face of every American taxpayer betrayed by the IRS’s gross abuse of power.”
Issa has accused Lerner of lying to Congress on four separate occasions last year. He and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote a letter to Lerner last week asking her to brief the Oversight Committee on the disparities in her comments before the scandal broke on the criteria used to flag conservative applications for tax-exempt status.
“It appears that you provided false or misleading information on four separate occasions last year in response to the Committee’s oversight of the IRS’s treatment of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status,” Issa and Jordan wrote.
The California Republican has cast himself as the chief investigator of the administration and had demanded Lerner’s presence to better understand when the IRS learned of the extent of the targeting program.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said he expects Lerner to appear before the panel Wednesday, but had suggested she may invoke her Fifth Amendment right.
“She might, she very well may,” Cummings told reporters Tuesday afternoon when asked if she could invoke the Fifth Amendment. “We’ll see when she comes. She will be there.”
The question was prompted by Cummings correcting himself after saying she would be testifying on Wednesday.
“She should be testifying. She should be there tomorrow,” Cummings said, correcting himself. “I expected her to be there.”
Asked whether she could show up and not testify, he said, “I can’t answer that right now.”
Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman and J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general who conducted the investigation, are scheduled to testify.
Taylor has been involved in several high-profile cases in recent years, including the defense of former IMF President Dominique Strauss-Kahn against criminal assault charges and leading the team that obtained dismissal of claims against former NYSE official and Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone, according to the website of his firm, Zuckerman Spaeder.
He has given over $100,000 to Democratic candidates and causes over the years, according to Federal Election Commission records. Taylor donated $57,000 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and $10,000 to the Obama Victory Fund 2012 last year.
The Los Angeles Times first reported Lerner’s intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Who Benefited From Delaying The Disclosure of the Benghazi and IRS Scandals? President Barack Obama — Who Lost? American People — Videos
SYRIA Retired General Suspects A US Covert Operation For Running Libya Arms To Syria
SYRIA Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Say The US Running Libya Arms To Syrian Rebels
WW3 in ACTION: US LAUNCH covert OPERATION to ARM militants in Syria with HEAVY WEAPONS!
CIA’s role in Libya 4
BENGHAZI: The Real Reason Behind Obama’s Cover-up
Dennis Kucinich Questions CIA Role in Libya
Ron Paul talks about Syria
SYRIA Rand Paul “Maybe We Were Facilitating Arms Leaving Libya Going Through Turkey Into Syria”
SYRIA CNBC: Benghazi Is Not About Libya But An Operation To Put Arms & Men In Syria
Why the GOP Ignores Real Story in Benghazi
WSJ Columnist: Obama Should Bear Full Resposibility For IRS Scandal – Lou Dobbs -wake Up America
May 2 2013 Breaking News Egypt President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood with F-16′s and Tanks
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Sarah Hall Ingram Deputy Commissioner of the Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division (TE/GE) Targeted Tea Party — Now In Charge of IRS Health Care Office — Mission Accomplished Got $100,000 bonuses between 2009 and 2012 — Got Obama Elected President! — Videos
NAACP’s Leader Calls The Tea Party The Taliban Wing Of American Politics
Rand Paul Discusses IRS Scandal & Enemies List on Hannity – 5/13/13
Sarah Hall Ingram promoted to Obamacare boss!
Paul Ryan Rips The IRS On Fox News Sunday
Krauthammer Reacts To Trio Of Political Scandals Surrounding Obama Administration
May 16 Press Conference, Question on IRS scandal asked of the president, not answered
The I.R.S. Takes Aim at the Tea Party (David Keating)
The I.R.S. Abusing Americans Is Nothing New
The I.R.S. targeting of tea party groups in the United States is par for the course. It’s not the first time the agency has been used for partisan political ends. Whether or not the targeting was undertaken as a directive from the White House, the agency’s broad latitude in determining what constitutes partisan political activity is very problematic. The solutions offered by campaign finance reformers would unfortunately only give the agency more power.
Scarborough, Willie Geist Tear Into Obama Admin Over IRS Scandal ‘This Is Tyranny…’
Jon Stewart Destroys Obama Over IRS Scandal & Lack Of ‘Managerial Competence’
IRS chief: Disclosure of targeting was intentional
Lois Lerner, IRS Official: I’m Not Good At Math
IRS Scandal: Lois Lerner In her own words
Who knew what and when at the IRS?
Obama’s Enemies List 2.0
PAUL RYAN Destroys IRS Commissioner Steven Miller at House Hearing
You are a conspiracy theorist if you blame Obama.
Obama’s 3 Major Scandals Explained
White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’
By Ben Wolfgang
The Washington Times
A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”
Critics of the administration expect many more heads to roll as the true scope and intent of the IRS actions come to light, but Mr. Pfeiffer on Sunday strongly defended Ms. Ingram.
“No one has suggested that she did anything wrong yet,” Mr. Pfeiffer said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“Before everyone in this town convicts this person in the court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that. There’s nothing that suggests she did anything wrong,” he said.
Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division.
Other IRS authorities have paid the price for what officials on both sides of the aisle, along with a host of others, have described as outrageous behavior. Steven Miller, former acting IRS commissioner questioned by Congress last week, was pushed out by the president.
Ms. Ingram’s replacement, Joseph Grant, has announced his retirement despite taking the job only a few weeks ago.
By keeping Ms. Ingram in place — and giving her the controls of something as complex and controversial as Obamacare — the administration is adding fuel to an already raging fire.
Republicans and many others were skeptical of the federal government and its competence to implement health care reform, and Ms. Ingram’s involvement only generates more questions.
Many Republicans also say that when the smoke clears, the American public will learn that it was not merely rogue IRS employees who targeted tea party and other conservative groups. Rather, they argue, there was a policy directive to silence critics of the president, and some higher-level figure, whether it was Ms. Ingram or someone else, had to have been involved.
“I think we’re going to find that there’s a written policy that says we were targeting people who were opposed to the president. I can’t believe that one rogue agent started this. It seems to be too widespread,” said Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican and potential 2016 presidential candidate.
His Republican colleague Sen. John Cornyn of Texas agreed that there must be more to the story.
“Bureaucrats don’t take risks unless they have a signal, either explicit or implicit, from their higher-ups that what you’re doing is exactly what we expect you to do,” he said during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I have a very hard time believing that this was something cooked up in Cincinnati by midlevel employees.”
Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, called the situation “rotten to the core” and said the IRS ordeal gives the American people a chance to truly see “big government in practice.”
Many of the president’s fellow Democrats are fighting back on a different front. There is no defending the targeting of Americans based on political belief, but lawmakers increasingly are raising the broader issue of whether so many groups should be granted tax-exempt status.
“There’s a second scandal here, and that is that hundreds of millions have been used [by tax-exempt groups] that are supposed to be used as nonprofit social welfare entities for political purposes” said Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, speaking on ABC’s “This Week.”
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, argued that IRS employees couldn’t have understood the complex laws governing which groups can be considered tax-exempt or how politically active they can be before they cross the line.
“This law lends itself to abuse,” he said, also appearing on ABC. “I don’t think that gang in Cincinnati had the slightest clue as to find out whether or not people making contributions were involved in politics or whether they were involved in social welfare.”
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office
By John Parkinson and Steven Portnoy
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.
Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.
As the House voted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, House Speaker John Boehner expressed “serious concerns” that the IRS is empowered as the law’s chief enforcer.
“Fully repealing ObamaCare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower health care costs and protect jobs,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
“Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public’s trust by secretly targeting conservative groups,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “Even by Washington’s standards, that’s unacceptable.”
Sen. John Cornyn even introduced a bill, the “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013,” which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate, including the IRS, from enforcing the Affordable Care Act.
“Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care,” Cornyn, R-Texas, stated. “I do not support Obamacare, and after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also reacted to the revelation late Thursday, stating the news was “stunning, just stunning.”
ABC News’ Abby D. Phillip contributed to this report.
Who Is Sarah Hall Ingram?
June, 2009 –Sarah Hall Ingram, the new commissioner of the IRS TE/GE (Tax-exempt and Government Entities) division of the IRS, spoke on June 23 at Georgetown’s Continuing Legal Education program about the IRS role in nonprofit governance. In the speech, Ingram identified four general principles that she believes are essential to good nonprofit governance:
A foundational principle is that the organization should clearly understand and publicly express its mission. This helps assure that the organization provides a public benefit and does not drift away from a charitable purpose. It helps an organization avoid practices that are inconsistent with tax-exempt status.
Equally important is the principle that the organization’s board should be engaged, informed and independent. The board should have real responsibility and authority. It must, for example, be able to implement, in the life of the organization, the rules against inurement and self-dealing.
Another set of key good governance principles are those relating to the proper use and safeguarding of assets. These principles are supported by policies and practices that address executive compensation, that protect against conflicts of interest, and that support independent financial reviews.
Transparency is another key principle. I believe that board decisions should be reflected in minutes, that records supporting decisions should be retained for reasonable periods, that whistleblowers should be protected, and that each year’s Form 990 should be complete, accurate and prepared in good faith.
Ingram insisted that the IRS would not create a “one size fits all” definition of governance, but strongly reaffirmed the IRS’s role in governance issues: “Another principle I will follow is that the IRS has a clear, unambiguous role to play in governance.” While I have some doubts about the extent to which the IRS should be active in governance matters, it is hard to argue with Ingram’s view that certain core exemption issues (executive pay, other private inurement, political activity, etc.) do involve governance processes. It will be interesting to see how the IRS’s role in governance evolves under Ingram’s leadership.
To read Commissioner Ingram’s full address go to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/ingram__gtown__governance_062309.pdf
http://www.mapfornonprofits.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={136E71A8-5197-4841-B935-541944239E23}
IRS Announces Appointment of Sarah Hall Ingram as Chief, Appeals
IR-2006-59, April 11, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that Sarah Hall Ingram has been appointed to the position of Chief, Appeals. Ingram will replace David Robison, effective May 7.
As the head of the agency’s Appeals division, Ingram will be responsible for overseeing the operations of an administrative forum for taxpayers contesting an IRS compliance action. The Appeals mission is to resolve tax disputes without litigation; it provides an independent administrative appeal process for all taxpayers.
“I’m pleased Sarah Hall Ingram will be stepping into the position of Chief, Appeals,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “Her broad legal and technical experience will serve the IRS well as she assumes this important post.”
Since July 2004, Ingram has been serving as Deputy Commissioner of the Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division (TE/GE). Ingram began her career with the IRS in the former Tax Litigation Division in 1982. She became Employee Plans Litigation Counsel in 1987, providing litigation coordination nationwide for employee benefit cases. In 1992, Ingram became Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations (EBEO), where she served until her 1994 appointment as Associate Chief Counsel, EBEO. As part of the IRS Modernization program, Ingram was appointed in 1999 to the new position of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, TE/GE, where she was responsible for providing legal services to the TE/GE Division and its customers as well as other parts of the IRS.
Ingram received her Bachelor of Arts from Yale University in 1979 and her J.D. in 1982 from Georgetown University Law School. She is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
Everson also expressed his thanks to Robison, who will retire May 6, after serving 35 years with the IRS.
“David’s service as the Chief, Appeals, for the past four years has been exemplary,” Everson said. “We wish him well in his future endeavors.”
Previously, Robison served in numerous positions involving corporate and international taxation. Last year Robison was selected by Everson to coordinate IRS support for President Bush’s Tax Reform Panel.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Announces-Appointment-of-Sarah-Hall-Ingram-as-Chief,-Appeals
IRS targets conservative groups
By Dan Keating and Darla Cameron, Published: May 15, 2013
The IRS grants tax-exempt status to 40,000 nonprofit groups per year. When the IRS began targeting conservative groups’ applications in 2011, nonprofit approvals for groups with tea party or 9-12 in their name stopped entirely. Five groups with those names had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but zero were approved in 2011. After policy reconsideration in 2012, the backlog was broken and 27 groups were approved, mostly in the second half of the year.
The slowdown was evident with other conservative-sounding groups, as well. Thirty-seven groups with the words patriot or constitution had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but only 10 were approved in 2011. Once again, the backlog was relieved in 2012 with 29 approvals.
On the other hand, groups with the word progressive in their names suffered no similar slowdown pattern. The number of approvals increased each year from 17 in 2009 to 20 in 2012. Read related article.
Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House
Congressional Republicans, not resting with the Internal Revenue Service scandal, are moving to broaden the matter to an array of tax malfeasances and “intimidation tactics” they hope will ensnare the White House.
Republican charges range from clearly questionable actions to seemingly specious allegations, and they grow by the day. On Friday, lawmakers sought to tie the I.R.S. matter to the carrying out of President Obama’s health care law, which will rely heavily on the agency. Whether they succeed holds significant ramifications for Mr. Obama, who will soon know if he is dealing with a late spring thunderstorm that may soon blow over or a consuming squall that will leave lasting damage.
Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan, the usually mild-mannered chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, set the tone Friday at Congress’s first hearing on the targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S., laying out details, from the alleged threatening of donors to conservative nonprofit groups to the leaking of confidential I.R.S. documents.
In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”
“It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people just long enough to make it through an election,” Mr. Camp said.
Taken aback, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, modified his prepared remarks to warn, “If this hearing becomes essentially a bootstrap to continue the campaign of 2012 and to prepare for 2014, we will be making a very, very serious mistake.”
Republicans raised a long list of issues. Mr. Camp contended, for instance, that a White House official’s divulging of a private company’s tax status constituted “a clear intimidation tactic.” The 2010 incident involved an offhand comment by the White House economist Austan Goolsbee that Koch Industries had not paid corporate income taxes because it pays taxes through the personal income tax code. As it turned out, that was not true, but the assertion was made in a discussion of tax reform ideas, not politics.
The Republicans also criticized the publication of donors to the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage. That donors list surfaced mysteriously in March 2012 from a whistle-blower whose identity is still unknown. The whistle-blower apparently obtained it by simply requesting it from the I.R.S.
Linkage to the health care law came through Sarah Hall Ingram, a longtime I.R.S. official who has headed the agency’s program to carry out the Affordable Care Act since December 2010. Before that, she led the I.R.S.’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, which contained the political targeting effort.
“This is an audit, and it’s helpful,” Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas, said of the investigation of I.R.S. targeting by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, “but it’s the tip of the iceberg.”
But the inspector general made clear that effort did not reach the attention of high-level I.R.S. officials until 2011 at the earliest.
The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
The disclosure last summer came as part of a routine briefing of the investigations that the inspector general would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.
Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft.
“Treasury strongly supports the independent oversight of its three inspectors general, and it does not interfere in ongoing I.G. audits,” the department said in a statement Friday evening.
Still, Inspector General J. Russell George’s testimony fueled efforts by Congressional Republicans to ensnare Mr. Obama in the scandals suddenly swirling over the White House. Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who joined the national ticket as the vice-presidential nominee last year, said of the revelation, “That raises a big question.”
Republicans hit hard on the divulging of confidential tax information, hinting of intimidation not only by the I.R.S. but also by the White House.
In March 2012, the Human Rights Campaign and The Huffington Post made public confidential tax documents from the National Organization for Marriage. The Human Rights Campaign said it obtained the documents from a “whistle-blower” who mailed them to the gay rights group’s Washington headquarters.
In a similar incident, ProPublica, an investigative journalism Web site, asked the I.R.S.’s Cincinnati office for the applications of 67 nonprofits, both liberal and conservative. When the I.R.S. responded, it inadvertently included applications for nine conservative groups that had not yet been granted tax-exempt status, a violation of confidentiality law.
When ProPublica realized what it had — including the application from Crossroads GPS, the conservative group founded by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists — it alerted the I.R.S., which warned the journalists that “publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony” punishable by up to five years in prison. ProPublica ProPublica redacted certain details and published the documents anyway.
Representative Peter Roskam, Republican of Illinois, hit on a different explanation. “On the one hand, you’re arguing today that the I.R.S. is not corrupt, but the subtext of that is you’re saying, ‘Look, we’re just incompetent,’ ” Mr. Roskam said. “It is a perilous pathway to go down.”
One release that turned out to be advertent was last Friday’s disclosure of the agency’s conservative targeting. Steven Miller, the ousted acting commissioner of the I.R.S., confessed that the agency’s apology was prompted by a question planted by the agency at an American Bar Association meeting. At that meeting, Lois Lerner, the head of the I.R.S.’s division overseeing tax-exempt organizations, was asked about an inquiry into the targeting issue, eliciting an apology that quickly leaked out of the closed-door session. The I.R.S. then scrambled to issue a formal release on the issue.
Mr. Miller divulged that the exchange was not an impromptu apology but a planned exchange between Ms. Lerner and Celia Roady, a tax lawyer at the Washington office of the Morgan Lewis law firm. That revelation only underscored the ham-handed way the scandal has burst into view.
Under fire, Mr. Miller called the agency’s targeting of conservative groups “obnoxious,” but he told the House Ways and Means Committee it was not motivated by partisanship. And in testy exchanges, he said he had not misled Congress, even though he did not divulge the targeting efforts of a Cincinnati unit examining 70,000 applications for tax exemption.
He called the group’s centralization of applications from groups with names that included the words “Tea Party” or “patriots” simply “foolish mistakes” that “were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Obama Fires Acting IRS Commissioner — Obama The Liar — When Will Congress Impeach Obama? — Videos
President Obama Announces Resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner: I Am Angry About It
Obama the Liar
Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’
MUST SEE VIDEO!!! Who is the REAL Barack Obama – The Liar Deceiver Puppet Satan
Who Controls America — George Carlin — Videos
The Owners of the Country
Entropy fan
The Genius George Carlin
George Carlin: Brain Droppings
George Carlin Interview
Robert Littell — The Company: A Novel of the CIA — Videos
The Company [2007] 1/3
THE COMPANY [2007] 2/3
THE COMPANY [2007] 3/3
Background Articles and Videos
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 1 – Return To The Circus
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 2 – Tarr Tells His Story
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 3 – Smiley Tracks The Mole
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 5 – Tinker Tailor
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 6 – Smiley Sets A Trap
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 7 – Flushing Out The Mole
Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 1 di 4
Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 2 di 4
Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 3 di 4
Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 4 di 4
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
James Grant Interviewed by James Turk–Federal Reserve, National Debt, Money, Gold — Videos
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
The Day They Drove Old Hillary Down–Benghazi-Gate Obama Clinton Cover-up Blown — Rice, Clinton, Obama Lied To American People and The World — Americans Died — Videos
UPDATED May 8, 2013
Includes Videos From
House Oversight Committee Investigation of Benghazi Terrorist Attack
The Band – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Cover-up
A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.
The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up
Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’
Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama
Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists
Gen. Jerry Boykin: “Get accountability and get the truth out” on Benghazi
Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs
Adm. Ace Lyons: On Benghazi, Obama Needs to Come Clean
CNBC: Benghazi is not about Libya! “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”
Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help
The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned
Mother of Benghazi victim: I blame Hillary
ISSA: This Benghazi hearing is over, but the investigation is not
ISSA: Our Goal in this Benghazi Investigation is to Get Answers
(Benghazi Witness) THOMPSON: “We needed to act now and not wait”
(Benghazi Witness) HICKS: Until Benghazi I Loved Everyday of My Job
Gregory Hicks’ 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack
(Benghazi Witness) NORDSTROM: Labors to Uncover What Happened Matters
Benghazi Witness Says State Dept. Told Him Not To Meet With Congressional Investigators
During Call With Clinton On Night Of Benghazi Attacks, No Mention Of A Demonstration
Rep. Jordan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. McHenry Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Chaffetz Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Turner Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Mica Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Gowdy Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Gosar Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Hastings Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Meehan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Walberg Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Duncan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. DesJarlais Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Lankford Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Amash Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
NORDSTROM: It’s not what the ARB report says, it’s what it doesn’t
Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings Tears Into GOP Rep. Issa For ‘Politicizing’ Benghazi
Rep. Gerry Connolly Speaks at Benghazi Hearing (5/8/13)
Benghazi ‘By Definition A Cover-Up’
Conflicting Reports on Benghazi Attack Leave Many Asking Who Changed the CIA Talking Points and Why
The Five Hosts Hammer Obama, Media For ‘Blatant CoverUp’ On Benghazi
Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 1
Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Clinton Tried To Cut Out Counterterror Dept – Lou Dobbs
Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 2
Chairman Issa Reveals Startling Information on Benghazi Terrorist Attack
Rep. Chaffetz Discusses the Benghazi Investigation on Fox News Sunday
Benghazi Gate – New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya – Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin
Benghazi Whistle Blower PART 2 Talks to Fox News on 05-01-13
Rush Limbaugh on Benghazi Scandal: “They’re about to Blow this Sky High”; Reviews Scandal Timeline
Death And Deceit In Benghazi – Did Obama Amind Try Hide The Truth? – W Bret Bair
Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help
Obama’s UN Speech – TheBlaze
The Project parts 1-2, FULL video
The Project, by Glenn Beck, covers the infiltration of the United States government and our institutions by the Muslim Brotherhood
A Caliphate Is Coming – GBTV
Obama: violence and intolerance have no place among United Nations
Obama and his Press Secretary Blaming the Video for the Benghazi Attack
Benghazi white house disinformation
Innocence of Muslims full movie
Background Articles and Videos
Oversight Hearing Part 1 – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”
Breaking News-Benghazi Investigation’s Over. Judge Jeanine:Obama&Hillary Blame the Victim !!!???
Jeanine Pirro and Pat Caddell discuss Hillary Clinton’s roll in the Benghazi cover-up
Below is a letter from a group of about 700 retired U.S. military special operations veterans to the House of Representatives, urging Congress to establish a committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Colonel Dick Brauer, founder of the group Special Operations Speaks explained the effort on Fox and Friends this morning.
To: Members of The U.S. House of Representatives
Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012
The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers
preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.
The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.
It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:
1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?
a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?
b. If so, were they alerted?
c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?
d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?
e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?
f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?
3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?
4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?
5. Where are the survivors?
6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?
7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?
8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?
9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?
10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?
11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?
14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?
16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?
This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.
A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.
The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.
We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.
CBS Devotes Two Straight Days of Coverage to ‘Possible Cover-Up’ on Benghazi; ABC, NBC Out to Lunch
By Matthew Balan
CBS used its Sunday evening and Monday morning newscasts to keep the spotlight on the question of a “possible cover-up” surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Jeff Glor led CBS Evening News with the scoop from earlier in the day on Face the Nation – that a “career U.S. diplomat is raising new questions” about the Obama administration’s claim that the attack spontaneously erupted in response to an early protest in Egypt.
Monday’s CBS This Morning also aired a report on this latest development on the September 11, 2012 attack. Meanwhile, ABC and NBC have yet to pick up on the veteran diplomat’s allegations, despite the fact that he is set to testify publicly to Congress on the issue on Wednesday.
Glor teased a report from correspondent David Martin by trumpeting that “a new witness emerges – a senior U.S. diplomat contradicts the White House and seems to support Republican claims of a cover-up over the attack in Benghazi.” Martin first outlined what Rep. Darrell Issa had revealed earlier in the day on Face the Nation:
DAVID MARTIN: Greg Hicks – at the time, the number-two diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…directly contradicts administration claims that at first, the attack was thought to be nothing more than a demonstration growing out of a similar protest that day in Cairo. ‘I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.’
The CBS journalist continued with a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now-discredited assertion about the terror attack, which she made on several Sunday morning talk shows on September 16, 2012. He also noted that Rep. Issa “pointed out Rice’s statement directly contradicted the president of Libya, who had appeared just before her on ‘Face the Nation’.”
Near the end of the segment, Martin underlined a key assertion from Hicks – that the diplomat “told committee investigators Rice’s words were an insult to the president of Libya, and may have hobbled efforts to capture those responsible for the attack. ‘I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows.’”
Hours later, on Monday’s CBS This Morning, correspondent Margaret Brennan rehashed much of what her colleague had reported the previous evening. Brennan also highlighted another statement from Hicks on Rice’s apparent slight to the Libyan president:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Hicks said that the public contradiction was a personal insult to the Libyan president, because Ambassador Rice – quote, ‘basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.’ He believes that’s why the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI access to the crime scene for several weeks.
Brennan had also singled out the FBI’s pursuit of three persons of interest who could provide information on the attack in Benghazi during a report on Thursday’s CBS This Morning, and touted how “what happened that night is still the topic of debate in Washington“. ABC devoted a news brief to the FBI investigation on Wednesday’s World News, while NBC punted on covering it.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/05/06/cbs-devotes-two-straight-days-coverage-possible-cover-benghazi-abc-nb#ixzz2SeOcSj3V
The Benghazi talking points: What’s known and unknown
Posted by Glenn Kessler
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”
— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jan. 23, 2013
New information is raising questions about the development of the administration’s talking points on the deadly attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans, including the ambassador, dead.
Readers may recall that The Fact Checker concluded that there was something rather odd about U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice’s comments on the Sunday news shows shortly after the attack. Rice said the attack “began spontaneously” because of a reaction to a protest in Cairo sparked by a “hateful video,” and there was no indication it was “premeditated or preplanned.”
We awarded her Two Pinocchios the morning after she appeared on the shows, concluding that “the publicly available evidence stands in stark contrast to Rice’s talking points.”
The White House at the time sharply disputed that conclusion, but over time that column has held up rather well. (In an interview with congressional investigators that was released over the weekend, deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks said “my jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”) Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.
The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.
We also have awarded Pinocchios to Republicans for claims about Benghazi. In this column, as a reader service, we outline below some of the new disclosures, contained in a report by House Republicans and an article in the Weekly Standard, and contrast the new information with previous statements made by administration officials.
The House report contains references to specific e-mails between administration officials; the Weekly Standard then identifies who wrote the e-mails as well as various drafts of the talking points. As far as we know, the administration has not publicly denied the information about the talking points contained in the GOP report or the article.
The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.
Here is White House spokesman Jay Carney speaking to reporters on Nov. 28, 2012:
“Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.”
“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.”
Note how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence community.”
In a narrow sense, this is correct. Both the House report and the Weekly Standard say the CIA created — or “originated” — the first draft of the talking points. The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather detailed, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. It also referred to previous attacks against foreign interests and the possibility there had been surveillance of the U.S. facility.
But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — objected to this draft after being asked to clear the talking points for release. The CIA made some changes, but apparently that was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail disclosed by the House report that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”
(Update: Reading between the lines, part of State’s concern appears to be inconsistency in messaging. Nuland, as State Department spokesman, had been constrained from saying much about the attack at the podium, and now the CIA was proposing to give lawmakers much more information than the administration had released. Moreover, from State’s perspective, the original draft contained references to CIA’s warnings about the security environment, which appeared designed to deflect attention from the agency’s substantial role in Benghazi.)
Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications), who was part of the email group receiving Nuland’s message, e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.
The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.
Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.
Morell may have had his hand on the pen, but the available evidence suggests that White House and State Department had much more involvement than the “single adjustment” of changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” as Carney asserted.
The biggest unknown is whether the “building leadership” in the State Department that objected to the initial talking points included anyone on Clinton’s immediate staff. (One presumes that nit-picking over wording would not have risen to Clinton’s level.) There is no indication that Nuland had any role in crafting or even discussing the talking points after her email on Friday evening, nor is it clear from the email portions that have been released whether she had actually consulted with other officials before objecting to the draft.
Nuland is expected to be nominated for assistant secretary for European affairs. Lawmakers are likely to question her closely on this point during her confirmation hearings.
Clinton, during her testimony before the Senate and the House in January, made the following comments about the development of the talking points. She also stressed it was an “intelligence product” and said she was not involved in the “talking points process” and she “personally” was not focused on them — odd locutions that leave open the possibility that she was aware of the internal debate at the time.
“I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points. I was focused on keeping our people safe.”
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”
“I was not involved in the so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process, trying to get to the best information available. It was an intelligence product.”
“The evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points. And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”
As more information emerges, we will continue to track how the administration’s statements hold up over time and whether more Pinocchio ratings are appropriate.
Lankford: Either Obama State Dept Ignored Libya Threats, Or Ignored Diplomats’ Please for Protection
US Security Chief in Libya: “State Department Told Us Don’t Continue To Ask For Help”
ISSA OPENING STATEMENT – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”
President Obama’s Complete UN Address (2012)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Who Wrote The Benghazi Cover-up Story of The Anti-Islamic YouTube Video for Rice, Clinton, and Obama? Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication–Propagandist Speech Writer? — Videos
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Grilled Over 4 Deaths and Poor Security in Benghazi and Arms Shipments or Transfers From Libya To Turkey Bound For Syria–Denies There Was Any Shipment–Ask The Central Intelligence Agency–Videos
The Rise and Fall of General David Petreaus–Leaks and Lying: Lessons Learned–Obama Lied and Americans Died–Email Evasion of Privacy–Benghazigate–Videos
Presidential Oath Takers and Oath Breakers–Stopping The 20 Million Mexican Illegal Alien Invasion of the United States!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Skyrocketing U.S. National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities For Medicare and Social Security — Videos
U.S. Debt Clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?
Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx
Most Important Problem
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx
Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts
Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke
Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco
US Debt A Threat To National Security
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6
‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’
Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?
What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?
How Big Is the U.S. Debt?
Funding Government by the Minute
Why Not Print More Money?
Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?
US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.
If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.
Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP
The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.
With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.
Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.
Revenues
Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).
As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.
Outlays
In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)
After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.
Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections
The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.
Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook
Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:
- Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
- The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
- A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.
Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.
In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.
Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years
The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.
Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.
The Economic Outlook for 2013
CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.
The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018
After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.
Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.
The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023
For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.
Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Employment Level Still 3 Million Jobs Less Then Peak Level in November 2007 Plus Short 9 Million Jobs For Population Growth in Last 65 Months — 12 Million Job Shortage — Stagflation — DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high — Buy Low–Sell High — Sell Your U.S. Bonds and Stocks Now — Videos
DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high
May 3rd 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (April Jobs Report)
Jobless Rate Falls to Four-Year Low, and More
Jobs Pop, Unemployment Rate Drops
Data extracted on: May 3, 2013 (11:51:32 AM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Employment Level
143,579,000
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 136559(1) | 136598 | 136701 | 137270 | 136630 | 136940 | 136531 | 136662 | 136893 | 137088 | 137322 | 137614 | |
| 2001 | 137778 | 137612 | 137783 | 137299 | 137092 | 136873 | 137071 | 136241 | 136846 | 136392 | 136238 | 136047 | |
| 2002 | 135701 | 136438 | 136177 | 136126 | 136539 | 136415 | 136413 | 136705 | 137302 | 137008 | 136521 | 136426 | |
| 2003 | 137417(1) | 137482 | 137434 | 137633 | 137544 | 137790 | 137474 | 137549 | 137609 | 137984 | 138424 | 138411 | |
| 2004 | 138472(1) | 138542 | 138453 | 138680 | 138852 | 139174 | 139556 | 139573 | 139487 | 139732 | 140231 | 140125 | |
| 2005 | 140245(1) | 140385 | 140654 | 141254 | 141609 | 141714 | 142026 | 142434 | 142401 | 142548 | 142499 | 142752 | |
| 2006 | 143150(1) | 143457 | 143741 | 143761 | 144089 | 144353 | 144202 | 144625 | 144815 | 145314 | 145534 | 145970 | |
| 2007 | 146028(1) | 146057 | 146320 | 145586 | 145903 | 146063 | 145905 | 145682 | 146244 | 145946 | 146595 | 146273 | |
| 2008 | 146378(1) | 146156 | 146086 | 146132 | 145908 | 145737 | 145532 | 145203 | 145076 | 144802 | 144100 | 143369 | |
| 2009 | 142153(1) | 141644 | 140721 | 140652 | 140250 | 140005 | 139898 | 139481 | 138810 | 138421 | 138665 | 138025 | |
| 2010 | 138439(1) | 138624 | 138767 | 139296 | 139255 | 139148 | 139167 | 139405 | 139388 | 139097 | 139046 | 139295 | |
| 2011 | 139253(1) | 139471 | 139643 | 139606 | 139681 | 139405 | 139509 | 139870 | 140164 | 140314 | 140771 | 140896 | |
| 2012 | 141608(1) | 142019 | 142020 | 141934 | 142302 | 142448 | 142250 | 142164 | 142974 | 143328 | 143277 | 143305 | |
| 2013 | 143322(1) | 143492 | 143286 | 143579 | |||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Level
155,238,000
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 142267(1) | 142456 | 142434 | 142751 | 142388 | 142591 | 142278 | 142514 | 142518 | 142622 | 142962 | 143248 | |
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153144(1) | 152983 | 153051 | 152435 | 152670 | 153041 | 153054 | 152749 | 153414 | 153183 | 153835 | 153918 | |
| 2008 | 154063(1) | 153653 | 153908 | 153769 | 154303 | 154313 | 154469 | 154641 | 154570 | 154876 | 154639 | 154655 | |
| 2009 | 154232(1) | 154526 | 154142 | 154479 | 154742 | 154710 | 154505 | 154300 | 153815 | 153804 | 153887 | 153120 | |
| 2010 | 153455(1) | 153702 | 153960 | 154577 | 154110 | 153623 | 153709 | 154078 | 153966 | 153681 | 154140 | 153649 | |
| 2011 | 153244(1) | 153269 | 153358 | 153478 | 153552 | 153369 | 153325 | 153707 | 154074 | 154010 | 154096 | 153945 | |
| 2012 | 154356(1) | 154825 | 154707 | 154451 | 154998 | 155149 | 154995 | 154647 | 155056 | 155576 | 155319 | 155511 | |
| 2013 | 155654(1) | 155524 | 155028 | 155238 | |||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3%
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 67.0 | |
| 2001 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 2002 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.3 | |
| 2003 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 65.9 | |
| 2004 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.9 | |
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.6 | |
| 2013 | 63.6 | 63.5 | 63.3 | 63.3 |
Unemployment Level
11,659,000
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 5708 | 5858 | 5733 | 5481 | 5758 | 5651 | 5747 | 5853 | 5625 | 5534 | 5639 | 5634 | |
| 2001 | 6023 | 6089 | 6141 | 6271 | 6226 | 6484 | 6583 | 7042 | 7142 | 7694 | 8003 | 8258 | |
| 2002 | 8182 | 8215 | 8304 | 8599 | 8399 | 8393 | 8390 | 8304 | 8251 | 8307 | 8520 | 8640 | |
| 2003 | 8520 | 8618 | 8588 | 8842 | 8957 | 9266 | 9011 | 8896 | 8921 | 8732 | 8576 | 8317 | |
| 2004 | 8370 | 8167 | 8491 | 8170 | 8212 | 8286 | 8136 | 7990 | 7927 | 8061 | 7932 | 7934 | |
| 2005 | 7784 | 7980 | 7737 | 7672 | 7651 | 7524 | 7406 | 7345 | 7553 | 7453 | 7566 | 7279 | |
| 2006 | 7064 | 7184 | 7072 | 7120 | 6980 | 7001 | 7175 | 7091 | 6847 | 6727 | 6872 | 6762 | |
| 2007 | 7116 | 6927 | 6731 | 6850 | 6766 | 6979 | 7149 | 7067 | 7170 | 7237 | 7240 | 7645 | |
| 2008 | 7685 | 7497 | 7822 | 7637 | 8395 | 8575 | 8937 | 9438 | 9494 | 10074 | 10538 | 11286 | |
| 2009 | 12079 | 12881 | 13421 | 13826 | 14492 | 14705 | 14607 | 14819 | 15005 | 15382 | 15223 | 15095 | |
| 2010 | 15016 | 15078 | 15192 | 15281 | 14856 | 14475 | 14542 | 14673 | 14577 | 14584 | 15094 | 14354 | |
| 2011 | 13992 | 13798 | 13716 | 13872 | 13871 | 13964 | 13817 | 13837 | 13910 | 13696 | 13325 | 13049 | |
| 2012 | 12748 | 12806 | 12686 | 12518 | 12695 | 12701 | 12745 | 12483 | 12082 | 12248 | 12042 | 12206 | |
| 2013 | 12332 | 12032 | 11742 | 11659 |
Unemployment Rate U-3
7.5%
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| 2003 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
| 2004 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 2005 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| 2006 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| 2007 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
| 2008 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.3 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| 2013 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.5 |
16-19 Years (Teenage) Unemployment Rate
24.1%
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.2 | |
| 2001 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 17.0 | |
| 2002 | 16.5 | 16.0 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 15.1 | 17.1 | 16.9 | |
| 2003 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.6 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 16.2 | |
| 2004 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 16.4 | 17.6 | |
| 2005 | 16.2 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.5 | 16.1 | 17.0 | 14.9 | |
| 2006 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 15.2 | 14.8 | 14.6 | |
| 2007 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 16.8 | |
| 2008 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 20.5 | |
| 2009 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 23.4 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 25.9 | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.6 | |
| 2010 | 26.0 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 25.1 | |
| 2011 | 25.5 | 24.0 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 24.7 | 24.9 | 25.2 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 22.9 | |
| 2012 | 23.4 | 23.7 | 25.0 | 24.9 | 24.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.5 | |
| 2013 | 23.4 | 25.1 | 24.2 | 24.1 |
Average Weeks Unemployed
36.5%
Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 13.1 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 12.6 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 12.5 | |
| 2001 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 12.7 | 12.9 | 13.3 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 14.3 | 14.5 | |
| 2002 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.4 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 16.5 | 17.6 | 17.8 | 17.6 | 18.5 | |
| 2003 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 18.1 | 19.4 | 19.0 | 19.9 | 19.7 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 19.9 | 19.8 | |
| 2004 | 19.9 | 20.1 | 19.8 | 19.6 | 19.8 | 20.5 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 19.4 | 19.5 | 19.7 | 19.4 | |
| 2005 | 19.5 | 19.1 | 19.5 | 19.6 | 18.6 | 17.9 | 17.6 | 18.4 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 17.5 | 17.5 | |
| 2006 | 16.9 | 17.8 | 17.1 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 16.1 | |
| 2007 | 16.3 | 16.7 | 17.8 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 17.2 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 17.0 | 17.3 | 16.6 | |
| 2008 | 17.5 | 16.9 | 16.5 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.7 | 18.6 | 19.9 | 18.9 | 19.9 | |
| 2009 | 19.8 | 20.1 | 20.9 | 21.6 | 22.4 | 23.9 | 25.1 | 25.3 | 26.7 | 27.4 | 29.0 | 29.7 | |
| 2010 | 30.4 | 29.8 | 31.6 | 33.2 | 33.9 | 34.4 | 33.8 | 33.6 | 33.4 | 34.0 | 34.1 | 34.8 | |
| 2011 | 37.3 | 37.4 | 39.2 | 38.6 | 39.5 | 39.6 | 40.4 | 40.3 | 40.4 | 38.9 | 40.7 | 40.7 | |
| 2012 | 40.2 | 39.9 | 39.5 | 39.1 | 39.6 | 39.7 | 38.8 | 39.3 | 39.6 | 39.9 | 39.7 | 38.1 | |
| 2013 | 35.3 | 36.9 | 37.1 | 36.5 |
Unemployment Level New Entrants
1,280,000
Series Id: LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status: New entrants
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 394 | 420 | 429 | 406 | 466 | 427 | 433 | 499 | 415 | 402 | 419 | 490 | |
| 2001 | 444 | 396 | 378 | 457 | 468 | 467 | 448 | 485 | 473 | 481 | 495 | 515 | |
| 2002 | 484 | 507 | 538 | 527 | 497 | 549 | 545 | 612 | 536 | 479 | 591 | 535 | |
| 2003 | 599 | 584 | 630 | 635 | 630 | 661 | 669 | 652 | 686 | 636 | 593 | 693 | |
| 2004 | 676 | 666 | 631 | 652 | 718 | 649 | 702 | 704 | 695 | 734 | 700 | 702 | |
| 2005 | 621 | 753 | 712 | 764 | 710 | 650 | 630 | 626 | 607 | 638 | 673 | 633 | |
| 2006 | 616 | 711 | 636 | 591 | 517 | 646 | 639 | 646 | 612 | 572 | 591 | 586 | |
| 2007 | 622 | 599 | 615 | 620 | 530 | 640 | 602 | 588 | 668 | 696 | 678 | 679 | |
| 2008 | 677 | 656 | 704 | 625 | 797 | 786 | 835 | 821 | 815 | 819 | 763 | 803 | |
| 2009 | 779 | 999 | 874 | 901 | 965 | 1002 | 1004 | 1085 | 1150 | 1100 | 1326 | 1240 | |
| 2010 | 1199 | 1192 | 1155 | 1188 | 1201 | 1170 | 1207 | 1279 | 1211 | 1277 | 1272 | 1308 | |
| 2011 | 1352 | 1289 | 1308 | 1301 | 1220 | 1231 | 1278 | 1260 | 1370 | 1289 | 1271 | 1286 | |
| 2012 | 1258 | 1382 | 1421 | 1362 | 1347 | 1316 | 1299 | 1268 | 1253 | 1302 | 1326 | 1291 | |
| 2013 | 1287 | 1279 | 1316 | 1280 |
Not in Labor Force, Search For Work and Available
2,347,000
Series Id: LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Available to work now
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 1207 | 1281 | 1219 | 1216 | 1113 | 1142 | 1172 | 1097 | 1166 | 1044 | 1100 | 1125 | 1157 |
| 2001 | 1295 | 1337 | 1109 | 1131 | 1157 | 1170 | 1232 | 1364 | 1335 | 1398 | 1331 | 1330 | 1266 |
| 2002 | 1532 | 1423 | 1358 | 1397 | 1467 | 1380 | 1507 | 1456 | 1501 | 1416 | 1401 | 1432 | 1439 |
| 2003 | 1598 | 1590 | 1577 | 1399 | 1428 | 1468 | 1566 | 1665 | 1544 | 1586 | 1473 | 1483 | 1531 |
| 2004 | 1670 | 1691 | 1643 | 1526 | 1533 | 1492 | 1557 | 1587 | 1561 | 1647 | 1517 | 1463 | 1574 |
| 2005 | 1804 | 1673 | 1588 | 1511 | 1428 | 1583 | 1516 | 1583 | 1438 | 1414 | 1415 | 1589 | 1545 |
| 2006 | 1644 | 1471 | 1468 | 1310 | 1388 | 1584 | 1522 | 1592 | 1299 | 1478 | 1366 | 1252 | 1448 |
| 2007 | 1577 | 1451 | 1385 | 1391 | 1406 | 1454 | 1376 | 1365 | 1268 | 1364 | 1363 | 1344 | 1395 |
| 2008 | 1729 | 1585 | 1352 | 1414 | 1416 | 1558 | 1573 | 1640 | 1604 | 1637 | 1947 | 1908 | 1614 |
| 2009 | 2130 | 2051 | 2106 | 2089 | 2210 | 2176 | 2282 | 2270 | 2219 | 2373 | 2323 | 2486 | 2226 |
| 2010 | 2539 | 2527 | 2255 | 2432 | 2223 | 2591 | 2622 | 2370 | 2548 | 2602 | 2531 | 2609 | 2487 |
| 2011 | 2800 | 2730 | 2434 | 2466 | 2206 | 2680 | 2785 | 2575 | 2511 | 2555 | 2591 | 2540 | 2573 |
| 2012 | 2809 | 2608 | 2352 | 2363 | 2423 | 2483 | 2529 | 2561 | 2517 | 2433 | 2505 | 2614 | 2516 |
| 2013 | 2443 | 2588 | 2326 | 2347 |
Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available,
Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
835,000
Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 236 | 267 | 258 | 331 | 280 | 309 | 266 | 203 | 253 | 232 | 236 | 269 | 262 |
| 2001 | 301 | 287 | 349 | 349 | 328 | 294 | 310 | 337 | 285 | 331 | 328 | 348 | 321 |
| 2002 | 328 | 375 | 330 | 320 | 414 | 342 | 405 | 378 | 392 | 359 | 385 | 403 | 369 |
| 2003 | 449 | 450 | 474 | 437 | 482 | 478 | 470 | 503 | 388 | 462 | 457 | 433 | 457 |
| 2004 | 432 | 484 | 514 | 492 | 476 | 478 | 504 | 534 | 412 | 429 | 392 | 442 | 466 |
| 2005 | 515 | 485 | 480 | 393 | 392 | 476 | 499 | 384 | 362 | 392 | 404 | 451 | 436 |
| 2006 | 396 | 386 | 451 | 381 | 323 | 481 | 428 | 448 | 325 | 331 | 349 | 274 | 381 |
| 2007 | 442 | 375 | 381 | 399 | 368 | 401 | 367 | 392 | 276 | 320 | 349 | 363 | 369 |
| 2008 | 467 | 396 | 401 | 412 | 400 | 420 | 461 | 381 | 467 | 484 | 608 | 642 | 462 |
| 2009 | 734 | 731 | 685 | 740 | 792 | 793 | 796 | 758 | 706 | 808 | 861 | 929 | 778 |
| 2010 | 1065 | 1204 | 994 | 1197 | 1083 | 1207 | 1185 | 1110 | 1209 | 1219 | 1282 | 1318 | 1173 |
| 2011 | 993 | 1020 | 921 | 989 | 822 | 982 | 1119 | 977 | 1037 | 967 | 1096 | 945 | 989 |
| 2012 | 1059 | 1006 | 865 | 968 | 830 | 821 | 852 | 844 | 802 | 813 | 979 | 1068 | 909 |
| 2013 | 804 | 885 | 803 | 835 |
Total Unemployment Rate U-6
13.9%
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
| 2000 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 6.9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| 2002 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | |
| 2003 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 9.8 | |
| 2004 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.2 | |
| 2005 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 8.6 | |
| 2006 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.9 | |
| 2007 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.8 | |
| 2008 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 12.6 | 13.6 | |
| 2009 | 14.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | |
| 2010 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.6 | |
| 2011 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.0 | 15.5 | 15.2 | |
| 2012 | 15.1 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.4 | |
| 2013 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 13.8 | 13.9 |
Background Articles and Videos
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-13-0785
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, May 3, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services,
food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women
(6.7 percent) declined in April, while the rates for adult men (7.1
percent), teenagers (24.1 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.2
percent), and Hispanics (9.0 percent) showed little or no change. The
jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In April, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27
weeks or more) declined by 258,000 to 4.4 million; their share of the
unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4 percent. Over the
past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by
687,000, and their share has declined by 3.1 percentage points. (See
table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April,
unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The
employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over
the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.
(See table A-1.)
In April, the number of persons employed part time for economic
reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)
increased by 278,000 to 7.9 million, largely offsetting a decrease in
March. These individuals were working part time because their hours
had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)
In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers
in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 165,000 in April, with
job gains in professional and business services, food services and
drinking places, retail trade, and health care. Over the prior 12
months, employment growth averaged 169,000 per month. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 73,000 jobs in April and has
added 587,000 jobs over the past year. In April, employment rose in
temporary help services (+31,000), professional and technical services
(+23,000), and management of companies (+7,000).
Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and
drinking places rose by 38,000 over the month. Job growth in the food
services industry averaged 25,000 per month over the prior 12 months.
Retail trade employment increased by 29,000 in April. The industry
added an average of 21,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. In
April, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+15,000) and
in health and personal care stores (+5,000).
Health care added 19,000 jobs in April. Within the industry, employment
rose in ambulatory health care services (+14,000). Over the prior 12
months, job growth in health care averaged 24,000 per month. In April,
employment also continued its upward trend in social assistance (+7,000).
Employment changed little over the month in construction, with small
offsetting movements in the residential and nonresidential components.
Construction gained an average of 27,000 jobs per month over the prior
6 months. Manufacturing employment was unchanged in April.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities,
and government, showed little change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
decreased by 0.2 hour in April to 34.4 hours. Within manufacturing,
the workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, and overtime declined
by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1
hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.87. Over the year, average hourly
earnings have risen by 45 cents, or 1.9 percent. In April, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees edged up by 2 cents to $20.06. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was
revised from +268,000 to +332,000, and the change for March was
revised from +88,000 to +138,000. With these revisions, employment
gains in February and March combined were 114,000 higher than
previously reported.
____________
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on
Friday, June 7, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
- Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Frequently Asked Questions
- Employment Situation Technical Note
- Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
- Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
- Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
- Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
- Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
- Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
- Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
- Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
- Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
- Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
- Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Access to historical data for the “A” tables of the Employment Situation Release
- Access to historical data for the “B” tables of the Employment Situation Release
- HTML version of the entire news release
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
CategoryApr.
2012Feb.
2013Mar.
2013Apr.
2013Change from:
Mar.
2013-
Apr.
2013Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population242,784244,828244,995245,175180Civilian labor force154,451155,524155,028155,238210Participation rate63.663.563.363.30.0Employed141,934143,492143,286143,579293Employment-population ratio58.558.658.558.60.1Unemployed12,51812,03211,74211,659-83Unemployment rate8.17.77.67.5-0.1Not in labor force88,33289,30489,96789,936-31 Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over8.17.77.67.5-0.1Adult men (20 years and over)7.57.16.97.10.2Adult women (20 years and over)7.47.07.06.7-0.3Teenagers (16 to 19 years)24.925.124.224.1-0.1White7.46.86.76.70.0Black or African American13.113.813.313.2-0.1Asian (not seasonally adjusted)5.26.15.05.1-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity10.39.69.29.0-0.2 Total, 25 years and over6.86.36.26.1-0.1Less than a high school diploma12.511.211.111.60.5High school graduates, no college7.97.97.67.4-0.2Some college or associate degree7.56.76.46.40.0Bachelor’s degree and higher4.03.83.83.90.1 Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs6,8806,5226,3296,41081Job leavers989956986864-122Reentrants3,3363,3403,1763,151-25New entrants1,3621,2791,3161,280-36 Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,5672,6672,4642,474105 to 14 weeks2,8412,7822,8382,8481015 to 26 weeks1,9841,6951,7371,96723027 weeks and over5,0404,7974,6114,353-258 Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,8967,9887,6387,916278Slack work or business conditions5,2105,1364,9065,129223Could only find part-time work2,3932,5782,5762,527-49Part time for noneconomic reasons18,86818,90818,74518,908163 Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,3632,5882,3262,347-Discouraged workers968885803835– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
| Category | Apr. 2012 |
Feb. 2013 |
Mar. 2013(p) |
Apr. 2013(p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands) |
||||
| Total nonfarm | 112 | 332 | 138 | 165 |
| Total private | 120 | 319 | 154 | 176 |
| Goods-producing | 6 | 75 | 15 | -9 |
| Mining and logging | 0 | 4 | 0 | -3 |
| Construction | -4 | 48 | 13 | -6 |
| Manufacturing | 10 | 23 | 2 | 0 |
| Durable goods(1) | 8 | 12 | 7 | 1 |
| Motor vehicles and parts | 1.0 | 6.4 | 4.1 | 2.4 |
| Nondurable goods | 2 | 11 | -5 | -1 |
| Private service-providing(1) | 114 | 244 | 139 | 185 |
| Wholesale trade | 13.2 | 4.7 | 2.9 | 4.1 |
| Retail trade | 30.4 | 25.8 | -3.9 | 29.3 |
| Transportation and warehousing | -15.1 | -5.3 | -6.7 | 4.2 |
| Information | 0 | 18 | 2 | -9 |
| Financial activities | 5 | 15 | 5 | 9 |
| Professional and business services(1) | 45 | 93 | 64 | 73 |
| Temporary help services | 14.7 | 27.5 | 25.5 | 30.8 |
| Education and health services(1) | 22 | 31 | 46 | 28 |
| Health care and social assistance | 20.7 | 37.0 | 26.5 | 26.1 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 14 | 63 | 38 | 43 |
| Other services | 0 | -1 | -8 | 4 |
| Government | -8 | 13 | -16 | -11 |
| WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total nonfarm women employees | 49.4 | 49.3 | 49.3 | 49.3 |
| Total private women employees | 47.8 | 47.8 | 47.8 | 47.9 |
| Total private production and nonsupervisory employees | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 34.5 | 34.5 | 34.6 | 34.4 |
| Average hourly earnings | $23.42 | $23.82 | $23.83 | $23.87 |
| Average weekly earnings | $807.99 | $821.79 | $824.52 | $821.13 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) | 96.3 | 97.9 | 98.3 | 97.9 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | -0.4 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) | 107.6 | 111.2 | 111.7 | 111.5 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | -0.2 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 33.7 | 33.8 | 33.8 | 33.7 |
| Average hourly earnings | $19.72 | $20.03 | $20.04 | $20.06 |
| Average weekly earnings | $664.56 | $677.01 | $677.35 | $676.02 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) | 103.6 | 105.6 | 105.7 | 105.5 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | -0.2 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) | 136.4 | 141.2 | 141.4 | 141.3 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.1 | -0.1 |
| DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span) |
||||
| Total private (266 industries) | 58.3 | 61.7 | 56.2 | 53.9 |
| Manufacturing (81 industries) | 54.9 | 56.8 | 51.9 | 44.4 |
| Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary |
||||
Ben Bernanke Boom Bubble Blower Busted By The Bubble Film — Videos
Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff
The Bubble film official trailer
Raw footage of Jim Rogers interview – The Bubble film
Raw Footage of Doug Casey Interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Jim Grant interview from The Bubble film
Raw footage of Peter Schiff Interview from The Bubble
The Bubble – Raw footage of Marc Faber interview
Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble
Raw Footage of Joseph Salerno Interview from The Bubble
Raw Footage of Robert Murphy interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Roger Garrison Interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Ron Paul interview from The Bubble film
The Bubble film panel at Freedom Fest 2012
U.S. Debt Clock
Background Articles and Videos
The American Dream By The Provocateur Network
Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation
The Fed, Ben Bernanke & the Economy (4/30/13)
Coming Economic Collapse Peter Schiff RT America
Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle | Roger W. Garrison
Tom Woods Discusses his New Documentary, The Bubble
Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 1/2
Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 2/2
Fed Keeps Interest Rates Low, Continues Bond Buying Program
The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.
Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.
While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.
The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.
Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.
While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.
While stocks have soared to new highs, the economy remains in slow-growth mode as it has throughout Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term, which began just before the onset of the financial crisis.
The stock market reacted little to the 2 pm news, maintaining an earlier selloff spurred over jobs fears.
Fed officials have long bemoaned Washington fiscal policy, with Congress and the White House in a continued stalemate that has resulted in a raft of mandated tax increases and spending cuts known as the sequester.
The May FOMC statement kept up the heat.
“Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has strengthened further, but fiscal policy is restraining economic growth,” the statement said.
The Fed’s decision came the same day as a report on private payrolls fell well below expectations, indicating just 119,000 new jobs created, a seven-month low.
While critics worry about inflation, the Fed continued to conclude that “expectations have remained stable.”
The Fed has vowed to keep interest rates exceptionally low until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent from its current 7.6 percent and until inflation reaches 2.5 percent from its current 1.5 percent.
-By CNBC.com Senior Writer Jeff Cox.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100695681
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Secretary Lew Opposes Proposed Congress’ New Law That Prioritizes Payments of Treasury Securities — Videos
Rep. Yoder questions Treasury Sec. Lew
Treasury Chief Warns of New World If US Defaults on Any Bills
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
The United States might run into trouble accessing debt markets if it defaulted on any of its financial obligations, even if it were able to keep up payments on government bonds, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress.
Lew was responding to questions about a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prioritize payments on government bonds and Social Security if the United States hits its debt limit, in order to avoid a credit default.
If passed, the law would make it easier for Republicans to use a fight over the nation’s legal borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, to try to extract spending cuts from President Barack Obama.
“The thing I would urge you to consider is, you enter a world we’ve never been in once the United States is not meeting its obligations,” Lew told a House subcommittee. “We cannot assume markets will function in an orderly way if that (happens).”
The current suspension of the debt limit expires on May 19, although the Treasury can use emergency cash-management measures to push off the day of reckoning into August. The date could fall even further in the future given unexpectedly strong tax revenues and the possibility of a big payment to the Treasury from housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Lew has said it is impossible to try to pinpoint when exactly the use of these emergency maneuvers would be exhausted due to a delayed tax filing season and uncertainty about the effect of steep government spending cuts known as the sequester.
Once the United States reaches its debt limit, the government faces the prospect of defaulting on financial obligations, and potentially its debt, which could shake up markets and damage the economy.
Staff at the International Monetary Fund warned that failure to smoothly raise the U.S. debt ceiling could do serious damage to the global economy.
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Paul Kengor — The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor — Videos
Paul Kengor & Glenn Beck “The Communist” on GBTV Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor
WATCH The Communist author Paul Kengor w/ Glenn Beck on the Radio Frank Marshall Davis Obama Mentor
Paul Kengor (1 of 3)
Paul Kengor (2 of 3)
Paul Kengor (3 of 3)
Paul Kengor on Frank Marshall Davis
Frank Marshall Davis Interview
Who is the REAL Barack Obama?
Is Barack Obama a communist?
“If I wanted America to fail”
Background Articles and Videos
- Who was Frank Marshall Davis? (This is a 32-page analysis of the FBI file by Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein.) PDF
- The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii (Andrew Walden examines the remnants of the Davis network in Hawaii). PDF
- Pages from the FBI File (This 40-page report includes selected pages from the FBI file which document Davis’s Communist history and pro-Soviet and anti-white views). PDF
- FBI File #1 (PDF)
- FBI File #2 (PDF)
- FBI File #3 (PDF)
- FBI File #4 (PDF)
- FBI File #5 (PDF)
- FBI File #6 (PDF)
- The Communist Party of Frank Marshall Davis (PDF)
Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 1/3)
Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 2/3)
Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 3/3)
Obama’s Real Father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis?
Michael Savage on Obama’s REAL Father; Dreams From My Real Father DVD; Savage Nation
Glenn Beck – Presidential Lies “Do You Know Anybody Like Barack Obama?”
Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams From My Father Part 1
Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams of My Father Part 2
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Obama’s Communist Stalinist Mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, Critical of President Harry Truman and Marshall Plan–Followed U.S.S.R’s Communist Party Line!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos
BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff
Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis
David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land
Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!
Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April
U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers
JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis
Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets
Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!
Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013
Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013
Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)
James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar
Currency Wars: Jim Rickards
Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser
CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber
Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2
Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!
Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything
Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview
Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists
Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”
ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING
Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013
Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014
Background Articles and Videos
Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010
Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)
The Fall of Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
2.5% First Quarter 2013 Real Annual Growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — Stagflation — Government GDP Calculation of Investment To Include Intangibles R&D — Videos
Ken Langone: Regulation Biggest Issue Hurting U.S. Economy
April 26 (Bloomberg) — Ken Langone, founder & CEO at Invemed Associates, talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker and Sara Eisen about first-quarter U.S. GDP, the impact of regulations and the anti-business stance of the Obama Administration. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.”
Peter Schiff We re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming
[
GDP Propaganda Exposed
Data shift to lift US economy 3%
By Robin Harding in Washington
The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.
Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.
Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.
“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.
The changes will affect everything from the measured GDP of different US states to the stability of the inflation measure targeted by the Federal Reserve. They will force economists to revisit policy debates about everything from corporate profits to the causes of economic growth.
The revision, equivalent to adding a country as big as Belgium to the estimated size of the world economy, will make the US one of the first adopters of a new international standard for GDP accounting.
“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.
At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.
GDP will soar in small states that host a lot of military R&D, but barely change in others, widening measured income gaps across the US. R&D is expected to boost the GDP of New Mexico by 10 per cent and Maryland by 6 per cent while Louisiana will see an increase of just 0.6 per cent.
Creative works are expected to add a further 0.5 per cent to the overall size of the US economy. Around one-third of that will come from movies, one-third from TV programmes, and one-third from books, music and theatre.
Deficits in defined benefit pension schemes will also be included because what companies have promised to pay out will be measured, rather than the cash they pay into plans.
“We will now show a liability for underfunded plans, which particularly has large ramifications for the government sector, where both at the state level and the federal level we have large underfunded plans,” said Mr Moulton.
The changes are in addition to a comprehensive revision of the national accounts that takes place every five years based on an economic census of nearly 4m US businesses.
Steve Landefeld, BEA director, said it was hard to predict the overall outcome given the mixture of new methodology and data updates. “What’s going to happen when you mix it with the new source data from the economic census . . . I don’t know,” he said.
But he said the revisions were unlikely to alter the picture of what has happened to the economy in recent years. “I wouldn’t be looking for large changes in trends or cycles.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Rb5G6QBg
US GDP Will Be Revised Higher By $500 Billion Following Addition Of “Intangibles” To Economy
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Those who have been following the US debt to GDP ratio now that the US officially does not have a debt ceiling indefinitely, may have had the occasional panic attack seeing how this country’s leverage ratio is rapidly approaching that of a Troika case study of a PIIG in complete failure. And at 107% debt/GDP no explanations are necessary. Luckily, the official gatekeepers of America’s economic growth (with decimal point precision), the Bureau of Economic Analysis have a plan on how to make the US economy, which is now growing at an abysmal 1.5% annualized pace, or about 5 times slower than US debt growing at 7.5% annually, catch up: magically make up a number out of thin air, and add it to the total. And it literally is out of thin air: according to the FT the addition will constitute of a one-time addition of intangibles, amounting to 3% of total US GDP, or more than the size of Belgium at $500 billion, to the US economy.
The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.
Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.
Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.
“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.
What exactly will constitute GDP growth going forward? In a word, intangibles: films, books, magazines and iTunes songs.
“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.
At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.
Nothing like adding intangibles in the fluid, ever-changing definition of what constitutes an economy.
Naturally, the only reason for this artificial “boost” to the US economy which apparently can be any old arbitrary number agreed upon by a few accountants, and which always goes up post revision, never down, is to make US debt/GDP under 100% once again, if only very briefly. Surely a few months later something else can be “added” to GDP making the US economy appear better than it is once more.
Finally, all of the above is a distraction for idiots.
As most people should know by know (this logically excludes economists), the only factor leading to economic “growth” is the expansion of liabilities of the financial system, whereby new credit (in a healthy environment, not one centrally-planned by several Princeton real-world rejects, where the central bank is forced to create all credit expansion with money that never leaves the banks and the capital markets closed loop) creates new money, creates demand for products and services, and circulates in the economy.
This can be seen in the chart below which shows the nearly perfect correlation between total bank liabilities in the US, as per the Fed’s Flow Of Funds report, and total US GDP.
Bottom line: the BEA can capitalize air consumption if it thinks it will make US GDP soar, but unless new credit and bank liabilities are created not due to forced supply but demand, and unless the private financial sector is finally willing to start lending money (which for the entire duration of QE it has not) US growth will stall and then proceed to decline.
Case in point: total US commerical bank loans are still lower than they were the day Lehman filed.
In other words, all the GDP “growth” since the Lehman failure has come on the back of money “created” by the Fed.
And there are still those who think the Fed will ever unwind…
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
| Lisa S. Mataloni: | (202) 606-5304 | (GDP) | gdpniwd@bea.gov |
| Recorded message: | (202) 606-5306 | ||
| Jeannine Aversa: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) |
Gross Domestic Product, First Quarter 2013 (advance estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.
The Bureau emphasized that the first-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source
data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3 and
"Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the first quarter, based on
more complete data, will be released on May 30, 2013.
The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, exports, residential investment,
and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.
BOX_______________________
Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts
BEA plans to release the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 "advance" estimate
on July 31, 2013. More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions, including a link to an article in the March 2013 issue of the Survey of
Current Business that discusses the upcoming changes in definitions and presentations, including
capitalizing spending on research and development and on entertainment originals and measuring
transactions of defined benefit pension plans on an accrual accounting basis. An article in the May
Survey will describe changes in statistical methods, and an article in the September Survey will describe
the estimates in detail. Revised NIPA table stubs and news release stubs will be available in June.
FOOTNOTE___________________
Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Note and highlights related to this release.
___________________________
The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, an upturn in exports, and a smaller decrease in federal
government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in imports and a deceleration in nonresidential
fixed investment.
Motor vehicle output added 0.24 percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.18 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.01
percentage point from the first-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.10 percentage point to the
fourth-quarter change.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the fourth.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.3 percent in
the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the fourth.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.8 percent in the fourth. Durable goods increased 8.1 percent, compared with an increase
of 13.6 percent. Nondurable goods increased 1.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent.
Services increased 3.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of 13.2 percent in the fourth. Nonresidential structures decreased 0.3 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 16.7 percent. Equipment and software increased 3.0 percent, compared with an increase of
11.8 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 12.6 percent, compared with an increase of
17.6 percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.8 percent in the fourth. Real imports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent, in
contrast to a decrease of 4.2 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 8.4 percent
in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth. National defense decreased
11.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 22.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 2.0 percent, in contrast
to an increase of 1.7 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent.
The change in real private inventories added 1.03 percentage points to the first-quarter change in
real GDP after subtracting 1.52 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $50.3 billion in the first quarter, following increases of $13.3 billion in the fourth
quarter and $60.3 billion in the third.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.5
percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in the fourth.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter; it was unchanged in the fourth quarter.
Disposition of personal income
Current-dollar personal income decreased $109.1 billion (3.2 percent) in the first quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $262.3 billion (8.1 percent) in the fourth. The downturn in personal income
primarily reflected a sharp downturn in personal dividend income and a sharp acceleration in
contributions for government social insurance -- a subtraction in the calculation of personal income.
Fourth-quarter personal dividend income was boosted by the payment of accelerated and special
dividends. The acceleration in contributions for government social insurance in the first quarter resulted
from the expiration of the "payroll tax holiday."
Personal current taxes increased $27.2 billion in the first quarter, compared with an increase of
$34.3 billion in the fourth.
Disposable personal income decreased $136.3 billion (4.4 percent) in the first quarter, in contrast
to an increase of $228.0 billion (7.9 percent) in the fourth. Real disposable personal income decreased
5.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 6.2 percent.
Personal outlays increased $116.3 billion (4.1 percent) in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of $97.0 billion (3.4 percent) in the fourth. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $313.3 billion in the first quarter, compared with $566.0 billion in the fourth.
The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
2.6 percent in the first quarter, compared with 4.7 percent in the fourth. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
3.7 percent, or $146.1 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $16,010.2 billion. In the fourth quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 1.3 percent, or $53.1 billion.
BOX_____________________
Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
"Key Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an
analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site;
click on Survey of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see
"Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
________________________
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- May 30, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2013 (Preliminary Estimate)
Comparisons of Revisions to GDP
Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.
Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.
The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.
Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]
Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign
____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2
Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0
________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5
Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2
Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0
NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Progressive President Problem — Warfare and Welfare State — Big Government Intervention In Economy At Home and Militarily Abroad — Government Dependency — Serfdom and Collectivism in The New World Order — They Have Won — The Solution — Freedom Force International– Videos
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy (Full Length)
An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full
G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 1 of 2
G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 2 of 2
Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full
George W. Bush breaks down at library dedication
Bill Clinton speaks of Carroll Quigley at 1992 Democratic National Convention
Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government
Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
Americans and Collectivism – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.26
Glenn Beck Predicts New World Order. Global Reset. U.S. Will Be A 3rd World State
Glenn Beck- ‘How Did Communism Become Cool?’
Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world – G. Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin The Dangerous Servant A Discourse on Government
The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture
“Legalized Plunder of the American People” – G. Edward Griffin
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline | James Perloff
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full
[yotube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E]
THE CREED OF FREEDOM
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. These are The Three Commandments of Freedom:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Only individuals have rights, not groups. Therefore, do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the alleged rights of groups.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
To favor one class of citizens over others is not equality under law. Therefore, do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The proper function of the state is to protect, not to provide. Therefore, do not approve coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.
THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM
Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.
For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Issues section of his site. This 21-page document will take 10 to 45 seconds to load depending on the speed of your Internet connection.
Background Articles and Videos
Freedom Force International speaker for Liberty in Pittsburgh
Rare Carroll Quigley interview
Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
[1 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
Carroll Quigley was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Tragedy and Hope (tragedy is all the people who must suffer and die for the NWO, and the hope is the NEW WORLD ORDER )
Professor Quigley was a Globalist, he supported the idea NEW WORLD ORDER and wrote about it, he, unlike the elites, thought the people should know about it.
“I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” — Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”
“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations…”
“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” Dr. Carroll Quigley
“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.”President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, 16 July 1992
[2 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[3 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[4 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[5 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
The Creature From Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin
Recorded: 1994
Edward Griffin – The Subversion Factor
CFR – List of Members and Organisations Involved
Jimmy Carter Administration
President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:
- Walter Mondale (Vice-President)
- Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)
- Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)
- W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)
- Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)
- Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)
- Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Ronald Reagan Administration
There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:
- Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)
- George Shultz (Secretary of State)
- Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)
- William Casey (CIA Director)
- Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)
- Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)
- Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
- William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)
George H. W. Bush Administration
During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:
- Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
- Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)
- Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
- William Webster (Director of the CIA)
- Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)
- Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)
- Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)
- Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)
- Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
Bill Clinton Administration
When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
- Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)
- Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
- Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)
- Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
- Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
- Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)
- Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)
- Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)
- Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
- W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)
- George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)
- Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)
- R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)
- William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
- Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)
- Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)
- Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)
- Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)
- Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)
- Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
- Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)
- Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)
- Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)
- Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)
- Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).
George W. Bush Administration
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
- Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)
- Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)
- Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
- Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)
- Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)
- Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)
- Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)
- Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)
- Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
- Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)
- Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)
- Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
- Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)
- Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
- I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.3
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement — Videos
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard
The Future of Austrian Economics | Murray N. Rothbard
Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods discuss Rothbard and the Koch Brothers
Lew Rockwell.com Podcast #20 – Memories of Murray
Murray Rothbard Gives a Tribute to Ludwig von Mises
Masters of Money — Keynes — Hayek — Marx — Videos
Masters Of Money: 1/3 – John Maynard Keynes (BBC Documentary Series)
Masters Of Money: 2/3 – Friedrich Hayek (BBC Documentary Series)
Masters Of Money: 3/3 – Karl Marx (BBC Documentary Series)
Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain? | Murray N. Rothbard
Modern Myths of Keynesian Economics | Jeffrey M. Herbener
Deck the Halls with Macro Follies
Keynesianism Part I – It’s All About Spending
What GDP Leaves Out: An Austrian Look
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Where is Gold Prices Going? Peter Schiff vs. Larry Kudlow: Gold & The Dollar — Videos
Peter Schiff vs. Larry Kudlow: Gold & The Dollar
Peter Schiff: I’ve Been Buying Gold for 13 Years
Bloomberg’s Alix Steel Analyzes Why Peter Schiff & Gold Mining Stocks Are Massive Losers
Clown Solidarity – Jim Cramer Supports Peter Schiff On Gold (You Know What This Means…)
Keiser Report: Correlation & Causation of Gold Price (E434, ft. Paul Craig Roberts)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Police State In Boston–What’s Next? Martial Law: Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order To Declare Martial Law In Time of Peace — Videos
Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes
On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams
This is what martial law in the US looks like
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 22, 2013
Shocking footage has emerged from Friday’s lockdown in Boston, where police, federal agents, national guard troops and SWAT teams enforced door to door searches of everyone’s home within twenty blocks as the entire city was placed under orders to stay off the streets.
The video, shot by a resident from their own house across the street, shows police barking orders at men and women as they order them at gunpoint to identify themselves, put their hands on their heads, and get out of their own home. They are then ordered to run down the street to be further frisked by police as scores of armed militarized cops look on.
The scenes look like something out of a disaster movie, with the backdrop of suburban America juxtaposed with what is essentially martial law playing out in full daylight.
The story floated in the mainstream media that the door to door searches were conducted with the voluntary consent of the residents of Watertown is clearly false. 9000+ Police locked down an entire city and went in with full force, with armored vehicles and combat gear, all to search for an injured 19 year old kid who turned out to be cowering in someone’s back yard.
While armies of police roamed around people’s homes and private property, Public transportation was shut down, businesses were forced to close, and a no-fly zone was enacted over Boston in an unprecedented show of force.
At this point, as military helicopters buzzed over neighborhoods, the Fourth Amendment had ceased to exist in Boston, which quickly resembled a war zone.
The compliant mainstream media reported on the activity without alarm or question. Katy Waldman of Slate wrote an article claiming that under dire circumstances police can suspend 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches:
In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant.
This activity, once again, sets a shocking precedent. Police and military are training in these circumstances every single day of the year. They are fully acclimatized to the process, as if it is completely normal. They do not hesitate in carrying out such orders, which are now being implemented whenever the authorities deem a situation to be an emergency.
This is what fully fledged martial law in America looks like.
http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/
Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The ‘New Normal’?
April 25, 2013
By Bob Parks
The whole notion of the police “manhunt” is not a new American phenomenon. Cops chase bad guys, cops corner bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys give up quietly, sometimes they go down in a blaze of glory. But we’ve always had rules of engagement when it came to law enforcement interaction with the general public.
It appears all that got thrown out the window in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror bombing and the subsequent police chase in Cambridge, Massachusetts that came to a screeching halt in Watertown.
Seemingly, for the first time in the United States, we witnessed paramilitary-garbed law enforcement personnel forcing residents out of their homes at gunpoint. In some cases, the language used by law enforcement was menacing.
Because of the hysteria that comes after any terror event, the American people wanted the perpetrators caught and, in doing so, appeared to have allowed their rights against unlawful search and seizure to not be suspended, but removed.
How many times have we watched cop dramas on television where the police had a pretty good idea of where the bad guys were, but as they weren’t sure, came to the door and asked permission to come inside to “have a look around”? The only time they ever bashed a door in is when they absolutely knew the bad guys were there. If there was ever any doubt, they’d have to wait… for a court order from a judge.
That did not happen here.
The police came to people’s homes, ordered them to leave immediately at the point of a gun in some cases, and then entered their place of residence. It’s never “consensual” when the person asking you for something has a gun in his hand. “Probable cause” is convenient, but in this case, very arbitrary.
Again, I understand this was the culmination of a horrific event, but let’s say instead of the Thursday evening car chase racing through the streets and winding up in Watertown, it went up Route 9 and ended in very upscale Newton?
Do you think armed police would, under the authority of the governor of Massachusetts and the federal government, put an assault rifle nozzle in the face of a potential wealthy political donor? Would those policemen force the family of the elite into the streets while they entered a home that is worth 20 of their salaries combined?
If it weren’t a middle class area like Watertown, would you really see a politician ordering law enforcement to forcibly enter and search homes on the upper west side of Manhattan or Georgetown or Beverly Hills? Would this happen to a celebrity in his home or, heaven forbid, a congressman?
When citizens are searched by pat-down, rousted out of their homes, and we end up thanking the police with blind understanding, the government has essentially found an acceptable means to take more of our rights away without even one politician having to cast a vote.
These past events in Watertown have set a precedent.
The police can now enter our homes anytime they want. It just requires a verbal massaging of the circumstance. After all, who ever heard of “shelter-in-place” before Friday, April 19, 2013?
If the government can order us to stay in our homes, it looks like it can throw us out of them any time it wants… at the point of a gun.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/bob-parks/has-watertown-made-warrantless-searches-new-normal
Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts
Police and FBI Comb Watertown for Bombing Suspect
Boston Bombing: Watertown Operation: SWAT team secures houses searching for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Boston Door To Door Searches – Raw Video
Raid on Boston bombing suspect captured on film
Obama signs Executive Order NDRP Martial Law – Hannity Full News Clip Fox News (Mar 19, 2012)
Alex Jones – Obama’s New America with Martial Law
President Obama recently signed an Executive Order giving him the power to implement martial law in the US. The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order will give Obama the power to seize the countries resources in a time of crisis or peace. This includes resources ranging from livestock to sources of energy and water.
Many critics of the Obama Administration believe this is another effort at power grab, but others argue that EO update is irrelevant. Alex Jones, host of The Alex Jones Show, joins RT with his take on the EO.
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law in America 2012
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law ∞ Justifying why U have no Rights ? Ron Paul Rohbs new channel
The Final Loss of Freedom in America NDAA.
Scary New NDAA Bill Passed
Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART I – PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III – EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.
(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.
Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.
(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.
Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.
Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.
Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.
Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.
Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.
Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.
Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).
PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).
PART V - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.
(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.
(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
PART VI - LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and
(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.
PART VII - DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE
Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):
(1) The Secretary of State;
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;
(3) The Secretary of Defense;
(4) The Attorney General;
(5) The Secretary of the Interior;
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;
(7) The Secretary of Commerce;
(8) The Secretary of Labor;
(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(10) The Secretary of Transportation;
(11) The Secretary of Energy;
(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;
(13) The Director of National Intelligence;
(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(17) The Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.
Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.
PART VIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.
(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.
(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.
(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).
(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.
(h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.
(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.
(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.
(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.
(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.
(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.
(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.
(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:
(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and
(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.
(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.
Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.
(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.
Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 16, 2012.
Peter Schiff: The Coming Economic Collapse — Videos
Peter Schiff, Europe is the Warm Up, but America is the Main Event
Peter Schiff – Get Out Now Get Out Of The Dollar
Lou Dobbs versus Peter Schiff
Doug Casey interviews Peter Schiff
Cyprus Is Small, But The Problem Is Enormous
Coming Economic Collapse – Peter Schiff RT America
Peter Schiff Debates Doug Henwood on stimulus deficit spending
Economic Collapse Not Only Possible But IMMINENT w Peter Schiff…
CNBC’s Joe Kernen Talks About Peter Schiff? (Pompous Blowhard, Bad Jacket, Bad Market Calls…)
Peter Schiff – The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story
Schiff: 2/3 of America to Lose Everything Because of This Crisis
A record breaking stock market is distorting a frightening reality: The U.S. is being eaten alive by a horrific cancer that will ultimately destroy the economy and impoverish the vast majority of its citizens.
That’s according to Peter Schiff, the best-selling author and CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, who delivered his harsh warning to investors in a recent interview on Fox Business.
“I think we are heading for a worse economic crisis than we had in 2007,” Schiff said. “You’re going to have a collapse in the dollar…a huge spike in interest rates… and our whole economy, which is built on the foundation of cheap money, is going to topple when you pull the rug out from under it.”
Schiff says that, despite “phony” signs of an economic recovery, the cancer destroying America stems from a lethal concoction of our $16 trillion federal debt and the Fed’s never ending money printing.
Currently, Bernanke and company is buying $1 trillion of Treasury and mortgage bonds a year. That’s about $85 billion per month against a budget deficit that is about the same level.
According to Schiff, these numbers are unsustainable. And the Fed has no credible “exit strategy.”
Eventually interest rates will rise… and when they do, Schiff says, stocks will tank and bonds dip to nothing. Massive new tax hikes will be imposed and programs and entitlements will be cut to the bone.
“The crisis is imminent,” Schiff said. ”I don’t think Obama is going to finish his second term without the bottom dropping out. And stock market investors are oblivious to the problems.”
“We’re broke, Schiff added. ”We owe trillions. Look at our budget deficit; look at the debt to GDP ratio, the unfunded liabilities. If we were in the Eurozone, they would kick us out.”
Schiff points out that the market gains experienced recently, with the Dow first topping 14,000 on its way to setting record highs, are giving investors a false sense of security.
“It’s not that the stock market is gaining value… it’s that our money is losing value. And so if you have a debased currency… a devalued currency, the price of everything goes up. Stocks are no exception,” he said.
“The Fed knows that the U.S. economy is not recovering,” he noted. “It simply is being kept from collapse by artificially low interest rates and quantitative easing. As that support goes, the economy will implode.”
noted economist, Schiff has been a fierce critic of the Fed and its policies for years. And his warnings have proven to be prophetic.
In August 2006, when the Dow was hitting new highs nearly every day, Schiff said in an interview: “The United States is like the Titanic, and I’m here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship… I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States.”
Just over a year later, the meltdown that became the Great Recession began, just as Schiff predicted.
He also predicted the subprime mortgage bubble burst, nearly a year before the real estate market fully crashed.
His recent warnings, however, have been even more alarming. Will they also prove to be true?
In his most recent book, “The Real Crash” How to Save Yourself and Your Country“, Schiff writes that
when the “real crash” comes,” it will be worse than the Great Depression.
Unemployment will skyrocket, credit will dry up, and worse, the dollar will collapse completely, “wiping out all savings and sending consumer prices into the stratosphere.”
http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/schiff-us-will-win-currency-war.php?code=3243#.UW3kh6OPBBk
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin — A Financial Reckoning Day Fallout: Surviving Today’s Global Depression — Videos
An Empire of Debt Leading to a “Crack-up” in the Global Monetary System w/Bill Bonner!
Bill Bonner ZURICH.MINDS INTERVIEW
Bill Bonner: Uncharted Territory -
Emerging Market Real Estate, The Most Promising Asset Class: An Interview with Bill Bonner
Bill Bonner at The Equitymaster Investment Summit 2010
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 1 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 2 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 3 – July 24
Addison Wiggin / Financial Reckoning Day Fallout on FOX Business News
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 1)
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 2)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Dr. Lacy Hunt–Roadblocks To Recovery — The Economic Consequences of Debt — Heading Towards The Bang Point — “This is how the world ends not with a bang but a whimper.” — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Democratic Controlled U.S. Senate Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for the Federal Government — Videos
Paul Ryan Questions OMB Director – President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request
Sessions: Obama’s Persistent Budget Misrepresentations Make Compromise More Difficult
‘When Do We Hold People Accountable?’ Sessions Slams Dems For Falsely Claiming ‘Balance’ To Nation
WASHINGTON, March 22—Throughout the course of the budget debate, Democratic Senators have repeatedly suggested their budget contains a “balanced approach,” a rhetorical description that has no accounting value. (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went even further last night and repeatedly said his party’s plan called for “balancing the budget.”)
But as Sen. Sessions pointed out this morning, “They know they don’t have a balanced budget. They won’t tell the American people they don’t have one. They just use the word. But it’s not in their document. Where and when do we hold people accountable in this United States Senate for an accurate [description] of legislation? It’s wrong.”
To view for yourself the budget tables with the Democrats’ own numbers (in other words, before one even begins to strip out all the gimmicks and accounting tricks), please click here: http://1.usa.gov/YwdsbM. Note that cumulative deficits will amount to $5.198 trillion, and the nation’s gross debt will climb to $24.365 trillion by 2023.
Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget
Hatch on Senate Democrats’ Budget: ‘A Cynical Political Document’
Senator King Discusses 2014 Fiscal Year Budget Blueprint
Sessions: Dem Budget Would Trap Millions In Poverty By Shielding Failed Government Programs
Senate Budget Committee Hearing | 4.10.13 | Chairman Murray Opening Remarks
Chairman Murray Kicks Off Senate Budget Resolution Debate with Speech on Senate Floor
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
U.S. Senate Budget Committee
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray unveils her vision for the Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget resolution.
For more information: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic
Portman Remarks at Senate Budget Committee Markup
Hatch: Entitlement Reform Not an Option, a Necessity
Background Articles and Videos
Making the Federal Budget
How do you spend four trillion dollars? Turns out, you don’t; it takes the President and the Congress to allocate, authorize, appropriate, resolve, outlay, sequester, impound, and just plain spend that much in 2011. Such a process is baffling at times. It’s so complex that you may marvel that Washington can get any action accomplished and paid for at all. So how does the federal budget happen?
Join the Mercatus Center’s Capitol Hill Campus and Senior Research Fellow Jason J. Fichtner for a walk through the process of making the federal budget. He explains the process from its beginnings in the halls of the White House, highlight the many roles Congress takes to authorize and enforce the budget, and navigate the twisting, puzzling conglomeration of bureaucratic steps, political goals, and accountancy rules that go into making our government function.
Changing the Budget Process to Promote Fiscal Responsibility
A Sustainable Approach to Entitlement Reform
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/senatebudget
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent.
The highest priority of the Senate Budget is to create the conditions for job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down.
The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy and that true national prosperity comes from the middle out, not the top down. We believe that deficit reduction at the expense of economic growth is doomed to failure, and policies that promote a strong middle class are essential to tackling our long-term deficit and debt challenges.
The policies President Barack Obama and Congress put in place in response to the Great Recession pulled our economy back from the brink and helped to add back jobs. But with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. Therefore, the Senate Budget:
• Fully replaces the harmful cuts from sequestration with smart, balanced, and responsible deficit reduction, which would save hundreds of thousands of jobs while protecting families, communities, and the fragile economic recovery.
• Invests in long-term economic growth and national competitiveness by tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation to create jobs now and lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth.
2
• Includes a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21
st century jobs. This jobs investment package is fully paid for by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Protects and continues tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.
The Senate Budget builds on the work we have done over the last two years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
At the end of 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission report laid out a responsible goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. Since that time, Congress and the administration have implemented $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion coming from new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. The Senate Budget:
• Surpasses the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction and puts our deficit and debt on a downward, sustainable, and responsible path.
• Builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.
• Includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction through responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget:
o
$493 billion saved on the domestic spending side, including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families.
o
$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations.
o
$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Includes reconciliation instructions, a fast-track process that makes sure that the new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
3
The Senate Budget keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities.
The Senate Budget takes the position that the promises we made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities ought to be fulfilled. This budget:
• Preserves and protects Medicare so that it is strong for seniors today and will be there for our children and grandchildren.
• Rejects calls to dismantle, privatize, or voucherize Medicare.
• Builds on the responsible changes made in the Affordable Care Act to continue reducing health care costs while protecting patients.
• Protects the expansion of health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans and ensures the federal-state partnership on Medicaid is preserved.
• Rejects efforts to simply shift health care costs to states or make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families.
• Maintains the key principle that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable families and communities.
• Continues to make the investments we need in national defense, homeland security, and law enforcement to keep our country and our communities strong and secure.
• Keeps the promise we have made to our veterans that their country will be there for them and provide the resources and support they need when they come home.
The House Republican approach would hurt middle class families and the economy and break the promises we have made to our seniors.
The Senate Budget offers a very different vision than the approach taken by House Republicans.
Their proposals would cut the legs out from under our fragile economic recovery and threaten millions of jobs. They would slash the investments in infrastructure, education, and innovation that we need to lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth and that would position us to compete and win in the 21
st century global economy.
House Republicans would dismantle Medicare and cut off programs that support the middle class and most vulnerable families. And they would do all that while refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to contribute their fair share.
We believe that the American people strongly support the pro-growth, pro-middle class approach taken in the Senate Budget. And we look forward to engaging with families and seniors across the country as we work to pass the responsible, fair, and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve.
-
4/11/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/1/13 -
-
3/23/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/21/13 -
-
3/20/13 -
The following timetable is used to guide the federal budget process each year (see 2. U.S.C. 631)
| Date | Action |
| 1st Monday in February | President’s budget submission (includes OMB sequester preview report and adjustments to spending caps). |
| February 15 | CBO budget and economic outlook report |
| Within 6 weeks of President’s budget | Committees submit views and estimates to the Budget Committees |
| April 1 | Senate Budget Committee reports resolution |
| April 15 | Congress completes budget resolution. If not, Chairman of House Budget Committee files 302(a) allocations; Ways and Means is free to proceed with pay-as-you-go measures |
| May 15 | Appropriations bills may be considered in the House |
| June 10 | House Appropriations reports last bill |
| June 15 | Congress completes action on reconciliation reconciliation (if applicable) |
| June 30 | House completes action on annual appropriation bills |
| July 15 | President submits mid-session review |
| October 1 |
Fiscal year begins Home / Committee Resources / Glossary Appropriations Act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, that generally provides authority for Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Currently, there are 13 regular appropriations acts for each fiscal year. From time to time, Congress also enacts supplemental appropriations acts. (See Appropriations under Budget Authority; Continuing Resolution; Supplemental Appropriation.) Authorizing Committee: A committee of the House or Senate with legislative jurisdiction over laws that set up or continue the operations of Federal programs and provide the legal basis for making appropriations for those programs. Authorizing committees also have direct control over spending for mandatory programs since the Government’s obligation to make payments for such program is contained in the authorizing legislation (See Entitlement.) Authorizing Legislation: Legislation enacted by Congress that sets up or continues the operation of a Federal program or agency indefinitely or for a specific period of time. Authorizing legislation may limit the amount of budget authority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appropriation of “such sums as are necessary.” (See Budget Authority; Entitlement.) Backdoor Spending: (See Direct Spending or Mandatory Spending.) Budget Authority: The authority Congress gives to Government agencies, permitting them to enter into obligations which will result in immediate or future outlays. Budget authority may be classified in several ways. It may be classified by the form it takes: appropriations, borrowing authority, or contract authority. Budget authority may also be classified by the determination of amount: definite authority or indefinite authority. Finally budget authority may be classified by the period of availability: 1-year authority, multi-year authority, or no-year authority (available until used). Forms of Budget Authority Appropriations.–An act of Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Borrowing Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to incur obligations and to make payments for specified purposes out of money borrowed from the Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank, or the public. The Budget Act in most cases requires that new authority to borrow must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Contract Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to enter into contracts in advance of appropriations. Under the Budget Act, most new authority to contract must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Offsetting collections and receipts.–Income from the public which is displayed in the budget as negative budget authority. (See Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts. Budget Baseline: Projected Federal spending, revenue and deficit levels based on the assumption that current policies will continue unchanged for the upcoming fiscal year. In determining the budget baseline under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Directors of OMB and CBO estimate revenue levels and spending levels for entitlement programs based on continuation of current laws. For estimating discretionary spending amounts (both defense and non- defense), the Directors assume an adjustment for inflation (GNP deflator) added to the previous year’s discretionary spending levels. The baseline also includes sufficient appropriations to cover a Federal pay comparability raise (without absorption). Budget Deficit: The amount by which the Government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues for a given fiscal year. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Budget Resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress setting forth, reaffirming, or revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for a fiscal year. A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution of Congress. Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature because they are not laws. Budget resolutions do not need to be laws because they are a legislative device for the Congress to regulate itself as it works on spending and revenue bills. (Unified) Budget Surplus: The amount by which the Government’s revenues exceed its outlays for a given fiscal year. The “on-budget surplus” excludes spending and revenues of the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Postal Service. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Capital Budget: A budget that segregates capital spending from all other spending, what is usually considered the “operating budget.” In a capital budget, spending and receipts in the capital budget are excluded from the operating budget and are not included in the operating budget’s deficit or surplus calculations. A capital budget would include spending only for capital assets. Capital assets are usually defined to be limited to land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property that are owned and used by the Federal government and have a useful life of more than 2 years. However, some proponents of capital budgeting have suggested that capital should be defined to include Federal “investment” spending that yields long-term benefits. President Clinton established a Commission to Study Capital Budgeting by issuing Executive Order 13037 on March 3, 1997. The Commission is required to issue its report by December 17, 1998. Congressional Budget: (See Budget Resolution.) Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill. A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However, there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills. A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused with the budget resolution. Credit Authority: Authority to incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guarantee commitments. Under the Budget Act, new credit authority must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Crosswalk: Also known as “committee allocation” or “section 302 allocation.” The means by which budget resolution spending totals are translated into binding guidelines with respect to budget authority and outlays for committee action on spending bills. The Budget Committees allocate the budget resolution totals among the committees by jurisdiction, Crosswalk allocations of budget authority and outlays to the committee appear in the joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution. Current Services Budget: A section of the President’s budget, required by the Budget Act, that sets forth the level of spending or taxes that would occur if existing programs and policies were continued unchanged through the fiscal year and beyond, with all programs adjusted for inflation so that existing levels of activity are maintained. (See Baseline.) Deferral of Budget Authority: An action by the executive branch that delays the obligation of budget authority beyond the point it would normally occur. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President must provide advanced notice to the Congress of any proposed deferrals. A deferral may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President’s message proposing the deferral is made. Congress may overturn a deferral by passing a law disapproving the deferral. Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. Direct Spending: A term defined in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to include entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and budget authority provided in law other than appropriations acts. From the perspective of the appropriations process, all direct spending is classified as mandatory as opposed to discretionary spending. New direct spending is subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. Direct spending is synonymous with mandatory spending. (See Mandatory Spending and Entitlement.) Discretionary Spending: A category of spending (budget authority and outlays) subject to the annual appropriations process. (See Appropriations Acts.) Entitlement: Programs that are governed by legislation in a way that legally obligates the Federal government to make specific payments to qualified recipients. Payments to persons under the Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ pensions programs are considered to be entitlements. (See Direct Spending and Mandatory Spending.) Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order. There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget–as required by Pub. L. No. 102-55 for the determination of whether to designate spending as an emergency spending: Necessary expenditure.–an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is merely useful or beneficial; Sudden.–quickly coming into being, not building up over time; Urgent.–pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action; Unforseen.–not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, would not be “unforseen”); and Not permanent.–the need is temporary in nature. Expenditures: (See Outlays.) Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public. Debt held by the government.–Represents the holdings of debt by federal trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires that this surplus be invested in government securities. Debt held by the public.–Represents the holdings of debt by individuals, institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely tracks the unified budget deficit for that year. Fiscal Policy: Federal government policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management intended to promote the nations’ macroeconomic goals, particularly with respect to employment, gross national product, price level stability, and equilibrium in balance of payments. The budget process is a major vehicle for determining and implementing Federal fiscal policy. The other major component of Federal macroeconomic policy is monetary policy. (See Monetary Policy.) Fiscal Year: A fiscal year is a 12-month accounting period. The fiscal for the Federal Government begins October 1 and ends September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example fiscal year 1997 is the year beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1997. Functional Classification: A system of classifying budget resources by major purpose so that budget authority, outlays, and credit activities can be related in terms of the national needs being addressed (for example, national defense, health) regardless of the agency administrating the program. There are currently 20 functions. A function may be divided into two or more subfunctions depending upon the complexity of the national need addressed by that function. (See Budget Authority; Outlays.) return to topIImpoundment: A generic term referring to any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority in the manner intended by Congress. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Rescission of Budget Authority.) return to topJJoint Committee on Taxation (JCT): Section 8001 of the Internal Revenue Code authorized the creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation. By statute, it is composed of five members from the Committee on Finance (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee and five members from the Committee on Ways and Means (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee. In practice, the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Taxation has rotated between the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means with each new Congress. Among other things, the JCT’s duties are to investigate the operation and effects of the federal tax system. return to topM Mandatory Spending: Refers to spending for programs the level of which is governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by appropriations. Examples of mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, rehabilitation services, Members’ pay, judges pay and the payment of interest of the public debt. Many of these programs are considered entitlement. (See Direct Spending.) Mark-Up: Meetings where congressional committees work on language of bills or resolutions. At Budget Committee mark-ups, the House and Senate Budget Committees work on the language and numbers contained in budget resolutions and legislation affecting the congressional budget process. Monetary Policy: Management of the money supply, under the direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, with the aim of achieving price stability and full employment. Government actions in guiding monetary policy, include currency revaluation, credit contradiction or expansion, rediscount policy, regulation of bank reserves and the purchase and sale of Government securities. (See Fiscal Policy.) return to topNNet Deficit Reduction: Savings below the defined budget baseline achieved for the upcoming fiscal year because of laws enacted or final regulations promulgated since January 1. CBO and OMB independently estimate these savings in their initial and final sequester reports. return to topO Offsetting Collections: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public, such as the sale of products or the rendering of a service. Examples include proceeds funds derived from the sale of postage stamps. Offsetting collections are credited against the level of budget authority or outlays associated with a specific program or account. (See Offsetting receipts.) Offsetting Receipts: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public such as the sale of products or the rendering of services. Examples include proceeds from the sale of timber from Federal lands or entrance fees paid at national parks. Rather than being credited against the spending of a particular program or account, (as in the case with offsetting collections) offsetting receipts are deducted from total budget authority and outlays rather than added to Federal revenues even though they are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Generally offsetting receipts are associated with mandatory spending. (See Offsetting collections.) Off-budget Federal Entity: Any Federal fund or trust fund whose transactions are required by law to be excluded from the totals of President’s budget submission and Congress’ budget resolution, despite the fact that these are part of the government’s total transactions. Current law requires that the Social Security trust funds (the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability trust fund) and the Postal Service be off-budget. However, these entities are reflected in the budget in that they are included in calculating the deficit in order to derive the total government deficit that must be financed by borrowing from the public or by other means. All other federal funds and trust funds are on budget. (See Unified Budget.) Outlays: Outlays are disbursements by the Federal Treasury in the form of checks or cash. Outlays flow in part from budget authority granted in prior years and in part from budget authority provided for the year in which the disbursements occur. Outlay Rates: The ratio of outlays (actual government disbursements) in a fiscal year relative to new budgetary resources in that fiscal year. In estimating the budget baseline and baseline deficit for their sequestration reports, CBO and OMB use outlay rates for projecting levels of spending resulting from available budget authority. Pay-as-you-go: Arises in two separate contexts: a point of order in the Senate and a sequester order from OMB. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.–Since fiscal year 1994, the budget resolution has included a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. The rule provides a 3/5ths vote point of order in the Senate against consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in the deficit over a ten year period. It applies to all legislation except appropriations legislation. To determine a violation, CBO measures the budget impact of a direct spending or revenue bill combined with the budget impact of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the latest budget resolution’s adoption to see if the legislation would result in a net deficit increase for any one of three time periods (the first year, the sum of years 1 through 5, and the sum of years 6 through 10.) The pay-go rule sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2002. Pay-as-you-go and sequestration under the BEA.–The Budget Enforcement Act requires OMB to also enforce a “pay-as-you-go” requirement which has a similar effect as the Senate’s point of order: Congress is required to “pay for” any changes to programs which result in an increase in direct spending, or in this case risk a sequester. If OMB estimates that the sum of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since 1990 will result in a net increase in the deficit for the fiscal year, then the President is required to issue a sequester order reducing all non-exempt direct spending accounts by a uniform percentage in order to eliminate the net deficit increase. Most direct spending is either exempt from a sequester order or operates under special rules that minimize the reduction that can be made in direct spending. Social Security is exempt from a pay-as-you-go sequester and Medicare cannot be reduced by more than 4 percent. President’s Budget: The document sent to Congress by the President in January or February of each year, requesting new budget authority for Federal programs and estimating Federal revenues and outlays for the upcoming fiscal year. Revenues: Collections from the public arising from the Government’s sovereign power to tax. Revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes (such as social security payroll taxes), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and the like. Reconciliation Process: A process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution “reconciliation instructions” to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single “reconciliation bill under expedited procedures.” Reserve Fund: A provision in a budget resolution that grants the Chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to make changes in budget aggregates and committee allocations once some condition or conditions have been met. Since a budget resolution establishes a binding ceiling on aggregate budget authority and outlay levels and a binding floor on revenues, budget resolutions frequently include reserve funds for deficit-neutral legislation that would otherwise violate the budget resolution and be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. For example, the FY 1997 budget resolution included a tax reduction reserve fund that allowed the Chairman to reduce the revenue floor and the relevant spending allocations to accommodate legislation that reduced taxes if that legislation also contained offsetting spending reductions. Rescission of Budget Authority: Cancellation of budget authority before the time when the authority would otherwise cease to be available for obligation. The rescission process begins when the President proposes a rescission to the Congress for fiscal or policy reasons. Unlike the deferral of budget authority which occurs unless Congress acts to disapprove the deferral, rescission off budget authority occurs only if Congress enacts the rescission. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Impoundment.) Scoring or Scorekeeping: The process for estimating budget authority, outlay, revenue and deficit levels which result from congressional budgetary actions. Scorekeeping data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office include status reports on the effect of congressional actions and comparisons of these actions to targets and ceilings set by Congress in budget resolutions. These reports are published in the Congressional Record on a regular basis. OMB is responsible for scoring legislation to determine if a sequester is necessary. Sequester: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a presidential spending reduction order that occurs by reducing spending by uniform percentages. Sequestrable Resource: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings federal funding authority (budgetary resources) subject to reductions under a presidential sequester order for achieving required outlay reductions (in non-exempt programs). Supplemental Appropriation: An act appropriating funds in addition to those in the 13 regular annual appropriations acts. Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority beyond the original estimates for programs or activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriation act) in cases where the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until enactment of the next regular appropriation bill. (See Appropriations Act.) return to topTTax Expenditures: Revenue losses attributable to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or to a special credit, preferential rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. return to topU Unfunded Mandates: A Federal Intergovernmental Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal government, except as conditions of assistance or duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Exceptions to this rule are: enforcing constitutional rights; statutory prohibitions against discrimination; emergency assistance requested by states; accounting/auditing for federal assistance; national security; Presidential designated emergencies; and Social Security. Provisions that increase stringency of conditions of assistance or decrease federal funding for large state entitlement programs (greater than $500 million) if states lack authority to decrease their responsibilities are considered mandates as well. A Federal Private Sector Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector. The exceptions are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Unified Budget: A comprehensive display of the Federal budget. This display includes all revenues and all spending for all regular Federal programs and trust funds. The 1967 President’s Commission on Budget Concepts recommended the unified budget and it has been the basis for budgeting since 1968. The unified budget replaced a system of the budgets that existed before 1968 (an administrative budget, a consolidated cash budget, and a national income accounts budget). |
Budget Control Act
The Budget Control Act Serves as the Budget for 2012 and 2013
The Budget Control Act states: “For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 … the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.” In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. Number one, it has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a Congressional document; the Budget Control Act is a law. Number two, it sets discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. Number three, it provides enforcement mechanisms, including two years of “deeming resolutions,” which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And fourth, it creates a reconciliation-like “Super Committee” process to address both entitlements and tax reform. And it backs that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.
Budget Control Act Legislative Text
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Tory! Tory! Tory! — Videos
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 1: Outsiders – BBC 2007
Series exploring the history of the people and ideas behind what became known as Thatcherism. When Thatcher became Prime Minister, the monetarist policies used to combat inflation created large-scale unemployment and weakened the unions. As riots broke out across Britain, there was growing dissent even inside the government. How would Mrs Thatcher survive her plummeting popularity?
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 2: The Road to Power – BBC 2007
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 3: The Exercise of Power – BBC 2007
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Friedrich A. Hayek–Interviews–Videos
Inside the Hayek Equation: An Interview with Friedrich von Hayek–Video
An Interview with Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek – Profile / Biography (1/4)
The Intellectual Portrait Series: The Life and Thought of Friedrich A. Hayek (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003)
Friedrich August von Hayek – Profile / Biography (2/4)
Friedrich August von Hayek – Profile / Biography (3/4)
Friedrich August von Hayek – Profile / Biography (4/4)
The Life & Thought of Friedrich Hayek
The Intellectual Portrait Series: The Life and Thought of Friedrich A. Hayek (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003)
The Road to Serfdom
Hayek on The Road to Serfdom
Inside the Hayek Equation: An Interview with Friedrich von Hayek
Hayek: Fighting the Planners part 1 of 4
Hayek: Fighting the Planners part 2 of 4
Hayek: Fighting the Planners part 3 of 4
Hayek: Fighting the Planners part 4 of 4
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2
Hayek and Friedman: Head to Head | Roger W. Garrison
Glenn Beck -6/8/2010- The Road to Serfdom
Hayek, the Market Order and the Fatal Conceit
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Friedrich A. Hayek–Interviews–Videos
Inside the Hayek Equation: An Interview with Friedrich von Hayek–Video
An Interview with Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
“Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.”
~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975
Ceremonial funeral services with military honors for Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, known as Maggie to her friends and “the Iron Lady” to her opponents, will be held this Wednesday at St Paul’s Cathedral, according to Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.
Her legacy was to change her country’s dominant ideology from collectivist state socialism implemented in decades of Labour Party policies to an individualist market capitalism implemented in Conservative Party policies. In the process she returned the U.K. to eight years of economic growth and prosperity in the 1980s.
Thatcher supported President Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating communism in the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.
Thatcher had been in declining health for a number of years and died peacefully in her sleep the morning of April 8 following a stroke.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Thatcher, “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”
President Barack Obama said, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty and America has lost a true friend.” Obama said she had taught “our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”
John Boehner, speaker of the house, said, “The greatest peacetime prime minister in British history is dead. Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter, stared down elites, union bosses and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe and bring down the Iron Curtain. There was no secret to her values – hard work and personal responsibility – and no nonsense in her leadership.”
Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan said: “Ronnie and Margaret were political soul mates, committed to freedom and resolved to end Communism. As Prime Minister, Margaret had the clear vision and strong determination to stand up for her beliefs at a time when so many were afraid to ‘rock the boat.’ As a result, she helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of millions of people.”
In 1975 Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party. She was subsequently elected prime minister of the United Kingdom on May 4, 1979. Thatcher served three terms from 1979 to 1990 becoming Britain’s longest-serving prime minister in over a century as well as the most dynamic, inspirational and controversial.
When Thatcher took office, the British economy was in shambles and in recession, inflation was rising and the government faced possible bankruptcy. This was a direct result of many years of Labour Party socialistic policies of out-of-control government spending, confiscatory taxation and the nationalization or state control of many industries including coal, steel, railways, gas, electricity, water, trucking, airlines and telecommunications.
The writings of Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrick A. Hayek, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, in particular his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, inspired and guided Thatcher’s economic policies.
Thatcher turned the economy around and made Britain governable again by taking on and taming the trade unions with labor reform legislation. No longer were the unions able to dictate the nation’s economic policies. Under Thatcher the British government pursued a policy of selling state assets with privatization of industry, thus reversing the Labour Party’s nationalization of industry.
When the Argentina government under the fascist junta invaded the British protectorate of the Falkland Islands in April 1982, she led the U.K. to victory. The Argentinians soon toppled the military junta.
In October 1984 there was an assassination attempt on her life when a hotel in Brighton where she and her husband and other members of her cabinet were staying was bombed by Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists.
Thatcher supported Reagan in opposing communism and confronting the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. She was instrumental in the introduction of cruise missiles in Britain to counter the Soviet military threat. She allied the United Kingdom with the United States against the communist expansion and subversion in the West and the winning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
A concise biography of her life can be found at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation web site http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp. An excellent critical biography is Claire Berlinsky’s “There is No Alternative: Why Thatcher Matters” and related interview on YouTube video titled, “Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski.”
An excellent multi-part documentary about Thatcher produced in 2008 by the conservative paper, The Daily Telegraph, can be viewed on YouTube as well as an entertaining movie about her early political career titled, “Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk to Finchley.”
Her husband of more than 50 years, Denis Thatcher, died in June 2003. She is survived by her twin son, Mark, and daughter, Carol, born in 1953.
Thatcher remains a controversial figure in Britain. She was loved and revered by many as well as loathed and reviled by some. She will be remembered by all who value economic freedom and individual liberty.
“Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away. Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it. We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.”
~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975
David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full
Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)
Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos
David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full
Malcolm Rifkind: Working with Margaret Thatcher was ‘never dull’
Margaret Thatcher Dead At 87 – “The Iron Lady” – Stuart Varney
‘Iron Lady’ Margaret Thatcher dies at 87 after stroke
Margaret Thatcher “The Iron Lady” Dead At 87
Obituary: Margaret Thatcher
MARGARET THATCHER DIES AT 87 (WARNING! FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY)
BBC News Announcement – Margaret Thatcher Has Died
Margaret Thatcher dies: David Cameron pays tribute to ‘patriot Prime Minister’
Margaret Thatcher: Boris Johnson pays tribute
Margaret Thatcher changed global political landscape: Tony Blair
Remembering Margaret Thatcher: Pioneering Female Politician
Margaret Thatcher on The MacNeil/Lehrer Report
Thatcher and Reagan’s special relationship
Margaret Thatcher, British Conservative Hero, Dies at 87
MARGARET THATCHER 30TH ANNIVERSARY CLIPS – ’79 RESULT & JANET BROWN SPOOF
Margaret Thatcher – Capitalism and a Free Society
Margaret Thatcher Dies: How She Ended ‘Nanny State’
What did Margaret Thatcher do for Britain’s economy?
Margaret Thatcher dead: A look at her role as MP and mother
Sunrise: Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Sunrise: Margaret Thatcher: The early years
Margaret Thatcher – Thames Television – 1971 -1979
Margaret Thatcher, U.K. Prime Minster, Dies at 87
Margaret Thatcher concerned about “U.S. decline”
The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady
Mike Pattison | A former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher
Introducing Margaret Thatcher! 5 March 1975
MARGARET THATCHER book discussion “The Downing Street Years” 1993
Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher discussing her memoirs “The Downing Street Years” with Brian Lamb on 4 November 1993.
margaret thatcher on her path to power
mrs thatcher gives an interview on her early life
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Would Hayek Have Approved Obamacare?
Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)
Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie
Hitchens ’10: Margaret Thatcher & the Unions
Hitchens 2010: In Love with Argument
Margaret Thatcher – The Flame of Capitalism
Speech to Conservative Party Conference
| Document type: | speeches |
|---|---|
| Document kind: | Speech |
| Venue: | Winter Gardens, Blackpool |
| Source: | Thatcher Archive: speaking text |
| Journalist: | - |
| Editorial comments: | 1045. MT spoke for 41 minute 16 seconds; the BBC Sound Archive has a complete recording. Evening Standard (10 October 1975) noted that the audience applauded every passage of the speech – not one was delivered without interruption. Parts of the text have been checked against material broadcast on ITN during the day. |
| Importance ranking: | Key |
| Word count: | 3722 |
| Themes: | Conservative Party (organisation), Autobiographical comments, Conservative Party (history), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Economy (general discussions), Employment, Public spending and borrowing, Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Foreign policy (USSR and successor states), Foreign policy (Central and Eastern Europe), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Higher and further education, Industry, Science and technology, Conservatism, Social security and welfare, Labour Party and Socialism, Industry, Conservatism, Labour Party and Socialism, Agriculture, Employment, Labour Party and Socialism, Conservatism, Secondary education, Health policy, Private health care, Labour Party and Socialism, Trade unions, British constitution (general discussions), Law and order, Labour Party and Socialism, Northern Ireland |
Note by MT: “Relax. Low Speaking Voice. Not too slow”.
The first Conservative Party Conference I attended was in 1946.
I came to it as an undergraduate representing Oxford University Conservative Association (I know our Cambridge supporters will not mind.) That Conference was held in this very hall and the platform then seemed a long way away, and I had no thought of joining the lofty and distinguished people sitting up there.
But our Party is the Party of equality of opportunity—as you can see. (Laughter).[fo 1]
You will understand, I know, the humility I feel at following in the footsteps of great men like our Leader that year, Winston Churchill a man called by destiny who raised the name of Britain to supreme heights in the history of the free world. (Applause).
In the footsteps of Anthony Eden , who set us the goal of a property-owning democracy—a goal we still pursue today.(Applause).
Of Harold Macmillan whose leadership brought so many ambitions within the grasp of every citizen. (Applause).[fo 2]
Of Alec Douglas-Home whose career of selfless public service earned the affection and admiration of us all. (Applause).
And of Edward Heath who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973. (Applause).
During my lifetime, all the leaders of the Conservative Party have served as Prime Minister. I hope the habit will continue. (Laughter)
Our leaders have been different men with different qualities and different styles. But they have one thing in common. Each met the challenge-of-his-time.[fo 3]
What is the challenge of our time?
I believe there are two—to overcome the country’s economic and financial problems, and to regain our confidence in Britain and ourselves.
The Economic Challenge
The economic challenge has been debated at length in this hall.
Last week it gave rise to the usual scenes of cordial brotherly strife.[fo 4]
Day after day the comrades called one another far from comradely names, and occasionally, when they remembered, they called us names too.
Some of them, for example, suggested that I criticised Britain when I was overseas. They are wrong.
It wasn’t Britain I was criticising. It was-Socialism. (Applause).
And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing.[fo 5]
As long as I have health and strength, they never will be. (Applause).
But whatever could I say about Britain that is half as damaging as what this Labour Government have done to our country?
Let’s look at the record.
It is the Labour Government that have caused prices to rise at a record rate of 26 per cent a year.[fo 6]
They told us that the Social Contract would solve everything. But now everyone can see that the so-called contract was a fraud—a fraud for which the people of this country have had to pay a very high price.
It is the Labour Government whose policies are forcing unemployment higher than it need have been—thousands more men and women lose their jobs every day.
There are going to be men and women many of them youngsters straight out of school—who will be without a job this winter because Socialist Ministers spent last year attacking us, instead of attacking inflation.[fo 7]Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And it’s the Labour Government that have brought the level of production below that of the 3-day week in 1974. W’ve really got a 3-day week now,—only it takes five days to do it. (Applause).
It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease—they’ve run out of other people’s money. (Laughter).
And it’s the Labour Government that have pushed public spending to record levels.
And how’ve they done it? By borrowing, and borrowing and borrowing.
Never in the field of human credit has so much been owed. (Laughter).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 8]
But serious as the economic challenge is, the political and moral challenge is just as grave, perhaps more so.
POLITICAL AND MORAL CHALLENGE
Economic problems never start with economics. They have deeper roots—in human nature and in politics.
They don’t finish at economics either.
Labour’s failure to cope, to look at the nation’s problems from the point of view of the whole nation, not just one section of it, has led to loss of confidence and a sense of helplessness.[fo 9]
With it goes a feeling that Parliament, which ought to be in charge, is not in charge—that the actions and the decisions are taken elsewhere.
And it goes deeper than that. There are voices that seem anxious not to overcome our economic difficulties, but to exploit them, to destroy the free enterprise society and put a Marxist system in its place.
Today those voices form a sizeable chorus in the Parliamentary Labour Party. A chorus which, aided and abetted by many Constituency Labour Parties, seems to be growing in numbers.[fo 10]
Anyone who says this openly is promptly accused of seeing Reds Under the Bed.
But look who’s seeing them now!
On his own admission, Mr Wilson has at last discovered that his own Party is infiltrated by extreme left-wingers—or to use his own words it is infested with them.
When even Mr Wilson gets scared about their success in capturing key positions in the Labour Party, shouldn’t the rest of us be?[fo 11]
And shouldn’t the rest of us ask him “Where have you been while all this has been going on, and what are you doing about it?” (Applause). The answer is nothing.
I sometimes think the Labour Party is like a pub where the mild is running out. If someone doesn’t do something soon, all that’s left will be bitter. (Laughter). And all that’s bitter will be Left. (Laughter).
Whenever I visit Communist countries, their politicians never hesitate to boast about their achievements.[fo 12]
They know them all by heart and reel off the facts and figures, claiming that this is the rich harvest of the Communist system.
Yet they are not prosperous as we in the West are prosperous, and they are not free as we in the West are free.
Our capitalist system produces a far higher standard of prosperity and happiness because it believes in incentive and opportunity, and because it is founded on human dignity and freedom. (Applause).[fo 13]
Even the Russians have to go to a capitalist country, America to buy enough wheat to feed their people. And that aftermore than 50 years of a State controlled economy.
Yet they boast incessantly while we, who have so much more to boast about, forever criticise and decry.
Isn’t it time we spoke up for our way of life? (Applause) After all, no Western nation has to build a wall round itself to keep its people in. (Applause).[fo 14]
So let us have no truck with those who say the free enterprise system has failed. What we face today is not a crisis of capital ism, but of Socialism. No country can flourish if its economic and social life is dominated by nationalisation and state control.
The cause of our shortcomings does not therefore lie in private enterprise. Our problem is not that we have too little socialism. It is that we have too much.
If only the Labour Party in this country would act like Social Democrats in West Germany. If only they would stop trying to prove their Socialist virility by relentlessly nationalising one industry after another.[fo 15]
Of course, a halt to further State control will not on its own restore our belief in ourselves, because something else is happening to this country. We are witnessing a deliberate attack on our values, a deliberate attack on those who wish to promote merit and excellence, a deliberate attack on our heritage and great past. (Applause).Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And there are those who gnaw away at our national self-respect, rewriting British history as centuries of unrelieved gloom, oppression and failure.
As days of hopelessness—not Days of Hope.[fo 16]
And others, under the shelter of our education system, are ruthlessly attacking the minds of the young. Everyone who believes in freedom must be appalled at the tactics employed by the far Left in the systematic destruction of the North London Polytechnic. (Applause).
Blatant tactics of intimidation, designed to undermine the fundamental beliefs and values of every student.
Tactics pursued by people who are the first to insist on their own civil rights while seeking to deny them to the rest of us. We must not be bullied and brainwashed out of our beliefs. (Applause).[fo 17]
No wonder so many of our people—some of the best and brightest—are depressed and talk of emigrating.
Even so, I think they are wrong at giving up too soon. Many of the things we hold dear are threatened as never before, but none has yet been lost.
So stay here. (Applause). Stay and help us defeat Socialism, so that the Britain you have known may be the Britain your children will know. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 18]
Those are the two great challenges of our time.
The moral and political challenge, and the economic challenge.
They have to be faced together—and we have to master them both.
POTENTIAL
What are our chances of success? It depends what kind of people we are. Well, what kind of people are we?[fo 19]
We are the people that in the past made Great Britain the Workshop of the World. The people who persuaded others to buy British not by begging them to do so, but because it was best.
We are a people who have received more Nobel prizes than any other nation except America, and head for head we have done better than America. Twice as well, in fact.
We are the people who, among other things, invented the computer, refrigerator, electric motor, stethoscope, rayon, steam turbine, stainless steel, the tank, television, penicillin, radar, jet engine, hovercraft, float glass and carbonfibres. Oh, and the best half of Concorde. (Laughter).[fo 20]
We export more of what we produce than either West Germany, France, Japan or the United States.
And well over 90%; of these exports come from private enterprise. It’s a triumph for the private sector and all who work in it. Let us say so, loud and clear. (Applause).
With achievements like that who can doubt that Britain can have a great future? What our friends abroad want to know is whether that future is going to happen.
Well, how can we Conservatives make it happen?[fo 21]
Many of the details have already been dealt with in the various debates. But policies and programmes should not be just a list of unrelated items. They are part of a total vision of the kind of life we want for our country and our children. [Beginning of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975] Let me give you my vision.
THE FREE SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY
A man’s right to work as he will to spend what he earns to own property to have the State as servant and not as master these are the British inheritance.
They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975.[fo 22]
But we want a free economy, not only because it guarantees our liberties, but also because it is the best way of creating wealth and prosperity for the whole country.
It is this prosperity alone which can give us the resources for better services for the community, better services for those in need. (Applause).
By their attack on private enterprise, this Labour Government have made certain that there will be next to nothing available for improvements in our social services over the next few years.[fo 23]
We must get private enterprise back on the road to recovery, not merely to give people more of their own money to spend as they choose, but to have more money to help the old and the sick and the handicapped.
The way to recovery is through profits. Good profits today, leading to high investment, well-paid jobs and a better standard of living tomorrow. (Applause).
No profits mean no investment, and a dying industry geared to yesterday’s world.
Other nations have recognised that for years now. They are going ahead faster than we are; and the gap between us will continue to increase unless we change our ways.[fo 24]
The trouble here is that for years the Labour Party have made people feel that profits are guilty-unless proved innocent.
But when I visit factories and businesses I do not find that those who actually work in them are against profits. On the contrary, they want to work for a prosperous concern. With a future—their future. (Applause).
Governments must learn to leave these companies with enough of their own profits to produce the goods and jobs for tomorrow.
If the Socialists won’t or can’t there will be no profit making industry left to support the losses caused by fresh bouts of nationalisation.[fo 25]
And if anyone says I am preaching laissez-faire, let me say this.
I am not arguing, and never have argued, that all we have to do is to let the economy run by itself.
I believe that, just as each of us has an obligation to make the best of his talents so governments have an obligation to create the framework within which we can do so. Not only individual people, but individual firms and particularly small firms. (Applause).
Some of these will stay small but others will expand and become the great companies of the future.[fo 26]
The Labour Government have pursued a disastrous vendetta against small businesses and the self-employed. We will reverse their damaging policies. (Applause).
Nowhere is this more important than in Agriculture—one of our most successful industries made up entirely of small businesses. We live in a world in which food is no longer cheap or plentiful. Everything we cannot produce here must be imported at a high price.
Yet the Government could not have destroyed the confidence of the industry more effectively if they had tried deliberately to do so, with their formula of empty promises and penal taxation.[fo 27]
So today what is the picture? Depressed profits, low investment, no incentive, and overshadowing everything government spending, spending far beyond the taxpayers means. (Applause).
To recover, to get from where we are to where we want to be, will take time.
“Economic policy” wrote Maynard Keynes “should not be a matter of tearing up by the roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.”[fo 28]
It will take time to reduce public spending, rebuild profits and incentives, to benefit from the investments which must be made. The sooner that time starts, the better for Britain’s unemployed.
One of the reasons why this Labour Government has incurred more unemployment than any Conservative Government since the War is because they have concentrated too much on distributing what we have, and too little on seeing that we have more. (Applause).[fo 29]
We Conservatives hate unemployment.
We hate the idea of men and women not being able to use their abilities. We deplore the waste of national resources, and the deep affront to peoples’ dignity from being out of work through no fault of their own. (Applause).
It is ironic that we should be accused of wanting unemployment to solve our economic problems by the very Government which has produced a record post-War unemployment, and is expecting more.[fo 30]
The record of Mr Wilson and his colleagues on this is unparallelled in the history of political hypocricy.
We are now seeing the full consequences of nearly twenty months of Labour Government.
They have done the wrong things at the wrong time in the wrong way.
They have been a disaster for this country.[fo 31]
EQUALITY
Now let me turn to something I spoke about in America.
Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals.
We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise.
We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.[fo 32]
Engineers, miners, manual workers, shop assistants, farm workers, postmen, housewives—these are the essential foundations of our society. Without them there would be no nation. (Applause).
But their are others with special gifts who should also have their chance, because if the adventurers who strike out in new directions in science, technology, medicine, commerce and industry the arts are hobbled, there can be no advance.
The spirit of envy can destroy. It can never build.[fo 33]
Everyone must be allowed to develop the abilities he knows he has within him, and she knows she has within her, in the way they choose.
CHOICE
Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away.
Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it.
We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.[fo 34]
But they are made for you under Labour all right.
Take education.
Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
Our education system used to serve us well. A child from an ordinary family, as I was, could use it as a ladder as an advancement.
But the Socialists are better at demolition than reconstruction, are destroying many good grammar schools.
Now this is nothing to do with private education. It’s opportunity and excellence in our State schools that are being diminished under Socialism.
And naturally enough, parents don’t like this. But in a Socialist society parents should be seen and not heard. (Laughter).[fo 35]
And another denial of choice is being applied to health.
The private sector helps to keep some of our best doctors here, and so are available part time to the National Health Service. It also helps to bring in more money for the general health of the nation.
But under Labour, private medicine is being squeezed out, and the result will be to add to the burden on the National Health Service without adding one penny to its income.[fo 36]
Let me make this absolutely clear.
When we return to power we shall reverse Mrs Castle ‘s stupid and spiteful attack on hospital pay beds. (Applause).
We Conservatives do not accept that because some people have no choice, no one should have it.
Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, not as the Government dictates.End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.
Let us extend choice, the will to choose and the chance to choose.[fo 37]
TRADE UNIONS
I want to come now to the argument which Mr Wilson is trying to put across the country: namely that the Labour Party is the natural party of Government because it is the only one that the Trade Unions will accept.
From what I saw on television last week, the Labour Party did not look like a party of Government at all, let alone a natural one.
But let’s examine the argument.Beginning of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975
If we are to be told that a Conservative Government could not govern because certain extreme leaders would not let it, then General Elections are a mockery we’ve arrived at[fo 38] the one party state, and parliamentary democracy in this country will have perished. (Applause).
The democracy for which our fathers fought and died is not to be laid to rest as lightly as that.
When the next Conservative Government comes to power many Trade Unionists will have put it there. Millions of them vote for us at every Election.
I want to say this to them, and to every one of our supporters in industry.[fo 39]
Go out and join in the work of your Union.
Go to its meetings—and stay to the end.
Learn the Union rules as well as the Far Left know them, and remember this. If Parliamentary democracy dies, free Trade Unions die with it. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975.[fo 40]
RULE OF LAW
I come last to what many would put first. The Rule of Law.
The first people to uphold the law should be governments. It is tragic that the Socialist Government, to its lasting shame, should have lost its nerve and shed its principles over the People’s Republic of Clay Cross. And that a group of the Labour Party should have tried to turn the Shrewsbury pickets into martyrs.
On both occasions the law was broken. On one, violence was done.[fo 41]No decent society can live like that. No responsible party should condone it. (Applause).
The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when its inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.
There is one part of this country where tragically defiance of the law is costing life day after day.[fo 42]
In Northern Ireland our troops have the dangerous and thankless task of trying to keep the peace and hold the balance. We are proud of the way they have discharged their duty.
This Party is pledged to support the unity of the United Kingdom. To preserve that unity and to protect the people, Catholic and Protestant alike, we believe that our armed forces must remain until a genuine peace is made.
Our thoughts are with them, and our pride is with them too. (Applause).[fo 43]
I have spoken of the challenges that face us here in Britain. The challenge to recover economically. The challenge to recover our belief in ourselves.
I have shown our potential for recovery.
I have dealt with some aspects of our strength and approach.
And I have tried to tell you something of my personal vision, my belief in the standards on which this nation was greatly built, on which it greatly thrived, and from which in recent years it has greatly fallen away.[fo 44]
We are coming, I think, to yet another turning point in our long history.
We can go on as we have been going and continue down.
Or we can stop—and with a decisive act of will we can say “Enough”.
Let us, all of us, here today and others, far beyond this hall who believe in our cause make that act of will.
Let us proclaim our faith in a new and better future for our Party and our people.[fo 45]
Let us resolve to heal the wounds of a divided nation.
And let that act of healing be the prelude to a lasting victory. (Prolonged applause).
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102777
Note by MT: “It’s over!”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
American Economc Collapse — The Road to World War 3 — After America Collapses — What Comes Next? — Videos
American Economic Collapse, martial law
U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse (and Not in a Nice Way)
Total Collapse – The Build up to World War III
The Road to World War 3
After America Collapses, What Comes Next?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Double Dip Recession Begins: The Ever Shrinking U.S. Labor Force Declined By 496,000!–Labor Participation Rate Declines .2% to 63.3% New Obama Low and Lowest Since Carter in May 1979! and Only 88,000 Nonfarm payroll Increase in March 2013 — U-7b Unemployment Rate Over 22%! — Videos
Former Obama Advisor- Terrible March Jobs Numbers ‘A Punch To The Gut’
Weak US jobs numbers ‘unexpected’
Rush Limbaugh: It’s Official, We Have a Dying Country – April 5, 2013
CNN Reports On “Very Bad” Jobs Report For March
US Economy Adds 88K Jobs, Rate Drops to 7.6 Pct.
US Jobless Claims Hiked During The Easter Holiday Weekend in March 2013
Job Gains Slow as Unemployment Rate Falls
ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING
George Soros Predicts Economic Collapse WE WILL HAVE A DOUBLE-DIP
Jim Rogers BBC – Economic Crisis, Europe 2012-2013
Peter Schiff explains how a US depression can cause a global ‘death spiral’
JIM-ROGERS-All-FIAT-CURRENCY-will-be-WORTHLESS-in-2014-Dont-SELL-GOLD-or-SILVER
Jim Rogers sits down with Glenn Beck
EXPERT Peter Schiff Says Economic Collapse Is Coming And Is HERE NOW
FTSE takes a tumble before US jobs data – IG’s morning market headlines 05.04.13
The First Few Days After The Dollar Crashes – Buy “Stuff” Now
Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014
Latest: Unemployment Numbers
American Economic Collapse, martial law
BLS paper describing undercounting of long-term discouraged umemployed
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
Will The Unemployment Rate Stall in 2013? (Extra Segment) (EiP)
Will the Unemployment Rate Stall in 2013? (Full Video) (EiP)
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
| Measure | Not seasonally adjusted | Seasonally adjusted | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar. 2012 | Feb. 2013 | Mar. 2013 | Mar. 2012 | Nov. 2012 | Dec. 2012 | Jan. 2013 | Feb. 2013 | Mar. 2013 | |
| U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force | 4.9 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
| U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force | 4.8 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
| U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) | 8.4 | 8.1 | 7.6 | 8.2 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.6 |
| U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 8.3 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 8.1 |
| U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 9.6 | 9.2 | 9.4 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 8.9 |
| U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force | 14.8 | 14.9 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.4 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 13.8 |
| NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm | |||||||||
Employment-population Ratio
16 years and over
Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.4 | 64.5 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.3 | 64.4 | |
| 2001 | 64.4 | 64.3 | 64.3 | 64.0 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.7 | 63.2 | 63.5 | 63.2 | 63.0 | 62.9 | |
| 2002 | 62.7 | 63.0 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.9 | 62.7 | 62.7 | 62.7 | 63.0 | 62.7 | 62.5 | 62.4 | |
| 2003 | 62.5 | 62.5 | 62.4 | 62.4 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 62.1 | 62.1 | 62.0 | 62.1 | 62.3 | 62.2 | |
| 2004 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 62.2 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 62.4 | 62.5 | 62.4 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 62.5 | 62.4 | |
| 2005 | 62.4 | 62.4 | 62.4 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 62.9 | 62.8 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.8 | |
| 2006 | 62.9 | 63.0 | 63.1 | 63.0 | 63.1 | 63.1 | 63.0 | 63.1 | 63.1 | 63.3 | 63.3 | 63.4 | |
| 2007 | 63.3 | 63.3 | 63.3 | 63.0 | 63.0 | 63.0 | 62.9 | 62.7 | 62.9 | 62.7 | 62.9 | 62.7 | |
| 2008 | 62.9 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.7 | 62.5 | 62.4 | 62.2 | 62.0 | 61.9 | 61.7 | 61.4 | 61.0 | |
| 2009 | 60.6 | 60.3 | 59.9 | 59.8 | 59.6 | 59.4 | 59.3 | 59.1 | 58.7 | 58.5 | 58.6 | 58.3 | |
| 2010 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.7 | 58.6 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.3 | 58.2 | 58.3 | |
| 2011 | 58.3 | 58.4 | 58.4 | 58.4 | 58.4 | 58.2 | 58.2 | 58.3 | 58.4 | 58.4 | 58.5 | 58.6 | |
| 2012 | 58.5 | 58.6 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.5 | 58.4 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 58.6 | |
| 2013 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.5 |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Employment Level
143,286,000 March 2013
146,595,000 Nov. 2007 Peak of Boom
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 136559(1) | 136598 | 136701 | 137270 | 136630 | 136940 | 136531 | 136662 | 136893 | 137088 | 137322 | 137614 | |
| 2001 | 137778 | 137612 | 137783 | 137299 | 137092 | 136873 | 137071 | 136241 | 136846 | 136392 | 136238 | 136047 | |
| 2002 | 135701 | 136438 | 136177 | 136126 | 136539 | 136415 | 136413 | 136705 | 137302 | 137008 | 136521 | 136426 | |
| 2003 | 137417(1) | 137482 | 137434 | 137633 | 137544 | 137790 | 137474 | 137549 | 137609 | 137984 | 138424 | 138411 | |
| 2004 | 138472(1) | 138542 | 138453 | 138680 | 138852 | 139174 | 139556 | 139573 | 139487 | 139732 | 140231 | 140125 | |
| 2005 | 140245(1) | 140385 | 140654 | 141254 | 141609 | 141714 | 142026 | 142434 | 142401 | 142548 | 142499 | 142752 | |
| 2006 | 143150(1) | 143457 | 143741 | 143761 | 144089 | 144353 | 144202 | 144625 | 144815 | 145314 | 145534 | 145970 | |
| 2007 | 146028(1) | 146057 | 146320 | 145586 | 145903 | 146063 | 145905 | 145682 | 146244 | 145946 | 146595 | 146273 | |
| 2008 | 146378(1) | 146156 | 146086 | 146132 | 145908 | 145737 | 145532 | 145203 | 145076 | 144802 | 144100 | 143369 | |
| 2009 | 142153(1) | 141644 | 140721 | 140652 | 140250 | 140005 | 139898 | 139481 | 138810 | 138421 | 138665 | 138025 | |
| 2010 | 138439(1) | 138624 | 138767 | 139296 | 139255 | 139148 | 139167 | 139405 | 139388 | 139097 | 139046 | 139295 | |
| 2011 | 139253(1) | 139471 | 139643 | 139606 | 139681 | 139405 | 139509 | 139870 | 140164 | 140314 | 140771 | 140896 | |
| 2012 | 141608(1) | 142019 | 142020 | 141934 | 142302 | 142448 | 142250 | 142164 | 142974 | 143328 | 143277 | 143305 | |
| 2013 | 143322(1) | 143492 | 143286 | ||||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force
155,028,000 March 2013
153,845,000 Nov. 2008
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 142267(1) | 142456 | 142434 | 142751 | 142388 | 142591 | 142278 | 142514 | 142518 | 142622 | 142962 | 143248 | |
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153144(1) | 152983 | 153051 | 152435 | 152670 | 153041 | 153054 | 152749 | 153414 | 153183 | 153835 | 153918 | |
| 2008 | 154063(1) | 153653 | 153908 | 153769 | 154303 | 154313 | 154469 | 154641 | 154570 | 154876 | 154639 | 154655 | |
| 2009 | 154232(1) | 154526 | 154142 | 154479 | 154742 | 154710 | 154505 | 154300 | 153815 | 153804 | 153887 | 153120 | |
| 2010 | 153455(1) | 153702 | 153960 | 154577 | 154110 | 153623 | 153709 | 154078 | 153966 | 153681 | 154140 | 153649 | |
| 2011 | 153244(1) | 153269 | 153358 | 153478 | 153552 | 153369 | 153325 | 153707 | 154074 | 154010 | 154096 | 153945 | |
| 2012 | 154356(1) | 154825 | 154707 | 154451 | 154998 | 155149 | 154995 | 154647 | 155056 | 155576 | 155319 | 155511 | |
| 2013 | 155654(1) | 155524 | 155028 | ||||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3% March 2013
66.0% Nov. 2007
63.3% May 1979
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 67.0 | |
| 2001 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 2002 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.3 | |
| 2003 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 65.9 | |
| 2004 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.9 | |
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.6 | |
| 2013 | 63.6 | 63.5 | 63.3 |
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1948 | 58.6 | 58.9 | 58.5 | 59.0 | 58.3 | 59.2 | 59.3 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 59.1 | |
| 1949 | 58.7 | 59.0 | 58.9 | 58.8 | 59.0 | 58.6 | 58.9 | 59.2 | 59.1 | 59.6 | 59.4 | 59.2 | |
| 1950 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 58.8 | 59.2 | 59.1 | 59.4 | 59.1 | 59.5 | 59.2 | 59.4 | 59.3 | 59.2 | |
| 1951 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 59.8 | 59.1 | 59.4 | 59.0 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 59.1 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 59.6 | |
| 1952 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 58.9 | 58.8 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 58.9 | 58.7 | 59.2 | 58.7 | 59.1 | 59.2 | |
| 1953 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.6 | 59.1 | 58.6 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 58.6 | 58.5 | 58.5 | 58.6 | 58.3 | |
| 1954 | 58.6 | 59.3 | 59.1 | 59.2 | 58.9 | 58.5 | 58.4 | 58.7 | 59.2 | 58.8 | 58.6 | 58.1 | |
| 1955 | 58.6 | 58.4 | 58.5 | 59.0 | 58.8 | 58.8 | 59.3 | 59.7 | 59.7 | 59.8 | 59.9 | 60.2 | |
| 1956 | 60.2 | 59.9 | 59.8 | 59.9 | 60.2 | 60.1 | 60.1 | 60.0 | 60.0 | 59.8 | 59.8 | 59.8 | |
| 1957 | 59.5 | 59.9 | 59.8 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.8 | 60.0 | 59.3 | 59.6 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.6 | |
| 1958 | 59.3 | 59.3 | 59.3 | 59.6 | 59.8 | 59.5 | 59.6 | 59.8 | 59.7 | 59.6 | 59.2 | 59.2 | |
| 1959 | 59.3 | 59.0 | 59.3 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 59.2 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 59.3 | 59.4 | 59.1 | 59.5 | |
| 1960 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 58.5 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.7 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.7 | 59.4 | 59.8 | 59.7 | |
| 1961 | 59.6 | 59.6 | 59.7 | 59.3 | 59.4 | 59.7 | 59.3 | 59.3 | 59.0 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 58.8 | |
| 1962 | 58.8 | 59.0 | 58.9 | 58.7 | 58.9 | 58.8 | 58.5 | 59.0 | 59.0 | 58.7 | 58.5 | 58.4 | |
| 1963 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.8 | 58.8 | 58.5 | 58.7 | 58.5 | 58.7 | 58.8 | 58.8 | 58.5 | |
| 1964 | 58.6 | 58.8 | 58.7 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 58.7 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.7 | 58.6 | 58.5 | 58.6 | |
| 1965 | 58.6 | 58.7 | 58.7 | 58.8 | 59.0 | 58.8 | 59.1 | 58.9 | 58.7 | 58.9 | 58.8 | 59.0 | |
| 1966 | 59.0 | 58.8 | 58.8 | 59.0 | 59.0 | 59.1 | 59.1 | 59.3 | 59.3 | 59.3 | 59.6 | 59.5 | |
| 1967 | 59.5 | 59.3 | 59.1 | 59.4 | 59.3 | 59.6 | 59.6 | 59.7 | 59.7 | 59.9 | 59.8 | 59.9 | |
| 1968 | 59.2 | 59.6 | 59.6 | 59.5 | 59.9 | 60.0 | 59.8 | 59.6 | 59.5 | 59.5 | 59.6 | 59.7 | |
| 1969 | 59.6 | 60.0 | 59.9 | 60.0 | 59.8 | 60.1 | 60.1 | 60.3 | 60.3 | 60.4 | 60.2 | 60.2 | |
| 1970 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.6 | 60.6 | 60.3 | 60.2 | 60.4 | 60.3 | 60.2 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.4 | |
| 1971 | 60.4 | 60.1 | 60.0 | 60.1 | 60.2 | 59.8 | 60.1 | 60.2 | 60.1 | 60.1 | 60.4 | 60.4 | |
| 1972 | 60.2 | 60.2 | 60.5 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.4 | 60.6 | 60.4 | 60.3 | 60.3 | 60.5 | |
| 1973 | 60.0 | 60.5 | 60.8 | 60.8 | 60.6 | 60.9 | 60.9 | 60.7 | 60.8 | 60.9 | 61.2 | 61.2 | |
| 1974 | 61.3 | 61.4 | 61.3 | 61.1 | 61.2 | 61.2 | 61.4 | 61.2 | 61.4 | 61.3 | 61.3 | 61.2 | |
| 1975 | 61.4 | 61.0 | 61.2 | 61.3 | 61.5 | 61.2 | 61.3 | 61.3 | 61.2 | 61.2 | 61.1 | 61.1 | |
| 1976 | 61.3 | 61.3 | 61.3 | 61.6 | 61.5 | 61.5 | 61.8 | 61.8 | 61.6 | 61.6 | 61.9 | 61.8 | |
| 1977 | 61.6 | 61.9 | 62.0 | 62.1 | 62.2 | 62.4 | 62.1 | 62.3 | 62.3 | 62.4 | 62.8 | 62.7 | |
| 1978 | 62.8 | 62.7 | 62.8 | 63.0 | 63.1 | 63.3 | 63.2 | 63.2 | 63.3 | 63.3 | 63.5 | 63.6 | |
| 1979 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.5 | 63.3 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.7 | 63.9 | |
| 1980 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.9 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.6 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.6 | |
| 1981 | 63.9 | 63.9 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.3 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.5 | 63.8 | 63.9 | 63.6 | |
| 1982 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.9 | 64.2 | 63.9 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | |
| 1983 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 64.3 | 64.1 | 64.3 | 64.3 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.1 | |
| 1984 | 63.9 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.3 | 64.5 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.4 | 64.4 | 64.5 | 64.6 | |
| 1985 | 64.7 | 64.7 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 64.8 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.9 | 65.0 | 64.9 | 65.0 | |
| 1986 | 64.9 | 65.0 | 65.1 | 65.1 | 65.2 | 65.4 | 65.4 | 65.3 | 65.4 | 65.4 | 65.4 | 65.3 | |
| 1987 | 65.4 | 65.5 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | |
| 1988 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.2 | 66.1 | |
| 1989 | 66.5 | 66.3 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.5 | |
| 1990 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.4 | |
| 1991 | 66.2 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.2 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | |
| 1992 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.3 | |
| 1993 | 66.2 | 66.2 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 1994 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 1995 | 66.8 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.9 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.4 | |
| 1996 | 66.4 | 66.6 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.9 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.0 | |
| 1997 | 67.0 | 66.9 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 67.2 | |
| 1998 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.2 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | |
| 1999 | 67.2 | 67.2 | 67.0 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.0 | 67.1 | 67.1 | |
| 2000 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 67.0 | |
| 2001 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 2002 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.3 | |
| 2003 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 65.9 | |
| 2004 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.9 | |
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.6 | |
| 2013 | 63.6 | 63.5 | 63.3 |
Unemployment Level
11,742,000 March 2013
7,240,000 Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 5708 | 5858 | 5733 | 5481 | 5758 | 5651 | 5747 | 5853 | 5625 | 5534 | 5639 | 5634 | |
| 2001 | 6023 | 6089 | 6141 | 6271 | 6226 | 6484 | 6583 | 7042 | 7142 | 7694 | 8003 | 8258 | |
| 2002 | 8182 | 8215 | 8304 | 8599 | 8399 | 8393 | 8390 | 8304 | 8251 | 8307 | 8520 | 8640 | |
| 2003 | 8520 | 8618 | 8588 | 8842 | 8957 | 9266 | 9011 | 8896 | 8921 | 8732 | 8576 | 8317 | |
| 2004 | 8370 | 8167 | 8491 | 8170 | 8212 | 8286 | 8136 | 7990 | 7927 | 8061 | 7932 | 7934 | |
| 2005 | 7784 | 7980 | 7737 | 7672 | 7651 | 7524 | 7406 | 7345 | 7553 | 7453 | 7566 | 7279 | |
| 2006 | 7064 | 7184 | 7072 | 7120 | 6980 | 7001 | 7175 | 7091 | 6847 | 6727 | 6872 | 6762 | |
| 2007 | 7116 | 6927 | 6731 | 6850 | 6766 | 6979 | 7149 | 7067 | 7170 | 7237 | 7240 | 7645 | |
| 2008 | 7685 | 7497 | 7822 | 7637 | 8395 | 8575 | 8937 | 9438 | 9494 | 10074 | 10538 | 11286 | |
| 2009 | 12079 | 12881 | 13421 | 13826 | 14492 | 14705 | 14607 | 14819 | 15005 | 15382 | 15223 | 15095 | |
| 2010 | 15016 | 15078 | 15192 | 15281 | 14856 | 14475 | 14542 | 14673 | 14577 | 14584 | 15094 | 14354 | |
| 2011 | 13992 | 13798 | 13716 | 13872 | 13871 | 13964 | 13817 | 13837 | 13910 | 13696 | 13325 | 13049 | |
| 2012 | 12748 | 12806 | 12686 | 12518 | 12695 | 12701 | 12745 | 12483 | 12082 | 12248 | 12042 | 12206 | |
| 2013 | 12332 | 12032 | 11742 |
U-3 Unemployment Rate
7.6% March 2013
4.7% Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| 2003 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
| 2004 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 2005 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| 2006 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| 2007 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
| 2008 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.3 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| 2013 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.6 |
U-6 Total Unemployment Rate
13.8% March 2013
88.4% Nov. 2007
Series Id: LNS13327709 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 6.9 | |
| 2001 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| 2002 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | |
| 2003 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 9.8 | |
| 2004 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.2 | |
| 2005 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 8.6 | |
| 2006 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.9 | |
| 2007 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.8 | |
| 2008 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 12.6 | 13.6 | |
| 2009 | 14.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | |
| 2010 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.6 | |
| 2011 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.0 | 15.5 | 15.2 | |
| 2012 | 15.1 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.4 | |
| 2013 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 13.8 |
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-13-0581
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, April 5, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2013
Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000), and the unemployment rate was
little changed at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment grew in professional and business services and in health care but declined
in retail trade.
Household Survey Data
Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.7 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.6 percent, were little changed in March. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.9 percent),
adult women (7.0 percent), teenagers (24.2 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks
(13.3 percent), and Hispanics (9.2 percent) showed little or no change in March. The
jobless rate for Asians was 5.0 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from
a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In March, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was
little changed at 4.6 million. These individuals accounted for 39.6 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force declined by 496,000 over the month, and the labor force
participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 63.3 percent. The employment-
population ratio, at 58.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 350,000 over the month to 7.6 million. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In March, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially
unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 803,000 discouraged workers in March, little
changed from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for
them. The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in March
had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000). Over the prior 12 months,
employment growth had averaged 169,000 per month. In March, employment increased in
professional and business services and in health care, while retail trade employment
declined. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs in March. Over the past 12 months,
employment in this industry has grown by 533,000. Within professional and business
services, accounting and bookkeeping services added 11,000 jobs over the month, and
employment continued to trend up in temporary help services and in several other
component industries.
Job growth in health care continued in March, with a gain of 23,000, similar to the prior
12-month average. Within health care, employment increased by 15,000 in ambulatory health
care services, such as home health care, and by 8,000 in hospitals.
Construction employment continued to trend up in March (+18,000). Job growth in this
industry picked up this past fall; since September, the industry has added 169,000
jobs. In March, employment continued to expand among specialty trade contractors
(+23,000). Employment in specialty trade contractors has increased by 128,000 since
September, with the gain about equally split between the residential and nonresidential
components.
Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in March (+13,000). Over the past year, the industry added 262,000 jobs.
In March, retail trade employment declined by 24,000. The industry had added an average
of 32,000 jobs per month over the prior 6 months. In March, job declines occurred in
clothing and clothing accessories stores (-15,000), building material and garden supply
stores (-10,000), and electronics and appliance stores (-6,000).
Within government, U.S. Postal Service employment fell by 12,000 in March. Employment in
other major industries, including mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation
and warehousing, information, financial activities, state government, and local government,
showed little change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1
hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.8 hours, and
factory overtime rose by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.8 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)
In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls, at $23.82,
changed little (+1 cent). Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 42 cents,
or 1.8 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees, at $20.03, changed little (-1 cent) in March. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised from +119,000 to
+148,000, and the change for February was revised from +236,000 to +268,000.
____________
The Employment Situation for April is scheduled to be released on Friday, May 3, 2013, at
8:30 a.m. (EDT).
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
CategoryMar.
2012Jan.
2013Feb.
2013Mar.
2013Change from:
Feb.
2013-
Mar.
2013Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population242,604244,663244,828244,995167Civilian labor force154,707155,654155,524155,028-496Participation rate63.863.663.563.3-0.2Employed142,020143,322143,492143,286-206Employment-population ratio58.558.658.658.5-0.1Unemployed12,68612,33212,03211,742-290Unemployment rate8.27.97.77.6-0.1Not in labor force87,89889,00889,30489,967663 Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over8.27.97.77.6-0.1Adult men (20 years and over)7.77.37.16.9-0.2Adult women (20 years and over)7.47.37.07.00.0Teenagers (16 to 19 years)25.023.425.124.2-0.9White7.37.06.86.7-0.1Black or African American14.013.813.813.3-0.5Asian (not seasonally adjusted)6.26.56.15.0-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity10.39.79.69.2-0.4 Total, 25 years and over6.86.56.36.2-0.1Less than a high school diploma12.612.011.211.1-0.1High school graduates, no college8.08.17.97.6-0.3Some college or associate degree7.57.06.76.4-0.3Bachelor’s degree and higher4.23.73.83.80.0 Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs7,0216,6376,5226,329-193Job leavers1,11198195698630Reentrants3,2643,5153,3403,176-164New entrants1,4211,2871,2791,31637 Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,5962,7662,6672,464-2035 to 14 weeks2,7843,0282,7822,8385615 to 26 weeks1,8771,8581,6951,7374227 weeks and over5,3024,7084,7974,611-186 Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,6647,9737,9887,638-350Slack work or business conditions5,0605,1265,1364,906-230Could only find part-time work2,3602,6302,5782,576-2Part time for noneconomic reasons18,53018,46418,90818,745-163 Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,3522,4432,5882,326-Discouraged workers865804885803– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
| Category | Mar. 2012 |
Jan. 2013 |
Feb. 2013(p) |
Mar. 2013(p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands) |
||||
| Total nonfarm | 205 | 148 | 268 | 88 |
| Total private | 208 | 164 | 254 | 95 |
| Goods-producing | 37 | 41 | 73 | 16 |
| Mining and logging | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Construction | -4 | 24 | 49 | 18 |
| Manufacturing | 40 | 14 | 19 | -3 |
| Durable goods(1) | 26 | 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Motor vehicles and parts | 10.7 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.8 |
| Nondurable goods | 14 | 9 | 10 | -7 |
| Private service-providing(1) | 171 | 123 | 181 | 79 |
| Wholesale trade | 5.9 | 13.7 | 4.7 | -1.0 |
| Retail trade | -5.6 | 22.4 | 14.6 | -24.1 |
| Transportation and warehousing | 3.1 | -22.2 | -1.7 | -2.8 |
| Information | -2 | 4 | 19 | 5 |
| Financial activities | 23 | 7 | 8 | -2 |
| Professional and business services(1) | 43 | 46 | 80 | 51 |
| Temporary help services | -7.1 | 11.6 | 23.4 | 20.3 |
| Education and health services(1) | 46 | 15 | 31 | 44 |
| Health care and social assistance | 28.7 | 16.5 | 36.9 | 27.9 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 52 | 31 | 26 | 17 |
| Other services | 5 | 6 | -2 | -9 |
| Government | -3 | -16 | 14 | -7 |
| WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total nonfarm women employees | 49.3 | 49.4 | 49.3 | 49.3 |
| Total private women employees | 47.8 | 47.9 | 47.8 | 47.8 |
| Total private production and nonsupervisory employees | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 34.5 | 34.4 | 34.5 | 34.6 |
| Average hourly earnings | $23.40 | $23.78 | $23.81 | $23.82 |
| Average weekly earnings | $807.30 | $818.03 | $821.45 | $824.17 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) | 96.2 | 97.4 | 97.9 | 98.2 |
| Over-the-month percent change | -0.1 | -0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) | 107.4 | 110.4 | 111.1 | 111.6 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 33.7 | 33.6 | 33.8 | 33.8 |
| Average hourly earnings | $19.68 | $19.98 | $20.04 | $20.03 |
| Average weekly earnings | $663.22 | $671.33 | $677.35 | $677.01 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) | 103.5 | 104.7 | 105.5 | 105.6 |
| Over-the-month percent change | -0.1 | -0.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) | 136.0 | 139.7 | 141.2 | 141.3 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 |
| DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span) |
||||
| Total private (266 industries) | 68.8 | 63.0 | 59.6 | 54.3 |
| Manufacturing (81 industries) | 74.1 | 55.6 | 54.3 | 46.3 |
| Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary |
||||
Discouraged Worker
In economics, a discouraged worker is a person of legal employment age who is not actively seeking employment or who does not find employment after long-term unemployment. This is usually because an individual has given up looking or has had no success in finding a job, hence the term “discouraged”.
In other words, even if a person is still looking actively for a job, that person may have fallen out of the core statistics of unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and is therefore by default classified as “discouraged” (since the person does not appear in the core statistics of unemployment rate). In some cases, their belief may derive from a variety of factors including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; discrimination for reasons such as age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability; a lack of necessary skills, training, or experience; or, a chronic illness or disability.[1]
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as “marginally attached to the labor force”, “on the margins” of the labor force, or as part of “hidden unemployment”, are not considered to be part of the labor force and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates, which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.
United States
Discouraged Workers (US, 2004-09)
In the United States, a discouraged worker is defined as a person not in the labor force who wants and is available for a job and who has looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of his or her last job if a job was held within the past 12 months), but who is not currently looking because of real or perceived poor employment prospects.[2][3][4]
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count discouraged workers as unemployed but rather refers to them as only “marginally attached to the labor force”.[5][6][7] This means that the officially measured unemployment captures so-called “frictional unemployment” and not much else.[8] This has led some economists to believe that the actual unemployment rate in the United States is higher than what is officially reported while others suggest that discouraged workers voluntarily choose not to work.[9] Nonetheless, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has published the discouraged worker rate in alternative measures of labor underutilization under U-4 since 1994 when the most recent redesign of the CPS was implemented.[10][11]
The United States Department of Labor first began tracking discouraged workers in 1967 and found 500,000 at the time.[12] Today, In the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of April 2009, there are 740,000 discouraged workers.[13][14] There is an ongoing debate as to whether discouraged workers should be included in the official unemployment rate.[12] Over time, it has been shown that a disproportionate number of young people, blacks, Hispanics and men, make up discouraged workers.[15][16] Nonetheless, it is generally believed that the discouraged worker is underestimated because it does not include homeless people or those who have not looked for or held a job during the past twelve months and is often poorly tracked.[12][17]
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are the following:[18]
- The worker thinks no work is available.
- The worker could not find work.
- The worker lacks schooling or training.
- The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer.
- The worker is the target of various types of discrimination. …
References
- ^ a b c Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Discouraged workers – where have they gone?” (PDF). Perspectives on Labour and Income. 3 (Canada: Statistics Canada) 4 (Article 5). Catalogue=75- 001E. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ O’Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003) [January 2002]. Economics: Principles in Action. The Wall Street Journal: Classroom Edition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall: Addison Wesley Longman. p. 336. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
- ^ “BLS Information”. Glossary. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services. February 28, 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
- ^ “Glossary”. Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved 2009-05-10. [dead link]
- ^ Castillo, Monica D. (July 1998). “Persons outside the labor force who want a job”. Monthly Labor Review. LABSTAT Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ Hederman Jr., Rea S. (January 9, 2004). “Tracking the Long-Term Unemployed and Discouraged Workers”. WebMemo #389. The heritage foundation. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ Rampell, Catherine (April 30, 2009). “Job Market Pie”. Business: Economicx. The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ Garrison, Roger (July 12, 2004). “The Sin of Wages?”. Archives. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ Zuckerman, Sam (Sunday, November 17, 2002). “Jobless statistics overlook many Official numbers omit discouraged seekers, part-time workers”. Business. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ “Alternative measures of labor underutilization”. Economic News Release. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Current Employment Statistics. May 8, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ “The Unemployment Rate and Beyond: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization (Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 08-06, June 2008)”. Issues in labor statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. June 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ a b c McCARROLL, THOMAS (Monday, Sep. 09, 1991). “Down And Out: “Discouraged” Workers”. magazine. Time magazine. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ “Black Male Unemployment Jumps to 17.2%”. Dollars & Sense. Friday, May 08, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-10. [dead link]
- ^ “Employment Situation Summary”. Economic News Release. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Labor Force Statistics. May 8, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ “Issues in Labor Statistics: Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession”. Issues in Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services. May 1, 2009. p. 2. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ Ahrens, Frank (May 8, 2009; 3:25 PM ET). “Actual U.S. Unemployment: 15.8%”. Economy Watch. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ PODSADA, JANICE (April 19, 2009). “‘Hidden Unemployment’ Inflates State’s Real Jobless Figures”. Business. The Hartford Courant. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
- ^ “Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession”. Issues in Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. April 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- ^ a b c d Akyeampong, Ernest B. (Autumn 1989). “Discouraged Workers” (PDF). Perspectives on Labour and Income. 2 (Canada: Statistics Canada) 1. Retrieved 2009-05-12.
- Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Persons on the Margins of the Labour Force,” The Labour Force (71-001). Statistics Canada, April 1987.
- Akyeampong, Ernest B. “Women Wanting Work But Not Looking Due to Child Care Demands,” The Labour Force. April 1988.
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. Persons in the Labour Force, Australia (Including Persons who Wanted Work but who were not Defined as Unemployed) (6219.0). July 1985.
- Jackson, George. “Alternative Concepts and Measures of Unemployment,” The Labour Force. February 1987.
- Macredie, Ian. “Persons Not in the Labour Force: Job Search Activities and the Desire for Employment, September 1984,” The Labour Force. October 1984.
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Employment Outlook. September 1987. Akyeampong, E.B. “Discouraged workers.” Perspectives on labour and income, Quarterly, Catalogue 75-001E, Autumn 1989. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 64–69.
- “Women wanting work, but not looking due to child care demands.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, April 1988. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 123–131.
- “Persons on the margins of the labour force.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, April 1987. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 85–131.
- Frenken, H. “The pension carrot: incentives to early retirement.” Perspectives on labour and income, Quarterly, Catalogue 75-001E, Autumn 1991. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 18–27.
- Jackson, G. “Alternative concepts and measures of unemployment.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, February 1987. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 85–120.
- Macredie, I. “Persons not in the labour force – job search activities and the desire for employment, September 1984.” The labour force, Monthly, Catalogue 71-001, October 1984. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 91–104.
Further reading
- Blundell, Richard; J. Ham and Costas Meghir (Jan 1998). “Unemployment, discouraged workers and female labour supply”. Research in Economics 52 (2): 103–131. doi:10.1006/reec.1997.0158.
- Hussmanns, Ralf; Farhad Mehran, Vijaya Varmā (1990). Surveys of economically active population, employment, unemployment, and underemployment: an ILO manual on concepts and methods. illustrated. International Labour Office (2 ed.). International Labour Organization. ISBN 92-2-106516-2.
External links
- Discouraged workers, OECD Stats extract
- Incidence of discouraged workers, OECD
United States
- Discouraged workers in glossary, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services
- Employment Situation Summary, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services
- Alternative measures of labor underutilization, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services
- Discouraged Worker, Investopedia
- Down And Out: “Discouraged” Workers, Time magazine
- Actual U.S. Unemployment: 15.8%, The Washington Post
- ‘Hidden Unemployment’ Inflates State’s Real Jobless Figures, The Hartford Courant
- Tracking the Long-Term Unemployed and Discouraged Workers, The Heritage Foundation
- Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession Issues in Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services
- Discouraged Workers, Drexel
- Jobless statistics overlook many, San Francisco Chronicle
- PROMOTING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND OWNERSHIP
- Labor force characteristics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Excellence in Action — Strategies Sessions — Videos
Breakfast Keynote: Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
Strategy Session 1: Reaching More Students with Vouchers and Tax-credit Scholarships
Whether you are an advocate of education vouchers for all or believe special scholarships should be reserved for students in failing schools, the debate on school choice is one that matters. States across the country are enacting new reforms and expanding those that already exist to ensure vouchers and tax-credit scholarships reach the kids who need them the most. Join these state lawmakers as they discuss strategies to keep up with the growing demand from families for quality school choice options.
Moderator: John Kirtley, Chairman of Step Up for Students and vice chairman of the Alliance for School Choice and the American Federation for Children
Panelists: Conrad Appel, Louisiana State Senator Algie Howell, Virginia State Delegate Jason Nelson, Oklahoma State Representative Bill O’Brien, New Hampshire State Representative
Strategy Session 2: Implementing Bold Teacher-Effectiveness Reform
Over the past few years, states across the country have passed reforms linking student-learning data to teacher evaluations. Now, leaders have entered the critical phase of putting the reforms into practice at the local level. Learn how these education chiefs are developing assessments and evaluation systems in their respective states to measure hard-to-test areas and elevate educators’ professional development.
Moderator: Hanna Skandera, New Mexico Secretary-Designate of Public Education and Vice-Chair of Chiefs for Change
Panelists: Kevin Huffman, Tennessee Commissioner of Education Jill Hawley, Colorado Associate Commissioner for Achievement and Strategy Dr. Diane Ullman, Chief Talent Officer for the Connecticut State Department of Education
Strategy Session 3: Accountability-Based Flexibility for School Districts
Across the nation, crisis situations are giving birth to new, student-centered learning models. In the midst of challenging economic times and a national focus on improving the quality of education, a new kind of school district is emerging — one with both autonomy and performance-based accountability. Learn how some of our nation’s most troubled school districts are challenging a conventional structure to change the futures of their students, schools and cities.
Moderator: Dr. Paul Hill, Founder of the Center on Reinventing Public Education
Panelists: David Harris, Founder and CEO of The Mind Trust John White, Louisiana Superintendent of Education Tyrone Winfrey, Chief of Staff of the Michigan Education Achievement Authority
Strategy Session 4: How to Prepare for Common Core Assessments
The state-led transition to Common Core State Standards will change the expectation of what students need to be learning and is aligned with what they’ll need for success after high school in our changing world. The pressure is on for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium to deliver new online assessments and for schools to build the technology infrastructure they’ll need to use those assessments. The Common Core transition brings individual opportunities for states but also challenges. Meanwhile, many state leaders are preparing parents, teachers and communities for the initial results which will likely follow new standards and assessments. Join this panel to discuss specific strategies states and districts can take to ensure everyone and everything is prepared to transition to these new assessments.
Moderator: Governor Bob Wise, President of Alliance for Excellent Education
Panelists: Dr. Tony Bennett, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chairman of Chiefs for Change Steve Bowen, Maine Commissioner of Education Laura McGiffert Slover, Senior Vice President of Achieve Dr. Joe Willhoft, Executive Director of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
More results
bill coleman common core standards
Strategy Session 5: Transforming Colleges of Education
Nine out of every ten teachers graduate from traditional teacher prep programs at colleges of education. Should these colleges be held accountable for the caliber of students they admit into their programs and the teachers they send into the classroom? Don’t miss this discussion on what can be done to ensure new teachers entering the profession are fully equipped to help each of their students succeed.
Moderator: Kate Walsh, President of the National Council on Teacher Quality
Panelists: Dr. John Chubb, CEO of Education Sector and member of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education Paul Pastorek, former Louisiana Superintendent of Education
Strategy Session 6: Charter Schools: Accountability and Funding
With over 40 states now authorizing charter schools, the potential for innovation continues to grow. Each state serves as a testing site for diverse approaches to approving, funding and maintaining the accountability of these unique public schools. Learn the best policies states are using to shape high-quality charter schools across the nation.
Moderator: Jeanne Allen, President of the Center for Education Reform
Panelists: Todd Huston, Indiana State Representative Peggy Lehner, Ohio State Senator Nina Rees, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education
Strategy Session 7: Thinking Outside the School-Zone Box
From coast to coast, states are proving there is more than one way to provide families with school choice options. Many are developing new strategies to empower parents with the ability to choose the public school that is best for their child. Listen to these battle-proven leaders share lessons learned and strategies to expand public school choice programs and remove barriers limiting students’ education options.
Moderator: Mike Petrilli, Executive Vice President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Panelists: Matthew Barnes, Executive Director of Families Empowered John Huppenthal, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Luther Olsen, Wisconsin State Senator
Strategy Session 8: College & Career Readiness
State leaders are facing a desperate call to action: just one-third of America’s high school students graduate with the knowledge and skills they’ll need to succeed in college. This tragic reality calls for rigorous standards and innovative policies, ones that incentivize acceleration and launch students into college or gainful employment. It’s time to give students the opportunity to advance to college or careers as soon as they are ready, even if that’s earlier that the traditional K-12 calendar allows. Get the details on what methods states are using to prepare our youngest generation to thrive in today’s competitive global economy.
Moderator: Laysha Ward, President of Community Relations and the Target Foundation
Panelists: David Abbott, Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel at the Rhode Island Department of Education Russell Armstrong, Education and Workforce Policy Advisor to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Joe Pickens, President of St. Johns River State College Kelli Stargel, Florida State Senator
Strategy Session 9: Developing and Retaining Teachers We Can’t Afford to Lose
A teacher’s influence — good or bad — can have life-long effects on the students in his or her classroom. Hear new research on the teacher-retention crisis, and join the ensuing discussion on what can be done to develop and retain the high-quality educators our states need to reverse student decline and elevate the status of the teaching profession.
Moderator: Dr. Stefanie Sanford, Director of Policy & Advocacy, United States Program, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Panelists: Tim Daly, President of the New Teacher Project Christopher Cerf, New Jersey Commissioner of Education Gary Holder-Winfield, Connecticut State Representative
Strategy Session 10: The Florida Formula for Student Achievement
More than a dozen years ago, Florida embarked on a path to reverse a generation of decline in its public schools by forcing the system to focus on the student instead of the adult. Since then, Florida’s formula of high expectations for students, accountability for schools, choices for families and rewards for progress has yielded incredible gains in student learning. In the eight-year period prior to the reforms, graduation rates had declined by nearly seven percent, but since the reforms were put in place, graduation rates have increased by 20 percent. Education in the Sunshine State is now a model for the nation, inspiring leaders to strategically and boldly transform public education. Learn how Florida’s formula can transform student achievement for any state.
Moderator: Julia Johnson, President of Net Communications and former member of Florida’s Board of Education
Panelists: Dr. Christy Hovanetz, Senior Policy Fellow at the Foundation for Excellence in Education Dr. Matthew Ladner, Senior Advisor on Policy and Research to the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Strategy Session 11: Transforming Education for the Digital Age
Last year, Digital Learning Now! released “The Roadmap for Reform: Digital Learning,” a guide providing governors, lawmakers and policymakers with the nuts-and-bolts policies to transition to student-centered education. Now, states are changing the face of education by introducing blended learning models that combine the best of face-to-face instruction with the best of online learning. Hear state and school leaders share what they are doing — and what is yet to be done — to harness the power of technology and provide students with rigorous, high-quality, customized education.
Moderator: John Bailey, Executive Director of Digital Learning Now!
Panelists: Dr. Janet Barresi, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Mark Edwards, Superintendent of Mooresville Graded School District Pam Myhra, Minnesota State Representative Governor Bev Perdue, North Carolina Chip Rogers, Majority Leader of the Georgia State Senate
General Session: Common Core State Standards
Moderator: Governor Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida from 1999-2007 and Chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Panelists: David Coleman, President and CEO of the College Board Bob Corcoran, President and Chairman of the GE Foundation Dr. William Schmidt, University Distinguished Professor and Co-Director of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, Minnesota State Representative
Lunch Keynote: Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor
« Previous Entries
