History of Economic Thought

George J. Borjas — Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and The American Economy — Videos

Posted on July 22, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Data, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

george_borjas

George J. Borjas: Costs of Immigration – Economics Roundtable

The Implications of Economics for Immigration Policy

The 2012 Richard Grandin Shepherd Lecture in Economics at Kenyon College by George Borjas

.@fordschool – Immigration, Public Policy, and the Skills Debate Panel

 

 

George J. Borjas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George J. Borjas
Born Jorge Jesus Borjas
October 15, 1950 (age 63)
Havana, Cuba
Residence Lexington, Massachusetts
Citizenship American
Fields Economist
Institutions Harvard Kennedy School
Alma mater St. Peter’s College
Columbia University
Known for research on immigration

George Jesus Borjas (born Jorge Jesus Borjas; October 15, 1950)[1] is an American economist and the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.[2] He is most well known for his advocacy of reducing the rates of immigration to the United States.

Personal life and education

Borjas was born in Havana, Cuba on October 15, 1950. He migrated to the United States in October, 1962 with his mother. He graduated with a B.S. in economics and mathematics from St. Peter’s College in 1971. He then completed his M.A. in economics from Columbia University in 1974. He completed his M.Phil and Ph.D. in economics from Columbia in 1975 for thesis titled Job Investment, Labor Mobility and Earnings.[3]

He is married and has three children.[3]

Academic career

Borjas became an assistant professor of economics at Queens College, City University of New York from 1975 to 1977. He was a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Economics, University of Chicago from 1977 to 1978. He was also a Senior Research Analyst, National Bureau of Economic Research from 1972 to 1978.[3]

He joined the faculty at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1980 and remained there for ten years. He then became a professor at the University of California, San Diego from 1990 to 1995. He joined the faculty at Harvard University in 1995.[3]

Work

Borjas was called ‘America’s leading immigration economist’ by BusinessWeek and The Wall Street Journal. He is an influential figure in the debate on immigration and his research on the economic impact of immigration plays a central role in the debate over immigration policy in the United States.[1]

He has written many books and has published more than 100 articles in books and scholarly journals, including the American Economic Review, the Journal of Political Economy, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics.[2] His most recent book is Immigration Economics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).

Honors

Borjas was listed in Who’s Who in the World, Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in Finance and Industry and Who’s Who in Economics. He was elected a fellow of the Econometric Society in 1998 and a fellow of the Society of Labor Economists in 2004. He was also a member of the Council of Economic Advisors for the Governor of California from 1993 to 1998, of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impact of Immigration from 1995 to 1997, and chaired the National Science Foundation’s Committee of Visitors for the Economics Program in 1996.[2]

In 2011 he was named co-winner of the IZA Prize in Labor Economics.[4]

Books

The following are the books published by Borjas.

  • Wage Policy in the Federal Bureaucracy (American Enterprise Institute, 1980)
  • Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy (Basic Books, 1990)
  • Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill, 1996; 2nd Edition, 2000, 3rd edition, 2005, 4th edition, 2008, 5th edition, 2010,)
  • Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999)

References

  1. Davis, Bob (April 26, 1996). “Despite His Heritage, Prominent Economist Backs Immigration Cut”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-06-30.[dead link]
  2. “Biography of George J. Borjas”. Harvard University. Retrieved 2008-06-30.[dead link]
  3. “Curriculum Vitae of George J. Borjas” (pdf). Harvard University. Retrieved 2008-06-30.
  4. George Borjas Named Co-Winner of 2011 IZA Prize in Labor Economics Harvard Kennedy School, July 21, 2011. Retrieved December 1, 2012

External links

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

State and Central Banking: Killing and Fleecing The People Massively — Financing War — Videos

Posted on June 18, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

lew_rockwell

lew_rockwell

Mises

War and the Fed | Lew Rockwell

Lew Rockwell explains how the Federal Reserve Enables War, Empire, and Destroys the Middle Class

Economics and Moral Courage | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The Misesian Vision | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Vikings — Videos

Posted on April 30, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Economics, Education, European History, Fiscal Policy, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Strategy, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

The Vikings : Documentary on the Life, Culture, and Legacy of Vikings (Full Documentary)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Federal Reserve System To End The Zero Interest Rate Policy in 2015 and Financing Federal Government By Ending Quantitative Easying 3 By Fall of 2014 — No Exit Strategy — Bubbles Bursting — Videos

Posted on March 19, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, history, History of Economic Thought, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 227: March 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 226: March 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 225: March 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 224: March 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 223: March 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 222: March 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 221: February 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 220: February 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 219: February 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 218: February 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 217: February 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Story 1: Federal Reserve System To End The Zero Interest Rate Policy in 2015 and Financing Federal Government By Ending Quantitative Easying 3 By Fall of 2014  — No Exit Strategy — Bubbles Bursting — Videos

janet_yellen

fed-funds-rate-wiki

fed_funds_rate_qe_1_2_3

screen-shot-2014-03-18-at-5-04-49-pm

sp-500-vs-federal-reserve-balance-sheet1

chart-march14

Federal Reserve News Conference

Chair Janet Yellen held a news conference following a meeting of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?318360-1/federal-reserve-news-conference

Press Conference with Chair of the FOMC, Janet L. Yellen

Yellen says Fed will keep short-term interest rates low

Janet Yellen Slip Sinks Dow, But Don’t Overestimate the Comment

Further gradual reduction in Federal Reserve stimulus expected at Yellen led meeting – economy

PROOF The Fed. Is Clueless: Stock Market MELTDOWN Coming. By Gregory Mannarino

Size of the Fed’s Balance Sheet is Concerning

EU European Union Economic Crisis 2013 2014 ; Jim Rickards Economy 2014

Marc Faber Gold, SIlver Won’t Collapse…. Outlook and Analysis

What’s the Deal with Zero Interest Rate Policy? – Laissez Faire Today Exclusive

Economic Meltdown 2014 – Financial Collapse – Gerald Celente – Peter Schiff

Fed’s No. 2 Strongly Backs Low-Rate Policy

Marc Faber: Fed Is ‘Boxed In’ With No Exit Strategy, Won’t End Quantitative Easing

Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) & Inflation

Talking to Chris Aiello, Managing Director at Dynasty Global Capital in Hong Kong. Chris discusses the zero interest rate policy followed by the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States and the impact on global economy of such a policy.

Michael Covel 001: Zero Interest Rate Policy

Ron Paul Hearing on the Fed’s Manipulation of Interest Rates 9/21/12

Ron Paul ~ The Fed Has Lost Control Of Interest Rates

Milton Friedman on the Failure of Wage and Price Controls

Banking 14: Fed Funds Rate

Banking 15: More on the Fed Funds Rate

Banking 16: Why target rates vs. money supply

Banking 17: What happened to the gold?

Banking 18: Big Picture Discussion

Quantitative Easing — How Does it Work in the Real World?

The video “Quantitative Easing — How Does It Work in the Real World?” explains in detail how the Federal Reserve injects freshly printed money into the real economy and how it may impact the stock market, and your purchasing power. Understanding the QE program and process in detail is extremely important relative to making the best investment decisions possible. Hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, pension fund, high net worth investors, and alternative asset managers all over the globe will be receiving freshly printed U.S. dollars when they participate in the Fed’s Treasury buying and open market operations related to quantitative easing. Money manager Chris Ciovacco explains how the Fed can inflate the money supply while pushing new dollars into the stock, bond, commodity, currency, gold, silver, and precious metals markets. Understanding the lines of business and clients of the primary QE dealers will give you a rare and detailed insight into quantitative easing , Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, open market operations, and global finance. The educational video, “Quantitative Easing — How Does It Work in the Real World?” was filmed and produced in Atlanta.

Quantitative Easing, the Fed, Finance, and Inflation — QE

The video, “Quantitative Easing (QE), The Federal Reserve, Finance, and Inflation” explains how the Fed “prints money” and who gets the new U.S. dollars. Primary Broker-Dealers, not traditional banks, are involved in the QE process and program. Understanding how QE works enables investors to make better asset allocation and investment decisions or formulate quantitative easing strategies related to wealth preservation and gold. The Fed encourages the Primary Dealers to involve their clients in the bond purchase program, which sheds light on how the printed money gets into the real economy. Chris Ciovacco, of Ciovacco Capital Management provides commentary, insight, and investment analysis as it relates to QE2. The brief educational video, “Quantitative Easing, The Fed, Finance, and Inflation — QE” was filmed in downtown Atlanta.

Quantitative Easing Bernanke — History & Objectives of QE

The video “Quantitative Easing — Ben Bernanke — History and Objectives of QE” gives insight into the Federal Reserve’s perspective of the need to print money in order to stimulate the economy, financial markets, and investing. Writings and comments from Brian Sack and Ben Bernanke are reviewed and analyzed as it relates to inflation, deflation, interest rates, household wealth, mortgage rates, asset prices, investing, money printing, and gold. Bernanke’s “helicopter speech” and “printing press” comments are reviewed in the context of quantitative easing and precious metals, the dollar, gold, and silver. The value of the U.S. dollar, inflation, and purchasing power are covered within the context of an inflation of the money supply via the “printing press”. The brief video “Quantitative Easing Bernanke — History & Objectives of QE” is presented by Chris Ciovacco of Ciovacco Capital Management.

Quantitative Easing (QE) 2010 — 2011 Why is the Fed printing money?

Video explains how the Federal Reserve’s QE program works. Primary broker-dealers, not banks, are the primary recipients of the Fed’s newly printed money. You Tube video explains how the Fed inflates the money supply via a bond purchase program with the NY Fed’s 18 primary dealers. Investment strategies and purchasing power protection can be better understood if investors understand the quantitative easing process and the primary dealer’s lines of business, involvement in global markets, and global client base. Hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and high net worth investors all over the globe can participate in the QE 2.0 process. Chris Ciovacco, of Ciovacco Capital Management, explains the possible impacts of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program on the financial markets and your investments. The brief video “Quantitative Easing Explained” or “QE2 Explained” will provide rare insight into the Fed’s balance sheet policies.

Quantitative Easing Explained — Who Gets Fed’s Printed Money?

Video explains how the Federal Reserve’s QE program works. Primary broker-dealers, not banks, are the primary recipients of the Fed’s newly printed money. You Tube video explains how the Fed inflates the money supply via a bond purchase program with the NY Fed’s 18 primary dealers. Investment strategies and purchasing power protection can be better understood if investors understand the quantitative easing process and the primary dealer’s lines of business, involvement in global markets, and global client base. Hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and high net worth investors all over the globe can participate in the QE 2.0 process. Chris Ciovacco, of Ciovacco Capital Management, explains the possible impacts of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program on the financial markets and your investments. The brief video “Quantitative Easing Explained” or “QE2 Explained” will provide rare insight into the Fed’s balance sheet policies.

QE2: Quantitative Easing Investing & Stock Market Consequences

Video covers quantitative easing investing and stock market strategies. How gold may be used to protect your purchasing power from QE2. Asset class and investment options are discussed for inflation and deflation, spanning gold, silver, copper, oil, stocks, dividend payers, CDs, utilities, consumer staples, and cash. With the economy and financial markets dealing with inflationary and deflationary forces, flexible investment strategies are needed. Chris Ciovacco, of Ciovacco Capital Management, provides commentary and analysis on QE 2.0, the U.S. Dollar, euro, possible economic and market outcomes related to the Federal Reserve’s program to print money. “Quantitative Easing Investing and Stock Market Consequences” was recorded in Atlanta covering 2010 and 2011 investment strategies.

U.S. Stocks Drop as Fed’s Yellen Outlines Stimulus Exit

By Callie Bost  Mar 19, 2014 3:02 PM CT

U.S. stocks fell for the first time in three days as Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said the central bank’s stimulus program could end this fall and benchmark interest rates could rise six months later.

The S&P 500 slipped 0.6 percent to 1,860.83 at 4 p.m. in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) slid 113.51 points, or 0.7 percent, to 16,222.68. Trading volume for S&P 500 stocks was in line with the 30-day average at this time of day.

“The pace of tightening, once the Fed starts tightening, is a little bit faster than thought before and I think that’s why we’re getting this market reaction,”John Canally, an economic strategist at LPL Financial Corp., said in a phone interview from Boston. His firm oversees about $438.4 billion. “Being reminded that the Fed will eventually raise rates is getting traders’ attention. We’re still a long way off and there are no signs in the economy about inflation.”

By keeping its benchmark interest-rate target near zero and conducting three rounds of asset purchases, the Fed has helped push the S&P 500 up as much as 178 percent from a 12-year low as U.S. equities enter the sixth year of a bull market that started in March 2009.

Higher Rates

Stocks turned lower today as the Fed’s statement said officials predicted their target interest rate would be 1 percent at the end of 2015 and 2.25 percent a year later, higher than previously forecast, as they upgraded projections for gains in the labor market.

Most Federal Open Market Committee participants reiterated their view that the Fed will refrain from raising the benchmark interest rate until 2015. The median rate among 16 Fed officials rose from December, when they estimated the rate at the end of next year at 0.75 percent, and 1.75 percent for the end of 2016. The central bank said it will look at a wide range of data in determining when to raise its rate from zero, dropping a pledge tying borrowing costs to a 6.5 percent unemployment rate.

Benchmark indexes extended losses as Yellen said the quantitative easing program would end this fall if the Fed continues to taper purchases in measured steps. She sees a “considerable time” between the end of the stimulus and the first rate increase, meaning “six months or that type of thing,” she said at her first press conference following a Fed decision.

‘Risk Factor’

“U.S. indices are moving quickly on Yellen’s comments,” Larry Peruzzi, senior equity trader at Cabrerra Capital Markets LLC in Boston, said in an e-mail. “Equities are adjusting the risk factor of higher rates.”

The S&P 500 advanced 1.7 percent in the last two days as Russia pledged not to seek territory beyond Crimea. The U.S. and Europe are preparing to ratchet up sanctions on Russia after President Vladimir Putin signed an accord setting in motion Crimea’s accession to Russia. With visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials failing to sway Putin, European Union leaders will meet tomorrow to consider “additional and far-reaching consequences.”

Investors have added $8 billion to U.S. equity exchange-traded funds in the past five days and $1.1 billion to bond ETFs, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Materials stocks absorbed the most money among industry ETFs, taking in $689 million during the past week.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-19/u-s-stock-index-futures-are-little-changed-before-fomc.html

Recap: Janet Yellen’s Press Conference and Fed Decision

Janet Yellen wrapped up her first policy meeting Wednesday as chairwoman of theFederal Reserve, then stepped in front of reporters (and live cameras) for her first press conference.

The new chairwoman had a big job, explaining a major shift in forward guidance for when the central bank might increase rates. In her press conference, she suggested that might be around six months after the Fed ends its bond-buying program.

  • Welcome to another big day in Fed land. Our nation’s central bankers have likely wrapped up their two-day meeting by now. We’re waiting for the Federal Open Market Committee’s policy statement at 2 p.m., along with updated projections from all Fed officials. Then we get Janet Yellen herself half an hour later, at 2:30, for her first press conference.We should have answers to a number of key questions over the next few hours: If the Fed ditches it forward guidance about interest rates, what will replace it? Did Chairwoman Yellen maintain consensus on the committee?  Will she stick around for a couple of hours answering reporters’ questions, like she did with lawmakers?
  • Fun Fed fact, which all you Fed geeks out there surely knew already: Janet Yellen was a driving force behind Fed press conferences.

    As Fed vice chairman, she led a committee shaping the central bank’s overhaul of its communication strategy: the statement, the economic projections, the press conference and more. So if she doesn’t like what she faces in a few hours, she can only blame herself.

    We’ve been doing this for a few years. While you’re waiting, take a trip into our archives for a peek at prior press conferences. It started way back in the days of QE2. long before the word “taper” became the subject of heated dinner-table conversation among economists.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/03/19/live-blog-janet-yellens-press-conference-after-fed-decision/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-227

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

[youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw3p2E9gziM]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Senator Rand Paul Wins CPAC Poll for Second Year In A Row — Republican Candidate for President in 2016 — We Are The Champions — I Stand With Rand — Videos

Posted on March 9, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, Heroes, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Obamacare, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

stand_with_rand

why_I_stand_with_rand

CPAC2014-Straw-Poll

Rand Paul

cpac-conservatives

rand-paul-cpac-2013-a_s640x427

stand-with-rand-constitution-restrain-government

RandPaul_family

Senator Paul Extends Lead Fro 2013 Win Over Rubio

cpac straw poll_2013

Rand Paul wins CPAC 2014 Presidential Straw Poll C-SPAN

Rand Paul wins CPAC 2014 Presidential Straw Poll C-SPAN

Rand Paul Previews His CPAC 2014 Speech

Rand Paul CPAC 2014 Speech (FULL) – Let Us All Stand Together in Liberty!

Rand Paul’s CPAC 2013 Speech – 3/14/2013

The BEST foreign policy speech EVER! – Libertarian Senator Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul

Best 7 minutes of Ronald Reagan at CPAC

President Reagan’s Remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference – Feb. 26 , 1982

time_cover_rand_paul

stand_with_rand

keep_calm_stand_with_rand

Champions are made from something they have deep inside of them a desire, a dream, a vison.

~ Mahatma Gandhi

Queen – We Are The Champions (HQ) (Live At Wembley 86)

Queen- live at Wembley Stadium 12-07-1986 Saturday (25th Anniversary Edition)

sign_up_stand_with_rand

cap_ISWR

stand_with_rand_2016_button

shirt_stand_with_rand

Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second

Rubio and Ryan, GOP leaders in Congress all see big drops in support

Sen. Rand Paul demolished his competition in the 2014 Washington Times/CPAC presidential preference straw poll on Saturday, winning 31 percent of the vote — nearly three times the total of second-place Sen. Ted Cruz.

The poll also found a strong plurality of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference believe marijuana should be fully legalized, with 41 percent saying it’s time to change the law and tax it. Another 21 percent said it should be legalized only for medicinal purposes, while just 31 percent said it should remain illegal in all cases.


SEE ALSO: CPAC 2014 straw poll results


In the presidential poll, Mr. Cruz’s 11 percent was a big improvement for the freshman senator, who won just 4 percent in last year’s straw poll. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third with 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was fourth with 8 percent in results that signal growing discontent with the GOP establishment in Washington.

Indeed, CPAC voters now have an unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress, with 51 percent saying they disapprove of the job the GOP is doing on Capitol Hill. Just last year the GOP had a 54 percent approval rating, and in 2012 they held a 70 percent approval rating.

But a series of tough votes over the last few months that saw Republican leaders work with President Obama to boost spending and raised the government’s debt limit have deepened a rift between the GOP’s leadership on Capitol Hill and conservative activists around the country.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference in National Harbor, Md., Thursday, March 6, 2014. Thursday marks the first day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which brings together prospective presidential candidates, conservative opinion leaders and tea party activists from coast to coast. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)Enlarge PhotoSen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual … more >

That could be one reason why Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who wrote December’s budget deal that boosted spending in 2014 and 2015, saw his standing with CPAC voters cut in half — from 6 percent support in last year’s presidential straw poll to just 3 percent this year.

Sen. Marco Rubio suffered an even bigger drop, falling from 23 percent and second place in 2013 to seventh place, with 6 percent, this year.

“I like Ted Cruz, I like Rand Paul, I like Mike Lee. I like Rubio, but less now than I did a year ago because of immigration,” said David Fitzwilliam, 83.


SEE ALSO: Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight with him for liberty


For Mr. Paul, the victory is his second in a row, and he saw his support climb from 25 percent last year to 31 percent this year.

“He is the only true liberty candidate who focuses on civil liberties more than anybody else,” said Al Seltzinger, 36, from Baltimore. “I think the way the nation is going today with the government and the president going against the Constitution that we need someone who holds strict to the Constitution and whose voting record is pretty solid when it comes to the Constitution.”

Mr. Cruz also jumped from just 4 percent last year — when he was a newly sworn-in senator — to his 11 percent this year.

Mr. Carson, who gained prominence with a 27-minute speech challenging Mr. Obama when the two appeared at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, is also on the rise. In last year’s straw poll, taken just after that speech, he garnered 4 percent of the vote, but jumped to 9 percent this year.

“I love Ted Cruz, I love Rand Paul, but Ben Carson is all of the above,” said Jean Carlton, a 71-year-old CPAC attendee who said the doctor’s lack of Washington experience was a big plus.

For his part Mr. Christie, who has faced political troubles back home in New Jersey after his staffers caused a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge to punish a town mayor, seems to be holding steady among activists. He rose from 7 percent last year to 8 percent support this year.

In his speech to the conference on Thursday, Mr. Christie argued that the GOP needs to not only pick a conservative champion, but pick a candidate who can get elected.

“We can’t govern if we can’t win,” he said.

That resonated with some CPAC straw poll voters.

“I think he has the best chance in the general election. I am less optimistic about his chances in the primary, but he seems to be more palatable to Independents and Democrats. I think electability is the main concern,” said Matthew Smith, a 19-year-old student at Yale University.

This year’s straw poll listed 25 potential candidates, which is far more than usual. The high number signals just how wide open the GOP’s presidential contest is with two years to go before the first caucuses and primaries.

On the Democratic side, meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton easily leads the rest of her party’s field in national and state polling.

Previous versions of The Washington Times/CPAC poll showed that the audience that gathers in Washington leans younger and more libertarian than the conservative movement throughout the country, which likely gives Mr. Paul a boost with this crowd here.

Indeed, his father, then-Rep. Ron Paul, won the straw poll twice on a similar libertarian-minded message, though he struggled to translate that support into votes when it came to primaries and caucuses.

The straw poll was conducted between Thursday and Saturday afternoon, and 2,459 votes were cast.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/8/rand-paul-wins-2014-cpac-straw-poll-ted-cruz-finis/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Coming Stock Market Crash and Recession? The End of American As You Know It? — Videos

Posted on March 3, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Securities and Exchange Commission, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 220: February 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 219: February 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 218: February 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 217: February 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-220

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Story 1: The Coming Stock Market Crash and Recession? The End of American As You Know It? — Videos

Obama ObamaCare Economic Collapse stock-market-crash-1929 20141929-IS-A-MOLEHILL-COMPARED-TO-THIS-MOUNTAINdow-today-vs-1929-feb-5

01 - 140121 Strongest + Logest Bull Cycles in the DJIA since 1900stockMCrash

transfer payment

Bubble, Stock Market Crash Coming Like 1929

Bubble, Stock Market Crash Coming New uptade Economic Monitor 2014

Keiser Report: Guest Dough Casey

Doug Casey on Stupidity, Evil, and the Decline of the U.S.

Jim Rogers Stock Market Crash, The Fed Will Come To The Rescue

EU European Union Economic Crisis 2013 2014

Market Crash, Global Economic Shocks Coming in 2014, World War 3 Gerald Celente

World Economy : Chart shows similarities between 1929 Stock Market Crash and Today

Glenn Beck: 1929 vs. 2014

Peter Schiff Market Crash 2014 | London Real

Peter Schiff – Market Crash 2014 | London Real

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama’s State of the Union 2014 Address — The Young and The Jobless Betrayed By Obama — Videos

Posted on January 29, 2014. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Fraud, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Narcissism, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-200

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

unemployment_minimum_wage

illegal_immigration

2011-0318-origins

USA-Immigration-by-Decadeimmigration_against_population

Story 1: President Obama’s State of the Union 2014 Address — The Young and The Jobless Betrayed By Obama — Videos

Watch the State of the Union – 2014

State of the Union 2014 Address: President Obama’s Full Speech – New York Times

Obama Urges Immigration Reform | State of the Union 2014

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS – OBAMA wants to REBUILD the PEOPLES TRUST

State of the Union 2014 Address: Obama on Raising the Minimum Wage – New York Times

Frank Luntz State of the Union Focus Group on The Kelly File – Jan. 28, 2014

Rand Paul Sotu Reaction. Rand Paul State Of The Union Reaction

Sen. Ted Cruz Reaction to the State of the Union Address

FULL SPEECH: Tea Party Response to 2014 State of the Union – Senator Mike Lee

Gohmert’s Reaction to The 2014 State of the Union

Watch the Republican Response to the 2014 State of the Union

Maximum Rage Over The Minimum Wage

Glenn Beck: Obama Became America’s First Dictator During State of the Union 2014

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

How Murray Rothbard Became a Libertarian — Videos

Posted on January 13, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , |

How Murray Rothbard Became a Libertarian

A prolific author and Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard promoted a form of free market anarchism he called “anarcho-capitalism.”

In this talk, given at the 1981 National Libertarian Party Convention, Rothbard tells the story of how he came to learn about economics and libertarianism as he grew up in the Bronx and attended Columbia University in the 1930s and 40s. He reminisces about meeting Frank Chodorov, Baldy Harper, George Stigler and Ludwig von Mises, and takes a number of audience questions.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement — Videos

Murray Rothbard On Ludwig von Mises–Videos

The History of Economic Thought | Murray Rothbard–Videos

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

National Security Agency (NSA) Wants To Build Supercomputer To Crack All Encryption — Videos

Posted on January 2, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Data Storage, Economics, External Hard Drives, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Security, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

NSA wants a supercomputer to crack all encryption

NSA picks locks of Internet encryption

How did the NSA hack our emails?

Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Can “Literally Watch Every Keystroke You Make”

A history of NSA wiretapping, Prism, Edward Snowden, William Binney and Thomas Drake – Truthloader

Spying On Americans By NSA Prism Collection Details Rand Paul On Hannity

NSA and the One Trillion Dollar scam [Empire]

The Truth About Edward Snowden

Vindication for Snowden? Obama Panel Backs Major Curbs on NSA Surveillance, Phone Record Data Mining

A White House-appointed task force has proposed a series of curbs on key National Security Agency surveillance operations exposed by Edward Snowden. On Thursday, the panel recommended the NSA halt its bulk collection of billions of U.S. phone call records, citing ‘potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty.’ The panel says telecommunications providers or a private third party should store the records instead. The panel also calls for banning the NSA from ‘undermining encryption’ and criticizes its use of computer programming flaws to mount cyber-attacks. And it backs the creation of an independent review board to monitor government programs for potential violations of civil liberties. We discuss the panel’s findings with two guests: Ben Wizner, Snowden’s legal advisor and director o

Construction of the NCI supercomputer – timelapse video

NSA’s Largest Spy Center Located in Utah (What you need to know)

What You Should Know About The New NSA Utah Data Center

How NSA Spys On You With Utah Data Center Super Computer

The End of Internet Privacy? Glenn Greenwald On Secret NSA Program to Crack Online Encryption

NSA and the One Trillion Dollar scam [Empire]

NSA seeks to build quantum computer that could crack most types of encryption

By  and Barton Gellman, Updated: Thursday, January 2, 4:00 PM

In room-size metal boxes, secure against electromagnetic leaks, the National Security Agency is racing to build a computer that could break nearly every kind of encryption used to protect banking, medical, business and government records around the world.

According to documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the effort to build “a cryptologically useful quantum computer” — a machine exponentially faster than classical computers — is part of a $79.7 million research program titled, “Penetrating Hard Targets.” Much of the work is hosted under classified contracts at a laboratory in College Park.

[Read an annotated description of the Penetrating Hard Targets project]

The development of a quantum computer has long been a goal of many in the scientific community, with revolutionary implications for fields like medicine as well as for the NSA’s code-breaking mission. With such technology, all forms of public key encryption would be broken, including those used on many secure Web sites as well as the type used to protect state secrets.

Physicists and computer scientists have long speculated whether the NSA’s efforts are more advanced than those of the best civilian labs. Although the full extent of the agency’s research remains unknown, the documents provided by Snowden suggest that the NSA is no closer to success than others in the scientific community.

“It seems improbable that the NSA could be that far ahead of the open world without anybody knowing it,” said Scott Aaronson, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT.

The NSA appears to regard itself as running neck and neck with quantum computing labs sponsored by the European Union and the Swiss government, with steady progress but little prospect of an immediate breakthrough.

“The geographic scope has narrowed from a global effort to a discrete focus on the European Union and Switzerland,” one NSA document states.

Seth Lloyd, professor of quantum mechanical engineering at MIT, said the NSA’s focus is not misplaced. “The E.U. and Switzerland have made significant advances over the last decade and have caught up to the U.S. in quantum computing technology,” he said.

The NSA declined to comment for this story.

The documents, however, indicate that the agency carries out some of its research in large, shielded rooms known as Faraday cages, which are designed to prevent electromagnetic energy from coming in or out. Those, according to one brief description, are required “to keep delicate quantum computing experiments running.”

[Read a document describing classification levels related to quantum computing efforts]

The basic principle underlying quantum computing is known as “quantum superposition,” the idea that an object simultaneously exists in all states. A classical computer uses binary bits, which are either zeroes or ones. A quantum computer uses quantum bits, or qubits, which are simultaneously zero and one.

This seeming impossibility is part of the mystery that lies at the heart of quantum theory, which even theoretical physicists say no one completely understands.

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics,” said the late Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, who is widely regarded as the pioneer in quantum computing.

Here’s how it works, in theory: While a classical computer, however fast, must do one calculation at a time, a quantum computer can sometimes avoid having to make calculations that are unnecessary to solving a problem. That allows it to home in on the correct answer much more quickly and efficiently.

Quantum computing is so difficult to attain because of the fragile nature of such computers. In theory, the building blocks of such a computer might include individual atoms, photons or electrons. To maintain the quantum nature of the computer, these particles would need to be carefully isolated from their external environments.

“Quantum computers are extremely delicate, so if you don’t protect them from their environment, then the computation will be useless,” said Daniel Lidar, a professor of electrical engineering and the director of the Center for Quantum Information Science and Technology at the University of Southern California.

A working quantum computer would open the door to easily breaking the strongest encryption tools in use today, including a standard known as RSA, named for the initials of its creators. RSA scrambles communications, making them unreadable to anyone but the intended recipient, without requiring the use of a shared password. It is commonly used in Web browsers to secure financial transactions and in encrypted e-mails. RSA is used because of the difficulty of factoring the product of two large prime numbers. Breaking the encryption involves finding those two numbers. This cannot be done in a reasonable amount of time on a classical computer.

In 2009, computer scientists using classical methods were able to discover the primes within a 768-bit number, but it took almost two years and hundreds of computers to factor it. The scientists estimated that it would take 1,000 times longer to break a 1,024-bit encryption key, which is commonly used for online transactions.

A large-scale quantum computer, however, could theoretically break a 1,024-bit encryption much faster. Some leading Internet companies are moving to 2,048-bit keys, but even those are thought to be vulnerable to rapid decryption with a quantum computer.

Quantum computers have many applications for today’s scientific community, including the creation of artificial intelligence. But the NSA fears the implications for national security.

“The application of quantum technologies to encryption algorithms threatens to dramatically impact the US government’s ability to both protect its communications and eavesdrop on the communications of foreign governments,” according to an internal document provided by Snowden.

Experts are not sure how feasible a quantum computer is in the near future. A decade ago, some experts said that developing a large quantum computer was likely 10 to 100 years in the future. Five years ago, Lloyd said the goal was at least 10 years away.

Last year, Jeff Forshaw, a professor at the University of Manchester, told Britain’s Guardian newspaper, “It is probably too soon to speculate on when the first full-scale quantum computer will be built but recent progress indicates that there is every reason to be optimistic.”

“I don’t think we’re likely to have the type of quantum computer the NSA wants within at least five years, in the absence of a significant breakthrough maybe much longer,” Lloyd told the Post in a recent interview.

However, some companies claim to already be producing small quantum computers. A Canadian company, D-Wave Systems , says it has been making quantum computers since 2009. In 2012, it sold a $10 million version to Google, NASA and the Universities Space Research Association, according to news reports.

That quantum computer, however, would never be useful for breaking public key encryption like RSA.

“Even if everything they’re claiming is correct, that computer, by its design, cannot run Shor’s algorithm,” said Matthew Green, a research professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, referring to the algorithm that could be used to break encryption like RSA.

Experts believe that one of the largest hurdles to breaking encryption with a quantum computer is building a computer with enough qubits, which is difficult given the very fragile state of quantum computers. By the end of September, the NSA expected to be able to have some basic building blocks, which it described in a document as “dynamical decoupling and complete quantum control on two semiconductor qubits.”

“That’s a great step, but it’s a pretty small step on the road to building a large-scale quantum computer,” Lloyd said.

A quantum computer capable of breaking cryptography would need hundreds or thousands more qubits than that.

The budget for the National Intelligence Program, commonly referred to as the “black budget,” details the “Penetrating Hard Targets” project and noted that this step “will enable initial scaling towards large systems in related and follow-on efforts.”

Another project, called the “Owning the Net,” is using quantum research to support the creation of new quantum-based attacks on encryptions like RSA, documents show.

“The irony of quantum computing is that if you can imagine someone building a quantum computer that can break encryption a few decades into the future, then you need to be worried right now,” Lidar said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html

Background Articles and Videos

130607_PRISM_ppt_1.jpg.CROP.original-original

nsa-prism-slide

nsa_prism

prism-slide-2

prism-slide-5

prism-slide-6

top-secret-nsa-prism-slide-7

prism-slide-8

INTERVIEW with NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: Confirm EVERYONE in US is under VIRTUAL SURVEILLANCE since 9/11

He told you so: Bill Binney talks NSA leaks

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

National Security Agency (NSA) Intercepts FedX and UPS Packages To Install Malware Software — Bugs iPhones and Laptops — Videos

No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

Enemy Of The State: Life Imitating Art –National Security Agency Targets American People — Vidoes

Big Brother Barack Targets All The American People As Enemies of The State and Democratic Party — National Security Agency’s PRISM Is The Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Means of Invading Privacy and Limiting Liberty — Outrageous Overreach–Videos

National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Uses Stellar Wind and PRISM To Create Secret Dossiers On All American Citizen Targets Similar To East Germany Stasi Files–Videos

NSA’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos

Amnesty Before Enforcement — Congressional Gangsters’ Comprehensive Immigration “Reform” Bill Targets American Citizens For Unemployment — American Citizens Want All Illegal Aliens Deported Not Rewarded With Legal Status — Target The Amnesty Illegal Alien Gangsters For Defeat — Videos

U.S. Hacking China and Hong Kong — Videos

Digital Campaigns Using Microtargeting and Data Mining To Target Voters — Videos

Sasha Issenberg — The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns — Videos

Related Posts on Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 0: Marxist-Leninists Go To The Wall With Holder — The Man Who Knows Where The Bodies Are Buried Enjoys President Obama’s Full Confidence Says Political Fixer Valerie Jarrett — Wall Street Wants Holder To Hang On — American People Say Hit The Road Jack — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013: Segment 1: U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Still Stagnating At 2.4% in First Quarter of 2013 As Institute for Supply Management Factory Index Sinks to 49.0 Lowest Since June 2009 — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 2: Federal Advisory Council (FAC) May 17, 2013 Report — No Exit To A Bridge Over Troubled Waters — Keyboarding Money — We’re screwed! — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 3: Official Unemployment Rate Rises To 7.6% with 11.8 Million Americans Unemployed and Only 175,000 Jobs Created in May — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 4: No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization — The Quigley Formula — New World Order — World Government — Council of Foreign Relations — Videos

Posted on December 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Carroll_Quigley

Tragedyhopecarroll_quigley_tragedy_n_hope

anglo_american_establishment

carroll-quigley

The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 1/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 2/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 3/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 4/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 5/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 6/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 7/7

Carroll Quigley on Tragedy And Hope

Rare Carroll Quigley interview – 1974 (Full 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.”

“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 (RIIA) … [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

Read the full book “Tragedy and Hope” here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/TragedyAndHope/TH_djvu.txt

The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture

“Quigley” is the late Carroll Quigley, a Council on Foreign Relations member and historian, as well as mentor to CFR and Trilateral Commission member Bill Clinton. The lecture is based around the following quote from his book Tragedy & Hope, pp. 1247-1248:

“The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War)….The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

NWO, Secret Societies & Biblical Prophecy Vol 1 (Revised)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Impact on The American Worker of Immigration and Obamacare — Videos — Videos

Posted on November 12, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

The Impact on The American Worker of Immigration and Obamacare

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA

Small Business Owner Fears Obamacare’s Impact on Jobs and Economy

Impact of ObamaCare on full-time employment

Physician exposes the Reality of ObamaCare

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

A startling look at how U.S. immigration will add 300 million people to the country this century if immigration policies are not changed.  This dramatic presentation of the latest Census data raises serious immigration questions about the ability of the country to achieve environmental sustainability and to meet the quality-of-life infrastructure needs of the national community considering current immigration policy. Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Immigration – Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck’s colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the internet. Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck

Immigration Through Ellis Island – Award Winning Documentary Video Film

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 1)

Immigration to America is a unique phenomenon in world history. No other country has ever absorbed so many people from so many different places. And no other country throughout world history has taken so much of its identity, energy, and spirit from immigrants. The American spirit is the immigrant spirit; the American Dream is the immigrant dream. It is no exaggeration to say that without immigrants, the United States could not exist.

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 2)

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 3)

Becoming an American: The Immigrant Experience (Part 4)

Illegal aliens crossing the mexican border

Illegal Immigration Isn’t a Joke

The High Cost of Illegal Immigration 

Illegal Immigration and the Impact of Federal Policy on Black Americans

AZ Immigration law comparison to Federal and Mexican Law

 

Southpark – They Took Our Job!

Impact of undocumented workers on unemployment

The Impact of Immigration on Jobs and Income

The Wage Effect? Immigrant Workers in the U.S. Economy

Obama On Illegal Immigration,”I Walked” 

New Obama immigration policy criticized by local groups

Background Articles and Videos

IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS – PART ONE

Roy Beck: Immigration by the Numbers 2 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obamacare’s Metal Plans (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) With Higher Premiums and Deductibles — The Road To The Single Government Option Lead Plan — Videos

Posted on October 26, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Science, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 140: September 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 139: September 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 138: September 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 137: September 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 136: September 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 135: September 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 134: September 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 133: September 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 132: September 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 131: September 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 130: September 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 129: September 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 128: September 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 127: September 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 126: September 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 125: September 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 124: September 6, 2013

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-156

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: Obamacare’s Metal Plans (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) With Higher Premiums and Deductibles — The Road To The Single Government Option Lead Plan — Videos

Health Pocket.com

http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance

HealthCare.gov

https://www.healthcare.gov/

John C. Goodman – Obamacare Costs – 10-08-13

John C. Goodman – Obamacare Rate Increase – 10-15-13

Bret Baier If Problems With Obamacare Continue, ‘There Is Going to Have to Be a Delay’

John C. Goodman – Sticker Shock – 10-22-13

John C. Goodman – Death Spiral – 10-23-13

How to Get Obamacare ( healthcare.gov enrollment instructions )

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiHg4veV6q0]

Platinum Plans

Gold Plans

Silver Plans

Bronze Plans

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Pronk Pops Show 155, October 24, 2013, Segment 0: Obama’s Tech Surge Team for Healthcare.gov — Best & Brightest or Dumb, Blind and Deaf — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s SAD Deal — Videos

Posted on October 17, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

us-federal-debt-percentage-gdp-by-president-political-party

us_gross_debt

TR Square Deal

Square Deal – Wiki Article

Theodore Roosevelt’s Square Deal

Roosevelt and the New Deal Part 1

Roosevelt and the New Deal Part 2

HARRY TRUMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S

Harry S. Truman – Wiki Article

Obama Commends Lawmakers on Debt Deal | Shutdown News

Ted Cruz Speaks Before Senate Deal Vote | Shutdown News

Pres Obama’s Statement on Shutdown Deal

President calls for new approach after shutdown

Forex! US.DEBT CEILING! Why The Muted Reaction To A Deal

Relief as US approves debt deal

The Government Is Broke And They’re Coming For Your Cash — Episode 190

Peter Schiff – A Dangerous Person, at a Dangerous Time, Heading a Dangerous Institution

Peter Schiff – QE is Like a Drug – The More You Take the More You Need

Obama’s SAD Deal

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Presidents like to make deals with the American people that supposedly will fix things.

Theodore Roosevelt had his Square Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt had his New Deal, Harry Truman had his Fair Deal, and President Barack Obama has his SAD (Spending Addiction Disorder) deal.

The most recent developments in Obama’s SAD deal are the federal government will be completely open for business and funded through Jan. 15, 2014 under yet another continuing resolution passed on Wednesday by Congress and signed by the president. The gross national debt ceiling was suspended until Feb. 7, 2014. By then the national debt will be approaching $17.5 trillion and will exceed the entire gross domestic product for 2013 estimated to be about $16 trillion.

In other words the SAD deal means more government spending and taxes, more massive budgetary deficits, more government debt and more money and credit creation by the Federal Reserve System to finance the SAD habit.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced on Wednesday that they had reached an agreement to open the government until Jan. 15, 2014 and extend the debt ceiling through Feb. 7, 2014.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “The deal that has been cut provides no relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare. The deal that has been cut provides no relief to all the young people coming out of school who can’t find a job because of Obamacare. It provides no relief to all the single parents who have been forced into part-time work, struggling to feed their kids on 29 hours a week.”

Unfortunately, the SAD deal will continue the annual massive budgetary deficits that over the last five years have averaged more than $1.2 trillion per year and will increase the burden of debt on existing and future generations of the American people. Under Obama’s SAD deal the gross national debt has been increased over $6 trillion to fund the fiscal year deficits from 2009 through 2013. The White House has optimistically estimated that the fiscal year deficit for 2014 will be only $750 billion!

The SAD deal has resulted in the worse post-World War II economic recovery with unemployment rates exceeding 7 percent for the 56 months of the Obama’s presidency. Tens of millions of Americans are searching for a permanent full-time job.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) at the Republican conference meeting on Oct. 16 said, “We all agree Obamacare is an abomination. We all agree taxes are too high. We all agree spending is too high. We all agree Washington is getting in the way of job growth. We all agree we have a real debt crisis that will cripple future generations. We all agree on these fundamental conservative principles.”

The American people agree that the Washington ruling elite of both the Democrat and Republican parties are simply incapable of controlling their SAD habit.

Cruz is right. The ruling elite are not listening to the American people.

The American people want federal spending and taxes to be cut, a balanced budget, the national debt paid off and Obamacare repealed. The American people can no longer afford to pay for Obama’s SAD deal.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

His Imperial Majesty — HIM That Must Be Obeyed — The Monarch of Marxism, The Czar of Communism, The Shah of Socialism — HIM Obama! HIM Obama! HIM Obama! — Photos

Posted on October 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

king_obama_crowned

MerdasTouchObama

HIM_Obama

king-obama

king_obama

king_obama_460_pxlw

king-obama-tyranny

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)–Videos

Sam Vaknin: Narcissism–Videos

Sam Vaknin Analyzes Barack Obama–Videos

I,Psychopath–Sam Vaknin–Documentary–Videos

The Compulsive Liar–Barack Obama–65 Outrageous Lies–Videos

Obama’s Unbroken Record of Repeated Lies And Broken Promises–Videos

7 Million Small Business Owners To President Barack Obama–You’re Fired for Lying, Stealing and Gross Incompetence!–Videos

Appeaser Obama Betrays Israel and American Jews And Christians To Islamic Religious Fanatics–Videos

Obama’s Favorite Folk Song–In My Country There Is A Problem–Video

Edward Klein–The Amateur: Barack Obama in The White House–Obama Crony Eric Whitaker Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright in 2008 to Keep His Mouth Shut –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt — FUD Over Not Raising National Debt Ceiling — When Will Government Spending and The Budget Balanced? — The American People Would Like To Know! — Videos

Posted on October 7, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

U.S. National Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

US GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE was all THEATRE says TRENDS journalist ‘GERALD CELENTE’ (ECONOMIC CS)

Obama Lies About the Implications of Raising the Debt Ceiling

JIM ROGERS on U.S. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN – U.S. NOT on Brink of DEFAULT & will PRINT more MONEY

Jack Lew attacks Ted Cruz and Tea Party – says they are dangerous exttremists

Dan Mitchell Debunking Myths about the Partial Government Shutdown

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

Funding Government by the Minute

What Can We Cut to Balance the Budget

Will Higher Tax Rates Balance the Budget?

Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

[youtube=

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
     NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
     DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
     JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
     FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
     MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
     APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
     MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
     JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
     JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
     AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
     FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
     MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
     APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
     MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
     JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
     JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
     AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,472,542              3,227,888                755,345

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.txt

REPORT ID: STM0P082
 USER ID  :     
 DATE: 2013-09-10 TIME: 22.20.06                                                                                         PAGE   1(2)
1                                                    BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
                            TABLE 3.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND OUTLAYS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

                                                                         ACTUAL          ACTUAL       ACTUAL COMP.     BUDGET EST.
   CLASSIFICATION                                                      THIS MONTH    THIS FY TO DATE  PRIOR PERIOD       FULL FY
+  _________________________________________________________________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________
   BUDGET RECEIPTS

   INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES                                                    85,286       1,175,536       1,015,419       1,309,683
   CORPORATION INCOME TAXES                                                    3,595         216,360         186,272         278,684

   SOCIAL INSURANCE AND RETIREMENT RECEIPTS:

     EMPLOYMENT AND GENERAL RETIREMENT (OFF-BUDGET)                           54,771         614,010         521,335         674,143
     EMPLOYMENT AND GENERAL RETIREMENT (ON-BUDGET)                            16,703         194,450         186,822         214,817
     UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE                                                    5,969          56,524          66,145          58,593
     OTHER RETIREMENT                                                            313           3,256           3,449           3,746
   EXCISE TAXES                                                                6,315          72,894          69,420          85,334
   ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES                                                       1,253          17,783          13,026          17,690
   CUSTOMS DUTIES                                                              2,843          28,859          27,570          32,154
   MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS                                                      8,322          92,871          98,069         101,719
   ALLOWANCES                                                                 ......          ......          ......          ......

       ;BTOTAL RECEIPTS                                                      185,370       2,472,542       2,187,527       2,776,563

         ;C(ON-BUDGET)                                                       130,599       1,858,532       1,666,192       2,102,420
         ;C(OFF-BUDGET)                                                       54,771         614,010         521,335         674,143

   ;CBUDGET OUTLAYS

   LEGISLATIVE BRANCH                                                            345           3,955           4,097           4,792
   JUDICIAL BRANCH                                                               669           6,508           6,650           7,283
   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE                                                  10,859         146,486         129,810         159,620
   DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                                        682           8,322           9,513           9,391
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY PROGRAMS                                    53,367         559,942         601,176         610,266
   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                                     7,028          38,725          53,177          44,431
   DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY                                                        1,650          22,576          29,635          25,977
   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES                                    94,535         832,894         793,470         903,970
   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY                                             3,633          52,272          43,932          58,377
   DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT                                 2,289          32,545          46,807          56,518
   DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR                                                  1,153           8,455          11,393           9,964
   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE                                                       2,428          27,125          28,226          29,897
   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR                                                         5,972          75,930          98,314          86,163
   DEPARTMENT OF STATE                                                         1,714          21,774          23,222          29,536
   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                                7,730          67,605          66,944          78,505

   DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY:

     INTEREST ON TREASURY DEBT SECURITIES (GROSS)                             25,488         395,826         342,541         414,655
     OTHER                                                                     2,619          23,821         135,586         -10,700
   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS                                             17,996         131,489         118,198         138,901

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.txt

Debt ceiling: Understanding what’s at stake

By

ALAIN SHERTER /

MONEYWATCH

It is the economic calamity that no one expects and everyone fears.

Experts agree that failing to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by Oct. 17, when U.S. officials say the government will run out of money to pay its bills, would gravely wound the economy, and perhaps even throw it back into recession. Because Treasury bonds and the dollar are cornerstones of the global financial system, meanwhile, the shock wave would be felt around the world.

“The potential is disastrous,” said Gus Faucher, senior economist with PNC Financial Services Group. “We would see interest rates spike across the board. We’d see a huge crash in the dollar. People count on lending their money to the federal government and getting it back, and if that trust is taken away — it’s never happened that we haven’t met our obligations as a nation — then that has very, very negative consequences for the U.S. economy.”

The consequences are so severe that, even as the government shutdown enters its second week, most seasoned political observers still expect Congress to ultimately reach an eleventh-hour deal to lift the government’s borrowing limit.

But what exactly is the debt ceiling, and exactly how worried should Americans be that it could come crashing down?

What is the debt ceiling?

The debt ceiling is the total amount of money the U.S. government can borrow (by selling Treasury bonds) to pay its obligations, including interest on the national debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and many other payments. That limit is currently $16.7 trillion, although technically the government already exceeded it in May. The Treasury Department has since used various measures to continue borrowing.

During World War I, amid uncertainty regarding the total costs of funding U.S. involvement in the conflict, Congress created the cap in 1917 to put an upper limit on federal borrowing. Since 1960, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times.

How is the debt ceiling changed?

Lawmakers can adjust it by passing a standalone bill or by including it in another piece of legislation as an amendment.

Does raising the debt ceiling increase the federal debt?

No. Lifting the borrowing limit simply allows the government to pay its existing bills. That debt exists whether or not Congress authorizes additional borrowing, and to avoid default it must be paid.

Why can’t Congress and the White House avoid lifting the cap by cutting federal spending?

Because preventing the government from borrowing to meet its obligations would require all discretionary spending, such as for defense, education, housing and other annual appropriations, to stop, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, also would have to be halted, while taxes would need to rise to ensure the government had money to spend. Deep spending cuts and tax hikes would throw the economy into recession.

Why is Oct. 17 a critical date?

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew recently forecastthat on Oct. 17 the government would have about $30 billion on hand. That isn’t enough because the government spends as much as $60 billion per day. “If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history,” he said last week in a letter to congressional leaders.

What happens if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling?

If the government runs low on cash, it will have to withhold a range of payments. Retirees might not get their Social Security checks, especially worrisome for the millions of Americans who depend almost entirely on the social insurance program for income. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Holders of Treasury notes, from Wall Street and other global banks to foreign governments, also could get stiffed, jeopardizing the solvency of many financial institutions and choking off global credit flows.

The U.S. also would struggle to pay the interest on its debt, including a $6 billion payout due at the end of the month. At that point, the U.S. would be in default of its obligations. The value of Treasury bonds and the dollar would nosedive. The nation’s borrowing costs would soar as anxious investors demanded a higher return to buy suddenly shaky U.S. debt. And because the interest rate on Treasuries provides a benchmark for rates on other loans, from mortgages and credit cards to car and student loans, borrowing would become far more costly for consumers and businesses. Stock markets in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world would almost certainly plunge.

“When stock prices fall, investment or other spending to expand a business is more costly,” the Treasury Department said in a report last week outlining the potential impact of the debt-ceiling fight. “The effects on households and businesses, moreover, are reinforcing. Less capacity and willingness of households to spend, when businesses have less incentive to invest, hire and expand production, all lead to weaker economic activity.”

In short, the already fragile economic recovery could stall.

Haven’t we been here before?

There is recent precedent for such turmoil. Consumer confidence plummeted after lawmakers squared off over the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index dropped nearly 20 percent. Hiring among small businesses slowed. Ever after a deal was struck to raise the cap in August of that year, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded U.S. debt for the first time ever.

Beyond the immediate economic fallout of defaulting on its debt, for the U.S. the symbolic blow might be even greater. In the post-World War II era, Treasuries and the greenback have — for better and for worse — served as the foundation of the global financial system. A default would shatter the faith on which that system relies.

How much danger are we in?

Although financial markets are not yet in panic mode, the standoff in Washington has them worried. Unlike during the 2011 dispute, when Republicans and most Democrats favored cutting federal spending, the stark division over Obamacare suggests there may be less room for compromise this time around. One clear sign of distress: Interest rates on short-term Treasury bonds rose last week, as investors seek greater yields to offset what they perceive as the greater risk of holding the debt.

Still, most economists, stock analysts and, for all the pointed rhetoric on Capitol Hill, even congressional leaders themselves downplay the chances of a default. The belief is that common sense, or at least a sense of political self-preservation, will prevail.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57606253/debt-ceiling-understanding-whats-at-stake/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rabid Reid Democratic Dog — Mad Dogs Need To Be Put Down In Upcoming Elections — Videos

Posted on October 7, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, History of Economic Thought, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

obamacare-down

harry_reid_mad_dog

nurse_reid

reid_budget

harry_reid

Obama taxCowboyPoetry-big

Cartoon-They-Opted-Out

Cartoon-Les-Miserables

Runaway-big

Rabies Symptoms

To Kill A Mockingbird – Atticus shoots a mad dog

Rand Paul: We Haven’t Had a Big Debate About Obamacare – 10/1/13

Shutdown: Republican Reaction – Rand Paul (R) On Hannity – Wake Up America

Hannity Gets In Shoutfest With Guest Over Real ‘Anarchists’ Occupy Or Tea Party

Glenn Beck Tears Apart Harry Reid for ‘Tea Party Anarchists’ Remark: Is He ‘Going Senile’?

Harry Reid Pits ‘Reasonable’ Republicans Against Tea Party ‘Extremists’ in Senate Debate

Taxes, Anarchy, Jobs & Immigration- Sen. Reid Talks to the Tea Party

Ted Cruz uses Harry Reid’s own words against him

Harry Reid to Ted Cruz: You Are a Schoolyard Bully – May 6, 2013

Ted Cruz Mocks Harry Reid’s Demonstration Of Civility And Candor On Senate Floor

Sen. Ted Cruz with Greta Van Susteren on Harry Reid’s Shutdown

Smash-mouth Reid (Video)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326819-smash-mouth-reid

President Obama has handed over the reins of leadership on government funding and the debt limit to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Reid is now fully in charge of his party’s negotiating strategy, a significant change from past showdowns with Republicans.

He has taken the initiative from Obama, who played the principal role in the 2011 debt-limit talks and New Year’s fiscal cliff deal. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are relieved by the switch.

The majority leader has brought a more pugnacious style to the debate, bashing House conservatives as “anarchists” and mocking the “Banana Republican mindset.” This is a welcome change for Democrats who thought Obama was too accommodating to Republicans during previous crises.

Simply put, they believe less is more when it comes to Obama’s involvement in negotiations with the GOP.

Liberal Democrats do not fully trust Obama, in part because of his more diplomatic style. Their disquiet was deepened by his past tax deals with Republicans and repeated offers to trim Social Security and Medicare costs.

Obama alarmed some in the Senate Democratic caucus last week when he convened congressional leaders at the White House to discuss the government shutdown and looming debt-limit debate.

They feared he might take the lead in the talks and make concessions to get past the current fiscal crisis.

“There’s some concern being expressed now that Obama is calling the leaders to the White House that this might be premature,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, a senior Democrat from Iowa. “What’s he going to say? What’s he going to do?

“I hope he just says, ‘Harry’s the leader. We’re following Sen. Reid,’” he added.

Reid praised the president after the Wednesday meeting, reassuring colleagues.

“The president of the United States was very, very strong, strong, strong,” he said.

Democratic aides say Obama has served as a crucial backstop by refusing to negotiate over the debt limit and quickly issuing veto threats against House measures to defund, delay or otherwise erode the Affordable Care Act.

“There’s no question, Reid is now the quarterback,” said a Senate Democratic aide.

That became clear when Reid persuaded Obama last month to abandon an effort to set up a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders before government funding expired.

Reid is pursuing a high-stakes strategy in the hope that by staring down Tea Party conservatives now, he will dissuade them from demanding major concessions in exchange for passing future bills essential to the smooth functioning of government.

His biggest asset has been the solid unity of the Democratic caucus, liberals and centrists alike, despite personal preferences for higher spending levels and changing key elements of the Affordable Care Act.

Nine months ago, Reid failed to hold back the administration as it sought a last minute deal to keep all of the Bush-era tax rates from expiring.

Reid wanted Democrats to take a harder line on the so-called fiscal cliff, say Democratic senators and staff. He was willing to let the tax rates expire to give Democrats more leverage.

Instead, Obama dispatched Vice President Biden to meet with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). The resulting deal made most of the Bush tax rates permanent and exempted inheritances under $5 million from taxation.

Many liberals were dismayed.

“We’re going to lock in forever the idea that $450,000 a year is middle class in America?” Harkin said at the time.

Many Democrats wish they could take back the deal as it failed to address the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. Now, there is little prospect Republicans will give any more ground on raising taxes.

“Sequestration is stupidity on steroids,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said.

Republicans would prefer to see Obama or Biden at the table instead of Reid.

“Reid has put himself in charge of this whole thing and Obama is a non-player,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said.

Hatch complained Reid “doesn’t want to do anything.”

On “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) accused Reid of being “scared” of bipartisan talks aimed at striking a deal.

A major difference between now and the 112th Congress is Obama, having won reelection, no longer has a personal electoral stake in the negotiations. Instead, preserving their Senate majority is the Democrats’ highest political priority.

Democrats feel confident that public opinion is on their side. They hope the refusal of Tea Party House conservatives to accept a “clean” bill to reopen the government will hurt Republican chances of taking control of the upper chamber after 2014.

Privately, some Republican senators agree that the GOP is playing its hand poorly.

“We have all the advantages and we’re squandering them,” said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.

Reid’s tough tone has sometimes hurt his cause, however. He stumbled at a press conference last week after CNN’s Dana Bash pressed him about a GOP bill funding the National Institutes of Health, but leaving other agencies shuttered.

“If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?” she asked.

“Why would we want to do that?” Reid scoffed, noting there are over 1,000 people furloughed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada who have “a few problems of their own.”

He subsequently clarified his comments, after the GOP had seized on them.

Reid, a Senate institutionalist, has fumed over the outsized role that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a freshman senator who has yet to serve 10 months in the upper chamber, has had in the debate.

“Sen. Cruz is now joint speaker,” he said. “He lectures the House on occasion, as he does people over here.”

Reid disputes GOP assertions that he has refused to compromise.

“We had negotiated our hearts out,” Reid said Friday, referring to a deal he struck privately with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in July to pass a clean stopgap bill at funding levels set by the House GOP.

Senate Democratic sources say Reid agreed at a meeting in Boehner’s office on July 17 to accept a stopgap set at $986.3 billion. In return, they say, Boehner promised to keep it free of legislation defunding ObamaCare.

Reid knew he would have a tough job selling liberals on a funding level $72 billion lower than what labor unions and progressive groups wanted.

When Congress reconvened after the August recess, House conservatives balked at their leadership’s plan to merely require the Senate to vote on defunding ObamaCare before considering legislation to keep the government open.

House Republican leaders in response crafted a more aggressive bill that included language to defund Obama-Care in the spending stopgap.

Reid and Boehner met on Sept. 12 to discuss a plan for avoiding the looming government shutdown.

Reid told Boehner of a Senate procedural move that could be used to strip the defund-ObamaCare language without relying on Republican votes, and send back a clean resolution funded at the House GOP level.

Boehner jumped on the plan, according to Senate Democratic sources.

The Speaker on ABC’s “This Week” did not dispute that, and suggested his GOP members wanted to go in another direction.

When the Senate passed the clean stopgap without language defunding Obama-Care, Boehner, under pressure from Tea Party conservatives, rejected it.

Reid made little effort to hide his frustration.

“[We] can’t perform the most basic functions of government because he doesn’t have the courage to stand up to that small band of anarchists,” Reid told reporters.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326819-smash-mouth-reid#ixzz2h3mAMcuo
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Thugs Are The Collectivist Authoritarians and Extremists And They Are A Minority That Fear The American People — Videos

Posted on October 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Reviews, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

thuggery

Glenn Beck: ‘They Are Building a Thugocracy We’ve Passed Major ‘Signposts’ – Government Shutdown

2012.03.29 – GBTV – Glenn Beck Program – Progressive Thugs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Problem Is Too Much Federal Spending — Balance The Budget — Zero Growth In Government Spending For Next 10 Years! — Balanced Budget = $2.5 Trillion In Tax Revenues = $2.5 Trillion in Government Spending — Just Do It! — Videos

Posted on September 29, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

stop_spending

balance-budget1

crushing_burden_debt

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
STAR – TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
PRIOR YEAR

OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

CURRENT YEAR

OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923

YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,472,542              3,227,888                755,345
-
-
-
-
-
0REPORT ID: STM0P081
USER ID  :
DATE: 2013-09-10 TIME: 22.20.05                                                                                         PAGE   1(1)

Dan Mitchell Testifying to the Joint Economic Committee about the Debt Ceiling

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Federal workers face new furloughs if government shuts down

Conservative Mark Levin on a possible government shutdown

Govt Shutdown Showdown – House Bill Would Delay Obamacare By One Year – Louie Gohmert (R)

Funding Government by the Minute

Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?

Why Not Print More Money?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

United States Government Shutdown Over Health Debate

29 09 2013  Syria News , The Government Shutdown to Come    WSJ Opinion

Ted Cruz: Killing Obamacare for one year is ‘the essence of a compromise’

House sends stopgap back to Senate 48 hours before shutdown

By Mike Lillis

House Republicans approved a stopgap spending bill that delays ObamaCare in  an early-morning Sunday vote that increases the chances of a government  shutdown.

The high-stakes GOP move intensifies a game of chicken with Senate Democrats  with just 48 hours to go before the lights could go out on the federal  government.

The White House threatened to veto the measure, while Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proclaimed it dead in the upper chamber.

The imminent deadline, combined with the prolonged impasse, has led some  lawmakers to predict a shutdown is all but inevitable.

“In candor … when the clock strikes midnight on Monday, the place is shutting  down,” Rep. Robert Andrews (N.J.), head of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy  Committee, said Saturday night.

The House added language delaying implementation of the healthcare law by a  year in a 231-192 vote, with Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah) and Mike  McIntyre (N.C.)  joining Republicans. Two Republicans voted against the  delay, Reps. Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Richard Hanna (N.Y.).

The House also voted to eliminate a tax on medical devices in a 248-174 vote,  with 17 Democrats joining the GOP. The tax is intended to pay for some of the  law’s costs. Gibson switched his vote from no to yes toward the end of the  vote.

Under the rule adopted earlier in the day, the underlying spending bill was  deemed passed with the approval of the two amendments.

Unveiled by GOP leaders just hours earlier, the continuing resolution (CR)  would fund the government through Dec. 15. It would delay the individual  coverage mandate and the insurance exchanges which are set to launch on Tuesday  – and eliminate a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices.

Republican supporters said the ObamaCare delay is necessary to prepare a wary  public for sweeping changes that lack the underlying infrastructure to make them  work. They framed their postponement proposal as a compromise, relative to the  defunding measure they had pushed earlier in the month.

“This bill is not about whether ObamaCare is going to come in or not,” said  Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). “What we’re voting on is whether or not you’ll  accept the compromise which we have reached out to offer.”

The argument didn’t sit well with Democrats, who were quick to note that the  sequester-level spending contained in the Senate-passed bill – a level anathema  to many Democrats – is the same as that of the initial House CR.

“You’ve won,” said Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md), “but you can’t take yes  for an answer.”

A separate bill, designed to ensure that military personnel are paid even if  a shutdown is not averted, was also approved in a unanimous vote.

Republicans characterized the bill as a safety net in the event Congress  can’t reach a deal. Democrats countered with charges that the proposal is  evidence that the GOP’s CR strategy is designed to shutter the government.

The CR package was designed to cater to conservative Republicans, who have  insisted that any spending package must scale back ObamaCare. Those  conservatives had revolted earlier in the month when Speaker John Boehner  (R-Ohio) tried to move a funding bill without that direct link.

The resistance forced GOP leaders to approve a CR last week that would have  defunded the healthcare law – language that was stripped by Senate Democrats  Friday, putting the ball back in Boehner’s court.

At a closely watched meeting of the GOP conference Saturday afternoon in the  Capitol basement, Boehner outlined his hard-line strategy, leading to cheers  from a conference that’s often been wary of his conservative credentials.

“This is exactly what we hoped for so we’re all getting behind leadership,”  said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a Tea Party favorite. “We’re excited [and]  we’re united.”

The bill now moves back to the Senate, where Reid is expected to scrap the  two healthcare amendments with a single vote on Monday, when the Senate returns,  and return the “clean” CR, yet again, to Boehner and House Republicans.

“To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of  the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of the medical device tax,” Reid said in  a statement. “After weeks of futile political games from Republicans, we are  still at square one: Republicans must decide whether to pass the Senate’s clean  CR, or force a Republican government shutdown.”

That move could potentially come just hours before the Tuesday shutdown.

“ObamaCare is based on limitless government, bureaucratic arrogance, and a  disregard of the will of the people,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.).

The 17 Democrats who voted to eliminate the medical device tax were McIntyre,  Matheson, Ron Barber (Ariz.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan  Maffei (N.Y.), Patrick Murphy (Fla.), Cheri Bustos (Ill.), John Delaney (Md.),  William Enyart (Ill.), Sean Maloney (N.Y.), Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Bill Owens  (N.Y.), Scott Peters (Calif.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Bradley Schneider (Ill.) and  Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.).

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight  Committee, said in a statement early Sunday that Republicans “failed the  American people.”

“They voted to shut down the government, all because of their obsession with  taking away health insurance for millions of people and giving back to insurance  companies the power to decide who gets what care. In their blind pursuit of  ideology over our nation’s best interests, Republicans are hurting our economy,  threatening job creation, and leaving families with less security and  stability,” Cummings said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/325331-house-sends-stopgap-back-before-senate-48-hours-to-shutdown#ixzz2gJOLOkn2 Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

U.S. government shutdowns have long history

OK, gridlocked politicians we’re used to. But why padlock the Statue of Liberty? You don’t see other democracies shuttering landmarks and sending civil servants home just because their political parties can’t get along. Belgian civil servants, for example, carried on nicely for a year and a half while their politicians bickered over forming a new government.

The potential for a partial shutdown Tuesday is a quirk of American history. So if you’re bored with blaming House Republicans or President Barack Obama, you can lay some responsibility on the Founding Fathers.

Or blame President Jimmy Carter for his rectitude. Or ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich for his hissy fit over how he got off Air Force One.

A history of government shutdowns, American-style:

1789: Balance of powers.

The framers of the Constitution gave Congress control over spending as a way to limit the power of the presidency. The government can only spend money “in consequence of appropriations made by law,” or in other words, after Congress says so and with the president’s signature.

1800s: Power struggles.

Turns out it’s not easy to shoo federal bureaucrats away from the piggy bank.

When they wanted to spend more than Congress gave, the War Department and other agencies ordered stuff on credit. Then they would go to Congress seeking an appropriation to pay the bills. Lawmakers felt obliged to cover the government’s debts, but they weren’t happy about it. The executive branch was undermining Congress’s power of the purse.

Congress responded with a series of laws that eventually got one of those dreadful Washington monikers: the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Because of the act, officials who mistakenly spend money Congress hasn’t OK’d face disciplinary action, ranging from firing to hours stuck in mind-numbing budget training. There are exceptions for spending to protect lives or property.

But willful overspending is a crime that carries the threat of fines and two years in prison.

1900s: A delicate balance.

The Anti-Deficiency Act seems clear. But as usual, Congress sent mixed messages. Lawmakers routinely failed to pass most of each year’s dozen or so appropriations bills on time. Sometimes agencies went a full year without a budget. Usually lawmakers would smooth that over with a short-term money approval, called a “continuing resolution” in Washington-speak.

Sometimes Congress couldn’t even agree on those: Stopgap resolutions got tangled up for days or a couple of weeks in political fights over matters such as abortion, foreign aid or congressional pay raises. Sort of like the current fight over health care.

But government agencies didn’t shut down and Cabinet secretaries weren’t led away in handcuffs. Agency chiefs might delay workers’ pay and put items such as travel and new contracts on hold. But they assumed Congress didn’t want them to turn off the lights and go home. Eventually lawmakers would cough up a spending bill to retroactively paper over the funding gap.

1980: An inconvenient truth.

This look-the-other-way system worked for decades. Until the Carter administration.

A stickler for the rules, Carter asked his attorney general to look into the Anti-Deficiency Act. In April 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a startling opinion. “The legal authority for continued operations either exists or it does not,” he wrote.

When it does not, government must send employees home. They can’t work for free or with the expectation that they will be paid someday. What’s more, Civiletti declared, any agency chief who broke that law would be prosecuted.

Five days later, funding for the Federal Trade Commission expired amid a congressional disagreement over limiting the agency’s powers. The FTC halted operations, canceled court dates and meetings, and sent 1,600 workers packing, apparently the first agency ever closed by a budget dispute.

Embarrassed lawmakers made a quick fix. The FTC reopened the next day. The estimated cost of the brouhaha: $700,000.

Carter, a Democratic president forever stymied by his own party in Congress, ordered the whole government to be ready to shut down when the budget year ended on Oct. 1, 1980, in case lawmakers missed their deadline for appropriations bills.

A report by what’s now the Government Accountability Office captured federal officials’ dismay: “That the federal government would shut its doors was, they said, incomprehensible, inconceivable, unthinkable.”

It almost happened. Funding for many agencies did expire, but just for a few hours, and nobody was sent home.

Near the end of his term, Civiletti further clarified the law’s meaning. In a government-wide shutdown, the military, air traffic control, prisons and other work that protects human safety or property would continue. So would things such as Social Security benefits, which Congress has financed indefinitely.

1981-1990: Playing chicken.

With the threat of shutdown as a weapon, budget fights would never be the same, and a big one was brewing.

Republican Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in January 1981 with a promise to cut taxes and shrink government, setting up a showdown with Democrats who ran the House.

High noon came early on Monday, Nov. 23, 1981.

The government had technically been without money all weekend, but Congress approved emergency spending to keep it running. That morning, Reagan wielded his first veto. He was making a stand against “budget-busting policies,” the president declared, sending confused federal workers streaming out of offices in Washington and across the nation.

It was the first government shutdown. But it lasted only hours. By that afternoon, Congress approved a three-week spending extension more to Reagan’s liking. Workers returned Tuesday morning. The estimated cost: more than $80 million.

The pattern was set. Over his two terms, Reagan and congressional Democrats would regularly argue to the brink of shutdown, and twice more they sent workers home for a half-day.

President George H.W. Bush used the tactic only once, during the budget wrangling that punctured his “no new taxes” pledge.

That partial shutdown over the 1990 Columbus Day weekend mostly served to miff tourists who found national park visitor centers locked and Smithsonian museums closed.

Shutdown threats were becoming ho-hum, just more Washington games. After all, what politician would relish a full body plunge into the “unthinkable”?

1995-96: The real thing.

Cue President Bill Clinton and Gingrich.

Two big men with big ideas and big-time egos, the Democratic president and the Republican House speaker charged into a cage match and ended up wrestling the U.S. government to the ground. Twice.

These two shutdowns, for six days and 21 days, were the longest ever. Until now they were assumed to have taught politicians the folly of ever again powering down the world’s most powerful government. Maybe not.

Serious issues were at stake in 1995 — the future of Medicare, tax cuts, aid for the poor, the budget deficit. But they got lost in the absurdities:

The shutdowns didn’t save money; they cost millions.

Despite all the buildup, most of government didn’t close, because of complexities of the federal budget and exemptions for essential workers.

Still, the first shutdown resulted in 800,000 workers eventually getting paid for staying home.

Despite public disgust, Clinton and the Republicans failed to settle all their disputes and soon idled 280,000 employees for another three weeks, through Christmas and into the New Year.

The effects rippled through the economy, harming federal contractors and businesses that serve visitors to national parks and industries that must work with federal inspectors.

The tone of the whole exercise was set when a huffy Gingrich suggested he had steered the government to a standstill because Clinton relegated him to the back door of Air Force One on an overseas trip. The public tantrum delighted Democrats and cartoonists alike.

The president was judged to have “won” the tussle. Republicans took a drubbing in the polls and ended up accepting most of Clinton’s conditions in a compromise that seemed more like crying uncle.

But faith in government may have been the biggest loser.

A footnote: On the January day that missing workers were scheduled to finally return to their posts, the Northeast was just starting to dig out from an extreme blizzard.

After weeks of insisting it was vital to get government back to work quickly, Clinton decided to keep Washington closed another four days.

http://ads.bhmedianetwork.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/tulsaworld.com/news/local/article/185180610/Position2/default/empty.gif/6b4b4b4955464a49694351414275364c?x

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Budget Battle Begins — Countdown To Defund Obama Or Government Shutdown? — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The War Powers Act and Obama’s Unprecedented War Power Claims — Videos

Posted on September 20, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Security, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Obama’s Unprecedented War Powers Claims

Mark Levin: Lesson on the 1973 War Powers Resolution

Kerry’s Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers

Endless War, Kucinich, Paul Obama Breaking the Law

Obama War Powers Doublespeak

Video Glossary: War Powers Act

Judge Napolitano ~ Crisis In Syria: Discusses War Powers Act & Legality

Obama violates War Powers Act?

Obama sued for violating War Powers Act

Congress File Lawsuit Against Obama For Libyan War

Is US Attack on Libya Legal? Dennis Kucinich Debates Fmr. Reagan Attorney Robert Turner 1 of 2

Is US Attack on Libya Legal? Dennis Kucinich Debates Fmr. Reagan Attorney Robert Turner 2 of 2

Richland Celebrates Constitution Day

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Constitution_page_1

United States Constitution   Credit: historicdocumentsofamerica.com

Richland students celebrated Constitution day Sept. 17 by learning how the United States goes to war.

Dr. Edward J. Harpham, associate provost and professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas, presented a lecture and answered questions on how the Constitution and Wars Powers Resolution of 1973 applies to the possible use of military force in Syria. Harplam earned his masters and doctorate degrees in political science from Cornell University.

President Barack Obama initially sought a Congressional resolution authorizing military operations against the Assad regime in Syria for using chemical weapons against his people. The Assad regime had crossed the red line set by Obama in a press conference on Aug. 20, 2012.

However, Obama in his Sept. 10 televised address to the nation on Syria asked congressional leaders to postpone a vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force. Obama wanted time for Secretary of State John Kerry to pursue a diplomatic initiative proposed by Russia and agreed to by Syria that could lead to the eventual destruction of chemical weapons controlled by the Syrian military.

In the absence of an emergency, where Congress has no time to react, Obama does not have the legal authority under the Constitution, the War Powers Resolutions or a United Nation’s Security Council resolution funded by Congress, to unilaterally attack Syria.

In a future military crisis a problem might arise if Congress votes down a presidential request for military action and the president ignores Congress and proceeds with military operations anyway.

Harpham concisely summarized the history of the authorities used by U.S. presidents to go to war and possible solutions to the shortcomings of the War Powers Resolution process.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress has exercised this power only five times: for the War of 1812 upon the United Kingdom, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I upon Germany and Austria-Hungary and World War II upon Japan, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

However, the United States has used military force many  times without Congress declaring war. Instead, Congress passes resolutions authorizing the use of military force. This was done for the Lebanon crisis of 1958, the Vietnam War, Multinational Force in Lebanon in 1983, the Gulf War in 1991, the 2001 war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

Congress has also authorized funds for extended military operations for United Nations Security Council Resolutions such as the Korean War, the Multinational Force in Lebanon in 1978, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War in 1992 and the intervention in Libya in 2011.

On more than 100 occasions presidents acting in their capacity as commander in chief have authorized the deployment of troops and the use of military force without a congressional declaration of war or a resolution authorizing military force.

After the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in 1973, Congress wanted to limit the power of the president to deploy troops for extended periods of time without a congressional declaration of war or resolution.

In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a joint resolution over the veto of President Richard M. Nixon.  When Congress has not declared war or authorized  the use of military force, the law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. It also prohibits armed forces for remaining more than 60 days but allows an additional 30 days as a withdrawal period.

Harpham offered several possible solutions to the War Powers Resolution process, including revoking the law and replacing it with a new law or preferably a constitutional amendment that would address the president’s use of force where a military emergency, Congressional declaration of war, resolution or funding has not been authorized.

Harpham’s presentation will be posted on the Richland Chronicle Television archives for those who missed the lecture (richlandchronicle.com/chronicletv).

Raymond Thomas Pronk presents the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 4-5 p.m. Monday thru Thursday and from 3-5 p.m. Friday and authors the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com. You can listen to an interview with Harpham on the Pronk Pops Show 131, Sept. 17, by going to http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

No Tapering! — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Fed Must Continue Massive Financing of Deficits and Debt of Federal Government — Digital Electronic Money (DEM) Creation Continues At $85 Billion Per Month or $1,020 Billion Per Year Pace — U.S. Economy Stagnating Below 3 Percent GDP Growth Trend Line — U.S. Dollar Devalued — Currency War Continues — Abolish The Fed Videos

Posted on September 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

5-reasons-the-fed-taper-will-kick-off-in-september

Tracking-the-Fed-September

U.S. National Debt Clock

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  08/13

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   163,072                261,539                 98,466
     NOVEMBER                                                                  152,402                289,704                137,302
     DECEMBER                                                                  239,963                325,930                 85,967
     JANUARY                                                                   234,319                261,726                 27,407
     FEBRUARY                                                                  103,413                335,090                231,677
     MARCH                                                                     171,215                369,372                198,157
     APRIL                                                                     318,807                259,690                -59,117
     MAY                                                                       180,713                305,348                124,636
     JUNE                                                                      260,177                319,919                 59,741
     JULY                                                                      184,585                254,190                 69,604
     AUGUST                                                                    178,860                369,393                190,533
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 261,566                186,386                -75,180

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,449,093              3,538,286              1,089,193

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
     FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
     MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
     APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
     MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
     JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
     JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
     AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,472,542              3,227,888                755,345


http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.txt

civilian_labor_participation_rate

InflationAug2013

US-Fed-Funds-Target-Rate

savings

fed_taper_bets

When-To-Taper

fed_taper

wrong_way

US Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke listens to questions as he testifies before a House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington

2013-09-17-bernanke-hands-over-control

janet_yellen

Tracking-the-Fed-September

Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen addresses a conference in Washington

No Fed Taper: What Does It Mean for Your Money? (9/18/13)

Federal Reserve: No Taper (9/18/13)

Ron Paul: Fed Decision To Not Taper Is A Really Bad Sign

Ron Paul: Taper Fakeout Means Fed Is Worried

Breaking News: Federal Reserve Will Not Taper

Rick Santelli Reacts to Federal Reserve No Taper

Why The Fed. Will INCREASE, NOT DECREASE, It’s QE/Money Printing. By Gregory Mannarino

In Business – Fed Taper Pause Fuels Commodities Rally

To Taper, or Not to Taper

FED Says No Taper — We Need A War, Gun Confiscation And Control Of Internet First — Episode 166

JIM RICKARDS: Fed Will TAPER in September or Never, and the Looming MONETARY System COLLAPSE [50]

James Rickards on “Why The Fed Will NOT Taper Quantitative Easing”

Peter Schiff: “The party is coming to an end”.

JIM ROGERS – When the FED stops PRINTING FIAT CURRENCY the COLLAPSE will be here. PREPARE NOW

Fed decision Just idea of tapering caused huge ruckus

Background Articles and Videos

Milton Friedman – Abolish The Fed

Milton Friedman On John Maynard Keynes

Free to Choose Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis (Featuring Milton Friedman)

Murray Rothbard – To Expand And Inflate

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

The Origin of the Fed – Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard on Hyperinflation and Ending the Fed

Murray N. Rothbard on Milton Friedman (audio – removed noise) part 1/5

Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain? | Murray N. Rothbard

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve has decided against reducing its stimulus for the U.S. economy, saying it will continue to buy $85 billion a month in bonds because it thinks the economy still needs the support.

The Fed said in a statement Wednesday that it held off on tapering because it wants to see more conclusive evidence that the recovery will be sustained.

Stocks spiked after the Fed released the statement at the end of its two-day policy meeting.

In the statement, the Fed says that the economy is growing moderately and that some indicators of labor market conditions have shown improvement. But it noted that rising mortgage rates and government spending cuts are restraining growth.

The bond purchases are intended to keep long-term loan rates low to spur borrowing and spending.

The Fed also repeated that it plans to keep its key short-term interest rate near zero at least until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent, down from 7.3 percent last month. In the Fed’s most recent forecast, unemployment could reach that level as soon as late 2014.

Many thought the Fed would scale back its purchases. But interest rates have jumped since May, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first said the Fed might slow its bond buys later this year. But Bernanke cautioned that the reduction would hinge on the economy showing continued improvement.

In its statement, the Fed says that the rise in interest rates “could slow the pace of improvement in the economy and labor market” if they are sustained.

The Fed also lowered its economic growth forecasts for this year and next year slightly, likely reflecting its concerns about interest rates.

The statement was approved on a 9-1 vote. Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, dissented for the sixth time this year. She repeated her concerns that the bond purchases could fuel the risk of inflation and financial instability.

The decision to maintain its stimulus follows reports of sluggish economic growth. Employers slowed hiring this summer, and consumers spent more cautiously.

Super-low rates are credited with helping fuel a housing comeback, support economic growth, drive stocks to record highs and restore the wealth of many Americans. But the average rate on the 30-year mortgage has jumped more than a full percentage point since May and was 4.57 percent last week — just below the two-year high.

The unemployment rate is now 7.3 percent, the lowest since 2008. Yet the rate has dropped in large part because many people have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed — not because hiring has accelerated. Inflation is running below the Fed’s 2 percent target.

The Fed meeting took place at a time of uncertainty about who will succeed Bernanke when his term ends in January. On Sunday, Lawrence Summers, who was considered the leading candidate, withdrew from consideration.

Summers’ withdrawal followed growing resistance from critics. His exit has opened the door for his chief rival, Janet Yellen, the Fed’s vice chair. If chosen by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would become the first woman to lead the Fed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Truth About War With Syria — Videos

Posted on September 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Coptic Christian, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, High School, history, History of Economic Thought, IRS, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Stefan-molyneux

The Truth About War With Syria

The Truth About How The US Will Save Syria

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

Background Articles and Videos

 

The Truth About Edward Snowden

The Truth About Benghazi Murders, IRS Attacks and AP Phone Records Thefts

Should Hitler Have Been Punished?

They Are Coming for Us

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

People Peace Doves vs. Politician War Hawks– Bye Bye Birdie — Obama’s Secret Sincere Syria Weapon? — War, Eve of Destruction, Where Have All The Flowers Gone? — Videos

Obama’s Red Lines — Videos

Who used chemical weapons in Syria? Syrian Rebels (FSA) or Syrian Regime (SAA) — American People Do Not Want To Take Sides in Syrian Civil War — Videos

Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Obama Sending Military Support To Syrian Rebels Including Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda connected) — Neocon Warmonger McCain Approves — All In For World War 3 — Videos

Launching World War 3 with The Missiles of September — Videos

Who Wants World War 3 To Start in Syria? The Warmongers Obama and McCain — Not The American People! — Videos

Muslim Brotherhood Massive Attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt — Silence From President Obama Who Supports Muslim Brotherhood — Muslim Ethnic Cleansing of Coptic Christians — Videos

Obama’s Siding With Muslim Brotherhood Not Popular in Egypt or in The United States — Videos

Muslim Brotherhood in America — Videos

Jeremy Salt on Syria — Videos

A History of Syria — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

G. Edward Griffin — The Creature from Jekyll Island — Interviewed By Glenn Beck — Videos

Posted on August 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Resources, Tax Policy, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

the_creature_from_jekyll_island

g-edward_griffin

Glenn Beck discuss the Fed w/ G. Edward Griffin about his book The Creature from Jekyll Island

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

Fiat Empire–Why The Federal Reserve Violates The U.S. Constitution–VideosKeynes Is Dead—-Obama Digging Up Keynes–Free Market Capitalism Lives

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Banking–Videos

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

The Money Masters–Videos

The Monopoly Men: The Federal Reserve Bank Cartel–Videos

M3 Money Meteorite Moves–Deep Impact–The Coming Inflation Tidal Wave–Wage and Price Controls Will Signal Radical Socialist Obama’s Failure!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ruling Elite To American People–Congress and Staff is Exempt From Obamacare Despite The Fact The Law Clearly States Congress Is Not! — Stop Funding Obamacare Now! — Sign The Petition — Videos

Posted on August 7, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

congress-critters-obamacare-exemptions

why-is-congress-exempt-from-obamacare

ExemptCongressObamacare

obamacare-exemption-for-congress-staffers-in-typical-washing-politics-1367286299

congress-seeks-to-exempt-themselves-from-obamacare-boehner-reid-hypocrites-liars

hypocrites

“Shut It Down” – New Tea Party Plan To Defund Obamacare – Jim Demint – On The Record

ObamaCare Exemptions: Sign The Petition!

Congressmen and Staff  Refuse To Face ObamaCare Fees They Voted For

Congress Gets 75% Subsidy For Obamacare: Rush Limbaugh

Greg Gutfeld –  IRS Wants Obamacare Exemption – ‘The Five’ –  Fox News – 7-26-13

Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Stopping Obamacare -

We can prevent the train wreck if we defund Obamacare now

Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks in Support of his Amendment to Defund Obamacare and Stop the Amnesty Tax

Tea party senator Mike Lee would rather shut down the government than implement Obamacare

Mike Lee vows to defund Obamacare; Law not ready to be implemented & will harm average Americans

Rubio Pushes Senate To Defund ObamaCare

Rand Paul stands with Mike Lee on defunding Obamacare

Obamacare Outrage! –  Congress Scores Exemption For Themselves – On The Record

Special Treatment for Congress- Obamacare Exemption

Obamacare  Exemption  For Congress   Staff   Where Did They Get Authority To Do This

Congress Members & Hill Staff Fear They Can’t Afford Health Care Under Obamacare! Can America?

Health Care Pass  RPT Congress Tried To Exempt Itself From Law – Obamacare -Lou Dobbs – Megyn Kelly

Obamacare requirement is delayed

Administration will fix huge increase in health care premiums for Congress

The Obama administration detailed  Wednesday how the government can keep contributing to health care premiums of  members of Congress and their staffers even as  they purchase coverage through state exchanges tied to the president’s health  care law.

Guidance from the Office of  Personnel Management follows up an announcement last week that Congress and its staffers won’t face massive increases in their health care premiums next  year, as many feared, because of a clause in the Affordable Care Act  that compels them to buy insurance through the exchanges.


SPECIAL COVERAGE: Health  Care Reform


The decision stirred relief on Capitol Hill and controversy among the public.  Republican opponents of the law could argue that Congress excused itself from a deleterious aspect  of legislation it passed in 2010.

OPM’s new rule says  congressional members and staff should buy coverage through the exchanges in the  states where they reside. For staffers, that likely will mean enrolling through  the District, Maryland or Virginia.

The rule also says members of Congress should  designate, by October each year, which staff members work in their official  offices and “therefore, must choose health plans from the Exchanges.”

The administrative fix was made because Sen.  Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, put a provision into the original  legislation saying members of Congress and their  aides have to be covered by plans “created” by the Affordable Care Act or  “offered through an exchange.”

Even though it may have been symbolic or a political ploy, the provision was  approved.

Under the old system, the federal government contributed to about 75 percent  of premiums; members and staffers are covered through the Federal Employees  Health Benefits Program,  but it was unclear whether the program could subsidize premiums of plans in the  exchanges.

The OPM makes clear  that members and staff still can receive the contribution, although they are not  eligible for tax credits or subsidies on the exchanges.

Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican  and a vocal critic of the administration’s  decision, complained about the developments in a letter to congressional leaders  Wednesday. When Congress reconvenes next month,  the senator will introduce legislation that forces the president, vice  president, political appointees and certain exempted congressional staffers to  buy their health coverage through the exchanges.

“The Obamacare statute states very clearly that all Members of Congress and their staffs are to procure their health insurance through the Obamacare  Exchange,” his letter said. “Just as clearly, it does not reconstitute  government support of their present coverage under the separate Federal  Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) as payment toward the Exchange. … Until  Obamacare is fully repealed, those elected by the public must abide by the same  law Americans are being forced to live with.”

He said the provision that allows members of Congress “to define what staff is even covered at  all is particularly offensive and obnoxious.”

“It’s obviously intended to allow for a significant portion of congressional  staff, like leadership staff, to  be exempted from even having to deal with the Exchange at all, notwithstanding  the whopping subsidy that the rule creates,” he said in his letter.

Enrollment in the exchanges — marketplaces where consumers can shop for and  buy insurance — is scheduled to begin Oct. 1. Democrats and Republicans are  planning significant public  relations campaigns on the law  during the congressional summer recess.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/opm-fleshes-out-congresss-obamacare-subsidy-rule/#ixzz2bQalPaac

Members, staff will keep health-care subsidies under Obamacare

Members of Congress and Hill staffers will not lose their health-care  subsidies from the government when Obamacare is implemented because of an  exception proposed Wednesday by the Office of Personnel Management.

Under the current system, the government covers most of the cost of  health-care premiums for members and their staffers. But an amendment to the Affordable Care Act —  proposed by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley — threw those subsidies into  question, saying that members and staff must enter into the exchanges or be  covered by insurance “created” by law.

The potential for staff losing the subsidies led to concerns of “brain drain”  from the Hill if staffers left as a result of the increased costs.

Last week, when President Barack Obama came to the Hill to meet with Senate  Democrats, he informed them that he would personally get  involved to sort out the confusion, and the White House said that OPM would issue guidelines this  week.

The guidelines, released Wednesday, allow for members and staff to retain  their subsidies from the government, an exception in exchange for giving up  “premium tax credits” that they would otherwise be eligible for under  Obamacare.

“The amount of the employer contribution toward their Exchange premiums is no  more than would otherwise be made toward coverage under the [Federal Employee  Health Benefits] Program,”  the OPM release notes.

“These proposed regulations implement the administrative aspects of switching  Members of Congress and congressional staff to their new insurance plans — the  same plans available to millions of Americans through the new Exchanges,” said  Jon Foley, OPM Director of Planning  and Policy, in a statement.

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/07/members-staff-will-keep-healthcare-subsidies-under-obamacare/#ixzz2bQkhJvcp

Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?

Q: Is it true that there are bills in Congress that would exempt members and their staffs and families from buying into “Obamacare”?

A: No. Congress members and staffers will be required to buy insurance through the exchanges on Jan. 1.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that there are bills in the House and Senate that will exempt members and their staff and families from buying into Obamacare?

FULL ANSWER

Several readers have asked us about Congress attempting to exempt itself from the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. A few said that a Facebook post claimed that President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Democrats in Congress were trying to “get themselves exempted from Obamacare,” in the words of one reader.

But there is no bill in Congress calling for an exemption from the health care law. In fact, members of Congress and their staffs face additional requirements that most Americans don’t have to meet.

Under the health care law, their insurance coverage will have to switch from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the group of private insurance plans that cover 8 million federal employees and retirees, to the exchanges created by the law. Those exchanges are meant for those who buy coverage on their own, the currently uninsured and small businesses. Members of Congress and their staffs would be the only employees of a large employer in the exchanges, which are set to begin offering insurance in January.

So, why is the false “exempt” claim making the Facebook rounds? There is reportedly concern on Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, won’t be able to smoothly transition members and their staffs into an exchange. The concern, as a Roll Call story explained, was that the government wouldn’t be able to make contributions toward the federal employees’ premiums, at least at the beginning of 2014. That would mean employees would pick up the whole tab for their insurance policies. Right now, the government pays 72 percent of premiums on average.

The “exempt” claims were sparked by a Politico report on April 24 that said secret talks were being held by lawmakers to change the requirement to get insurance through the exchanges because of this concern. The headline on the story said “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.”

After the story was published, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid said there hadn’t been any discussions to exempt Congress from “provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private employer offering health care.” And Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California told Politico that lawmakers and their staffs will indeed get insurance through the exchanges. “[T]he federal government will offer them health insurance coverage that they obtained through the exchanges because we want to get the same health care coverage everybody else has available to them,” he said.

We contacted the Office of Personnel Management and received this statement from an administration official: “Members of Congress will not receive anything that is not available to the public. The law doesn’t allow them to get insurance from FEHB, they are going to get insurance on the market place, just like uninsured individuals and small businesses.”

We can’t say what did or didn’t happen in any secret meetings. But we can say that no bill has been introduced to exempt members of Congress from the Affordable Care Act — and they were never exempt in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, Congress were to nullify the provision requiring members and their staffs to get insurance on the exchanges, it still wouldn’t amount to an exemption from the law. Lawmakers and staffers would be subject to the mandate to have health insurance or pay a fine, just as everyone else is.

The law provides a few exemptions from the requirement to have insurance, but only for those who earn too little to file taxes, those with financial hardships, those who can’t find affordable coverage, and some religious groups that qualify for Social Security exemptions, mainly Mennonite or Amish.

An Old Falsehood

Bogus claims about Congress being “exempt” date back to early 2010, when different health care bills were still being debated. Some Republicans claimed that Americans, except for members of Congress, would be forced into the government-run “public option” (which wasn’t part of the final bill that became law) or state-based exchanges (which are part of the law).

As we said previously, members of Congress get private health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which actually served as a model for the exchanges. Federal workers pick from among many health plans. The exchanges would operate in the same way — like a marketplace for those shopping for private insurance.

But some Republicans pushed the idea that if the exchanges were good enough for other Americans, they should be good enough for Congress. So, an amendment by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was added to the Senate bill requiring that the federal government offer only health plans that were part of an exchange to members of Congress and their staffs. The law’s final language on this, written by Sen. Tom Coburn, says that: “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act.”

Congressional “staff” is defined as “all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.” As we reported before, Coburn said the provision wouldn’t apply to those working for committees or leadership staff, and a Congressional Research Service report agreed that could be the case.

In other words, the Affordable Care Act places on lawmakers and their staffs additional requirements that don’t pertain to other Americans with work-based insurance.

Update, Aug. 7, 2013: The Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule on Aug. 7 explaining that members of Congress and applicable congressional staff will be required to purchase health insurance coverage through the exchanges created by the law. However, according to the proposed rule, the federal government, as the employer, will still be able to make a contribution to health insurance premiums as it currently does. The contribution will be no greater than that now offered to members and their staffs under the FEHB program, and members and their staffs will not be eligible for premium tax credits made available to other persons purchasing health insurance through the exchanges.

– Lori Robertson

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

Sources

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law 111–148. 111th Congress

The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. OPM.gov. accessed 3 May 2013.

Ethridge, Emily. “Health Insurance Anxiety on Capitol Hill.” 25 Apr 2013.

Robertson, Lori. “Congress Exempt from Health Bill?” FactCheck.org. 20 Jan 2010.

Jackson, Brooks. “Health Care for Members of Congress?” FactCheck.org. 25 Aug 2009.

Bresnahan, John and Jake Sherman. “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.” Politico. 24 Apr 2013.

Baker, Sam. “Dems won’t seek ObamaCare exemption.” The Hill. 25 Apr 3013.

Henig, Jess. “More Malarkey About Health Care.” FactCheck.org. 19 Apr 2010.

UPDATE 1-U.S. Congress wins relief on Obamacare health plan subsidies

Congress, staff, to keep federal health premium payments

* Ruling aimed at avoiding “brain drain” on Capitol Hill (Adds comments from Republicans, Pelosi, edits)

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) – Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the “Obamacare” health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama’s blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.

When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The amendment’s author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.

But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.

This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill.

But Wednesday’s proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government’s human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.

The OPM said the federal contributions will be allowed to continue for exchange-purchased plans for lawmakers and their staffs, ensuring that those working on Capitol Hill will effectively get the same health contributions as millions of other federal workers who keep their current plan.

The problem surrounding the Obamacare language for Capitol Hill staff was the subject of intense negotiations in recent weeks between House and Senate leaders and the Obama administration.

Some Republicans immediately slammed the OPM decision, using it as fuel for their campaign to turn public opinion against Obamacare just as its core provisions are due to go into effect.

“While the administration has handed out waiver after waiver and exemption after exemption for the well-connected in Washington, they have done nothing to lower health care costs for families in Michigan,” said Dave Camp, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Camp said the OPM ruling is the “latest proof” of impending failure for the reforms and pledged that Republicans would keep trying to repeal them.

Last week, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the language problem would have caused unintended “collateral damage” on congressional staff, causing many to leave for the private sector.

“They are a tremendous intellectual resource, people who could, shall we say, be better compensated financially outside” of government, said Pelosi, who spearheaded passage of the health care law in 2010 as House Speaker.

STILL MUST PURCHASE PLANS

Lawmakers and staff still must purchase plans on the exchanges for coverage that starts in January, OPM said, and they will not be eligible for tax credits to offset premium payments. These credits are the main federal subsidy mechanism for all other health plans purchased through Obamacare exchanges due to open in October. These tax subsidies fall off quickly as income rises.

Tim Jost, a healthcare law expert at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, said it was probably never Congress’ intention to take away federal benefit contributions from Capitol Hill employees, just to push them into them into the exchanges.

“This clarifies what they really intended to do all along,” Jost said. “Congress had subjected itself to a requirement that applied to nobody else in the country.”

Republican Senator David Vitter vowed to reverse the OPM ruling to ensure that no members of Congress, Capitol Hill staff nor Obama administration appointees get any federal subsidies for health insurance purchased on Obamacare health exchanges.

“These recent maneuverings inside the beltway are precisely why the American people rightly despise Congress,” said Vitter, of Louisiana. “Perhaps if White House appointees and Congress have to live under these same Obamacare rules, things would be changed quickly for the better.” (Reporting By David Lawder; Editing by Bill Trott and Cynthia Osterman)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/usa-health-congress-idUSL1N0G820F20130807?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssHealthcareNews&rpc=22

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Only 162,000 Nonfarm Payroll Jobs Created in July 2013 — 300,000 New Jobs Needed To Reduce Unemployment by .1%– Unemployment Rate Declines .2% to 7.4% — Labor Participation Rate Declines .1% to 63.5% As Number of Discourage Workers Increases By 136,000 — Obama’s Jobs Gap 10 Million Jobs Widens — Videos

Posted on August 2, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Obama-Unemployment

obama-unemployed-college-grad-empty-nest-syndrome-cartoon

ITS-THE-ECONOMY-OBAMA-WHITE-HOUSE-ATTIC-CAI-012610-COLOR

Obama-Dept-of-Labor-overpaid-unemploymen

sgs-emp

Unemployment Rate Drops to Near Five-Year Low

US jobs numbers disappoint but ‘underlying tone is bullish’

Data extracted on: August 2, 2013 (2:01:21 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Employment Level

144,285,000

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

employment_level
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 143898 144058 144285
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force

155,798,000

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

civilian_labor_force_level
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 155658 155835 155798

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.4%

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

civilian_labor_force_participation_rate
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 63.4 63.5 63.4

Unemployment Level

11,514,000

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

unemployment_level

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 11760 11777 11514

Unemployment Rate U-3

7.4%

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

unemployment_rate_u3

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 7.6 7.6 7.4

Employment-Population Ratio

58.7%

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

Employment-Population Ratio

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 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7

Unemployment Rate 16-19 Years Old

 

23.7%


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


unemployment_rate_teenagers

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 24.5 24.0 23.7

White Unemployment Rate

 

6.6%

 

Series Id:           LNS14000003
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - White
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                White

white_unemployment_rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5
2001 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.1
2002 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
2003 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.0
2004 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5
2005 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2
2006 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9
2007 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.4
2008 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.7
2009 7.1 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.2 9.0
2010 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.5
2011 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.7 7.5
2012 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.9
2013 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6

Black Unemployment Rate

 

Series Id:           LNS14000006
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                Black or African American

Employment Situation News Release

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed                                  USDL-13-1527
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, August 2, 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 -- JULY 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in July, and the unemployment rate edged
down to 7.4 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in
retail trade, food services and drinking places, financial activities, and wholesale trade.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.5 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.4 percent,
edged down in July. Over the year, these measures were down by 1.2 million and 0.8 percentage
point, respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult women (6.5 percent) and blacks
(12.6 percent) declined in July. The rates for adult men (7.0 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent),
whites (6.6 percent), and Hispanics (9.4 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate
for Asians was 5.7 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See
tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In July, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 4.2 million. These individuals accounted for 37.0 percent of the unemployed. The
number of long-term unemployed has declined by 921,000 over the past year. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.4 percent in July, little changed over the
month. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 58.7 percent. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary
part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July. 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 July, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed 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 988,000 discouraged workers in July, up by 136,000 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
1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in July 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 increased by 162,000 in July, with gains in retail trade, food
services and drinking places, financial activities, and wholesale trade. Over the prior 12 months,
nonfarm employment growth averaged 189,000 per month. (See table B-1.)

Retail trade added 47,000 jobs in July and has added 352,000 over the past 12 months. In July, job
growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+9,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (+6,000),
building material and garden supply stores (+6,000), and health and personal care stores (+5,000).

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places increased by 38,000
in July and by 381,000 over the year.

Financial activities employment increased by 15,000 in July, with a gain of 6,000 in securities,
commodity contracts, and investments. Over the year, financial activities has added 120,000 jobs.

Employment increased in wholesale trade (+14,000) in July. Over the past 12 months, this industry
has added 83,000 jobs.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in July (+36,000). Within
the industry, job growth continued in management of companies and enterprises (+7,000) and in
management and technical consulting services (+7,000). Employment in temporary help services
changed little over the month.

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in July and has changed little, on net, over
the past 12 months. Within the industry, employment in motor vehicles and parts rose by 9,000
in July.

Employment in health care was essentially unchanged over the month. Thus far in 2013, health
care has added an average of 16,000 jobs per month, compared with an average monthly increase
of 27,000 in 2012.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction, transportation
and warehousing, and government, showed little change in July.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour in July
to 34.4 hours. In manufacturing, the workweek decreased by 0.2 hour to 40.6 hours, and overtime
declined by 0.2 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees
on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In July, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down by 2 cents
to $23.98, following a 10-cent increase in June. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen
by 44 cents, or 1.9 percent. In July, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees were unchanged at $20.14. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised from +195,000 to +176,000, and
the change for June was revised from +195,000 to +188,000. With these revisions, employment gains
in May and June combined were 26,000 less than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for August is scheduled to be released on Friday, September 6, 2013, at
8:30 a.m. (EDT).
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Category July
2012
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
Change from:
June
2013-
July
2013
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population 243,354 245,363 245,552 245,756 204
Civilian labor force 154,995 155,658 155,835 155,798 -37
Participation rate 63.7 63.4 63.5 63.4 -0.1
Employed 142,250 143,898 144,058 144,285 227
Employment-population ratio 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 0.0
Unemployed 12,745 11,760 11,777 11,514 -263
Unemployment rate 8.2 7.6 7.6 7.4 -0.2
Not in labor force 88,359 89,705 89,717 89,957 240
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over 8.2 7.6 7.6 7.4 -0.2
Adult men (20 years and over) 7.7 7.2 7.0 7.0 0.0
Adult women (20 years and over) 7.5 6.5 6.8 6.5 -0.3
Teenagers (16 to 19 years) 23.9 24.5 24.0 23.7 -0.3
White 7.4 6.7 6.6 6.6 0.0
Black or African American 14.1 13.5 13.7 12.6 -1.1
Asian (not seasonally adjusted) 6.2 4.3 5.0 5.7 -
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity 10.3 9.1 9.1 9.4 0.3
Total, 25 years and over 6.9 6.1 6.2 6.1 -0.1
Less than a high school diploma 12.7 11.1 10.7 11.0 0.3
High school graduates, no college 8.6 7.4 7.6 7.6 0.0
Some college or associate degree 7.1 6.5 6.4 6.0 -0.4
Bachelor’s degree and higher 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.8 -0.1
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 7,106 6,147 6,119 5,921 -198
Job leavers 879 944 1,030 979 -51
Reentrants 3,374 3,333 3,291 3,258 -33
New entrants 1,299 1,268 1,259 1,254 -5
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks 2,697 2,706 2,692 2,563 -129
5 to 14 weeks 3,102 2,669 2,864 2,869 5
15 to 26 weeks 1,756 1,950 1,896 1,788 -108
27 weeks and over 5,167 4,357 4,328 4,246 -82
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons 8,245 7,904 8,226 8,245 19
Slack work or business conditions 5,319 4,841 5,193 5,177 -16
Could only find part-time work 2,568 2,721 2,652 2,665 13
Part time for noneconomic reasons 18,846 18,934 19,044 19,128 84
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force 2,529 2,164 2,582 2,414 -
Discouraged workers 852 780 1,027 988 -
- 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.
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 153 176 188 162
Total private 177 187 196 161
Goods-producing 26 -4 8 4
Mining and logging -1 2 3 4
Construction 5 -1 8 -6
Manufacturing 22 -5 -3 6
Durable goods(1) 20 1 0 8
Motor vehicles and parts 12.0 6.0 6.4 9.1
Nondurable goods 2 -6 -3 -2
Private service-providing(1) 151 191 188 157
Wholesale trade 10.1 7.3 7.0 13.7
Retail trade 3.1 32.6 39.7 46.8
Transportation and warehousing 11.3 -5.7 0.7 4.6
Information 9 3 -4 9
Financial activities 0 7 13 15
Professional and business services(1) 52 70 61 36
Temporary help services 15.3 26.8 16.2 7.7
Education and health services(1) 35 20 16 13
Health care and social assistance 25.5 9.7 18.4 8.3
Leisure and hospitality 27 43 57 23
Other services 10 13 -3 -2
Government -24 -11 -8 1
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private women employees 47.9 47.9 47.9 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 34.4 34.5 34.5 34.4
Average hourly earnings $23.54 $23.90 $24.00 $23.98
Average weekly earnings $809.78 $824.55 $828.00 $824.91
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 96.4 98.4 98.5 98.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 108.2 112.1 112.8 112.5
Over-the-month percent change 0.3 0.2 0.6 -0.3
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.7 33.7 33.7 33.6
Average hourly earnings $19.77 $20.08 $20.14 $20.14
Average weekly earnings $666.25 $676.70 $678.72 $676.70
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.0 105.7 105.9 105.8
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 137.2 141.8 142.4 142.2
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.2 0.4 -0.1
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 56.0 58.1 57.3 54.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 51.2 45.1 45.7 50.0
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
Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates

1. Why are there two monthly measures of employment?

   The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates
   of   employment, and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey
   employment series has a   smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-
   month change   than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An
   over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in
   the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change
   in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more
   expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes self-employed
   workers whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, agricultural
   workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey.
   The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
   For more information on the differences between the two surveys, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf.

2. Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?

   It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants. However,
   neither the establishment nor the household survey is designed to identify the legal
   status of workers. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in
   either survey. The establishment survey does not collect data on the legal status of
   workers. The household survey does include questions which identify the foreign and
   native born, but it does not include questions about the legal status of the foreign
   born. Data on the foreign and native born are published each month in table A-7 of
   The Employment Situation news release.

3. Why does the establishment survey have revisions?

   The establishment survey revises published estimates to improve its data series by
   incorporating additional information that was not available at the time of the
   initial publication of the estimates. The establishment survey revises its initial
   monthly estimates twice, in the immediately succeeding 2 months, to incorporate
   additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal
   adjustment factors. For more information on the monthly revisions, please visit
   www.bls.gov/ces/cesrevinfo.htm.

   On an annual basis, the establishment survey incorporates a benchmark revision that
   re-anchors estimates to nearly complete employment counts available from unemployment
   insurance tax records. The benchmark helps to control for sampling and modeling errors
   in the estimates. For more information on the annual benchmark revision, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.

4. Does the establishment survey sample include small firms?

   Yes; about 40 percent of the establishment survey sample is comprised of business
   establishments with fewer than 20 employees. The establishment survey sample is
   designed to maximize the reliability of the statewide total nonfarm employment
   estimate; firms from all states, size classes, and industries are appropriately
   sampled to achieve that goal.

5. Does the establishment survey account for employment from new businesses?

   Yes; monthly establishment survey estimates include an adjustment to account for
   the net employment change generated by business births and deaths. The adjustment
   comes from an econometric model that forecasts the monthly net jobs impact of
   business births and deaths based on the actual past values of the net impact that
   can be observed with a lag from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The
   establishment survey uses modeling rather than sampling for this purpose because
   the survey is not immediately able to bring new businesses into the sample. There
   is an unavoidable lag between the birth of a new firm and its appearance on the
   sampling frame and availability for selection. BLS adds new businesses to the survey
   twice a year.

6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment
   insurance benefits?

   No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
   All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are
   included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if
   they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
   unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently
   looking for work?

   Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
   want a job, including those who are not currently looking because they believe no
   jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
   underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
   officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in table A-15 of The
   Employment Situation news release. For more information about these alternative
   measures, please visit www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#altmeasures.

8. How can unusually severe weather affect employment and hours estimates?

   In the establishment survey, the reference period is the pay period that includes
   the 12th of the month. Unusually severe weather is more likely to have an impact on
   average weekly hours than on employment. Average weekly hours are estimated for paid
   time during the pay period, including pay for holidays, sick leave, or other time off.
   The impact of severe weather on hours estimates typically, but not always, results in
   a reduction in average weekly hours. For example, some employees may be off work for
   part of the pay period and not receive pay for the time missed, while some workers,
   such as those dealing with cleanup or repair, may work extra hours.

   In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment,
   employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period. Slightly more
   than 20 percent of all employees in the payroll survey sample have a weekly pay
   period. Employees who receive pay for any part of the pay period, even 1 hour, are
   counted in the payroll employment figures. It is not possible to quantify the effect
   of extreme weather on estimates of over-the-month change in employment.

   In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that
   includes the 12th of the month. Persons who miss the entire week's work for weather-
   related events are counted as employed whether or not they are paid for the time
   off. The household survey collects data on the number of persons who had a job but
   were not at work due to bad weather. It also provides a measure of the number of
   persons who usually work full time but had reduced hours. Current and historical
   data are available on the  household survey's most requested statistics page at

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln.

Technical Note

   This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current
Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics
survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

   The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and
earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables,
marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll
records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments. Each month
the CES program surveys about 145,000 businesses and government agencies,
representing approximately 557,000 individual worksites, in order to provide
detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm
payroll employees.

   For both surveys, the data for a given month relate to a particular week or
pay period. In the household survey, the reference period is generally the
calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month. In the establishment
survey, the reference period is the pay period including the 12th, which may or
may not correspond directly to the calendar week.

Coverage, definitions, and differences between surveys

   Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire civilian 
noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of questions on 
work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over in a sample
household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.

   People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

   People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

   The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor 
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the 
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a 
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the 
employed as a percent of the population. Additional information about the 
household survey can be found at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm.

   Establishment survey. The sample establishments are drawn from private
nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as
from federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm
payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay
period, including persons on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job
they hold. Hours and earnings data are produced for the private sector for
all employees and for production and nonsupervisory employees. Production
and nonsupervisory employees are defined as production and related employees
in manufacturing and mining and logging, construction workers in construction,
and nonsupervisory employees in private service-providing industries.

   Industries are classified on the basis of an establishment’s principal
activity in accordance with the 2012 version of the North American Industry
Classification System. Additional information about the establishment survey
can be found at www.bls.gov/ces/.

   Differences in employment estimates. The numerous conceptual and methodological
differences between the household and establishment  surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:

   --The household survey includes agricultural workers, self-employed workers
     whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, and private
     household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the
     establishment survey.

   --The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed.
     The establishment survey does not.

   --The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older.
     The establishment survey is not limited by age.

   --The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because
     individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one
     job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one
     job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately
     for each appearance.

Seasonal adjustment

   Over the course of a year, the size of the nation's labor force and the levels
of employment and unemployment undergo regularly occurring fluctuations. These 
events may result from seasonal changes in weather, major holidays, and the opening
and closing of schools. The effect of such seasonal variation can be very large.

   Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year,
their influence on the level of a series can be tempered by adjusting for regular
seasonal variation. These adjustments make nonseasonal developments, such as
declines in employment or increases in the participation of women in the labor
force, easier to spot. For example, in the household survey, the large number of
youth entering the labor force each June is likely to obscure any other changes
that have taken place relative to May, making it difficult to determine if the 
level of economic activity has risen or declined. Similarly, in the establishment
survey, payroll employment in education declines by about 20 percent at the end
of the spring term and later rises with the start of the fall term, obscuring the
underlying employment trends in the industry. Because seasonal employment changes
at the end and beginning of the school year can be estimated, the statistics can be
adjusted to make underlying employment patterns more discernable.  The seasonally
adjusted figures provide a more useful tool with which to analyze changes in
month-to-month economic activity.

   Many seasonally adjusted series are independently adjusted in both the household
and establishment surveys. However, the adjusted series for many major estimates,
such as total payroll employment, employment in most major sectors, total employment,
and unemployment are computed by aggregating independently adjusted component series.
For example, total unemployment is derived by summing the adjusted series for four
major age-sex components; this differs from the unemployment estimate that would be
obtained by directly adjusting the total or by combining
the duration, reasons, or more detailed age categories.

   For both the household and establishment surveys, a concurrent seasonal adjustment
methodology is used in which new seasonal factors are calculated each month using all
relevant data, up to and including the data for the current month. In the household
survey, new seasonal factors are used to adjust only the current month's data. In the
establishment survey, however, new seasonal factors are used each month to adjust the
three most recent monthly estimates. The prior 2 months are routinely revised to
incorporate additional sample reports and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors.
In both surveys, 5-year revisions to historical data are made once a year.

Reliability of the estimates

   Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population,
is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true
population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs
because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability
is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent
chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by
no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value because of sampling
error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence.

   For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 90,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-40,000 to +140,000 (50,000 +/- 90,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90- percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.
At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.

   In general, estimates involving many individuals or establishments have lower
standard errors (relative to the size of the estimate) than estimates which are based
on a small number of observations. The precision of estimates also is improved when
the data are cumulated over time, such as for quarterly and annual averages.

   The household and establishment surveys are also affected by nonsampling error,
which can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the
population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample,
inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a
timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or
processing of the data.

   For example, in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months
are based on incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled
preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly
estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is
considered final.

   Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the
inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms. To
correct for this systematic underestimation of employment growth, an estimation
procedure with two components is used to account for business births. The first
component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based
estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births.
This is incorporated into the sample-based estimation procedure by simply not
reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same
employment trend as the other firms in the sample. This procedure accounts for
most of the net birth/death employment.

   The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the
residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The
historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from
the unemployment insurance universe micro- level database, and reflects the actual
residual net of births and deaths over the past 5 years.

   The sample-based estimates from the establishment survey are adjusted once a
year (on a lagged basis) to universe counts of payroll employment obtained from
administrative records of the unemployment insurance program. The difference 
between the March sample-based employment estimates and the March universe counts
is known as a benchmark revision, and serves as a rough proxy for total survey
error. The new benchmarks also incorporate changes in the classification of
industries. Over the past decade, absolute benchmark revisions for total nonfarm
employment have averaged 0.3 percent, with a range from -0.7 to 0.6 percent.

Other information

   Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay
Service: (800) 877-8339.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status, sex, and age Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted(1)
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional population 243,354 245,552 245,756 243,354 244,995 245,175 245,363 245,552 245,756
Civilian labor force 156,526 157,089 157,196 154,995 155,028 155,238 155,658 155,835 155,798
Participation rate 64.3 64.0 64.0 63.7 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4
Employed 143,126 144,841 145,113 142,250 143,286 143,579 143,898 144,058 144,285
Employment-population ratio 58.8 59.0 59.0 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7
Unemployed 13,400 12,248 12,083 12,745 11,742 11,659 11,760 11,777 11,514
Unemployment rate 8.6 7.8 7.7 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4
Not in labor force 86,828 88,463 88,560 88,359 89,967 89,936 89,705 89,717 89,957
Persons who currently want a job 6,837 7,152 6,862 6,587 6,722 6,413 6,712 6,580 6,619
Men, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 117,381 118,490 118,595 117,381 118,204 118,296 118,393 118,490 118,595
Civilian labor force 83,554 83,837 83,965 82,407 82,584 82,621 82,862 82,898 82,852
Participation rate 71.2 70.8 70.8 70.2 69.9 69.8 70.0 70.0 69.9
Employed 76,691 77,277 77,569 75,512 76,329 76,239 76,299 76,447 76,466
Employment-population ratio 65.3 65.2 65.4 64.3 64.6 64.4 64.4 64.5 64.5
Unemployed 6,863 6,560 6,396 6,895 6,255 6,382 6,564 6,451 6,387
Unemployment rate 8.2 7.8 7.6 8.4 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.8 7.7
Not in labor force 33,828 34,654 34,630 34,975 35,619 35,675 35,531 35,592 35,743
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 108,727 109,943 110,054 108,727 109,635 109,736 109,839 109,943 110,054
Civilian labor force 79,758 80,186 80,275 79,376 79,747 79,803 79,878 79,883 79,909
Participation rate 73.4 72.9 72.9 73.0 72.7 72.7 72.7 72.7 72.6
Employed 73,863 74,717 74,854 73,288 74,228 74,159 74,124 74,276 74,328
Employment-population ratio 67.9 68.0 68.0 67.4 67.7 67.6 67.5 67.6 67.5
Unemployed 5,894 5,469 5,421 6,089 5,519 5,644 5,754 5,607 5,581
Unemployment rate 7.4 6.8 6.8 7.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.0 7.0
Not in labor force 28,969 29,757 29,778 29,351 29,888 29,933 29,961 30,060 30,145
Women, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 125,972 127,062 127,161 125,972 126,791 126,878 126,970 127,062 127,161
Civilian labor force 72,972 73,253 73,231 72,588 72,443 72,617 72,796 72,938 72,946
Participation rate 57.9 57.7 57.6 57.6 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 57.4
Employed 66,435 67,565 67,543 66,738 66,956 67,340 67,599 67,612 67,819
Employment-population ratio 52.7 53.2 53.1 53.0 52.8 53.1 53.2 53.2 53.3
Unemployed 6,537 5,688 5,688 5,850 5,487 5,277 5,197 5,326 5,127
Unemployment rate 9.0 7.8 7.8 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.0
Not in labor force 53,000 53,809 53,930 53,384 54,348 54,261 54,174 54,124 54,215
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 117,648 118,804 118,907 117,648 118,520 118,612 118,708 118,804 118,907
Civilian labor force 69,402 69,899 69,656 69,673 69,544 69,744 69,895 70,075 70,033
Participation rate 59.0 58.8 58.6 59.2 58.7 58.8 58.9 59.0 58.9
Employed 63,703 64,981 64,754 64,437 64,707 65,101 65,329 65,314 65,489
Employment-population ratio 54.1 54.7 54.5 54.8 54.6 54.9 55.0 55.0 55.1
Unemployed 5,700 4,918 4,902 5,236 4,837 4,642 4,566 4,761 4,544
Unemployment rate 8.2 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.8 6.5
Not in labor force 48,246 48,905 49,251 47,975 48,976 48,868 48,813 48,730 48,875
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population 16,979 16,805 16,795 16,979 16,840 16,827 16,816 16,805 16,795
Civilian labor force 7,366 7,004 7,264 5,945 5,737 5,692 5,886 5,878 5,857
Participation rate 43.4 41.7 43.3 35.0 34.1 33.8 35.0 35.0 34.9
Employed 5,560 5,143 5,504 4,525 4,351 4,320 4,445 4,469 4,469
Employment-population ratio 32.7 30.6 32.8 26.7 25.8 25.7 26.4 26.6 26.6
Unemployed 1,806 1,860 1,760 1,420 1,386 1,372 1,441 1,409 1,388
Unemployment rate 24.5 26.6 24.2 23.9 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7
Not in labor force 9,613 9,801 9,530 11,033 11,103 11,135 10,930 10,927 10,938
Footnotes
(1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status, race, sex, and age Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted(1)
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
WHITE
Civilian noninstitutional population 193,245 194,254 194,373 193,245 193,946 194,041 194,147 194,254 194,373
Civilian labor force 124,749 124,627 124,807 123,578 123,382 123,504 123,844 123,766 123,719
Participation rate 64.6 64.2 64.2 63.9 63.6 63.6 63.8 63.7 63.7
Employed 115,255 116,132 116,321 114,428 115,080 115,266 115,557 115,563 115,552
Employment-population ratio 59.6 59.8 59.8 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.5 59.5 59.4
Unemployed 9,493 8,495 8,486 9,151 8,302 8,238 8,287 8,204 8,167
Unemployment rate 7.6 6.8 6.8 7.4 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6
Not in labor force 68,496 69,628 69,565 69,667 70,565 70,537 70,303 70,488 70,654
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 64,795 64,843 64,906 64,485 64,549 64,674 64,680 64,625 64,595
Participation rate 73.8 73.3 73.3 73.4 73.1 73.2 73.2 73.1 73.0
Employed 60,588 60,951 60,995 60,073 60,594 60,540 60,545 60,620 60,528
Employment-population ratio 69.0 68.9 68.9 68.4 68.7 68.6 68.5 68.6 68.4
Unemployed 4,208 3,892 3,911 4,413 3,955 4,135 4,135 4,005 4,067
Unemployment rate 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.8 6.1 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.3
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 54,141 54,239 54,204 54,380 54,255 54,221 54,447 54,469 54,501
Participation rate 58.4 58.1 58.0 58.6 58.2 58.2 58.4 58.4 58.4
Employed 50,115 50,893 50,794 50,653 50,940 51,123 51,311 51,222 51,339
Employment-population ratio 54.0 54.5 54.4 54.6 54.7 54.8 55.0 54.9 55.0
Unemployed 4,026 3,346 3,410 3,727 3,315 3,098 3,136 3,247 3,162
Unemployment rate 7.4 6.2 6.3 6.9 6.1 5.7 5.8 6.0 5.8
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force 5,812 5,545 5,698 4,713 4,578 4,608 4,717 4,672 4,623
Participation rate 45.9 44.3 45.6 37.2 36.5 36.8 37.7 37.3 37.0
Employed 4,553 4,289 4,532 3,702 3,546 3,603 3,700 3,721 3,685
Employment-population ratio 36.0 34.3 36.2 29.3 28.3 28.8 29.6 29.7 29.5
Unemployed 1,259 1,256 1,165 1,010 1,032 1,005 1,017 951 938
Unemployment rate 21.7 22.7 20.5 21.4 22.5 21.8 21.6 20.4 20.3
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
Civilian noninstitutional population 29,918 30,355 30,390 29,918 30,255 30,290 30,322 30,355 30,390
Civilian labor force 18,643 18,852 18,825 18,424 18,524 18,617 18,723 18,636 18,671
Participation rate 62.3 62.1 61.9 61.6 61.2 61.5 61.7 61.4 61.4
Employed 15,845 16,154 16,311 15,833 16,068 16,167 16,202 16,090 16,318
Employment-population ratio 53.0 53.2 53.7 52.9 53.1 53.4 53.4 53.0 53.7
Unemployed 2,799 2,698 2,513 2,590 2,456 2,450 2,521 2,546 2,353
Unemployment rate 15.0 14.3 13.4 14.1 13.3 13.2 13.5 13.7 12.6
Not in labor force 11,274 11,502 11,565 11,494 11,731 11,673 11,599 11,719 11,719
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 8,307 8,411 8,450 8,277 8,447 8,377 8,441 8,358 8,434
Participation rate 68.1 67.5 67.7 67.9 68.1 67.4 67.9 67.1 67.6
Employed 7,071 7,331 7,398 7,049 7,370 7,319 7,301 7,270 7,382
Employment-population ratio 58.0 58.9 59.3 57.8 59.4 58.9 58.7 58.4 59.2
Unemployed 1,236 1,079 1,052 1,228 1,077 1,058 1,140 1,088 1,052
Unemployment rate 14.9 12.8 12.4 14.8 12.7 12.6 13.5 13.0 12.5
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 9,361 9,551 9,444 9,371 9,365 9,529 9,562 9,556 9,508
Participation rate 62.1 62.3 61.5 62.1 61.3 62.3 62.5 62.3 62.0
Employed 8,170 8,365 8,382 8,290 8,226 8,425 8,487 8,413 8,510
Employment-population ratio 54.2 54.6 54.6 55.0 53.9 55.1 55.4 54.9 55.5
Unemployed 1,190 1,186 1,063 1,080 1,139 1,105 1,074 1,143 998
Unemployment rate 12.7 12.4 11.3 11.5 12.2 11.6 11.2 12.0 10.5
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force 976 891 930 776 713 711 720 722 729
Participation rate 37.0 34.7 36.3 29.4 27.6 27.5 28.0 28.1 28.4
Employed 604 458 531 494 472 423 413 407 426
Employment-population ratio 22.9 17.8 20.7 18.7 18.2 16.4 16.1 15.8 16.6
Unemployed 372 433 399 282 241 287 307 315 303
Unemployment rate 38.1 48.6 42.9 36.3 33.8 40.5 42.6 43.6 41.6
ASIAN
Civilian noninstitutional population 12,812 13,291 13,298 - - - - - -
Civilian labor force 8,346 8,737 8,641 - - - - - -
Participation rate 65.1 65.7 65.0 - - - - - -
Employed 7,830 8,302 8,153 - - - - - -
Employment-population ratio 61.1 62.5 61.3 - - - - - -
Unemployed 516 435 488 - - - - - -
Unemployment rate 6.2 5.0 5.7 - - - - - -
Not in labor force 4,466 4,554 4,657 - - - - - -
Footnotes
(1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups will not sum to totals shown in table A-1 because data are not presented for all races. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status, sex, and age Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted(1)
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
HISPANIC OR LATINO ETHNICITY
Civilian noninstitutional population 36,792 37,471 37,548 36,792 37,242 37,320 37,395 37,471 37,548
Civilian labor force 24,627 24,975 25,220 24,467 24,354 24,512 24,848 24,869 25,040
Participation rate 66.9 66.7 67.2 66.5 65.4 65.7 66.4 66.4 66.7
Employed 22,092 22,698 22,822 21,950 22,122 22,310 22,583 22,601 22,675
Employment-population ratio 60.0 60.6 60.8 59.7 59.4 59.8 60.4 60.3 60.4
Unemployed 2,536 2,277 2,398 2,517 2,232 2,202 2,265 2,267 2,366
Unemployment rate 10.3 9.1 9.5 10.3 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.4
Not in labor force 12,164 12,495 12,328 12,325 12,888 12,808 12,547 12,602 12,508
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 13,426 13,768 13,847 - - - - - -
Participation rate 81.0 81.4 81.7 - - - - - -
Employed 12,325 12,731 12,784 - - - - - -
Employment-population ratio 74.4 75.3 75.5 - - - - - -
Unemployed 1,102 1,036 1,063 - - - - - -
Unemployment rate 8.2 7.5 7.7 - - - - - -
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force 9,814 9,914 9,930 - - - - - -
Participation rate 59.3 58.6 58.6 - - - - - -
Employed 8,788 9,057 9,041 - - - - - -
Employment-population ratio 53.1 53.5 53.3 - - - - - -
Unemployed 1,027 857 889 - - - - - -
Unemployment rate 10.5 8.6 9.0 - - - - - -
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force 1,386 1,293 1,443 - - - - - -
Participation rate 37.9 35.4 39.5 - - - - - -
Employed 979 910 997 - - - - - -
Employment-population ratio 26.8 24.9 27.3 - - - - - -
Unemployed 407 383 446 - - - - - -
Unemployment rate 29.4 29.6 30.9 - - - - - -
Footnotes
(1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment

[Numbers in thousands]
Educational attainment Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
Less than a high school diploma
Civilian labor force 11,457 11,414 10,886 11,446 11,264 10,999 11,237 11,161 10,889
Participation rate 46.2 45.5 45.4 46.2 46.0 44.8 45.0 44.5 45.4
Employed 10,062 10,312 9,723 9,997 10,012 9,725 9,993 9,969 9,692
Employment-population ratio 40.6 41.1 40.5 40.3 40.9 39.6 40.0 39.8 40.4
Unemployed 1,395 1,102 1,163 1,449 1,252 1,274 1,243 1,192 1,197
Unemployment rate 12.2 9.7 10.7 12.7 11.1 11.6 11.1 10.7 11.0
High school graduates, no college(1)
Civilian labor force 36,782 36,324 36,722 37,014 36,121 36,200 36,236 36,320 36,741
Participation rate 59.2 59.1 59.0 59.6 58.6 58.7 58.9 59.1 59.0
Employed 33,676 33,681 33,995 33,823 33,359 33,510 33,572 33,562 33,950
Employment-population ratio 54.2 54.8 54.6 54.5 54.1 54.3 54.6 54.6 54.5
Unemployed 3,105 2,643 2,727 3,191 2,762 2,689 2,664 2,757 2,791
Unemployment rate 8.4 7.3 7.4 8.6 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.6
Some college or associate degree
Civilian labor force 37,299 36,943 37,252 37,414 37,232 37,371 37,470 37,297 37,341
Participation rate 68.1 67.4 67.1 68.3 68.1 68.4 68.5 68.1 67.3
Employed 34,546 34,561 34,931 34,772 34,845 34,992 35,036 34,925 35,105
Employment-population ratio 63.1 63.1 62.9 63.5 63.8 64.1 64.0 63.7 63.2
Unemployed 2,752 2,382 2,320 2,642 2,387 2,379 2,435 2,372 2,237
Unemployment rate 7.4 6.4 6.2 7.1 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.0
Bachelor’s degree and higher(2)
Civilian labor force 47,517 49,086 48,831 47,675 49,236 49,492 49,473 49,466 49,173
Participation rate 75.5 75.1 75.0 75.8 75.3 75.6 75.8 75.6 75.5
Employed 45,381 47,163 46,779 45,711 47,371 47,563 47,581 47,537 47,281
Employment-population ratio 72.1 72.1 71.8 72.6 72.5 72.7 72.9 72.7 72.6
Unemployed 2,136 1,923 2,051 1,964 1,865 1,929 1,892 1,929 1,891
Unemployment rate 4.5 3.9 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8
Footnotes
(1) Includes persons with a high school diploma or equivalent.
(2) Includes persons with bachelor’s, master’s, professional, and doctoral degrees.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status, veteran status, and period of service Total Men Women
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
VETERANS, 18 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 21,163 21,384 19,349 19,159 1,814 2,225
Civilian labor force 10,925 10,923 9,845 9,529 1,080 1,395
Participation rate 51.6 51.1 50.9 49.7 59.5 62.7
Employed 10,173 10,221 9,171 8,918 1,002 1,303
Employment-population ratio 48.1 47.8 47.4 46.5 55.2 58.6
Unemployed 752 702 674 610 79 92
Unemployment rate 6.9 6.4 6.8 6.4 7.3 6.6
Not in labor force 10,238 10,461 9,504 9,630 734 830
Gulf War-era II veterans
Civilian noninstitutional population 2,453 2,728 2,056 2,197 397 530
Civilian labor force 1,945 2,155 1,683 1,800 263 355
Participation rate 79.3 79.0 81.9 81.9 66.1 67.0
Employed 1,771 1,989 1,524 1,661 247 328
Employment-population ratio 72.2 72.9 74.2 75.6 62.2 61.8
Unemployed 174 166 159 138 15 27
Unemployment rate 8.9 7.7 9.4 7.7 5.9 7.7
Not in labor force 507 573 373 397 135 175
Gulf War-era I veterans
Civilian noninstitutional population 3,158 3,291 2,668 2,664 489 627
Civilian labor force 2,599 2,713 2,237 2,208 361 504
Participation rate 82.3 82.4 83.8 82.9 73.8 80.5
Employed 2,428 2,572 2,098 2,093 330 479
Employment-population ratio 76.9 78.1 78.6 78.6 67.5 76.4
Unemployed 170 141 139 115 31 26
Unemployment rate 6.5 5.2 6.2 5.2 8.5 5.1
Not in labor force 559 578 431 456 128 122
World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam-era veterans
Civilian noninstitutional population 9,868 9,789 9,551 9,421 318 368
Civilian labor force 3,217 2,922 3,125 2,835 92 87
Participation rate 32.6 29.9 32.7 30.1 29.1 23.7
Employed 3,020 2,727 2,932 2,644 88 84
Employment-population ratio 30.6 27.9 30.7 28.1 27.7 22.7
Unemployed 197 195 193 192 4 4
Unemployment rate 6.1 6.7 6.2 6.8 4.6 4.0
Not in labor force 6,652 6,867 6,426 6,586 225 281
Veterans of other service periods
Civilian noninstitutional population 5,684 5,576 5,074 4,876 610 700
Civilian labor force 3,164 3,133 2,800 2,685 364 448
Participation rate 55.7 56.2 55.2 55.1 59.7 64.0
Employed 2,953 2,933 2,617 2,520 336 413
Employment-population ratio 52.0 52.6 51.6 51.7 55.1 58.9
Unemployed 211 200 183 165 28 36
Unemployment rate 6.7 6.4 6.5 6.1 7.7 7.9
Not in labor force 2,520 2,443 2,274 2,191 246 252
NONVETERANS, 18 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 213,366 215,592 93,604 94,951 119,762 120,641
Civilian labor force 142,848 143,519 72,405 73,049 70,443 70,470
Participation rate 66.9 66.6 77.4 76.9 58.8 58.4
Employed 130,997 133,021 66,608 67,722 64,389 65,299
Employment-population ratio 61.4 61.7 71.2 71.3 53.8 54.1
Unemployed 11,850 10,498 5,797 5,327 6,054 5,171
Unemployment rate 8.3 7.3 8.0 7.3 8.6 7.3
Not in labor force 70,518 72,072 21,199 21,902 49,319 50,171
NOTE: Veterans served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and were not on active duty at the time of the survey. Nonveterans never served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. Veterans could have served anywhere in the world during these periods of service: Gulf War era II (September 2001-present), Gulf War era I (August 1990-August 2001), Vietnam era (August 1964-April 1975), Korean War (July 1950-January 1955), World War II (December 1941-December 1946), and other service periods (all other time periods). Veterans who served in more than one wartime period are classified only in the most recent one. Veterans who served during one of the selected wartime periods and another period are classified only in the wartime period. Beginning with data for January 2013, estimates for veterans incorporate population controls derived from the updated Department of Veterans Affairs’ population model.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status, sex, and age Persons with a disability Persons with no disability
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
TOTAL, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 28,007 28,406 215,346 217,349
Civilian labor force 5,791 5,778 150,735 151,418
Participation rate 20.7 20.3 70.0 69.7
Employed 5,004 4,926 138,122 140,186
Employment-population ratio 17.9 17.3 64.1 64.5
Unemployed 787 852 12,613 11,231
Unemployment rate 13.6 14.7 8.4 7.4
Not in labor force 22,216 22,628 64,611 65,932
Men, 16 to 64 years
Civilian labor force 2,612 2,638 76,636 76,858
Participation rate 34.4 35.3 83.9 83.6
Employed 2,289 2,240 70,401 71,084
Employment-population ratio 30.2 30.0 77.0 77.3
Unemployed 323 398 6,235 5,774
Unemployment rate 12.4 15.1 8.1 7.5
Not in labor force 4,971 4,841 14,742 15,073
Women, 16 to 64 years
Civilian labor force 2,207 2,188 67,470 67,576
Participation rate 28.7 28.3 71.2 71.0
Employed 1,817 1,778 61,567 62,468
Employment-population ratio 23.6 23.0 64.9 65.7
Unemployed 390 410 5,903 5,108
Unemployment rate 17.7 18.7 8.7 7.6
Not in labor force 5,487 5,556 27,352 27,574
Both sexes, 65 years and over
Civilian labor force 973 953 6,629 6,984
Participation rate 7.6 7.2 22.7 23.1
Employed 898 908 6,155 6,634
Employment-population ratio 7.1 6.9 21.1 21.9
Unemployed 74 44 474 350
Unemployment rate 7.6 4.7 7.2 5.0
Not in labor force 11,758 12,232 22,517 23,285
NOTE: A person with a disability has at least one of the following conditions: is deaf or has serious difficulty hearing; is blind or has serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses; has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition; has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs; has difficulty dressing or bathing; or has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status and nativity Total Men Women
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
Foreign born, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 37,627 37,941 18,428 18,391 19,199 19,550
Civilian labor force 25,180 25,382 14,575 14,634 10,606 10,748
Participation rate 66.9 66.9 79.1 79.6 55.2 55.0
Employed 23,211 23,689 13,553 13,767 9,657 9,922
Employment-population ratio 61.7 62.4 73.5 74.9 50.3 50.8
Unemployed 1,970 1,693 1,021 867 948 825
Unemployment rate 7.8 6.7 7.0 5.9 8.9 7.7
Not in labor force 12,446 12,559 3,853 3,757 8,593 8,802
Native born, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population 205,727 207,815 98,954 100,204 106,774 107,611
Civilian labor force 131,346 131,814 68,979 69,331 62,367 62,483
Participation rate 63.8 63.4 69.7 69.2 58.4 58.1
Employed 119,916 121,424 63,137 63,803 56,778 57,621
Employment-population ratio 58.3 58.4 63.8 63.7 53.2 53.5
Unemployed 11,430 10,390 5,842 5,528 5,589 4,862
Unemployment rate 8.7 7.9 8.5 8.0 9.0 7.8
Not in labor force 74,381 76,001 29,975 30,873 44,407 45,128
NOTE: The foreign born are those residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. That is, they were born outside the United States or one of its outlying areas such as Puerto Rico or Guam, to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen. The native born are persons who were born in the United States or one of its outlying areas such as Puerto Rico or Guam or who were born abroad of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

[In thousands]
Category Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
CLASS OF WORKER
Agriculture and related industries 2,477 2,234 2,435 2,224 2,001 2,017 2,059 2,067 2,159
Wage and salary workers(1) 1,584 1,380 1,494 1,397 1,250 1,227 1,263 1,268 1,303
Self-employed workers, unincorporated 843 836 915 786 710 772 793 790 842
Unpaid family workers 49 18 25 - - - - - -
Nonagricultural industries 140,649 142,607 142,678 140,013 141,317 141,592 141,890 142,004 142,165
Wage and salary workers(1) 131,619 133,652 133,606 131,154 132,761 132,847 133,201 133,273 133,224
Government 19,332 19,719 19,151 20,100 20,633 20,269 20,361 20,157 20,041
Private industries 112,287 113,932 114,455 110,990 112,147 112,558 112,865 113,167 113,164
Private households 818 702 704 - - - - - -
Other industries 111,469 113,230 113,752 110,255 111,462 111,932 112,274 112,552 112,535
Self-employed workers, unincorporated 8,957 8,885 9,010 8,845 8,407 8,651 8,597 8,643 8,831
Unpaid family workers 74 71 62 - - - - - -
PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME(2)
All industries
Part time for economic reasons(3) 8,316 8,440 8,324 8,245 7,638 7,916 7,904 8,226 8,245
Slack work or business conditions 5,235 5,222 5,140 5,319 4,906 5,129 4,841 5,193 5,177
Could only find part-time work 2,637 2,748 2,757 2,568 2,576 2,527 2,721 2,652 2,665
Part time for noneconomic reasons(4) 17,200 17,931 17,503 18,846 18,745 18,908 18,934 19,044 19,128
Nonagricultural industries
Part time for economic reasons(3) 8,218 8,328 8,207 8,104 7,544 7,793 7,797 8,111 8,101
Slack work or business conditions 5,175 5,150 5,068 5,258 4,832 5,058 4,778 5,120 5,106
Could only find part-time work 2,607 2,717 2,732 2,558 2,510 2,454 2,686 2,632 2,665
Part time for noneconomic reasons(4) 16,863 17,644 17,201 18,519 18,435 18,542 18,511 18,696 18,779
Footnotes
(1) Includes self-employed workers whose businesses are incorporated.
(2) Refers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the survey reference week and excludes employed persons who were absent from their jobs for the entire week.
(3) Refers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for an economic reason such as slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work, or seasonal declines in demand.
(4) Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons. This excludes persons who usually work full time but worked only 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for reasons such as vacations, holidays, illness, and bad weather.
- Data not available.
NOTE: 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.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

[Numbers in thousands]
Characteristic Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
AGE AND SEX
Total, 16 years and over 143,126 144,841 145,113 142,250 143,286 143,579 143,898 144,058 144,285
16 to 19 years 5,560 5,143 5,504 4,525 4,351 4,320 4,445 4,469 4,469
16 to 17 years 1,956 1,676 1,870 1,538 1,482 1,490 1,505 1,451 1,460
18 to 19 years 3,604 3,467 3,634 3,007 2,868 2,834 2,937 3,027 3,034
20 years and over 137,566 139,698 139,608 137,725 138,935 139,260 139,453 139,589 139,816
20 to 24 years 13,901 13,981 14,180 13,380 13,382 13,569 13,412 13,605 13,654
25 years and over 123,665 125,717 125,428 124,279 125,615 125,678 126,057 125,978 126,087
25 to 54 years 93,769 94,390 94,247 94,000 94,409 94,393 94,569 94,461 94,476
25 to 34 years 30,601 31,206 31,168 30,554 31,180 31,133 31,292 31,217 31,176
35 to 44 years 30,389 30,523 30,582 30,523 30,620 30,637 30,691 30,570 30,686
45 to 54 years 32,779 32,661 32,497 32,924 32,610 32,623 32,586 32,675 32,613
55 years and over 29,896 31,326 31,181 30,279 31,206 31,285 31,488 31,517 31,612
Men, 16 years and over 76,691 77,277 77,569 75,512 76,329 76,239 76,299 76,447 76,466
16 to 19 years 2,827 2,560 2,715 2,224 2,101 2,080 2,175 2,171 2,138
16 to 17 years 912 832 929 666 645 653 686 696 679
18 to 19 years 1,916 1,728 1,786 1,560 1,444 1,426 1,485 1,495 1,457
20 years and over 73,863 74,717 74,854 73,288 74,228 74,159 74,124 74,276 74,328
20 to 24 years 7,313 7,193 7,412 6,936 7,006 6,990 6,917 6,952 7,037
25 years and over 66,550 67,524 67,442 66,323 67,205 67,095 67,192 67,331 67,270
25 to 54 years 50,581 50,878 50,882 50,263 50,669 50,565 50,613 50,672 50,592
25 to 34 years 16,726 16,987 16,971 16,561 16,980 16,887 16,961 16,944 16,849
35 to 44 years 16,583 16,607 16,680 16,500 16,655 16,673 16,660 16,602 16,597
45 to 54 years 17,272 17,284 17,231 17,202 17,034 17,005 16,992 17,125 17,146
55 years and over 15,969 16,646 16,560 16,060 16,536 16,530 16,578 16,659 16,678
Women, 16 years and over 66,435 67,565 67,543 66,738 66,956 67,340 67,599 67,612 67,819
16 to 19 years 2,733 2,584 2,789 2,301 2,250 2,239 2,271 2,298 2,330
16 to 17 years 1,045 844 941 871 837 837 819 755 781
18 to 19 years 1,688 1,739 1,848 1,447 1,424 1,408 1,452 1,532 1,577
20 years and over 63,703 64,981 64,754 64,437 64,707 65,101 65,329 65,314 65,489
20 to 24 years 6,588 6,789 6,768 6,443 6,376 6,578 6,495 6,653 6,617
25 years and over 57,115 58,192 57,986 57,956 58,411 58,583 58,866 58,647 58,817
25 to 54 years 43,188 43,512 43,365 43,737 43,740 43,828 43,955 43,790 43,884
25 to 34 years 13,875 14,220 14,197 13,992 14,200 14,246 14,330 14,272 14,327
35 to 44 years 13,805 13,915 13,902 14,023 13,965 13,964 14,030 13,968 14,089
45 to 54 years 15,507 15,377 15,265 15,722 15,575 15,619 15,595 15,550 15,467
55 years and over 13,927 14,680 14,621 14,219 14,670 14,755 14,910 14,857 14,934
MARITAL STATUS
Married men, spouse present 43,743 43,923 43,873 43,764 44,007 44,024 44,176 43,963 43,914
Married women, spouse present 33,734 34,276 33,950 34,365 34,319 34,346 34,716 34,672 34,622
Women who maintain families 9,354 9,348 9,291 - - - - - -
FULL- OR PART-TIME STATUS
Full-time workers(1) 116,131 117,400 117,688 114,478 115,903 116,053 116,238 115,998 116,090
Part-time workers(2) 26,995 27,442 27,425 27,890 27,442 27,549 27,699 28,059 28,233
MULTIPLE JOBHOLDERS
Total multiple jobholders 6,741 6,990 6,897 6,871 7,102 6,983 6,918 7,065 7,036
Percent of total employed 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9
SELF-EMPLOYMENT
Self-employed workers, incorporated 5,256 5,170 5,187 - - - - - -
Self-employed workers, unincorporated 9,800 9,720 9,925 9,630 9,117 9,423 9,390 9,432 9,673
Footnotes
(1) Employed full-time workers are persons who usually work 35 hours or more per week.
(2) Employed part-time workers are persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week.
- Data not available.
NOTE: 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.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Characteristic Number of
unemployed persons
(in thousands)
Unemployment rates
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
AGE AND SEX
Total, 16 years and over 12,745 11,777 11,514 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4
16 to 19 years 1,420 1,409 1,388 23.9 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7
16 to 17 years 564 522 599 26.8 27.1 27.3 27.5 26.5 29.1
18 to 19 years 859 882 755 22.2 22.1 22.6 22.4 22.6 19.9
20 years and over 11,325 10,368 10,125 7.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8
20 to 24 years 2,082 2,123 1,962 13.5 13.3 13.1 13.2 13.5 12.6
25 years and over 9,266 8,274 8,163 6.9 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.1
25 to 54 years 7,248 6,491 6,463 7.2 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4
25 to 34 years 2,735 2,579 2,544 8.2 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.5
35 to 44 years 2,213 1,932 1,952 6.8 6.0 5.8 6.2 5.9 6.0
45 to 54 years 2,299 1,981 1,967 6.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7
55 years and over 1,973 1,777 1,657 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.0
Men, 16 years and over 6,895 6,451 6,387 8.4 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.8 7.7
16 to 19 years 806 844 805 26.6 25.9 26.2 27.1 28.0 27.4
16 to 17 years 286 309 327 30.0 30.7 31.2 31.6 30.8 32.5
18 to 19 years 512 521 460 24.7 23.4 23.9 24.0 25.8 24.0
20 years and over 6,089 5,607 5,581 7.7 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.0 7.0
20 to 24 years 1,224 1,228 1,158 15.0 14.4 14.0 14.6 15.0 14.1
25 years and over 4,865 4,406 4,415 6.8 6.0 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2
25 to 54 years 3,752 3,436 3,431 6.9 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4
25 to 34 years 1,420 1,362 1,404 7.9 7.1 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.7
35 to 44 years 1,150 1,015 1,028 6.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 5.8 5.8
45 to 54 years 1,181 1,059 999 6.4 5.6 6.2 6.2 5.8 5.5
55 years and over 1,113 970 984 6.5 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.5 5.6
Women, 16 years and over 5,850 5,326 5,127 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.0
16 to 19 years 614 565 583 21.1 22.4 22.1 21.7 19.7 20.0
16 to 17 years 278 214 272 24.2 24.0 23.8 23.6 22.0 25.8
18 to 19 years 347 361 295 19.3 20.7 21.2 20.6 19.1 15.8
20 years and over 5,236 4,761 4,544 7.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.8 6.5
20 to 24 years 858 895 804 11.8 12.0 12.3 11.8 11.9 10.8
25 years and over 4,401 3,868 3,748 7.1 6.3 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.0
25 to 54 years 3,496 3,055 3,032 7.4 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.5
25 to 34 years 1,315 1,217 1,140 8.6 7.7 7.3 7.1 7.9 7.4
35 to 44 years 1,063 916 924 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 6.2 6.2
45 to 54 years 1,118 921 968 6.6 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.9
55 years and over(1) 979 836 750 6.6 5.2 4.8 4.3 5.4 4.9
MARITAL STATUS
Married men, spouse present 2,276 1,975 1,967 4.9 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3
Married women, spouse present 2,074 1,677 1,678 5.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6
Women who maintain families(1) 1,239 1,123 1,095 11.7 10.7 10.3 9.9 10.7 10.5
FULL- OR PART-TIME STATUS
Full-time workers(2) 10,787 9,956 9,604 8.6 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.6
Part-time workers(3) 1,953 1,834 1,882 6.5 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.2
Footnotes
(1) Not seasonally adjusted.
(2) Full-time workers are unemployed persons who have expressed a desire to work full time (35 hours or more per week) or are on layoff from full-time jobs.
(3) Part-time workers are unemployed persons who have expressed a desire to work part time (less than 35 hours per week) or are on layoff from part-time jobs.
NOTE: 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.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]
Reason Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 7,151 5,939 5,934 7,106 6,329 6,410 6,147 6,119 5,921
On temporary layoff 1,525 1,139 1,337 1,429 1,107 1,170 997 1,199 1,221
Not on temporary layoff 5,626 4,800 4,597 5,677 5,223 5,240 5,151 4,920 4,700
Permanent job losers 4,377 3,639 3,548 4,368 3,959 3,976 3,822 3,700 3,589
Persons who completed temporary jobs 1,248 1,161 1,049 1,308 1,264 1,264 1,329 1,220 1,111
Job leavers 897 981 996 879 986 864 944 1,030 979
Reentrants 3,579 3,600 3,450 3,374 3,176 3,151 3,333 3,291 3,258
New entrants 1,773 1,728 1,703 1,299 1,316 1,280 1,268 1,259 1,254
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 53.4 48.5 49.1 56.1 53.6 54.8 52.6 52.3 51.9
On temporary layoff 11.4 9.3 11.1 11.3 9.4 10.0 8.5 10.2 10.7
Not on temporary layoff 42.0 39.2 38.0 44.8 44.2 44.8 44.1 42.1 41.2
Job leavers 6.7 8.0 8.2 6.9 8.4 7.4 8.1 8.8 8.6
Reentrants 26.7 29.4 28.6 26.7 26.9 26.9 28.5 28.1 28.5
New entrants 13.2 14.1 14.1 10.3 11.1 10.9 10.8 10.8 11.0
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 4.6 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.8
Job leavers 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
Reentrants 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1
New entrants 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment

[Numbers in thousands]
Duration Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Less than 5 weeks 3,021 3,569 2,842 2,697 2,464 2,474 2,706 2,692 2,563
5 to 14 weeks 3,585 2,592 3,348 3,102 2,838 2,848 2,669 2,864 2,869
15 weeks and over 6,794 6,086 5,892 6,923 6,348 6,320 6,306 6,225 6,034
15 to 26 weeks 1,547 1,841 1,570 1,756 1,737 1,967 1,950 1,896 1,788
27 weeks and over 5,247 4,245 4,322 5,167 4,611 4,353 4,357 4,328 4,246
Average (mean) duration, in weeks 37.4 34.1 35.3 38.8 37.1 36.5 36.9 35.6 36.6
Median duration, in weeks 15.2 14.3 13.8 16.8 18.1 17.5 17.3 16.3 15.7
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Less than 5 weeks 22.5 29.1 23.5 21.2 21.1 21.3 23.2 22.9 22.4
5 to 14 weeks 26.8 21.2 27.7 24.4 24.4 24.5 22.8 24.3 25.0
15 weeks and over 50.7 49.7 48.8 54.4 54.5 54.3 54.0 52.8 52.6
15 to 26 weeks 11.5 15.0 13.0 13.8 14.9 16.9 16.7 16.1 15.6
27 weeks and over 39.2 34.7 35.8 40.6 39.6 37.4 37.3 36.7 37.0
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Occupation Employed Unemployed Unemployment
rates
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
Total, 16 years and over(1) 143,126 145,113 13,400 12,083 8.6 7.7
Management, professional, and related occupations 53,165 54,064 2,666 2,286 4.8 4.1
Management, business, and financial operations occupations 22,943 22,754 912 737 3.8 3.1
Professional and related occupations 30,222 31,309 1,753 1,549 5.5 4.7
Service occupations 26,565 26,768 2,666 2,573 9.1 8.8
Sales and office occupations 32,835 33,142 2,836 2,450 8.0 6.9
Sales and related occupations 15,536 15,840 1,400 1,170 8.3 6.9
Office and administrative support occupations 17,299 17,301 1,436 1,280 7.7 6.9
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 13,174 13,973 1,529 1,288 10.4 8.4
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 1,216 1,157 138 78 10.2 6.3
Construction and extraction occupations 7,157 7,665 1,056 930 12.9 10.8
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 4,801 5,151 335 280 6.5 5.2
Production, transportation, and material moving
occupations
17,388 17,167 1,900 1,735 9.8 9.2
Production occupations 8,545 8,337 903 857 9.6 9.3
Transportation and material moving occupations 8,843 8,830 997 878 10.1 9.0
Footnotes
(1) Persons with no previous work experience and persons whose last job was in the U.S. Armed Forces are included in the unemployed total.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
Industry and class of worker Number of
unemployed
persons
(in thousands)
Unemployment
rates
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
Total, 16 years and over(1) 13,400 12,083 8.6 7.7
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers 9,692 8,683 7.9 7.1
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 83 57 7.6 5.1
Construction 994 767 12.3 9.1
Manufacturing 1,128 1,082 7.2 6.9
Durable goods 703 619 7.2 6.3
Nondurable goods 426 463 7.3 7.8
Wholesale and retail trade 1,780 1,389 8.6 6.8
Transportation and utilities 392 388 6.5 6.4
Information 190 172 6.7 5.8
Financial activities 458 412 5.1 4.5
Professional and business services 1,378 1,265 9.1 8.1
Education and health services 1,436 1,283 6.5 5.7
Leisure and hospitality 1,420 1,470 9.7 10.0
Other services 433 396 6.7 6.0
Agriculture and related private wage and salary workers 131 97 7.9 6.5
Government workers 1,182 1,073 5.7 5.3
Self-employed workers, unincorporated, and unpaid family workers 623 528 5.9 5.0
Footnotes
(1) Persons with no previous work experience and persons whose last job was in the U.S. Armed Forces are included in the unemployed total.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

[Percent]
Measure Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
June
2013
July
2013
July
2012
Mar.
2013
Apr.
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force 4.3 3.9 3.7 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force 4.6 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.8
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) 8.6 7.8 7.7 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 9.1 8.4 8.3 8.7 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.0
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 10.0 9.3 9.1 9.7 8.9 8.9 8.8 9.1 8.8
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 15.2 14.6 14.3 14.9 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.3 14.0
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.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Category Total Men Women
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
July
2012
July
2013
NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE
Total not in the labor force 86,828 88,560 33,828 34,630 53,000 53,930
Persons who currently want a job 6,837 6,862 3,062 3,113 3,775 3,749
Marginally attached to the labor force(1) 2,529 2,414 1,328 1,260 1,200 1,154
Discouraged workers(2) 852 988 514 572 338 416
Other persons marginally attached to the labor force(3) 1,676 1,426 815 688 862 738
MULTIPLE JOBHOLDERS
Total multiple jobholders(4) 6,741 6,897 3,409 3,568 3,333 3,329
Percent of total employed 4.7 4.8 4.4 4.6 5.0 4.9
Primary job full time, secondary job part time 3,459 3,689 1,939 2,061 1,520 1,627
Primary and secondary jobs both part time 1,871 1,810 670 715 1,201 1,094
Primary and secondary jobs both full time 271 289 191 174 80 115
Hours vary on primary or secondary job 1,065 1,038 567 584 498 454
Footnotes
(1) Data refer to persons who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.
(2) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(3) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as school or family responsibilities, ill health, and transportation problems, as well as a number for whom reason for nonparticipation was not determined.
(4) Includes a small number of persons who work part time on their primary job and full time on their secondary job(s), not shown separately.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail

[In thousands]
Industry Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Change from:
June2013 – July2013(p)
Total nonfarm 133,368 136,383 136,777 135,664 133,762 135,688 135,876 136,038 162
Total private 112,746 114,141 114,975 115,081 111,871 113,829 114,025 114,186 161
Goods-producing 18,785 18,663 18,923 18,988 18,436 18,631 18,639 18,643 4
Mining and logging 868 868 881 889 852 868 871 875 4
Logging 52.6 49.6 51.5 52.0 50.8 51.2 51.1 50.2 -0.9
Mining 815.0 818.4 829.7 837.2 800.7 816.3 819.8 824.7 4.9
Oil and gas extraction 190.2 193.1 194.6 196.4 187.6 193.1 192.6 193.9 1.3
Mining, except oil and gas(1) 229.1 226.3 229.8 229.7 221.8 222.3 223.3 223.2 -0.1
Coal mining 86.8 85.6 86.6 86.6 86.4 85.0 85.8 86.1 0.3
Support activities for mining 395.7 399.0 405.3 411.1 391.3 400.9 403.9 407.6 3.7
Construction 5,888 5,834 5,992 6,054 5,627 5,791 5,799 5,793 -6
Construction of buildings 1,274.9 1,259.1 1,290.3 1,301.0 1,236.0 1,261.1 1,261.7 1,262.1 0.4
Residential building 598.7 585.9 602.2 606.8 576.3 584.3 583.6 583.7 0.1
Nonresidential building 676.2 673.2 688.1 694.2 659.7 676.8 678.1 678.4 0.3
Heavy and civil engineering construction 930.2 910.9 940.5 950.4 872.0 888.6 893.2 891.2 -2.0
Specialty trade contractors 3,682.7 3,663.5 3,761.1 3,802.4 3,519.0 3,641.1 3,643.7 3,640.1 -3.6
Residential specialty trade contractors 1,542.7 1,556.0 1,608.7 1,628.8 1,468.7 1,541.9 1,547.2 1,553.4 6.2
Nonresidential specialty trade contractors 2,140.0 2,107.5 2,152.4 2,173.6 2,050.3 2,099.2 2,096.5 2,086.7 -9.8
Manufacturing 12,029 11,961 12,050 12,045 11,957 11,972 11,969 11,975 6
Durable goods 7,525 7,516 7,565 7,548 7,496 7,512 7,512 7,520 8
Wood products 342.6 346.3 349.8 352.9 335.9 345.6 344.8 346.4 1.6
Nonmetallic mineral products 371.8 371.9 375.6 378.4 362.0 367.9 367.2 368.9 1.7
Primary metals 406.7 397.0 395.6 393.0 406.7 395.6 393.9 392.5 -1.4
Fabricated metal products 1,426.3 1,435.2 1,445.2 1,443.8 1,418.5 1,434.3 1,435.3 1,436.8 1.5
Machinery 1,106.1 1,101.7 1,103.7 1,104.3 1,100.9 1,101.1 1,098.3 1,100.0 1.7
Computer and electronic products(1) 1,101.4 1,081.9 1,089.0 1,086.5 1,097.0 1,083.9 1,084.7 1,081.5 -3.2
Computer and peripheral equipment 160.7 161.1 163.3 163.0 159.7 161.6 162.3 161.8 -0.5
Communications equipment 110.0 107.2 107.3 106.6 110.1 107.3 106.9 106.6 -0.3
Semiconductors and electronic components 387.9 378.3 381.0 380.1 386.2 378.9 379.9 378.2 -1.7
Electronic instruments 402.6 396.0 398.2 397.4 400.9 396.5 396.5 395.7 -0.8
Electrical equipment and appliances 373.0 364.3 364.2 366.0 370.6 365.3 362.7 364.1 1.4
Transportation equipment(1) 1,461.6 1,487.6 1,503.2 1,486.7 1,472.0 1,488.0 1,494.2 1,496.2 2.0
Motor vehicles and parts(2) 774.9 802.3 813.2 807.0 788.1 802.5 808.9 818.0 9.1
Furniture and related products 352.5 353.8 358.9 357.9 349.2 352.7 353.8 354.6 0.8
Miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing 582.9 576.1 579.8 578.2 583.1 577.6 577.1 578.5 1.4
Nondurable goods 4,504 4,445 4,485 4,497 4,461 4,460 4,457 4,455 -2
Food manufacturing 1,498.6 1,454.2 1,477.6 1,490.2 1,473.0 1,471.3 1,470.6 1,465.1 -5.5
Textile mills 118.1 114.3 115.9 115.0 118.0 114.3 114.7 114.9 0.2
Textile product mills 116.8 113.7 115.3 114.1 116.1 113.9 113.8 113.6 -0.2
Apparel 147.2 143.7 143.0 139.6 147.6 142.4 141.5 140.7 -0.8
Paper and paper products 380.7 376.1 379.5 379.4 378.9 377.1 377.1 377.4 0.3
Printing and related support activities 464.6 450.0 450.4 449.1 463.5 450.1 448.8 448.0 -0.8
Petroleum and coal products 114.9 115.3 117.0 117.5 111.9 114.0 114.5 114.8 0.3
Chemicals 786.2 795.3 798.9 801.7 782.8 795.6 795.5 797.2 1.7
Plastics and rubber products 649.7 658.7 660.7 662.1 647.4 657.9 657.1 659.7 2.6
Miscellaneous nondurable goods manufacturing 226.9 223.2 226.8 228.7 222.0 223.2 222.9 223.6 0.7
Private service-providing 93,961 95,478 96,052 96,093 93,435 95,198 95,386 95,543 157
Trade, transportation, and utilities 25,485 25,816 25,966 25,978 25,485 25,873 25,921 25,984 63
Wholesale trade 5,721.2 5,758.4 5,791.2 5,803.9 5,685.7 5,748.2 5,755.2 5,768.9 13.7
Durable goods 2,857.4 2,859.0 2,878.3 2,887.1 2,838.2 2,859.5 2,863.1 2,868.8 5.7
Nondurable goods 1,987.2 2,010.7 2,016.8 2,016.8 1,974.3 1,999.4 2,001.2 2,004.3 3.1
Electronic markets and agents and brokers 876.6 888.7 896.1 900.0 873.2 889.3 890.9 895.8 4.9
Retail trade 14,838.5 15,029.7 15,143.8 15,191.7 14,838.9 15,104.5 15,144.2 15,191.0 46.8
Motor vehicle and parts dealers(1) 1,743.4 1,773.1 1,786.2 1,796.9 1,725.1 1,763.5 1,771.5 1,777.7 6.2
Automobile dealers 1,095.3 1,116.1 1,126.3 1,131.0 1,088.5 1,114.2 1,120.4 1,123.9 3.5
Furniture and home furnishings stores 433.7 445.8 444.7 445.8 440.2 452.8 451.3 452.8 1.5
Electronics and appliance stores 502.2 496.3 496.0 498.7 508.2 505.0 505.4 505.9 0.5
Building material and garden supply stores 1,205.2 1,254.1 1,248.2 1,230.4 1,172.7 1,181.7 1,189.9 1,195.6 5.7
Food and beverage stores 2,880.4 2,906.5 2,938.1 2,946.9 2,858.8 2,908.0 2,915.9 2,924.0 8.1
Health and personal care stores 999.1 1,024.6 1,025.1 1,028.0 1,001.3 1,028.7 1,025.4 1,030.5 5.1
Gasoline stations 852.5 856.1 868.4 874.5 839.5 855.6 856.8 860.0 3.2
Clothing and clothing accessories stores 1,380.8 1,388.2 1,412.6 1,429.5 1,396.6 1,440.3 1,449.4 1,453.7 4.3
Sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores 571.7 564.2 568.8 569.3 583.6 579.0 580.4 580.3 -0.1
General merchandise stores(1) 3,036.3 3,076.3 3,095.1 3,109.1 3,069.1 3,129.6 3,131.0 3,140.1 9.1
Department stores 1,455.4 1,453.2 1,458.5 1,466.1 1,485.9 1,494.8 1,495.1 1,495.3 0.2
Miscellaneous store retailers 799.6 810.4 822.5 825.4 798.1 813.5 818.9 822.0 3.1
Nonstore retailers 433.6 434.1 438.1 437.2 445.7 446.8 448.3 448.4 0.1
Transportation and warehousing 4,372.4 4,469.3 4,469.2 4,422.1 4,411.5 4,463.0 4,463.7 4,468.3 4.6
Air transportation 464.4 447.5 449.6 448.5 460.0 446.3 445.3 444.1 -1.2
Rail transportation 230.3 231.5 231.5 231.5 229.9 230.7 230.8 231.1 0.3
Water transportation 65.5 62.9 63.7 64.9 63.6 62.7 62.4 62.8 0.4
Truck transportation 1,375.3 1,385.8 1,396.2 1,407.2 1,356.2 1,384.5 1,381.5 1,387.8 6.3
Transit and ground passenger transportation 381.8 486.7 462.4 394.8 442.8 467.8 466.6 458.0 -8.6
Pipeline transportation 44.0 45.3 45.4 45.6 43.7 45.3 45.1 45.3 0.2
Scenic and sightseeing transportation 34.8 28.2 33.6 33.7 26.0 26.1 26.5 25.6 -0.9
Support activities for transportation 577.4 583.8 586.3 589.8 577.6 583.8 586.2 590.3 4.1
Couriers and messengers 516.4 518.2 517.5 517.7 528.5 530.9 530.6 532.9 2.3
Warehousing and storage 682.5 679.4 683.0 688.4 683.2 684.9 688.7 690.4 1.7
Utilities 552.8 558.4 562.2 560.0 549.0 557.2 557.7 556.1 -1.6
Information 2,691 2,706 2,697 2,710 2,684 2,695 2,691 2,700 9
Publishing industries, except Internet 740.9 725.7 727.7 731.3 738.2 729.3 728.3 728.1 -0.2
Motion picture and sound recording industries 384.0 407.4 389.5 394.6 377.2 390.6 383.9 388.0 4.1
Broadcasting, except Internet 284.4 284.0 286.5 284.3 284.8 284.9 286.1 284.8 -1.3
Telecommunications 856.7 854.5 856.6 859.7 859.2 857.1 857.5 861.1 3.6
Data processing, hosting and related services 249.8 253.4 254.5 257.4 250.6 251.7 254.2 257.8 3.6
Other information services 175.3 180.6 182.4 182.2 173.5 181.2 180.8 180.5 -0.3
Financial activities 7,847 7,875 7,941 7,971 7,788 7,880 7,893 7,908 15
Finance and insurance 5,851.0 5,882.6 5,913.6 5,932.5 5,833.9 5,894.4 5,903.3 5,915.3 12.0
Monetary authorities – central bank 17.4 16.7 16.9 17.0 17.2 16.8 16.9 16.8 -0.1
Credit intermediation and related
activities(1)
2,582.8 2,605.6 2,616.0 2,624.0 2,575.9 2,610.8 2,614.0 2,617.6 3.6
Depository credit intermediation(1) 1,742.7 1,731.8 1,737.2 1,740.1 1,734.8 1,734.7 1,733.8 1,733.2 -0.6
Commercial banking 1,320.5 1,302.4 1,304.3 1,306.7 1,315.1 1,305.0 1,302.8 1,302.2 -0.6
Securities, commodity contracts, investments 819.7 827.0 833.4 838.8 816.2 830.9 829.5 835.1 5.6
Insurance carriers and related activities 2,343.5 2,347.3 2,360.6 2,365.0 2,337.7 2,349.5 2,356.2 2,358.9 2.7
Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 87.6 86.0 86.7 87.7 86.9 86.4 86.7 86.9 0.2
Real estate and rental and leasing 1,996.3 1,992.5 2,027.0 2,038.5 1,954.4 1,985.3 1,989.6 1,992.8 3.2
Real estate 1,442.4 1,443.9 1,465.9 1,475.1 1,417.8 1,440.9 1,445.0 1,448.0 3.0
Rental and leasing services 529.6 525.7 537.7 540.1 512.5 521.3 521.3 521.7 0.4
Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets 24.3 22.9 23.4 23.3 24.1 23.1 23.3 23.1 -0.2
Professional and business services 18,053 18,492 18,657 18,691 17,965 18,489 18,550 18,586 36
Professional and technical services(1) 7,881.4 8,051.2 8,087.4 8,121.1 7,904.1 8,104.1 8,118.5 8,139.6 21.1
Legal services 1,135.1 1,125.1 1,134.5 1,138.8 1,123.2 1,126.9 1,124.2 1,127.0 2.8
Accounting and bookkeeping services 839.6 896.7 879.5 874.7 912.6 940.4 942.6 945.1 2.5
Architectural and engineering services 1,341.1 1,352.2 1,368.5 1,372.3 1,322.1 1,351.9 1,355.5 1,352.8 -2.7
Computer systems design and related services 1,633.9 1,683.1 1,690.6 1,704.8 1,627.3 1,686.6 1,694.5 1,698.8 4.3
Management and technical consulting services 1,128.4 1,177.4 1,187.5 1,197.3 1,124.6 1,178.5 1,185.4 1,192.3 6.9
Management of companies and enterprises 2,024.0 2,038.0 2,057.6 2,067.2 2,012.6 2,042.1 2,046.9 2,054.2 7.3
Administrative and waste services 8,147.9 8,402.6 8,512.2 8,502.6 8,048.2 8,342.6 8,384.4 8,392.0 7.6
Administrative and support services(1) 7,764.7 8,023.8 8,126.3 8,113.2 7,674.6 7,964.3 8,003.9 8,012.2 8.3
Employment services(1) 3,149.3 3,331.9 3,381.1 3,358.3 3,166.4 3,345.4 3,367.6 3,367.9 0.3
Temporary help services 2,508.1 2,664.8 2,703.9 2,679.0 2,529.6 2,675.4 2,691.6 2,699.3 7.7
Business support services 813.9 838.5 839.1 843.2 829.4 848.3 851.9 855.4 3.5
Services to buildings and dwellings 1,938.9 1,949.4 1,993.4 2,003.9 1,825.7 1,871.4 1,882.3 1,889.2 6.9
Waste management and remediation services 383.2 378.8 385.9 389.4 373.6 378.3 380.5 379.8 -0.7
Education and health services 19,991 20,714 20,460 20,330 20,331 20,646 20,662 20,675 13
Educational services 3,058.4 3,411.3 3,163.4 3,074.8 3,358.0 3,369.5 3,366.9 3,371.9 5.0
Health care and social assistance 16,933.0 17,302.6 17,296.1 17,255.2 16,973.3 17,276.6 17,295.0 17,303.3 8.3
Health care(3) 14,328.2 14,541.2 14,579.1 14,580.6 14,303.5 14,546.5 14,561.3 14,563.8 2.5
Ambulatory health care services(1) 6,319.7 6,502.3 6,521.1 6,517.0 6,319.2 6,500.7 6,513.4 6,520.0 6.6
Offices of physicians 2,393.6 2,427.7 2,433.7 2,432.4 2,393.7 2,433.1 2,434.5 2,433.8 -0.7
Outpatient care centers 653.7 686.7 689.1 690.9 654.4 685.4 688.5 691.3 2.8
Home health care services 1,195.5 1,277.5 1,282.5 1,281.1 1,197.7 1,274.2 1,280.4 1,284.3 3.9
Hospitals 4,801.9 4,822.3 4,831.4 4,835.1 4,788.7 4,829.1 4,829.5 4,825.1 -4.4
Nursing and residential care facilities(1) 3,206.6 3,216.6 3,226.6 3,228.5 3,195.6 3,216.7 3,218.4 3,218.7 0.3
Nursing care facilities 1,670.4 1,660.6 1,663.8 1,660.9 1,665.5 1,660.3 1,659.6 1,657.2 -2.4
Social assistance(1) 2,604.8 2,761.4 2,717.0 2,674.6 2,669.8 2,730.1 2,733.7 2,739.5 5.8
Child day care services 790.0 880.6 830.0 780.2 855.5 852.3 850.6 847.4 -3.2
Leisure and hospitality 14,387 14,368 14,782 14,864 13,743 14,129 14,186 14,209 23
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 2,267.6 2,095.7 2,301.1 2,343.2 1,960.3 2,025.1 2,043.1 2,032.9 -10.2
Performing arts and spectator sports 426.0 447.6 449.2 447.8 399.5 425.9 426.0 421.9 -4.1
Museums, historical sites, and similar institutions 148.4 141.8 147.3 147.7 133.5 136.5 135.3 134.0 -1.3
Amusements, gambling, and recreation 1,693.2 1,506.3 1,704.6 1,747.7 1,427.3 1,462.7 1,481.8 1,477.0 -4.8
Accommodation and food services 12,119.3 12,272.3 12,480.8 12,521.2 11,782.3 12,103.9 12,142.5 12,175.6 33.1
Accommodation 1,965.7 1,835.8 1,932.7 1,979.8 1,815.7 1,829.9 1,833.5 1,828.2 -5.3
Food services and drinking places 10,153.6 10,436.5 10,548.1 10,541.4 9,966.6 10,274.0 10,309.0 10,347.4 38.4
Other services 5,507 5,507 5,549 5,549 5,439 5,486 5,483 5,481 -2
Repair and maintenance 1,199.6 1,207.1 1,203.6 1,201.7 1,192.8 1,201.3 1,195.7 1,195.0 -0.7
Personal and laundry services 1,322.7 1,346.7 1,350.7 1,343.5 1,313.2 1,332.4 1,334.1 1,334.5 0.4
Membership associations and organizations 2,985.1 2,953.2 2,994.4 3,003.6 2,933.1 2,952.2 2,952.7 2,951.1 -1.6
Government 20,622 22,242 21,802 20,583 21,891 21,859 21,851 21,852 1
Federal 2,826.0 2,757.0 2,761.0 2,761.0 2,805.0 2,758.0 2,748.0 2,746.0 -2.0
Federal, except U.S. Postal Service 2,213.2 2,168.2 2,171.9 2,170.0 2,194.6 2,166.1 2,156.4 2,157.2 0.8
U.S. Postal Service 612.9 589.0 589.1 591.0 610.0 592.0 591.6 588.6 -3.0
State government 4,740.0 5,070.0 4,802.0 4,716.0 5,042.0 5,037.0 5,028.0 5,025.0 -3.0
State government education 2,058.1 2,408.7 2,126.0 2,046.4 2,377.8 2,383.1 2,376.2 2,372.8 -3.4
State government, excluding education 2,682.3 2,661.7 2,676.1 2,669.6 2,664.4 2,653.7 2,651.9 2,652.3 0.4
Local government 13,056.0 14,415.0 14,239.0 13,106.0 14,044.0 14,064.0 14,075.0 14,081.0 6.0
Local government education 6,550.7 8,139.0 7,766.0 6,573.1 7,765.7 7,776.0 7,774.1 7,784.2 10.1
Local government, excluding education 6,505.3 6,275.5 6,473.3 6,533.1 6,278.3 6,287.9 6,301.0 6,297.0 -4.0
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Includes motor vehicles, motor vehicle bodies and trailers, and motor vehicle parts.
(3) Includes ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and nursing and residential care facilities.
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Industry July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS
Total private 34.4 34.5 34.5 34.4
Goods-producing 40.2 40.4 40.4 40.2
Mining and logging 44.1 43.8 44.2 43.9
Construction 38.5 39.1 39.0 38.7
Manufacturing 40.7 40.7 40.8 40.6
Durable goods 41.0 41.1 41.1 40.9
Nondurable goods 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.1
Private service-providing 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.2
Trade, transportation, and utilities 34.5 34.6 34.5 34.5
Wholesale trade 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.7
Retail trade 31.5 31.5 31.4 31.4
Transportation and warehousing 38.3 38.6 38.5 38.5
Utilities 42.0 42.3 42.5 41.9
Information 36.5 36.7 36.9 36.7
Financial activities 37.1 37.3 37.3 37.2
Professional and business services 36.0 36.1 36.0 35.9
Education and health services 32.9 32.8 32.9 32.8
Leisure and hospitality 26.0 26.0 26.0 25.9
Other services 31.7 31.7 31.6 31.7
AVERAGE OVERTIME HOURS
Manufacturing 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2
Durable goods 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2
Nondurable goods 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3
Footnotes
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Industry Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Total private $23.54 $23.90 $24.00 $23.98 $809.78 $824.55 $828.00 $824.91
Goods-producing 24.72 25.08 25.21 25.18 993.74 1,013.23 1,018.48 1,012.24
Mining and logging 28.73 29.36 29.71 29.32 1,266.99 1,285.97 1,313.18 1,287.15
Construction 25.78 26.10 26.18 26.21 992.53 1,020.51 1,021.02 1,014.33
Manufacturing 23.94 24.28 24.41 24.37 974.36 988.20 995.93 989.42
Durable goods 25.32 25.70 25.83 25.80 1,038.12 1,056.27 1,061.61 1,055.22
Nondurable goods 21.57 21.83 21.95 21.92 867.11 877.57 884.59 878.99
Private service-providing 23.25 23.62 23.71 23.69 774.23 786.55 789.54 786.51
Trade, transportation, and utilities 20.53 20.89 20.97 20.95 708.29 722.79 723.47 722.78
Wholesale trade 26.84 27.62 27.77 27.77 1,036.02 1,068.89 1,077.48 1,074.70
Retail trade 16.33 16.56 16.61 16.58 514.40 521.64 521.55 520.61
Transportation and warehousing 22.02 22.18 22.24 22.31 843.37 856.15 856.24 858.94
Utilities 34.59 35.22 35.12 35.09 1,452.78 1,489.81 1,492.60 1,470.27
Information 31.82 32.58 32.85 32.68 1,161.43 1,195.69 1,212.17 1,199.36
Financial activities 29.22 30.08 30.27 30.26 1,084.06 1,121.98 1,129.07 1,125.67
Professional and business services 28.09 28.43 28.49 28.47 1,011.24 1,026.32 1,025.64 1,022.07
Education and health services 24.22 24.52 24.63 24.61 796.84 804.26 810.33 807.21
Leisure and hospitality 13.40 13.45 13.46 13.48 348.40 349.70 349.96 349.13
Other services 20.83 21.21 21.26 21.28 660.31 672.36 671.82 674.58
Footnotes
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

[2007=100]
Industry Index of aggregate weekly hours(1) Index of aggregate weekly payrolls(2)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Percent change from:
June
2013 – July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Percent change from:
June
2013 – July
2013(p)
Total private 96.4 98.4 98.5 98.4 -0.1 108.2 112.1 112.8 112.5 -0.3
Goods-producing 84.4 85.8 85.8 85.4 -0.5 94.3 97.2 97.8 97.2 -0.6
Mining and logging 118.1 119.5 121.0 120.7 -0.2 136.2 140.8 144.3 142.1 -1.5
Construction 74.7 78.1 78.0 77.3 -0.9 83.7 88.5 88.7 88.0 -0.8
Manufacturing 87.6 87.7 87.9 87.5 -0.5 97.5 99.0 99.7 99.1 -0.6
Durable goods 86.5 86.9 86.9 86.6 -0.3 97.3 99.2 99.7 99.2 -0.5
Nondurable goods 89.5 89.5 89.6 89.2 -0.4 98.0 99.1 99.8 99.2 -0.6
Private service-providing 99.9 101.8 102.0 101.8 -0.2 112.5 116.4 117.1 116.8 -0.3
Trade, transportation, and utilities 95.6 97.4 97.3 97.5 0.2 105.7 109.5 109.8 109.9 0.1
Wholesale trade 95.8 97.1 97.4 97.4 0.0 107.3 111.9 112.9 112.9 0.0
Retail trade 94.9 96.6 96.6 96.9 0.3 102.5 105.8 106.1 106.2 0.1
Transportation and warehousing 96.7 98.6 98.4 98.5 0.1 108.1 111.0 111.0 111.5 0.5
Utilities 99.8 102.0 102.5 100.8 -1.7 114.0 118.7 119.0 116.9 -1.8
Information 89.5 90.3 90.7 90.5 -0.2 101.4 104.8 106.1 105.3 -0.8
Financial activities 94.6 96.3 96.4 96.3 -0.1 107.9 112.9 113.8 113.7 -0.1
Professional and business services 101.7 105.0 105.0 104.9 -0.1 115.8 120.9 121.2 121.0 -0.2
Education and health services 108.9 110.2 110.7 110.4 -0.3 123.6 126.6 127.7 127.3 -0.3
Leisure and hospitality 102.0 104.8 105.2 105.0 -0.2 110.2 113.7 114.3 114.2 -0.1
Other services 95.5 96.4 96.0 96.3 0.3 112.9 116.0 115.8 116.3 0.4
Footnotes
(1) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding 2007 annual average aggregate hours. Aggregate hours estimates are the product of estimates of average weekly hours and employment.
(2) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding 2007 annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. Aggregate payrolls estimates are the product of estimates of average hourly earnings, average weekly hours, and employment.
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Industry Women employees (in thousands) Percent of all employees
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Total nonfarm 66,017 66,981 67,083 67,200 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private 53,559 54,513 54,628 54,744 47.9 47.9 47.9 47.9
Goods-producing 4,103 4,107 4,104 4,101 22.3 22.0 22.0 22.0
Mining and logging 114 118 116 116 13.4 13.6 13.3 13.3
Construction 726 741 741 740 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8
Manufacturing 3,263 3,248 3,247 3,245 27.3 27.1 27.1 27.1
Durable goods 1,735 1,734 1,734 1,735 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1
Nondurable goods 1,528 1,514 1,513 1,510 34.3 33.9 33.9 33.9
Private service-providing 49,456 50,406 50,524 50,643 52.9 52.9 53.0 53.0
Trade, transportation, and utilities 10,281 10,507 10,535 10,569 40.3 40.6 40.6 40.7
Wholesale trade 1,708.0 1,704.9 1,705.5 1,709.1 30.0 29.7 29.6 29.6
Retail trade 7,412.2 7,615.7 7,641.6 7,671.1 50.0 50.4 50.5 50.5
Transportation and warehousing 1,024.1 1,048.1 1,050.0 1,049.7 23.2 23.5 23.5 23.5
Utilities 137.0 138.3 138.0 138.7 25.0 24.8 24.7 24.9
Information 1,079 1,071 1,069 1,075 40.2 39.7 39.7 39.8
Financial activities 4,518 4,543 4,542 4,548 58.0 57.7 57.5 57.5
Professional and business services 7,950 8,224 8,266 8,310 44.3 44.5 44.6 44.7
Education and health services 15,597 15,837 15,853 15,860 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7
Leisure and hospitality 7,175 7,344 7,376 7,392 52.2 52.0 52.0 52.0
Other services 2,856 2,880 2,883 2,889 52.5 52.5 52.6 52.7
Government 12,458 12,468 12,455 12,456 56.9 57.0 57.0 57.0
Footnotes
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)

[In thousands]
Industry July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Total private 92,421 93,995 94,158 94,309
Goods-producing 13,295 13,395 13,385 13,393
Mining and logging 643 639 640 645
Construction 4,217 4,375 4,377 4,371
Manufacturing 8,435 8,381 8,368 8,377
Durable goods 5,182 5,155 5,148 5,162
Nondurable goods 3,253 3,226 3,220 3,215
Private service-providing 79,126 80,600 80,773 80,916
Trade, transportation, and utilities 21,620 21,890 21,933 21,992
Wholesale trade 4,578.1 4,631.6 4,638.8 4,651.7
Retail trade 12,784.5 12,954.3 12,990.5 13,033.5
Transportation and warehousing 3,819.8 3,854.7 3,853.5 3,857.3
Utilities 437.4 449.8 450.0 449.7
Information 2,172 2,187 2,181 2,189
Financial activities 5,995 6,063 6,075 6,090
Professional and business services 14,845 15,301 15,351 15,390
Education and health services 17,833 18,099 18,117 18,129
Leisure and hospitality 12,114 12,485 12,541 12,556
Other services 4,547 4,575 4,575 4,570
Footnotes
(1) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonfarm payrolls.
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Industry July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS
Total private 33.7 33.7 33.7 33.6
Goods-producing 41.1 41.3 41.3 41.1
Mining and logging 46.8 45.9 45.7 45.7
Construction 39.1 39.7 39.5 39.4
Manufacturing 41.7 41.8 41.8 41.7
Durable goods 42.1 42.1 42.2 42.0
Nondurable goods 41.0 41.2 41.3 41.3
Private service-providing 32.4 32.5 32.4 32.3
Trade, transportation, and utilities 33.7 33.8 33.6 33.5
Wholesale trade 38.6 38.8 38.7 38.6
Retail trade 30.4 30.3 30.1 30.0
Transportation and warehousing 37.9 38.5 38.3 38.3
Utilities 41.3 41.9 41.9 40.9
Information 35.8 35.7 35.9 35.7
Financial activities 36.6 36.7 36.8 36.5
Professional and business services 35.3 35.3 35.2 35.2
Education and health services 32.2 32.2 32.3 32.1
Leisure and hospitality 24.9 25.0 25.0 24.9
Other services 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.6
AVERAGE OVERTIME HOURS
Manufacturing 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2
Durable goods 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
Nondurable goods 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1
Footnotes
(1) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonfarm payrolls.
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Industry Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Total private $19.77 $20.08 $20.14 $20.14 $666.25 $676.70 $678.72 $676.70
Goods-producing 20.97 21.26 21.27 21.25 861.87 878.04 878.45 873.38
Mining and logging 25.99 27.13 27.07 26.80 1,216.33 1,245.27 1,237.10 1,224.76
Construction 24.02 24.28 24.29 24.28 939.18 963.92 959.46 956.63
Manufacturing 19.11 19.27 19.29 19.28 796.89 805.49 806.32 803.98
Durable goods 20.19 20.32 20.37 20.40 850.00 855.47 859.61 856.80
Nondurable goods 17.34 17.55 17.53 17.47 710.94 723.06 723.99 721.51
Private service-providing 19.52 19.83 19.90 19.91 632.45 644.48 644.76 643.09
Trade, transportation, and utilities 17.46 17.62 17.69 17.67 588.40 595.56 594.38 591.95
Wholesale trade 22.22 22.59 22.64 22.64 857.69 876.49 876.17 873.90
Retail trade 13.83 13.89 13.97 13.97 420.43 420.87 420.50 419.10
Transportation and warehousing 19.58 19.62 19.67 19.65 742.08 755.37 753.36 752.60
Utilities 32.01 31.97 32.10 32.10 1,322.01 1,339.54 1,344.99 1,312.89
Information 27.04 27.61 27.95 27.61 968.03 985.68 1,003.41 985.68
Financial activities 22.82 23.88 23.98 24.04 835.21 876.40 882.46 877.46
Professional and business services 23.21 23.59 23.66 23.67 819.31 832.73 832.83 833.18
Education and health services 21.08 21.38 21.45 21.47 678.78 688.44 692.84 689.19
Leisure and hospitality 11.64 11.74 11.75 11.76 289.84 293.50 293.75 292.82
Other services 17.60 17.83 17.87 17.90 540.32 547.38 550.40 547.74
Footnotes
(1) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonfarm payrolls.
(p) Preliminary
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
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)

[2002=100]
Industry Index of aggregate weekly hours(2) Index of aggregate weekly payrolls(3)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Percent change from:
June
2013 – July
2013(p)
July
2012
May
2013
June
2013(p)
July
2013(p)
Percent change from:
June
2013 – July
2013(p)
Total private 104.0 105.7 105.9 105.8 -0.1 137.2 141.8 142.4 142.2 -0.1
Goods-producing 83.5 84.5 84.5 84.1 -0.5 107.2 110.1 110.0 109.5 -0.5
Mining and logging 159.9 155.9 155.4 156.6 0.8 241.7 245.9 244.7 244.2 -0.2
Construction 82.6 87.0 86.6 86.2 -0.5 107.1 114.0 113.5 113.1 -0.4
Manufacturing 80.7 80.4 80.3 80.2 -0.1 100.9 101.3 101.3 101.1 -0.2
Durable goods 82.0 81.5 81.6 81.5 -0.1 103.3 103.4 103.8 103.8 0.0
Nondurable goods 78.6 78.3 78.4 78.2 -0.3 96.3 97.1 97.1 96.6 -0.5
Private service-providing 109.4 111.8 111.7 111.6 -0.1 146.4 151.9 152.3 152.2 -0.1
Trade, transportation, and utilities 101.6 103.1 102.7 102.7 0.0 126.5 129.6 129.6 129.5 -0.1
Wholesale trade 104.1 105.8 105.7 105.7 0.0 136.2 140.8 141.0 141.0 0.0
Retail trade 98.4 99.4 99.0 99.0 0.0 116.6 118.3 118.5 118.5 0.0
Transportation and warehousing 109.0 111.7 111.1 111.2 0.1 135.4 139.0 138.6 138.6 0.0
Utilities 92.4 96.4 96.4 94.1 -2.4 123.4 128.6 129.2 126.0 -2.5
Information 88.7 89.1 89.4 89.2 -0.2 118.8 121.8 123.7 121.9 -1.5
Financial activities 103.3 104.7 105.2 104.6 -0.6 145.0 153.9 155.3 154.8 -0.3
Professional and business services 117.4 121.1 121.1 121.4 0.2 162.2 169.9 170.5 171.0 0.3
Education and health services 123.9 125.7 126.2 125.5 -0.6 171.7 176.7 178.0 177.2 -0.4
Leisure and hospitality 110.5 114.3 114.8 114.5 -0.3 146.1 152.4 153.2 152.9 -0.2
Other services 97.9 98.5 98.8 98.1 -0.7 125.5 128.0 128.7 127.9 -0.6
Footnotes
(1) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonfarm payrolls.
(2) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding 2002 annual average aggregate hours. Aggregate hours estimates are the product of estimates of average weekly hours and employment.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding 2002 annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. Aggregate payrolls estimates are the product of estimates of average hourly earnings, average weekly hours, and employment.
(p) Preliminary

 

Series Id:           LNS14000006
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                Black or African American
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Advance Estimate of Real GDP Growth in Second Quarter of 2013 is 1.7% With First Quarter of 2013 Revised Down to 1.1% (Original Advance Estimate was 2.5%!)! — U.S. Economy Is Stagnating as Growth Continues To Decline — Videos

Posted on August 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

US economy grows more than expected in Q2 – economy

BBC News – Can Hollywood give US economy a happy ending?

News Wrap: Federal Reserve Downgrades U.S. Economic Growth

No hint of stimulus pullback in the US even as growth improves

GDP Propaganda Exposed

Peter Schiff – Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis!

GDP grows faster than expected

What is the origin of GDP?

US first-quarter growth was 1.8%, not 2.4% – economy

Jobs Report July 2013 Preview: What’s The Unemployment Rate Hiding?

Peter Schiff: Buy Gold and Silver Now, Money Printing Until We Have A Currency Crisis & More

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, second quarter 2013 (advance estimate);
Comprehensive Revision: 1929 through 1st quarter 2013
      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 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent (revised).

      The Bureau emphasized that the second-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 18).  The "second" estimate for the second quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on August 29, 2013.

      The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory
investment, and residential investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal
government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected upturns in nonresidential
fixed investment and in exports, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and an upturn in
state and local government spending that were partly offset by an acceleration in imports and
decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE.

BOX._______

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     The estimates released today reflect 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.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

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 (2009) dollars.  Price
indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA’s Web site  along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.
_______________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.8 percent in
the second quarter compared with 1.4 percent in the first.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.8 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.3 percent in the first.  Durable goods increased 6.5 percent, compared with an
increase of 5.8 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.0 percent, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent.  Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 4.6 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 4.6 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 6.8 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 25.7 percent.  Equipment increased 4.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.7 percent.  Real
residential fixed investment increased 13.4 percent, compared with an increase of 12.5 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.3 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 9.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.5 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 8.4 percent in the first.  National defense decreased
0.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.2 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.6 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 0.93 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $56.7 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $42.2 billion in the first quarter
and $7.3 billion in the fourth.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the
first.

Disposition of personal income

      Current-dollar personal income increased $140.1 billion (4.1 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $157.1 billion (4.4 percent) in the first.  The upturn in personal income
primarily reflected sharp upturns in personal dividend income and in wages and salaries and a sharp
deceleration in contributions for government social insurance (a subtraction in the calculation of
personal income).

*	Personal dividend income increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a large decrease in the
        first. The first-quarter decline in dividend income primarily reflected the accelerated and special
        dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter of 2012.

*	Wages and salaries increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease in the first. The
        first-quarter decline in wages and salaries is based on preliminary quarterly census of
        employment and wages data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*	The sharp deceleration in contributions for government social insurance primarily reflected the
        first-quarter expiration of the "payroll tax holiday" that increased the social security contribution
        rate for employees and self-employed workers by 2.0 percentage points.

      Personal current taxes increased $36.0 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $74.3 billion in the first.

      Disposable personal income increased $104.1 billion (3.4 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $231.5 billion (7.2 percent) in the first.  Real disposable personal income
increased 3.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 8.2 percent.

      Personal outlays increased $44.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $98.7 billion (3.4 percent) in the first.  Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $553.4 billion in the second quarter, compared with $494.0 billion in the first.

      The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
4.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the first.  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
2.4 percent, or $98.1 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $16,633.4 billion.  In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $115.0 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."

____________

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME AND PRODUCT
                                ACCOUNTS: 1929 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2013

      Today, BEA released revised statistics of gross domestic product (GDP) and of other national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) series from 1929 through the first quarter of 2013.
Comprehensive revisions, which are carried out about every 5 years, are an important part of BEA’s
regular process for improving and modernizing its accounts to keep pace with the ever-changing U.S.
economy.

      Most of the tables in this release present revised statistics for 2002 through the first quarter of
2013.  Selected NIPA tables, with statistics from 1929 forward, are available on BEA's Web site
(www.bea.gov).  Most of the remaining NIPA tables will be released later in August.  An article
describing the statistics will be published in the September 2013 issue of BEA’s monthly journal, the
Survey of Current Business.

Summary of revisions

      The picture of the economy shown in the revised estimates is very similar in broad outline to the
picture shown in the previously published estimates.  The similarity and some of the differences can be
seen in the following:

*	For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3 percent, 0.1 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period, 2002–2012,
        the growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the previously published
        estimates.

*	For 2002–2012, the average rate of change in the prices paid by U.S. residents was 2.3 percent,
        0.1 percentage point lower than in the previously published estimates.

*	For 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  The percent change in real GDP was
        revised up 0.1 percentage point for 2010, was unrevised for 2011, and was revised up 0.6
        percentage point for 2012.

*	For the period of contraction from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, real
        GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        decreased 3.2 percent.

*	For the period of expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real
        GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        increased 2.1 percent.

Improvements incorporated in this comprehensive revision

      Comprehensive revisions encompass three major types of improvements:

*	Changes in definitions and in classifications that update the accounts to more accurately portray
        the evolving U.S. economy,

*	Changes in presentations that make the NIPA tables more informative, and

*	Statistical changes that introduce new and improved methodologies and that bring in newly
        available and revised source data (see box on page 8).

      The improvements incorporated in the revised estimates have been previewed in a series of
articles in the Survey and are available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Changes in definitions, classifications, and presentations.  The changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations introduced in this comprehensive revision include the following:

*	Expenditures by business, government, and nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISH)
        for research and development (R&D) are recognized as fixed investment.  The new treatment
        improves BEA’s measures of fixed investment and allows users to better measure the effects of
        innovation and intangible assets on the economy.

*	Similarly, expenditures by private enterprises for the creation of entertainment, literary, and
        artistic originals are recognized as fixed investment, further expanding BEA’s measures of
        intangible assets.

*	In the NIPA fixed investment tables, a new category of investment, "intellectual property
        products," consists of research and development; entertainment, literary, and artistic originals;
        and software.

*	Transactions of defined benefit pension plans are recorded on an accrual accounting basis, which
        recognizes the costs of unfunded liabilities.

*	An expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets is recognized as fixed
        investment, and the accuracy of the associated asset values and services lives is improved.

*	The reference year for the chain-type quantity and price indexes and for the chained-dollar
        estimates is updated to 2009 from 2005.

      Statistical changes.  Important statistical changes that introduce new and improved
methodologies and that bring in newly available source data include the following:

*	BEA’s 2007 benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts, which provide the most thorough and
        detailed information on the structure of the U.S. economy, are used to benchmark the
        expenditure components of GDP and some of the income components.

*	Beginning with 1966, the estimates of employers’ contributions to state and local government-
        sponsored defined contribution pension plans are improved by incorporating new source data.

*	Beginning with 1985, the methods for computing financial services provided by commercial
        banks are improved to establish a more accurate picture of banking output.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of proprietors’ income are improved by more accurately
        accounting for the capital gains and losses attributable to corporate partners.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent-site
        housing are improved by incorporating several new data sources.

A table that summarizes the major sources of revision for selected NIPA components is available on
BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Effects of improvements on major aggregates.  The improvements and the new and revised
source data incorporated with this comprehensive revision have notable effects on current-dollar NIPA
aggregates without changing broad economic trends or the general patterns of business cycles.  In the
aggregate, changes in definitions (mainly the recognition of new forms of fixed investment) have the
largest effect on current-dollar GDP and GDI for 1929–2012, and statistical changes (improved data and
methodologies) tend to have smaller effects.  For example, for 2012, the level of current-dollar GDP was
revised up $559.8 billion; $526.0 billion of this upward revision resulted from definitional changes.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar GDP
      Changes in definitions (mainly accrual accounting for defined benefit pension plans, which
credits households with the value of accrued benefits from these plans) raise personal income and
personal saving; statistical changes have mixed effects on personal income and on personal saving.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar Personal Income
      News release tables.  This release includes the tables that will be regularly shown in future GDP
news releases; in addition, special tables have been included to highlight the effects of the
comprehensive revision.  The special tables are:

*	Tables 1A, 2A, and 4A compare revised and previously published estimates for percent changes
        in real GDP, for contributions to percent change in real GDP, and for percent changes in chain-
        type price indexes for GDP and related measures, respectively;

*	Tables 7A, 7B, and 7C show annual levels, percent changes, and revisions to percent changes for
        current-dollar GDP, for real (chained-dollar) GDP, and for chain-type price indexes for GDP,
        respectively;

*	Table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.

      Most of the tables show annual estimates beginning with 2002; quarterly estimates (if shown)
begin with the first quarter of 2007.  Three of the regular tables -- tables 3, 11, and 12 -- are split into A
and B segments in this release to accommodate this longer-than-usual time span.

      With this release, selected NIPA tables are available on BEA’s Web site.  Most of the remaining
NIPA tables will be available later in August.

Box.________

                                         New and revised data

      The revised estimates reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised source data.  The
most important source data that affect the estimates are BEA’s benchmark 2007 input-output (I-O)
accounts.  The revised estimates also incorporate data on inventories, on receipts and expenses of
business establishments and of governments, on sales by detailed commodity and by product line, on
final industry and product shipments from the 2007 Economic Census, and on trade margins from both
the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 annual surveys of merchant wholesale and of retail trade.  In
addition, the revised estimates incorporate monthly and annual Census Bureau industry data on
manufacturing, on wholesale trade, and on retail trade for 2003 forward.  The revised estimates also
reflect data on housing from the 2010 decennial Census of Population and Housing.  Estimates that are
based on BEA’s international transactions accounts (ITAs) -- primarily net exports of goods and services
and rest-of-the-world income receipts and payments -- were revised to reflect improvements to the ITAs
that were introduced since 2009.  Estimates of underreported income were revised using Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) National Research Program data for 2006.  Other data that were incorporated
include revised data on the expenditures and receipts of state and local governments for fiscal years
2006–2009 from the Census Bureau.

      The revised estimates for 2010–2012 also reflect the incorporation of newly available and
revised source data that became available since the last annual NIPA revision in July 2012.  The most
important of these data sources are Census Bureau annual surveys of state and local governments for
fiscal year 2010 (revised) and fiscal year 2011 (preliminary), of manufactures for 2010 (revised) and
2011 (preliminary), of merchant wholesale trade and of retail trade for 2010 (revised) and 2011
(preliminary), and of services and of the value of construction spending for 2010 and 2011 (revised) and
2012 (preliminary); federal government budget data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (revised); Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW) for 2010–2012 (revised);
IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns for 2010 (revised) and 2011 (preliminary) and of sole
proprietorship and partnership tax returns for 2011; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm
statistics for 2010–2012 (revised).

      Data from BEA’s annual revision of the ITAs were incorporated for 2010–2012 for most
components at their "best level;" revisions for earlier years, along with data from the June 2014 revision
of the ITAs, will be incorporated in the NIPAs in the 2014 annual revision.
_______________
FOOTNOTE.______
The 2007 benchmark input-output accounts are scheduled for release in December 2013. At that time, BEA will
also release the comprehensive revision of the annual industry accounts, which will be consistent with this
comprehensive revision of the NIPAs.
_______________

The revisions

      For this comprehensive revision, many current-dollar estimates were revised back to 1929, the
earliest year for which NIPA estimates are available, as a result of changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations.

      Real GDP growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3
percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent
period, 2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in
the previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth
rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.
For the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised up from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent for 2010,
*	was unrevised at 1.8 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent for 2012.

      Real GDI growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDI was 3.3 percent,
0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period,
2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate
of real GDI was 2.6 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised down from 3.1 percent to 2.7 percent for 2010,
*	was revised up from 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.5 percent for 2012.

      Business cycles.  For the contraction that lasted from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second
quarter of 2009, real GDP decreased at a 2.9 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates,
it decreased 3.2 percent.  The cumulative decrease in real GDP (not at an annual rate) was 4.3 percent; in
the previously published estimates, the cumulative decrease was 4.7 percent.  In the revised estimates,
real GDP decreased in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of
2009.

      For the expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP
increased at a 2.2 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates, it increased 2.1 percent.
From the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP increased in all quarters except for
the first quarter of 2011, when real GDP decreased 1.3 percent; in the previously published estimates,
real GDP increased in all quarters during this period.  Earlier business cycles show little revision.

      Price changes.  The revisions to major price indexes are small.  For 1929–2012, the average
annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 3.0 percent to
2.9 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised
down from 2.4 percent to 2.3 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was
revised down from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase in the price
index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent; the average
annual increase in the price index for GDP was revised down from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent.

      For 1929–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for personal consumption
expenditures (PCE) was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For 2002–2012, the average annual increase in the
PCE price index was revised down from 2.2 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual
increase in the PCE price index was unrevised at 2.0 percent.

      Real disposable personal income (DPI) growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual increase
in real DPI was 3.2 percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase was 2.0 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase was 1.8 percent, 0.2
percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.

      Personal saving.  Personal saving (DPI less personal outlays) was revised up for 1929–2007,
down for 2008, and up for 2009–2012.  These revisions reflect the revisions to DPI and are mainly the
result of adopting the accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.  The personal saving rate
(personal saving as a percentage of DPI) was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012, reflecting the revisions to personal saving.

Revisions to current-dollar estimates

      The revisions to current-dollar GDP, to personal income and its disposition, and to national
income are shown in table 1B.  This table shows the "revisions in level," that is, the revised estimates
less the previously published estimates; table 1B also shows the revisions as a percent of the previously
published estimates for selected years.  The revised levels of annual GDP and its major components for
1965–2012, along with percent changes from the preceding year and revisions to the percent changes,
are shown in table 7A.

      GDP.  Current-dollar GDP was revised up for all years (1929–2012).  The upward revisions to
current-dollar GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation
of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as
fixed investment (see "Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012").  The new accrual treatment for government-
sponsored defined benefit pension plans results in revisions to current-dollar GDP through revisions to
supplements to wages and salaries for government employees (specifically, employer contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds); these revisions are upward for 1929–1978, downward for
1979–1991, and upward for 1992–2012.

Box._______

                                             Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012
                                              (Billions of current dollars)

Total Revision                                                                             559.8

Due to major definitional changes                                                          526.0

Capitalization of research and development                                                 396.7
Capitalization of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals                           74.3
Expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets                       42.3
Accrual accounting for defined benefit pension programs                                     12.6

Due to statistical changes                                                                  33.8

___________

      PCE.  Revisions to PCE are generally small before 1985; PCE was revised up for 1985 and
1986, down for 1987–2011, and up for 2012.  PCE for services accounts for most of the revisions for all
years except for 2011.

      Services.  PCE for services was revised up for 1985 and 1986, down for 1987–2010, and up for
2011 and 2012.  For most years beginning with 1985, the improved method for estimating services of
commercial banks results in downward revisions to PCE for financial services.  For 1965–2012 (and for
several prior years), the gross output of NPISH was revised down; the removal of R&D expenses of
NPISH (and their reclassification as fixed investment) more than offsets the addition to expenses of
consumption of fixed capital (CFC) for R&D capital.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Goods.  Revisions to PCE for goods begin with 1998 and follow a mixed pattern, with
downward revisions for 2010–2012.  The revisions to PCE for goods reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised data from the Census Bureau’s retail trade surveys,
and of other new and revised source data.

      Private fixed investment.  Current-dollar private fixed investment was revised up for 1929–
2012.  The upward revisions reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the
creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs -- as fixed investment.

      Nonresidential structures.  The downward revisions for 2003–2012 primarily reflect the
incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of revised footage drilled and expenditure
data from the Census Bureau and trade sources, and of revised Census Bureau construction spending
data.

      Equipment.   Software is now classified as part of intellectual property products rather than as
part of private equipment and software.  Private equipment (without software) was revised up for 2003–
2012, reflecting the incorporation of BEA’s 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised Census
Bureau surveys of manufactures, and of other new and revised source data.

      Residential fixed investment.  The upward revisions to residential fixed investment for 1929–
2012 mainly reflect the recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed
assets as fixed investment.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark
I-O accounts and of new and revised data from the Census Bureau surveys of construction spending.

      Intellectual property products.  Beginning with this comprehensive revision, the NIPA tables
include a new category of fixed investment, "intellectual property products."  The recognition of
expenditures for R&D and for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals as fixed
investment results in upward revisions to gross private domestic investment.  The downward revisions to
software investment for 2010–2012 (and small revisions for 2003–2009) reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts and of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services.
      Change in private inventories.  The revisions begin with 2002 and are mostly upward; the
revisions are dominated by revisions to nonfarm inventories for 2002–2010 and by farm inventories for
2011 and 2012.  The revisions to nonfarm inventories reflect data from a variety of sources, including
newly available and revised Census Bureau data on inventory book values, and the incorporation of new
commodity price weights from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts.  The revisions to farm inventories
reflect revised USDA farm statistics for 2010–2012.

      Exports and imports of goods and services.  Revisions to net exports of goods and services are
generally small before 2002; the revisions are upward for 2002–2007, downward for 2008–2011, and
upward for 2012.  The revisions to net exports are mostly due to revisions to exports for 2002–2009 and
for 2012 and are mostly due to revisions to imports for 2010 and 2011.  Exports were revised up for
2002–2007, down for 2008–2010, and up for 2011and 2012.  The revisions to imports are upward for
2010 and 2011 and are small for other years.  The estimates reflect the incorporation of revised data
from BEA’s ITAs for 1999–2012.

      Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.  Government consumption
expenditures and gross investment was revised up for 1929–2012.  The revisions mainly reflect the
recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed investment and the addition to consumption expenditures
of the CFC for R&D assets.

      Federal government.  The upward revisions to federal government consumption expenditures
and gross investment for 1929–2012 mainly reflect the recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed
investment.  The new accrual treatment for defined benefit pension plans results in upward revisions to
contributions for employee pension and insurance funds for 1929–1979 and downward revisions for
1980–2012.  The revisions also reflect improved source data and methods, including revised federal
budget data for 2012 and 2013.

      State and local government.  State and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment was revised up for 1929–1975, down for 1976–1988, and up for 1989–2012.  These revisions
mainly reflect the new accrual approach for measuring state and local government-sponsored defined
benefit pension plans, which results in revisions to state and local government contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds that are upward for 1929–1978, downward for 1979–1986, and
upward for 1987–2012.  Revisions also result from statistical changes, including the incorporation of
improved source data on expenditures for defined contribution pension plans and the improved method
for estimating services of commercial banks.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the 2007
benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised government finances data from the Census Bureau, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Personal income.   Personal income was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012.  These revisions mainly reflect the accrual approach for measuring defined benefit pension
plans, which results in upward revisions to personal income receipts on assets for 1929–2012 and in
upward revisions to supplements (specifically, employer contributions for employee pension and
insurance funds) for 1929–1975, for 1989–2002, and for 2004–2011.  A number of other definitional
and statistical changes affected the revisions to personal income.  The revisions to the components of
personal income are discussed below.
Revisions to Personal Income
      Wages and salaries.  The revisions mainly reflect revisions to private wages and salaries.  The
revisions are generally small and mixed for years prior to 2002, are downward for 2002–2011, and are
upward for 2012.  The revisions reflect revised estimates of misreporting and new and revised BLS
QCEW data.

      Supplements to wages and salaries.  The revisions to supplements reflect the revisions to
employer contributions for pension and insurance funds that result from the accrual approach for
measuring defined benefit pension plans.  Employer contributions for state and local government
defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–1986, and up for 1987–2012.
Employer contributions for federal government defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1979 and
down for 1980–2012.  Employer contributions for private defined benefit plans was revised down for
1968–1985, up for 1986–2001, down for 2002–2006, up for 2007, and down for 2008–2012.
Contributions for state and local government defined contribution pension plans was revised up for
1967–2012, reflecting the incorporation of improved source data.

      Proprietors’ income.  Proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–2011 and up for 2012;
the revisions for years before 1965 are small.  Nonfarm proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–
2011 and up for 2012.  The revisions to proprietors’ income primarily reflect revisions to nonfarm
proprietors’ income for most years (except for 2009 and for 2012).  Farm proprietors’ income had
relatively large upward revisions for 2011 and 2012, reflecting the incorporation of revised USDA data
for 2010–2012.

      The revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income reflect a number of definitional and statistical
changes as well as revised source data.  Revisions due to the improved accounting for the capital gains
and losses attributable to corporate partners are downward for 2002–2008, upward for 2009, and
downward for 2010–2012.  Revisions due to the capitalization of expenditures for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs are
downward, while the revisions due to the capitalization of R&D expenditures are upward.  The revisions
also reflect new IRS estimates for underreporting of income as well as new IRS tabulations of tax return
data for sole proprietorships and partnerships for 2011.

      Rental income of persons.  Rental income of persons was revised down for 1929–2002 and was
revised up for 2003 forward.  The improved methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for
nonfarm permanent site housing results in downward revisions to rental income of persons for 1993–
2001 and upward revisions for 2002–2012.  The recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs for residential assets as fixed investment results in downward revisions for all years, partly
offsetting the upward revisions to rental income of persons for 2003–2012.  The revisions also reflect
revisions to owner- and tenant-occupied space rent, based on data from the 2010 Census of Housing and
the incorporation of other new and revised source data.

      Personal interest income.  Personal interest income was revised up for all years except for
2008.  The upward revisions mainly reflect the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.
Personal interest income was also affected by several other changes in methodology, including an
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income and the improved method for measuring interest associated with financial services of
commercial banks.  Revisions to personal interest income also reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data from the Federal Reserve Board and other sources.

      Personal dividend income.  Personal dividend income was revised up for most years for 1991–
2009, was revised down for 2010, was revised up for 2011, and was revised down for 2012.  The
revisions to personal dividend income reflect the improved method for distributing the investment
income of regulated investment companies by type of income as well as the incorporation of new and
revised IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns and of data from BEA’s ITAs on dividends from the rest
of the world.

      Personal current transfer receipts.  Personal current transfer receipts was revised down for
2002, up for 2003–2009, and down for 2010–2012.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data.

      Contributions for government social insurance.  The revisions to contributions for
government social insurance (which is deducted in the calculation of personal income) are small for
2002–2012.

      Personal current taxes.  Personal current taxes was revised up for 2011 and 2012; revisions are
generally small for prior years.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new tax collections data from
the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration and of new and revised Census Bureau
state and local government finances data.

      Disposable personal income.  The pattern of revisions to disposable personal income, which is
equal to personal income less personal current taxes, is similar to that of personal income.

      Personal outlays.  This series consists of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current
transfer payments.  The revisions to personal outlays primarily reflect the revisions to PCE that were
previously described.  Personal interest payments was revised up for 1985 forward; revisions for prior
years are small.  The revisions to personal interest payments result from the improved method for
measuring the financial services of commercial banks and associated interest income from the
incorporation of new and revised source data.  Personal current transfer payments was revised down for
2007–2012.

      GDI.  Current-dollar GDI, like current-dollar GDP, was revised up for all years for 1929–2012.
The upward revisions to current-dollar GDI and GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional
expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an
expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as fixed investment.

      National income.  National income was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–2001, up for
2002–2004, down for 2005–2010, and up for 2011 and 2012.  The revisions to national income reflect
the revisions to the components of national income that were previously described; the revisions to the
remaining components of national income are discussed below.
Revision to National Income
      Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments.
Corporate profits was revised up for 1929–1986, down for 1987–2001, and up for 2002–2012.
Revisions to corporate profits due to the capitalization of expenditures for R&D and for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals are upward for 1929–2012.  Revisions to corporate profits
due to the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans are upward for 1968–1985, downward
for 1986–2002, upward for 2003–2006, downward for 2007–2009, and upward for 2010–2012.  The
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income results in revisions that are downward for 1992–2001, upward for 2002, and downward for
2003–2012.  The revisions to corporate profits also reflect the incorporation of new and revised IRS
tabulations of corporate tax return data and of new and revised data from BEA’s ITAs and from other
sources.

      Net interest and miscellaneous payments.  Net interest and miscellaneous payments was
revised up for most years for 1965–2001 and down for 2002–2012.  Revisions for years prior to 1965
are small.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of several definitional and statistical improvements,
including the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans, the improved method for
distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of income, the improved
methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent site housing, and the
improved method for measuring the financial services of commercial banks, and the incorporation of
new and revised data from a number of sources.

      Consumption of fixed capital (CFC).  CFC was revised up substantially for 1929–2012.  The
upward revisions to CFC reflect the addition of CFC for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary,
and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs of residential assets.  In
addition, CFC was revised up to reflect a faster depreciation rate of brokers’ commissions on residential
structures.  The revisions to CFC also reflect statistical improvements and revisions to BEA’s estimates
of fixed investment and prices.

      Statistical discrepancy.  The statistical discrepancy, which is the difference between GDP and
GDI, was revised for 1929–2012.  The directions of the revisions are mixed for 1929–2000; the
statistical discrepancy was revised down for 2001–2003, was revised up for 2004–2008, was revised
down for 2009, was revised up for 2010, and was revised down for 2011 and 2012.  (In theory, GDP
should equal GDI; in practice, they differ because their components are estimated using largely
independent and less-than-perfect source data.)

Box._______
                    Availability of Revised Estimates and Related Information

Revised estimates for selected NIPA tables are on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov

The comprehensive revision was previewed in a series of articles in the Survey of Current Business;
the articles are also available on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions

The release schedule for revised NIPA tables is available at
www.bea.gov/national/table_schedule_20130606.htm
___________

      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 -- August 29, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                          Gross Domestic Product:  Second Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
                            Corporate Profits:  Second Quarter (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.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Worse Post World War II Recession Followed By Worse U.S. Economic Recovery in 80 Years Since Great Depression of 1933 — Obama’s Economic Policy Mistakes Causing Increased Uncertaintly and Lower Economic Growth and Job Creation — Real GDP Gap Continues — No Real Economic Recovery! — Videos

Posted on July 23, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

The Economic Recovery: A Novel Perspective from Ed Leamer (The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts) mono

Published on Mar  7, 2013

Why has the current recovery from the Great Recession been so mediocre? Ed Leamer of UCLA points out that the last three recessions have all had mediocre recoveries of both output and employment. His explanation is that changes in the manufacturing sector have changed the pattern of layoffs, recalls and hiring during recessions and recoveries. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the forces driving the changes in the labor market and the implications for manufacturing.
1) Why the last three recessions all look different (1:44) 2) Employment growth for last eight recessions (4:12) 3) Why have the last three recessions been so different? (6:13) 4) The jobs cycle in manufacturing (8:52) 5) Excess capacity in construction has created a lag (10:33) 6) Manufacturing output versus manufacturing employment (11:14) 7) What’s the solution to the downturn? (12:20)
LINKS TO DATA REFERENCED — 1. Real GDP Growth From Peak to Peak Charts: FRED — “Real Gross Domestic Product, 3 Decimal (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…). Note: Calculated using (X1-X0)/(X0), where X0 — recession peak quarter
2. Manufacturing Employment Chart: FRED — “All Employees: Manufacturing”(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…)

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 1)

Published on Sep  5, 2012

According the National Bureau of Economic Research, the US economy recovered from the recession at the beginning of the summer of 2009. Yet the recovery has been disappointing when compared to other recoveries. In this episode of the Numbers Game, John Taylor of Stanford University talks with host Russ Roberts about the nature of the recovery. How does it compare historically to other recoveries? How can we measure the pace of the recovery? The conversation ends with a discussion of possible explanations for why the recovery has been disappointing. 1) What is potential GDP? (0:52) 2) The economy never catches back up to trend (2:38) 3) The 1981 recession (3:16) 4) Is there a correct or potential level of GDP? (4:45) 5) A look at past recoveries (6:13) 6) Friedman and the Plucking Model (8:10) 7) A look at real growth rates in recoveries (8:59) 8) Employment and the recovery (10:20) LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED – 1. 2008-09 and 1981-1982 Recession & Recovery Charts: Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… Potential GDP (GDPPOT) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from CBO.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… 2. 1907-08 and 1893-94 Recession & Recovery Charts: GDP data from NBER, compiled by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon with adjustments by John Taylor for comparability with earlier charts -http://www.nber.org/data/abc/ Potential GDP calculations by John Taylor using a Hodrick-Prescott trend. 3. The Plucking Model Working Paper: The “Plucking Model” of Business Fluctuations Revisited by Milton Friedman Working Papers in Economics, E-88-48 — Hoover Institution, Stanford University http://hoohila.stanford.edu/workingpa… 4. Growth Rate of Real GDP Chart: Growth Rate calculated from Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/… 5. Change in the Percentage of the Population that is Working Chart: Employment-Population Ratio (EMRATIO) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BLS.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 2)

By historical standards, the current recovery from the recession that began in 2007 has been disappointing. As John Taylor of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the Department of Economics argues in Part 1 of this discussion on the economy, GDP has not returned to trend, the percent of the population that is working is flat rather than rising, and growth rates are below their usual levels after such a deep slump.

In this episode, Taylor and Number’s Game host Russ Roberts discuss possible explanations for the sluggish recovery: the ongoing slump in construction employment, the effect of housing prices on saving and spending decisions by households, and this recovery’s having been preceded by a financial crisis. Taylor rejects these arguments, arguing instead that the sluggish recovery can be explained by poor economic policy decisions made by the Bush and the Obama administrations.

1) On the argument that there are structural problems in the labor market (0:25)
2) Comparisons to the 1981 recession (2:16)
3) Is this recession special because it followed a financial crisis? (2:46)
4) What can the Great Depression tell us? (3:55)
5) Why is the current recovery so mediocre? (5:32)

LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED -

1. Construction Sector Employment Chart:
Bureau of Labor Statistics- Series CES2000000001, Seasonally Adjusted

2. S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices Chart:
S&P Dow Jones Indices and Fiserv 9-25-12 – http://www.standardandpoors.com

3. Personal Saving as a % of Disposable Income Chart:
BEA NIPA Table 2.1 line 36

4. 2008-09 and 1981-1982 Recession & Recovery Charts:
Real GDP (GDPC1) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from BEA.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…
Potential GDP (GDPPOT) downloaded from FRED 7/13/12, taken from CBO.gov – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…

5. ‘Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence from the American Record’ by Michael D. Bordo and Joseph G. Haubrich – http://media.hoover.org/sites/default…

6. 1893-94 and 1907-08 Recession & Recovery Charts:
GDP data from NBER, compiled by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon with adjustments by John Taylor for comparability with earlier charts – http://www.nber.org/data/abc/. Potential GDP calculations by John Taylor using a Hodrick-Prescott trend.

7. 1933-36 Great Depression & Recovery Chart:
GDP data from NBER, compiled originally by Nathan Balke and Robert Gordon – http://www.nber.org/data/abc/.

8. 1929-1940 Unemployment Rate (% of Labor Force) Chart:
Historical Statistics of the United States (Millennial Edition) – Table Ba470-477: Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment, 1890-1990 – http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/toc…

9.  ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s’ by John B. Taylor – http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JEL…

The Numbers Game with Russ Roberts — The Economic Recovery (Part 3)

Here in part 3, Taylor argues that the slow pace of the recovery is due to poor policy decisions made by the Bush and Obama administrations that have increased the amount of uncertainty facing investors, consumers, and employers. Examples include the rising debt forecast, the fiscal cliff, expiring tax provisions, and quantitative easing. Taylor argues that the uncertainty surrounding these policies in the future along with increased regulation have held back the recovery.
LINKS TO DATA & PAPERS REFERENCED -
1. Debt as a Percentage of GDP Chart: Historical debt data – http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21728. Future debt projections –  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/20776 and http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288
2. Number of Provisions Expiring in the US Tax Code Chart: List of Expiring Tax Provisions – Prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, various issues – https://www.jct.gov/publications.html….
3. ‘Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty’ by Scott Baker, Nicholas Bloom and Steven Davis: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steve…
4. An Era of Deregulation (?) Chart: Federal Register Historical Statistics (https://www.federalregister.gov/learn…) Notes: Dates based on calendar year; Excludes preliminary/unrevised pages, blank/skipped pages, and proposed rules pages
5. Number of Federal Workers Employed in Regulatory Activities Chart: Susan Dudley & Melinda Warren “Fiscal Stalemate Reflected in Regulators’ Budget: An Analysis of the U.S. Budget for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012,”  TSA adjustment obtained from DHS Budget in Brief. http://wc.wustl.edu/files/wc/2012_Reg… and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/mg….
6. ‘Dodd-Frank Progress Report’ by Davis Polk: According to Davis Polk (a firm monitoring Dodd-Frank progress) – “Dodd-Frank Progress Report, November 2012″ http://www.davispolk.com/files/Public…
7. Reserve Balances Chart: H.4.1 Federal Reserve statistical release (reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks). One can also get data from FRED http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/…
8. ‘The 2009 Stimulus Package: Two Years Later’ by John B. Taylor: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default…
9. ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s’ by John B. Taylor – http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/JEL…
10. Economic Benefits of the ’09 Stimulus Package Chart: Chicago Booth IGM Forum on the Economic Stimulus, 2/15/12 – http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economi…. IGM Economic Experts Panel – http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-­panel
11. U.S. Misery Index Chart: Bureau of Labor Statistics – Unemployment Rate (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cps… CPI-U (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/­cpi/cpiai.txt)

Economists Examine Potential for Longer Recession

Milton Friedman – Greed

Milton Friedman – Socialism is Force  

Milton Friedman – The role of government in a free society

Economics on One Foot

JobLossesJan2013

4employment_depth_max

6gdp_depth_max

Background on Recession/Recovery in Perspective

This page places the current economic downturn and recovery into historical (post-WWII) perspective. It compares output and employment changes from the 2007-2009 recession and subsequent recovery with the same data for the 10 previous recessions and recoveries that have occurred since 1946.

This page provides a current assessment of ‘how bad’ the 2007-2009 recession was relative to past recessions, and of how quickly the economy is recovering relative to past recoveries. It will continue to be updated as new data are released. This page does not provide forecasts, and the information should not be interpreted as such.

The  charts provide information about  the length and depth of recessions, and the robustness of recoveries.

Post-WWII Recessions

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research determines the beginning and ending dates of U.S. recessions. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

        It has determined that the U.S. economy experienced 10 recessions from 1946 through 2006. The committee determined that the 2007-2009 recession began in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009.  Ending dates are typically announced several months after the recession officially ends. Read the June 2009 trough announcement by the NBER.

Length of Recessions

The 10 previous postwar recessions ranged in length from 6 months to 16 months, averaging about 10 1/2 months. The 2007-09 recession  was    the longest recession in the postwar period, at 18 months.

Depth of Recessions

The severity of a recession is determined in part by its length; perhaps even more important is the magnitude of the decline in economic activity. The 2007-09 recession was the deepest recession in the postwar period; at their lowest points employment fell by 6.3 percent and output fell by 5.1 percent.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

US-Real-GDP-Growth-Third-Estimate-for-Q1-2013

fredgraph

20_year_constant_maturity_rate

DGS30

For further information regarding treasury constant maturity data, please refer to:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/current/h15.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/yieldmethod.aspx.

M1 Money Stock (M1)

2013-07-08:      2,504.2       Billions of Dollars                    Last 5 Observations

2013-07-01: 2,537.1
2013-06-24: 2,510.0
2013-06-17: 2,494.2
2013-06-10: 2,508.6

Weekly, Ending Monday, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-07-19 6:26 AM CDT

M1_Max_630_378

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Release: H.6 Money Stock Measures
Notes:      

M1 includes funds that are readily accessible for spending. M1 consists of: (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler’s checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. Seasonally adjusted M1 is calculated by summing currency, traveler’s checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately.

Velocity of M1 Money Stock (M1V)

2013:Q1:      6.474       Ratio                    Last 5 Observations

2012:Q4: 6.544
2012:Q3: 6.750
2012:Q2: 6.894
2012:Q1: 6.991

Quarterly, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-06-26 9:01 AM CDT

M1V_Max_630_378

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release: Money Velocity
Notes:Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M1 money stock (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1SL).
Velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to a measure of the money supply.  It can be thought of as the rate of turnover in the money supply–that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services included in GDP.

M2 Money Stock (M2)

2013-07-08:      10,644.6       Billions of Dollars                    Last 5 Observations

2013-07-01: 10,653.4
2013-06-24: 10,573.2
2013-06-17: 10,594.5
2013-06-10: 10,590.3

Weekly, Ending Monday, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-07-19 6:26 AM CDT

M2

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Release: H.6 Money Stock Measures

Notes:M2 includes a broader set of financial assets held principally by households. M2 consists of M1 plus: (1) savings deposits (which include money market deposit accounts, or MMDAs); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000); and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds (MMMFs). Seasonally adjusted M2 is computed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail MMMFs, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1.

Velocity of M2 Money Stock (M2V)

2013:Q1:      1.530       Ratio                    Last 5 Observations

2012:Q4: 1.538
2012:Q3: 1.568
2012:Q2: 1.579
2012:Q1: 1.588

Quarterly, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-06-26 9:01 AM CDT

M2_Velocity

Notes:

Calculated as the ratio of quarterly nominal GDP (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP) to the quarterly average of M2 money stock (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2SL).
Velocity is a ratio of nominal GDP to a measure of the money supply.  It can be thought of as the rate of turnover in the money supply–that is, the number of times one dollar is used to purchase final goods and services included in GDP.

US Economic Crisis, Predictions For 2013

So Goes Detroit,Bernanke’s Gold Confession, Obama’s ACA Lies

Karl Denninger on Bernanke’s Last Stand and Unwinding Rehypothecation [PRIME INTEREST 45]

Uncertainty over the cost of new regulations is suppressing business investment & job creation.

Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Representative Kevin Brady, presents his opening statement to the committee and witnesses during the JEC hearing “Reducing Unnecessary and Costly Red Tape through Smarter Regulations” on June 26, 2013.

“We’re experiencing the worst economic recovery since WWII.”

CBS: “This Is The Worst Economic Recovery America Has Ever Had”

Obama’s Great Economic Recovery WHERE?

Treasury Yield Curve Methodology
2/26/2009
Page Content

This description was revised and updated on February 26, 2009.

The Treasury’s yield curve is derived using a quasi-cubic hermite spline function. Our inputs are the Close of Business (COB) bid yields for the on-the-run securities. Because the on-the-run securities typically trade close to par, those securities are designated as the knot points in the quasi-cubic hermite spline algorithm and the resulting yield curve is considered a par curve. However, Treasury reserves the option to input additional bid yields if there is no on-the-run security available for a given maturity range that we deem necessary for deriving a good fit for the quasi-cubic hermite spline curve. For example, we are using composites of off-the-run bonds in the 20-year range reflecting market yields available in that time tranche. Previously, a rolled-down 10-year note with a remaining maturity nearest to 7 years was also used as an additional input. That input was discontinued on May 26, 2005.

More specifically, the current inputs are the most recently auctioned 4-, 13-, 26-, and 52-week bills, plus the most recently auctioned 2-, 3-, 5-, 7-, and 10-year notes and the most recently auctioned 30-year bond, plus the composite rate in the 20-year maturity range. The quotes for these securities are obtained at or near the 3:30 PM close each trading day. The inputs for the four bills are their bond equivalent yields.

Between August 6, 2004 and June 2, 2008, to reduce volatility in the 1-year Treasury Constant Maturity (CMT) rate, and due to the fact that there were no on-the-run issues between 6-months and 2-years, Treasury used an additional input to insure that the 1-year CMT rate was consistent with on-the-run yields on either side of it’s maturity range. Thus, Treasury interpolated between the secondary bond equivalent yield on the most recently auctioned 26-week bill and the secondary market yield on the most recently auctioned 2-year note and inputted the resulting yield as an additional knot point for the derivation of the daily Treasury Yield Curve. The result of that step was that the 1-year CMT was generally the same as the interpolated rate during that time period. As of June 3, 2008, the interpolated yield was dropped as a yield curve input and the on-the-run 52-week bill was added as an input knot point in the quasi-cubic hermite spline algorithm and resulting yield curve.

Between December 3, 2007 and November 7, 2008, due to Treasury’s discontinuance of 3-year notes, we added a composite rate in the 3-year range based on an average of off-the-run securities in that time tranche.  This composite was replaced on November 10, 2008 with the on-the-run 3-year note upon its reintroduction.

Treasury does not provide the computer formulation of our quasi-cubic hermite spline yield curve derivation program. However, we have found that most researchers have been able to reasonably match our results using alternative cubic spline formulas.

Treasury reviews its yield curve derivation methodology on a regular basis and reserves the right to modify, adjust or improve the methodology at its option. If Treasury determines that the methodology needs to be changed or updated, Treasury will revise the above description to reflect such changes.

Yield curve rates are usually available at Treasury’s interest rate web sites by 6:00 PM Eastern Time each trading day, but may be delayed due to system problems or other issues. Every attempt is made to make this data available as soon as possible.