Microeconomics

NSA Metadata To Be Held By Telephone Companies — Great Distraction — Still Collecting and Intercepting All Americans Telephone Calls and All Information Transmitted Over The Internet and Telephone Exchanges — Stop Deceiving The American People Mr. President — Videos

Posted on March 30, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Comedy, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Employment, European History, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, National Security Agency (NSA_, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Radio, Rants, Raves, Security | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 233: March 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 232: March 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 231: March 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 230: March 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 229: March 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 228: March 20, 2014

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: NSA Metadata To Be Held By Telephone Companies — Great Distraction — Still Collecting and Intercepting All Americans Telephone Calls and All Information Transmitted Over The Internet and Telephone Exchanges — Stop Deceiving The American People Mr. President — Videos

Obama: NSA Proposal Satisfies Public Concerns

 

Obama announces overhaul of NSA metadata collection

NSA – Changes To Metadata Program – Special Report All Star

President Obama Names Michael Rogers As New Head Of The NSA

Background Articles and Videos

nsa_logo

flowchart_final_008acronyms_003130607_PRISM_ppt_1.jpg.CROP.original-original

prism-slide-2

nsa-prism-slide

prism_vendor_slide

prism-slide-6

top-secret-nsa-prism-slide-7

prism-slide-8

top-secret-nsa-prism-slide-9

xkeyscore_cover_slide

x-keyscore

keystore_slidexkeyscore_slide

NSA-X-Keyscore-slide-003

Screen-Shot

xkeyscore_slideNSA-X-Keyscore-slide-004

XKS_Future_Slide

xkeyscore_plugins

screen-shot-2013-07-31-at-8-01-30-pm

screen-shot-2013-07-31-at-8-03-13-pm

data-mining-and-terrorists-apprehended

xks_map

Through a PRISM, Darkly – Everything we know about NSA spying [30c3]

Published on Dec 30, 2013

Through a PRISM, Darkly
Everything we know about NSA spying

From Stellar Wind to PRISM, Boundless Informant to EvilOlive, the NSA spying programs are shrouded in secrecy and rubber-stamped by secret opinions from a court that meets in a faraday cage. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kurt Opsahl explains the known facts about how the programs operate and the laws and regulations the U.S. government asserts allows the NSA to spy on you.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil society organization, has been litigating against the NSA spying program for the better part of a decade. EFF has collected and reviewed dozens of documents, from the original NY Times stories in 2005 and the first AT&T whistleblower in 2006, through the latest documents released in the Guardian or obtained through EFF’s Freedom of Information (government transparency) litigation. EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl’s lecture will describe how the NSA spying program works, the underlying technologies, the targeting procedures (how they decide who to focus on), the minimization procedures (how they decide which information to discard), and help you makes sense of the many code names and acronyms in the news. He will also discuss the legal and policy ramifications that have become part of the public debate following the recent disclosures, and what you can do about it. After summarizing the programs, technologies, and legal/policy framework in the lecture, the audience can ask questions.

Speaker: Kurt Opsahl
EventID: 5255
Event: 30th Chaos Communication Congress [30c3] by the Chaos Computer Club [CCC]
Location: Congress Centrum Hamburg (CCH); Am Dammtor; Marseiller Straße; 20355 Hamburg; Germany
Language: english

Glenn Becks “SURVEILLANCE STATE”

Inside the NSA

Ed Snowden, NSA, and Fairy Tales

AT&T Spying On Internet Traffic

For years the National Securities Agency, has been spying on each & every keystroke. The national headquarters of AT&T is in Missouri, where ex-employees describe a secret room. The program is called “Splitter Cut-In & Test Procedure.”

NSA Whistle-Blower Tells All – Op-Docs: The Program

The filmmaker Laura Poitras profiles William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency who helped design a top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

He told you so: Bill Binney talks NSA leaks

William Benny – The Government is Profiling You (The NSA is Spying on You)

‘After 9/11 NSA had secret deal with White House’

The story of Whistleblower Thomas Drake

Whistleblowers, Part Two: Thomas Drake

NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake speaks at National Press Club – March 15, 2013

Meet Edward Snowden: NSA PRISM Whistleblower

The Truth About Edward Snowden

N.S.A. Spying: Why Does It Matter?

Inside The NSA~Americas Cyber Secrets

NSA Whistleblower Exposes Obama’s Dragnet

AT&T whistleblower against immunity for Bush spy program-1/2

AT&T Whistleblower Urges Against Immunity for Telecoms in Bush Spy Program

The Senate is expected to vote on a controversial measure to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act tomorrow. The legislation would rewrite the nation’s surveillance laws and authorize the National Security Agency’s secret program of warrantless wiretapping. We speak with Mark Klein, a technician with AT&T for over twenty-two years. In 2006 Klein leaked internal AT&T documents that revealed the company had set up a secret room in its San Francisco office to give the National Security Agency access to its fiber optic internet cables.

AT&T whistleblower against immunity for Bush spy program-2/2

Enemy Of The State 1998 (1080p) (Full movie)

Background Articles and Videos

Stellar Wind

Stellar Wind was the open secret code name for four surveillance programs by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) during the presidency of George W. Bush and revealed by Thomas Tamm to The New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau.[1] The operation was approved by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001.[2] Stellar Wind was succeeded during the presidency of Barack Obama by four major lines of intelligence collection in the territorial United States, together capable of spanning the full range of modern telecommunications.[3]

The program’s activities involved data mining of a large database of the communications of American citizens, including e-mail communications, phone conversations, financial transactions, and Internet activity.[1] William Binney, a retired Technical Leader with the NSA, discussed some of the architectural and operational elements of the program at the 2012 Chaos Communication Congress.[4]

There were internal disputes within the Justice Department about the legality of the program, because data are collected for large numbers of people, not just the subjects of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.[4]

During the Bush Administration, the Stellar Wind cases were referred to by FBI agents as “pizza cases” because many seemingly suspicious cases turned out to be food takeout orders. According to Mueller, approximately 99 percent of the cases led nowhere, but “it’s that other 1% that we’ve got to be concerned about”.[2] One of the known uses of these data were the creation of suspicious activity reports, or “SARS”, about people suspected of terrorist activities. It was one of these reports that revealed former New York governor Eliot Spitzer’s use of prostitutes, even though he was not suspected of terrorist activities.[1]

In March 2012 Wired magazine published “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)” talking about a vast new NSA facility in Utah and says “For the first time, a former NSA official has gone on the record to describe the program, codenamed Stellar Wind, in detail,” naming the official William Binney, a former NSA code breaker. Binney went on to say that the NSA had highly secured rooms that tap into major switches, and satellite communications at both AT&T and Verizon.[5] The article suggested that the otherwise dispatched Stellar Wind is actually an active program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Wind_%28code_name%29

PRISM

PRISM is a clandestine national security electronic surveillance program operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007.[1][2][3][Notes 1] PRISM is a government codename for a data collection effort known officially as US-984XN.[8][9] It is operated under the supervision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).[10] The existence of the program was leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden and published by The Guardian and The Washington Post on June 6, 2013.

A document included in the leak indicated that the PRISM SIGAD was “the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports.”[11] The President’s Daily Brief, an all-source intelligence product, cited PRISM data as a source in 1,477 items in 2012.[12] The leaked information came to light one day after the revelation that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been requiring the telecommunications company Verizon to turn over to the NSA logs tracking all of its customers’ telephone calls on an ongoing daily basis.[13][14]

According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM cannot be used to intentionally target any Americans or anyone in the United States. Clapper said a special court, Congress, and the executive branch oversee the program and extensive procedures ensure the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of data accidentally collected about Americans is kept to a minimum.[15] Clapper issued a statement and “fact sheet”[16] to correct what he characterized as “significant misimpressions” in articles by The Washington Post and The Guardian newspapers.[17]

History

Slide showing that much of the world’s communications flow through the US

Details of information collected via PRISM

PRISM is a “Special Source Operation” in the tradition of NSA’s intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s.[1] A prior program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, was implemented in the wake of the September 11 attacks under the George W. Bush Administration but was widely criticized and had its legality questioned, because it was conducted without approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).[18][19][20][21] PRISM was authorized by an order of the FISC.[11] Its creation was enabled by the Protect America Act of 2007 under President Bush and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which legally immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with US intelligence collection and was renewed by Congress under President Obama in 2012 for five years until December 2017.[2][22] According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 “specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant” when one of the parties is outside the U.S.[22]

PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to The Washington Post and The Guardian by American Edward Snowden.[2][1] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.[1][2] The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including (date of joining PRISM in parentheses) Microsoft (2007), Yahoo! (2008), Google (2009), Facebook (2009), Paltalk (2009), YouTube (2010), AOL (2011), Skype (2011), and Apple (2012).[23] The speaker’s notes in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft.”[1]

The slide presentation stated that much of the world’s electronic communications pass through the United States, because electronic communications data tend to follow the least expensive route rather than the most physically direct route, and the bulk of the world’s internet infrastructure is based in the United States.[11] The presentation noted that these facts provide United States intelligence analysts with opportunities for intercepting the communications of foreign targets as their electronic data pass into or through the United States.[2][11]

According to The Washington Post, the intelligence analysts search PRISM data using terms intended to identify suspicious communications of targets whom the analysts suspect with at least 51 percent confidence to not be United States citizens, but in the process, communication data of some United States citizens are also collected unintentionally.[1] Training materials for analysts tell them that while they should periodically report such accidental collection of non-foreign United States data, “it’s nothing to worry about.”[1]

Response from companies

The original Washington Post and Guardian articles reporting on PRISM noted that one of the leaked briefing documents said PRISM involves collection of data “directly from the servers” of several major internet services providers.[2][1]

Initial Public Statements

Corporate executives of several companies identified in the leaked documents told The Guardian that they had no knowledge of the PRISM program in particular and also denied making information available to the government on the scale alleged by news reports.[2][24] Statements of several of the companies named in the leaked documents were reported by TechCrunch and The Washington Post as follows:[25][26]

Slide listing companies and the date that PRISM collection began

  • Microsoft: “We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”[25]
  • Yahoo!: “Yahoo! takes users’ privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.”[25] “Of the hundreds of millions of users we serve, an infinitesimal percentage will ever be the subject of a government data collection directive.”[26]
  • Facebook: “We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”[25]
  • Google: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.”[25] “[A]ny suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.”[26]
  • Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”[27]
  • Dropbox: “We’ve seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any such program and remain committed to protecting our users’ privacy.”[25]

In response to the technology companies’ denials of the NSA being able to directly access the companies’ servers, The New York Times reported that sources had stated the NSA was gathering the surveillance data from the companies using other technical means in response to court orders for specific sets of data.[13] The Washington Post suggested, “It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing ‘collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,’ rather than directly to company servers.”[1] “[I]n context, ‘direct’ is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as they’re transmitted to some other destination.[26]

“If these companies received an order under the FISA amendments act, they are forbidden by law from disclosing having received the order and disclosing any information about the order at all,” Mark Rumold, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told ABC News.[28]

Slide showing two different sources of NSA data collection. The first source the fiber optic cables of the internet handled by the Upstream program and the second source the servers of major internet companies handled by PRISM.[29]

On May 28, 2013, Google was ordered by United States District Court Judge Susan Illston to comply with a National Security Letter issued by the FBI to provide user data without a warrant.[30] Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with VentureBeat said, “I certainly appreciate that Google put out a transparency report, but it appears that the transparency didn’t include this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were subject to a gag order.”[31]

The New York Times reported on June 7, 2013, that “Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations.”[32] The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make data available more efficiently and securely.[32] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.[32] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel.[32] These details on the discussions provide insight into the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program including a training slide which states “Collection directly from the servers”[29] and the companies’ denials.[32]

While providing data in response to a legitimate FISA request approved by FISC is a legal requirement, modifying systems to make it easier for the government to collect the data is not. This is why Twitter could legally decline to provide an enhanced mechanism for data transmission.[32] Other than Twitter, the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.[32] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.[32] Google does not provide a lockbox system, but instead transmits required data by hand delivery or secure FTP.[33]

Post-PRISM Transparency Reports

In response to the publicity surrounding media reports of data-sharing, several companies requested permission to reveal more public information about the nature and scope of information provided in response to National Security requests.

On June 14, 2013, Facebook reported that the U.S. Government had authorized the communication of “about these numbers in aggregate, and as a range.” In a press release posted to their web site, Facebook reported, “For the six months ending December 31, 2012, the total number of user-data requests Facebook received from any and all government entities in the U.S. (including local, state, and federal, and including criminal and national security-related requests) – was between 9,000 and 10,000.” Facebook further reported that the requests impacted “between 18,000 and 19,000″ user accounts, a “tiny fraction of one percent” of more than 1.1 billion active user accounts.[34]

Microsoft reported that for the same period, it received “between 6,000 and 7,000 criminal and national security warrants, subpoenas and orders affecting between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts from U.S. governmental entities (including local, state and federal)” which impacted “a tiny fraction of Microsoft’s global customer base”.[35]

Google issued a statement criticizing the requirement that data be reported in aggregated form, stating that lumping national security requests with criminal request data would be “a step backwards” from its previous, more detailed practices on its site transparency report. The company said that it would continue to seek government permission to publish the number and extent of FISA requests.[36]

Response from United States government

Executive branch

Shortly after publication of the reports by The Guardian and The Washington Post, the United States Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, on June 7 released a statement confirming that for nearly six years the government of the United States had been using large internet services companies such as Google and Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the United States as a defense against national security threats.[13] The statement read in part, “The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.”[37] He went on to say, “Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.”[37] Clapper concluded his statement by stating “The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”[37] On March 12, 2013, Clapper had told the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the NSA does “not wittingly” collect any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.[38] In an NBC News interview, Clapper said he answered Senator Wyden’s question in the “least untruthful manner by saying no”.[39]

Clapper also stated that “the NSA collects the phone data in broad swaths, because collecting it (in) a narrow fashion would make it harder to identify terrorism-related communications. The information collected lets the government, over time, make connections about terrorist activities. The program doesn’t let the U.S. listen to people’s calls, but only includes information like call length and telephone numbers dialed.”[15]

On June 8, 2013, Clapper said “the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and The Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress.”[40][10] The fact sheet described PRISM as “an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a).”[10]

The National Intelligence fact sheet further stated that “the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.” It said that the Attorney General provides FISA Court rulings and semi-annual reports about PRISM activities to Congress, “provid[ing] an unprecedented degree of accountability and transparency.”[10]

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said on June 7 “What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout.”[41] He also said, “You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”[41]

In separate statements, senior (not mentioned by name in source) Obama administration officials said that Congress had been briefed 13 times on the programs since 2009.[42]

Legislative branch

In contrast to their swift and forceful reactions the previous day to allegations that the government had been conducting surveillance of United States citizens’ telephone records, Congressional leaders initially had little to say about the PRISM program the day after leaked information about the program was published. Several lawmakers declined to discuss PRISM, citing its top-secret classification,[43] and others said that they had not been aware of the program.[44] After statements had been released by the President and the Director of National Intelligence, some lawmakers began to comment:

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

  • June 9 “We passed the Patriot Act. We passed specific provisions of the act that allowed for this program to take place, to be enacted in operation,”[45]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee

  • June 9 “These programs are within the law”, “part of our obligation is keeping Americans safe”, “Human intelligence isn’t going to do it”.[46]
  • June 9 “Here’s the rub: the instances where this has produced good — has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all classified, that’s what’s so hard about this.”[47]
  • June 11 “It went fine…we asked him[ Keith Alexander ] to declassify things because it would be helpful (for people and lawmakers to better understand the intelligence programs).” “I’ve just got to see if the information gets declassified. I’m sure people will find it very interesting.”[48]

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), member of Senate Intelligence Committee and past member of Homeland Security Committee

  • June 11 “I had, along with Joe Lieberman, a monthly threat briefing, but I did not have access to this highly compartmentalized information” and “How can you ask when you don’t know the program exists?”[49]

Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House of Representatives

  • June 11 “He’s a traitor”[50] (referring to Edward Snowden)

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), principal sponsor of the Patriot Act

  • June 9, “This is well beyond what the Patriot Act allows.”[51] “President Obama’s claim that ‘this is the most transparent administration in history’ has once again proven false. In fact, it appears that no administration has ever peered more closely or intimately into the lives of innocent Americans.”[51]

Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), a Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

  • June 9 “One of the things that we’re charged with is keeping America safe and keeping our civil liberties and privacy intact. I think we have done both in this particular case,”[46]
  • June 9 “Within the last few years this program was used to stop a program, excuse me, to stop a terrorist attack in the United States we know that. It’s, it’s, it’s important, it fills in a little seam that we have and it’s used to make sure that there is not an international nexus to any terrorism event that they may believe is ongoing in the United States. So in that regard it is a very valuable thing,”[52]

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)

  • June 9 “I don’t think the American public knows the extent or knew the extent to which they were being surveilled and their data was being collected.” “I think we ought to reopen the Patriot Act and put some limits on the amount of data that the National Security (Agency) is collecting,” “It ought to remain sacred, and there’s got to be a balance here. That is what I’m aiming for. Let’s have the debate, let’s be transparent, let’s open this up”.[46]

Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN)

  • June 10 “We have no idea when they [ FISA ] meet, we have no idea what their judgments are”,[53]

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

  • June 6 “When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act,”[54]
  • June 9 “I’m going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level. I’m going to be asking the Internet providers and all of the phone companies: ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit.”[45]

Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)

  • June 9 “We will be receiving secret briefings and we will be asking, I know I’m going to be asking to get more information. I want to make sure that what they’re doing is harvesting information that is necessary to keep us safe and not simply going into everybody’s private telephone conversations and Facebook and communications. I mean one of the, you know the terrorists win when you debilitate freedom of expression and privacy.”[52]

Judicial branch

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has not acknowledged, denied or confirmed any involvement in the PRISM program at this time. It has not issued any press statement or release relating to the current situation and uncertainty.

Applicable law and practice

On June 8, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence issued a fact sheet stating that PRISM “is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program”, but rather computer software used to facilitate the collection of foreign intelligence information “under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a).”[10] Section 702 provides that “the Attorney General [A.G.] and the Director of National Intelligence [DNI] may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.”[55] In order to authorize the targeting, the A.G. and DNI need to get an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) pursuant to Section 702 or certify that “intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order.”[55] When asking for an order, the A.G. and DNI must certify to FISC that “a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”[55] They do not need to specify which facilities or property that the targeting will be directed at.[55]

After getting a FISC order or determining that there are emergency circumstances, the A.G. and DNI can direct an electronic communication service provider to give them access to information or facilities to carry out the targeting and keep the targeting secret.[55] The provider then has the option to: (1) comply with the directive; (2) reject it; or (3) challenge it to FISC.

If the provider complies with the directive, it is released from liability to its users for providing the information and reimbursed for the cost of providing it.[55]

If the provider rejects the directive, the A.G. may request an order from FISC to enforce it.[55] A provider that fails to comply with FISC’s order can be punished with contempt of court.[55]

Finally, a provider can petition FISC to reject the directive.[55] In case FISC denies the petition and orders the provider to comply with the directive, the provider risks contempt of court if it refuses to comply with FISC’s order.[55] The provider can appeal FISC’s denial to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and then appeal the Court of Review’s decision to the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari for review under seal.[55]

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the FISA Courts had been put in place to oversee intelligence operations in the period after the death of J. Edgar Hoover. Beverly Gage of Slate said, “When they were created, these new mechanisms were supposed to stop the kinds of abuses that men like Hoover had engineered. Instead, it now looks as if they have come to function as rubber stamps for the expansive ambitions of the intelligence community. J. Edgar Hoover no longer rules Washington, but it turns out we didn’t need him anyway.”[56]

Involvement of other countries

Australia

The Australian government has said it will investigate the impact of the PRISM program and the use of the Pine Gap surveillance facility on the privacy of Australian citizens.[57]

Canada

Canada’s national cryptologic agency, the Communications Security Establishment, said that commenting on PRISM “would undermine CSE’s ability to carry out its mandate”. Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart lamented Canada’s standards when it comes to protecting personal online privacy stating “We have fallen too far behind,” Stoddart wrote in her report. “While other nations’ data protection authorities have the legal power to make binding orders, levy hefty fines and take meaningful action in the event of serious data breaches, we are restricted to a ‘soft’ approach: persuasion, encouragement and, at the most, the potential to publish the names of transgressors in the public interest.” And, “when push comes to shove,” Stoddart wrote, “short of a costly and time-consuming court battle, we have no power to enforce our recommendations.”[58]

Germany

Germany did not receive any raw PRISM data, according to a Reuters report.[59]

Israel

Israeli newspaper Calcalist discussed[60] the Business Insider article[61] about the possible involvement of technologies from two secretive Israeli companies in the PRISM program – Verint Systems and Narus.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, University of Otago information science Associate Professor Hank Wolfe said that “under what was unofficially known as the Five Eyes Alliance, New Zealand and other governments, including the United States, Australia, Canada, and Britain, dealt with internal spying by saying they didn’t do it. But they have all the partners doing it for them and then they share all the information.”[62]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has had access to the PRISM program on or before June 2010 and wrote 197 reports with it in 2012 alone. PRISM may have allowed GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required to seek personal material.[63][64]

Domestic response

Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2013)

The New York Times editorial board charged that the Obama administration “has now lost all credibility on this issue,”[65] and lamented that “for years, members of Congress ignored evidence that domestic intelligence-gathering had grown beyond their control, and, even now, few seem disturbed to learn that every detail about the public’s calling and texting habits now reside in a N.S.A. database.”[66]

Republican and former member of Congress Ron Paul said, “We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk…. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”[67] Paul denounced the government’s secret surveillance program: “The government does not need to know more about what we are doing…. We need to know more about what the government is doing.”[67] He called Congress “derelict in giving that much power to the government,” and said that had he been elected president, he would have ordered searches only when there was probable cause of a crime having been committed, which he said was not how the PRISM program was being operated.[68]

In response to Obama administration arguments that it could stop terrorism in the cases of Najibullah Zazi and David Headley, Ed Pilkington and Nicholas Watt of The Guardian said in regards to the role of PRISM and Boundless Informant interviews with parties involved in the Zazi scheme and court documents lodged in the United States and the United Kingdom indicated that “conventional” surveillance methods such as “old-fashioned tip-offs” of the British intelligence services initiated the investigation into the Zazi case.[69] An anonymous former CIA agent said that in regards to the Headley case, “That’s nonsense. It played no role at all in the Headley case. That’s not the way it happened at all.”[69] Pilkington and Watt concluded that the data-mining programs “played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots.”[69] Michael Daly of The Daily Beast stated that even though Tamerlan Tsarnaev had visited Inspire and even though Russian intelligence officials alerted U.S. intelligence officials about Tsarnaev, PRISM did not prevent him from carrying out the Boston bombings, and that the initial evidence implicating him came from his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and not from federal intelligence. In addition Daly pointed to the fact that Faisal Shahzad visited Inspire but that federal authorities did not stop his attempted terrorist plot. Daly concluded “The problem is not just what the National Security Agency is gathering at the risk of our privacy but what it is apparently unable to monitor at the risk of our safety.”[70] In addition, political commentator Bill O’Reilly criticized the government, saying that PRISM did not stop the Boston bombings.[71]

In a blog post, David Simon, the creator of The Wire, compared the NSA’s programs, including PRISM, to a 1980s effort by the City of Baltimore to add dialed number recorders to all pay phones to know which individuals were being called by the callers;[72] the city believed that drug traffickers were using pay phones and pagers, and a municipal judge allowed the city to place the recorders. The placement of the dialers formed the basis of the show’s first season. Simon argued that the media attention regarding the NSA programs is a “faux scandal.”[72][73] George Takei, an actor who had experienced Japanese American internment, said that due to his memories of the internment, he felt concern towards the NSA surveillance programs that had been revealed.[74]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an international non-profit digital-rights group based in the U.S., is hosting a tool, by which an American resident can write to their government representatives regarding their opposition to mass spying.[75]

On June 11, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the NSA citing that PRISM “violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy”.[76]

International response

Reactions of Internet users in China were mixed between viewing a loss of freedom worldwide and seeing state surveillance coming out of secrecy. The story broke just before US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in California.[77][78] When asked about NSA hacking China, the spokeswoman of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China said “China strongly advocates cybersecurity”.[79] The party-owned newspaper Liberation Daily described this surveillance like Nineteen Eighty-Four-style.[80] Hong Kong legislators Gary Fan and Claudia Mo wrote a letter to Obama, stating “the revelations of blanket surveillance of global communications by the world’s leading democracy have damaged the image of the U.S. among freedom-loving peoples around the world.”[81]

Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch Member of the European Parliament, called PRISM “a violation of EU laws”.[82]

Protests at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin

The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Peter Schaar, condemned the program as “monstrous”.[83] He further added that White House claims do “not reassure me at all” and that “given the large number of German users of Google, Facebook, Apple or Microsoft services, I expect the German government […] is committed to clarification and limitation of surveillance.” Steffen Seibert, press secretary of the Chancellor’s office, announced that Angela Merkel will put these issues on the agenda of the talks with Barack Obama during his pending visit in Berlin.[84]

The Italian president of the Guarantor for the protection of personal data, Antonello Soro, said that the surveillance dragnet “would not be legal in Italy” and would be “contrary to the principles of our legislation and would represent a very serious violation”.[85]

William Hague, the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, dismissed accusations that British security agencies had been circumventing British law by using information gathered on British citizens by Prism[86] saying, “Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals is subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards.”[86] David Cameron said Britain’s spy agencies that received data collected from PRISM acted within the law: “I’m satisfied that we have intelligence agencies that do a fantastically important job for this country to keep us safe, and they operate within the law.”[86][87] Malcolm Rifkind, the chairman of parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, said that if the British intelligence agencies were seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the UK, then they actually have to get lawful authority.[87] The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office was more cautious, saying it would investigate PRISM alongside other European data agencies: “There are real issues about the extent to which U.S. law agencies can access personal data of UK and other European citizens. Aspects of U.S. law under which companies can be compelled to provide information to U.S. agencies potentially conflict with European data protection law, including the UK’s own Data Protection Act. The ICO has raised this with its European counterparts, and the issue is being considered by the European Commission, who are in discussions with the U.S. Government.”[82]

Ai Weiwei, a Chinese dissident, said “Even though we know governments do all kinds of things I was shocked by the information about the US surveillance operation, Prism. To me, it’s abusively using government powers to interfere in individuals’ privacy. This is an important moment for international society to reconsider and protect individual rights.”[88]

Kim Dotcom, a German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur who owned Megaupload, which was closed by the U.S. federal government, said “We should heed warnings from Snowden because the prospect of an Orwellian society outweighs whatever security benefits we derive from Prism or Five Eyes.”[89] The Hong Kong law firm representing Dotcom expressed a fear that the communication between Dotcom and the firm had been compromised by U.S. intelligence programs.[90]

Russia has offered to consider an asylum request from Edward Snowden.[91]

Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid said “We knew about their past efforts to trace our system. We have used our technical resources to foil their efforts and have been able to stop them from succeeding so far.”[92][93]

Related government Internet surveillance programs

A parallel program, code-named BLARNEY, gathers up metadata as it streams past choke points along the backbone of the Internet. BLARNEY’s summary, set down in the slides alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat, describes it as “an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks.”[94]

A related program, a big data visualization system based on cloud computing and free and open-source software (FOSS) technology known as “Boundless Informant”, was disclosed in documents leaked to The Guardian and reported on June 8, 2013. A leaked, top secret map allegedly produced by Boundless Informant revealed the extent of NSA surveillance in the U.S.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29

ThinThread

ThinThread is the name of a project that the United States National Security Agency (NSA) pursued during the 1990s, according to a May 17, 2006 article in The Baltimore Sun.[1] The program involved wiretapping and sophisticated analysis of the resulting data, but according to the article, the program was discontinued three weeks before the September 11, 2001 attacks due to the changes in priorities and the consolidation of U.S. intelligence authority.[2] The “change in priority” consisted of the decision made by the director of NSA General Michael V. Hayden to go with a concept called Trailblazer, despite the fact that ThinThread was a working prototype that protected the privacy of U.S. citizens.

ThinThread was dismissed and replaced by the Trailblazer Project, which lacked the privacy protections.[3] A consortium led by Science Applications International Corporation was awarded a $280 million contract to develop Trailblazer in 2002.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread

Trailblazer

Trailblazer was a United States National Security Agency (NSA) program intended to develop a capability to analyze data carried on communications networks like the Internet. It was intended to track entities using communication methods such as cell phones and e-mail.[1][2] It ran over budget, failed to accomplish critical goals, and was cancelled.

NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer Diane Roark complained to the Department of Defense’s Inspector General (IG) about waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and the fact that a successful operating prototype existed, but was ignored when the Trailblazer program was launched. The complaint was accepted by the IG and an investigation began that lasted until mid-2005 when the final results were issued. The results were largely hidden, as the report given to the public was heavily (90%) redacted, while the original report was heavily classified, thus restricting the ability of most people to see it.

The people who filed the IG complaint were later raided by armed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. While the Government threatened to prosecute all who signed the IG report, it ultimately chose to pursue an NSA Senior Executive — Thomas Andrews Drake — who helped with the report internally to NSA and who had spoken with a reporter about the project. Drake was later charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. His defenders claimed this was retaliation.[3][4] The charges against him were later dropped, and he agreed to plead guilty to having committed a misdemeanor under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, something that Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project (which helped represent him) called an “act of civil disobedience”.[5]

Background

Trailblazer was chosen over a similar program named ThinThread, a less costly project which had been designed with built-in privacy protections for United States citizens.[4][3] Trailblazer was later linked to the NSA electronic surveillance program and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.[3]

In 2002 a consortium led by Science Applications International Corporation was chosen by the NSA to produce a technology demonstration platform in a contract worth $280 million. Project participants included Boeing, Computer Sciences Corporation, and Booz Allen Hamilton. The project was overseen by NSA Deputy Director William B. Black, Jr., an NSA worker who had gone to SAIC, and then been re-hired back to NSA by NSA director Michael Hayden in 2000.[6][7][8] SAIC had also hired a former NSA director to its management; Bobby Inman.[9] SAIC also participated in the concept definition phase of Trailblazer.[10][11]

Redacted version of the DoD Inspector General audit, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Project on Government Oversight and others. [12][5]

The NSA Inspector General issued a report on Trailblazer that “discussed improperly based contract cost increases, non-conformance in the management of the Statement of Work, and excessive labor rates for contractor personnel.” [13]

In 2004 the DoD IG report criticized the program (see the Whistleblowing section below). It said that the “NSA ‘disregarded solutions to urgent national security needs’” and “that TRAILBLAZER was poorly executed and overly expensive …” Several contractors for the project were worried about cooperating with DoD’s audit for fear of “management reprisal.”[5] The Director of NSA “nonconcurred” with several statements in the IG audit, and the report contains a discussion of those disagreements.[14]

In 2005, NSA director Michael Hayden told a Senate hearing that the Trailblazer program was several hundred million dollars over budget and years behind schedule.[15] In 2006 the program was shut down,[3] after having cost billions of US Dollars.[16] Several anonymous NSA sources told Hosenball of Newsweek later on that the project was a “wasteful failure”.[17]

The new project replacing Trailblazer is called Turbulence.[3]

Whistleblowing

According to a 2011 New Yorker article, in the early days of the project several NSA employees met with Diane S Roark, an NSA budget expert on the House Intelligence Committee. They aired their grievances about Trailblazer. In response, NSA director Michael Hayden sent out a memo saying that “individuals, in a session with our congressional overseers, took a position in direct opposition to one that we had corporately decided to follow … Actions contrary to our decisions will have a serious adverse effect on our efforts to transform N.S.A., and I cannot tolerate them.”[3]

In September 2002, several people filed a complaint with the Department of Defense IG’s office regarding problems with Trailblazer: they included Roark (aforementioned), ex-NSA senior analysts Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Senior Computer Systems Analyst Ed Loomis, who had quit the agency over concerns about its mismanagement of acquisition and allegedly illegal domestic spying.[3][18][19] A major source for the report was NSA senior officer Thomas Andrews Drake. Drake had been complaining to his superiors for some time about problems at the agency, and about the superiority of ThinThread over Trailblazer, for example, at protecting privacy.[19] Drake gave info to DoD during its investigation of the matter.[19] Roark also went to her boss at the House committee, Porter Goss, about problems, but was rebuffed.[20] She also attempted to contact William Renquist, the Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time.[19]

Drake’s own boss, Maureen Baginski, the third-highest officer at NSA, quit partly over concerns about the legality of its behavior.[3]

In 2003, the NSA IG (not the DoD IG)[19] had declared Trailblazer an expensive failure.[21] It had cost more than $1 billion.[8][22][23]

In 2005, the DoD IG produced a report on the result of its investigation of the complaint of Roark and the others in 2002. This report was not released to the public, but it has been described as very negative.[18] Mayer writes that it hastened the closure of Trailblazer, which was at the time in trouble from congress for being over budget.[3]

In November 2005, Drake contacted Siobhan Gorman, a reporter of The Baltimore Sun.[24][17][25] Gorman wrote several articles about problems at the NSA, including articles on Trailblazer. This series got her an award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[17]

In 2005, President George W. Bush ordered the FBI to find whoever had disclosed information about the NSA electronic surveillance program and its disclosure in the New York Times. Eventually, this investigation led to the people who had filed the 2002 DoD IG request, even though they had nothing to do with the New York Times disclosure. In 2007, the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe were raided by armed FBI agents. According to Mayer, Binney claims the FBI pointed guns at his head and that of his wife. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[3][18] None of these people were ever charged with any crime. Four months later, Drake was raided in November 2007 and his computers and documents were confiscated.

In 2010 Drake was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of obstructing justice, providing false information, and violating the Espionage Act of 1917,[17][26][27] part of President Barack Obama’s crackdown on whistleblowers and “leakers”.[24][17][28][18] The government tried to get Roark to testify to a conspiracy, and made similar requests to Drake, offering him a plea bargain. They both refused.[3]

In June 2011, the ten original charges against Drake were dropped, instead he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.[5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AXwwSq_me4

Boundless Informant

Boundless Informant is a big data analysis and data visualization system used by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) to give NSA managers summaries of NSA’s world wide data collection activities.[1] It is described in an unclassified, For Official Use Only Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) memo published by The Guardian.[2] According to a Top Secret heat map display also published by The Guardian and allegedly produced by the Boundless Informant program, almost 3 billion data elements from inside the United States were captured by NSA over a 30-day period ending in March 2013.

Data analyzed by Boundless Informant includes electronic surveillance program records (DNI) and telephone call metadata records (DNR) stored in an NSA data archive called GM-PLACE. It does not include FISA data, according to the FAQ memo. PRISM, a government codename for a collection effort known officially as US-984XN, which was revealed at the same time as Boundless Informant, is one source of DNR data. According to the map, Boundless Informant summarizes data records from 504 separate DNR and DNI collection sources (SIGADs). In the map, countries that are under surveillance are assigned a color from green, representing least coverage to red, most intensive.[3][4]

History

Slide showing that much of the world’s communications flow through the US.

Intelligence gathered by the United States government inside the United States or specifically targeting US citizens is legally required to be gathered in compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court).[5][6][7]

NSA global data mining projects have existed for decades, but recent programs of intelligence gathering and analysis that include data gathered from inside the United States such as PRISM were enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under President Obama in December 2012.[8]

Boundless Informant was first publicly revealed on June 8, 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to The Guardian.[1][9] The newspaper identified its informant, at his request, as Edward Snowden, who worked at the NSA for the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.[10]

Technology

According to published slides, Boundless Informant leverages Free and Open Source Software—and is therefore “available to all NSA developers”—and corporate services hosted in the cloud. The tool uses HDFS, MapReduce, and Cloudbase for data processing.[11]

Legality and FISA Amendments Act of 2008

The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) Section 702 is referenced in PRISM documents detailing the electronic interception, capture and analysis of metadata. Many reports and letters of concern written by members of Congress suggest that this section of FAA in particular is legally and constitutionally problematic, such as by targeting U.S. persons, insofar as “Collections occur in U.S.” as published documents indicate.[12][13][14][15]

The ACLU has asserted the following regarding the FAA: “Regardless of abuses, the problem with the FAA is more fundamental: the statute itself is unconstitutional.”[16]

Senator Rand Paul is introducing new legislation called the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 to stop the NSA or other agencies of the United States government from violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution using technology and big data information systems like PRISM and Boundless Informant.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundless_Informant

ECHELON

ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement[1] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, referred to by a number of abbreviations, including AUSCANNZUKUS[1] and Five Eyes).[2][3] It has also been described as the only software system which controls the download and dissemination of the intercept of commercial satellite trunk communications.[4]

ECHELON, according to information in the European Parliament document, “On the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system)” was created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s.[5]

The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[6] Its capabilities and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001,[5] and by author James Bamford in his books on the National Security Agency of the United States.[4] The European Parliament stated in its report that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic) and microwave links.[5]

Bamford describes the system as the software controlling the collection and distribution of civilian telecommunications traffic conveyed using communication satellites, with the collection being undertaken by ground stations located in the footprint of the downlink leg.

Organization

UKUSA Community
Map of UKUSA Community countries with Ireland

Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States of America

The UKUSA intelligence community was assessed by the European Parliament (EP) in 2000 to include the signals intelligence agencies of each of the member states:

  • the Government Communications Headquarters of the United Kingdom,
  • the National Security Agency of the United States,
  • the Communications Security Establishment of Canada,
  • the Defence Signals Directorate of Australia, and
  • the Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand.
  • the National SIGINT Organisation (NSO) of The Netherlands

The EP report concluded that it seemed likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool.[5]

Capabilities

The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[5] During World War II and through the 1950s, high frequency (“short wave”) radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication,[7] and could be intercepted at great distances.[5] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications. The report to the European Parliament of 2001 states: “If UKUSA states operate listening stations in the relevant regions of the earth, in principle they can intercept all telephone, fax and data traffic transmitted via such satellites.”[5]

The role of satellites in point-to-point voice and data communications has largely been supplanted by fiber optics; in 2006, 99% of the world’s long-distance voice and data traffic was carried over optical-fiber.[8] The proportion of international communications accounted for by satellite links is said to have decreased substantially over the past few years[when?] in Central Europe to an amount between 0.4% and 5%.[5] Even in less-developed parts of the world, communications satellites are used largely for point-to-multipoint applications, such as video.[9] Thus, the majority of communications can no longer be intercepted by earth stations; they can only be collected by tapping cables and intercepting line-of-sight microwave signals, which is possible only to a limited extent.[5]

One method of interception is to place equipment at locations where fiber optic communications are switched. For the Internet, much of the switching occurs at relatively few sites. There have been reports of one such intercept site, Room 641A, in the United States. In the past[when?] much Internet traffic was routed through the U.S. and the UK, but this has changed; for example, in 2000, 95% of intra-German Internet communications was routed via the DE-CIX Internet exchange point in Frankfurt.[5] A comprehensive worldwide surveillance network is possible only if clandestine intercept sites are installed in the territory of friendly nations, and/or if local authorities cooperate. The report to the European Parliament points out that interception of private communications by foreign intelligence services is not necessarily limited to the U.S. or British foreign intelligence services.[5]

Most reports on ECHELON focus on satellite interception; testimony before the European Parliament indicated that separate but similar UK-US systems are in place to monitor communication through undersea cables, microwave transmissions and other lines.[10]

Controversy

See also: Industrial espionage

Intelligence monitoring of citizens, and their communications, in the area covered by the AUSCANNZUKUS security agreement has caused concern. British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.[10] Examples alleged by the journalists include the gear-less wind turbine technology designed by the German firm Enercon[5][11] and the speech technology developed by the Belgian firm Lernout & Hauspie.[12] An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[13][14]

In 2001, the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence agencies.[5]

Bamford provides an alternative view, highlighting that legislation prohibits the use of intercepted communications for commercial purposes, although he does not elaborate on how intercepted communications are used as part of an all-source intelligence process.

Hardware

According to its website, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) is “a high technology organization … on the frontiers of communications and data processing”. In 1999 the Australian Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was told by Professor Desmond Ball that the Pine Gap facility was used as a ground station for a satellite-based interception network. The satellites were said to be large radio dishes between 20 and 100 meters in diameter in geostationary orbits.[citation needed] The original purpose of the network was to monitor the telemetry from 1970s Soviet weapons, air defence radar, communications satellites and ground based microwave communications.[15]

Name

The European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System stated: “It seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, although this is a relatively minor detail.”[5] The U.S. intelligence community uses many code names (see, for example, CIA cryptonym).

Former NSA employee Margaret Newsham claims that she worked on the configuration and installation of software that makes up the ECHELON system while employed at Lockheed Martin, for whom she worked from 1974 to 1984 in Sunnyvale, California, US, and in Menwith Hill, England, UK.[16] At that time, according to Newsham, the code name ECHELON was NSA’s term for the computer network itself. Lockheed called it P415. The software programs were called SILKWORTH and SIRE. A satellite named VORTEX intercepted communications. An image available on the internet of a fragment apparently torn from a job description shows Echelon listed along with several other code names.[17]

Ground stations

The 2001 European Parliamentary (EP) report[5] lists several ground stations as possibly belonging to, or participating in, the ECHELON network. These include:

Likely satellite intercept stations

The following stations are listed in the EP report (p. 54 ff) as likely to have, or to have had, a role in intercepting transmissions from telecommunications satellites:

  • Hong Kong (since closed)
  • Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station (Geraldton, Western Australia)
  • Menwith Hill (Yorkshire, U.K.) Map (reportedly the largest Echelon facility)[18]
  • Misawa Air Base (Japan) Map
  • GCHQ Bude, formerly known as GCHQ CSO Morwenstow, (Cornwall, U.K.) Map
  • Pine Gap (Northern Territory, Australia – close to Alice Springs) Map
  • Sugar Grove (West Virginia, U.S.) Map
  • Yakima Training Center (Washington, U.S.) Map
  • GCSB Waihopai (New Zealand)
  • GCSB Tangimoana (New Zealand)
  • CFS Leitrim (Ontario, Canada)
  • Teufelsberg (Berlin, Germany) (closed 1992)

Other potentially related stations

The following stations are listed in the EP report (p. 57 ff) as ones whose roles “cannot be clearly established”:

  • Ayios Nikolaos (Cyprus – U.K.)
  • BadAibling Station (BadAibling, Germany – U.S.)
    • relocated to Griesheim in 2004[19]
    • deactivated in 2008[20]
  • Buckley Air Force Base (Aurora, Colorado)
  • Fort Gordon (Georgia, U.S.)
  • Gander (Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada)
  • Guam (Pacific Ocean, U.S.)
  • Kunia Regional SIGINT Operations Center (Hawaii, U.S.)
  • Lackland Air Force Base, Medina Annex (San Antonio, Texas)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Room 641A

Room 641A is a telecommunication interception facility operated by AT&T for the U.S. National Security Agency that commenced operations in 2003 and was exposed in 2006.[1][2]

Description

Room 641A is located in the SBC Communications building at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, three floors of which were occupied by AT&T before SBC purchased AT&T.[1] The room was referred to in internal AT&T documents as the SG3 [Study Group 3] Secure Room. It is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic[3] and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, who has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore “the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic.”[4] Former director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, William Binney, has estimated that 10 to 20 such facilities have been installed throughout the United States.[2]

The room measures about 24 by 48 feet (7.3 by 15 m) and contains several racks of equipment, including a Narus STA 6400, a device designed to intercept and analyze Internet communications at very high speeds.[1]

The very existence of the room was revealed by a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, and was the subject of a 2006 class action lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T.[5] Klein claims he was told that similar black rooms are operated at other facilities around the country.

Room 641A and the controversies surrounding it were subjects of an episode of Frontline, the current affairs documentary program on PBS. It was originally broadcast on May 15, 2007. It was also featured on PBS’s NOW on March 14, 2008. The room was also covered in the PBS Nova episode “The Spy Factory”.

Lawsuit

Basic diagram of how the alleged wiretapping was accomplished. From EFF court filings[4]

More complicated diagram of how it allegedly worked. From EFF court filings.[3] See bottom of the file page for enlarged and rotated version.

Main article: Hepting v. AT&T

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecommunication company of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in a massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans’ communications. On July 20, 2006, a federal judge denied the government’s and AT&T’s motions to dismiss the case, chiefly on the ground of the States Secrets Privilege, allowing the lawsuit to go forward. On August 15, 2007, the case was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and was dismissed on December 29, 2011 based on a retroactive grant of immunity by Congress for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[6] A different case by the EFF was filed on September 18, 2008, titled Jewel v. NSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

List of government surveillance projects for the United States

United States

A top secret document leaked by Edward Snowden to The Guardian in 2013, originally due to be declassified on 12 April 2038.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_surveillance_projects

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

James Bamford — The National Security Agency (NSA) — Videos

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-233

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

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

Global Government Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion and Climbing — Videos

Posted on March 9, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Rants, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

National Debt Projection for 2014.IMF

090612-economist-govt-debt-2014

Public Debt 1792 - 2014

National-Deb

BL-obama-budget-2014-debt_600

U.S. Debt Clock.org

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

$17 Trillion U.S. DEBT – A Visual Perspective

Chart: Total Federal Government Debt Since 1950

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

US Unfunded Liabilities

Peter Schiff Thinks ‘Unfunded Liabilities’ Is An Economic Indicator

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Economist: Real national debt is over $70 trillion, not $17 trillion

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

Debt-Statue-of-Liberty

Global Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion as Governments Binge, BIS Says

By John Glover  Mar 9, 2014 6:00 AM CT

The amount of debt globally has soared more than 40 percent to $100 trillion since the first signs of the financial crisis as governments borrowed to pull their economies out of recession and companies took advantage of record low interest rates, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

The $30 trillion increase from $70 trillion between mid-2007 and mid-2013 compares with a $3.86 trillion decline in the value of equities to $53.8 trillion in the same period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The jump in debt as measured by the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS in its quarterly review is almost twice the U.S.’s gross domestic product.

Borrowing has soared as central banks suppress benchmark interest rates to spur growth after the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy sent the world into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Yields on all types of bonds, from governments to corporates and mortgages, average about 2 percent, down from more than 4.8 percent in 2007, according to the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Broad Market Index.

“Given the significant expansion in government spending in recent years, governments (including central, state and local governments) have been the largest debt issuers,” according to Branimir Gruic, an analyst, and Andreas Schrimpf, an economist at the BIS. The organization is owned by 60 central banks and hosts the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a group of regulators and central bankers that sets global capital standards.

Austerity Measures

Marketable U.S. government debt outstanding has surged to a record $12 trillion, up from $4.5 trillion at the end of 2007, according to U.S. Treasury data compiled by Bloomberg. Corporate bond sales globally jumped during the period, with issuance totaling more than $21 trillion, Bloomberg data show.

Concerned that high debt loads would cause international investors to avoid their markets, many nations resorted to austerity measures of reduced spending and increased taxes, reining in their economies in the process as they tried to restore the fiscal order they abandoned to fight the worldwide recession.

Adjusting budgets to ignore interest payments, the International Monetary Fund said late last year that the so-called primary deficit in the Group of Seven countries reached an average 5.1 percent in 2010 when also smoothed to ignore large economic swings. The measure will fall to 1.2 percent this year, the IMF predicted.

The unprecedented retrenchments between 2010 and 2013 amounted to 3.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product and 3.3 percent of euro-area GDP, according to Julian Callow, chief international economist at Barclays Plc in London.

The riskiest to the most-creditworthy bonds have returned more than 31 percent since 2007, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. Treasury and agency debt handed investors gains of 27 percent in the period, while corporate bonds worldwide returned more than 40 percent, the indexes show.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-09/global-debt-exceeds-100-trillion-as-governments-binge-bis-says.html

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 )

Senator Rand Paul Republican Party Front-Runner — A Profile in Courage — Videos

Posted on February 27, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Raves, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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 211-219

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: Senator Rand Paul Republican Party Front-Runner —  A Profile in Courage –Videos

rand-paulRand Paul, Kelley Paul, William Paul, Robert Paul, Duncan PaulRand_Paul_family

Profile in Courage

Sen. Rand Paul : I’ll Decide in 2014 on a Presidential Run – 2/17/13

Sen. Paul: I heard Obama say `trust me` on NSA

Rand Paul’s Plan To Grow The Economy – Glenn Beck Radio 2/13/2013

Judge Jeanine Pirro Asks Rand Paul If He Will Run For President 2016

Chris Matthews: Rand Paul Will Be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2016

Rand Paul: Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016

Sen. Rand Paul Defends the Fourth Amendment – February 11, 2014

Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) Announces Lawsuit Vs Pres Obama, Dirs Of NSA, FBI, DNi, FBI Named In Suit

Sen. Rand Paul Delivers Response to President’s State of the Union Address

Senator Rand Paul HUMILIATES and EXPOSES John Kerry!!

Explosive: Sen. Rand Paul To Hillary Clinton – I Would Have Fired You

Reclaiming Our Rights in the 21st Century (Sen. Rand Paul)

How Rand Paul said the ‘politically bravest thing’ in Washington

Chris Christie Ties Rand Paul for 2016 GOP Primary Lead as Ted Cruz Slips 5 Points

Rand Paul: I’m Thinking Of Running For President – Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor 2/5/2013

Rand Paul: NSA Spying Doesn’t Make Me Feel Any Safer, But I Do Feel My Privacy Is Being Intruded On

Rand Paul: Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016

Sen. Rand Paul Filing Class-Action Lawsuit Against NSA

Liberty & Civil Rights speech by Senator Rand Paul Howard University

How the GOP Can Attract Young People: Rand Paul and Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck: Rand Paul On Freedom

Rand Paul Is the GOP’s Early Presidential Front-Runner

While the establishment hopes for a governor to emerge, he is quietly putting together a formidable operation.

Republican strategists like to say the party’s next nominee needs to hail from the GOP’s gubernatorial ranks. It’s a response to how unpopular Washington is—particularly the party’s congressional wing—and a reflection of the party’s strength in holding a majority of governorships. But another reason for the gubernatorial focus is to sidestep the one formidable candidate that gives the establishment heartburn: Sen. Rand Paul.

Make no mistake: The Kentuckian scares the living daylights out of many Republicans looking for an electable nominee capable of challenging Hillary Clinton. At the same time, he’s working overtime to broaden the party’s image outside its traditional avenues of support. The 2016 Republican nominating fight will go a long way toward determining whether Paul is the modern version of Barry Goldwater or at the leading edge of a new, more libertarian brand of Republicanism.

“That’s the big challenge—is America ready? I think that Rand and his small-L libertarian Republicanism can break through,” said Paul’s longtime adviser Jesse Benton. “He’s a fundamentally better messenger than Barry Goldwater—[Goldwater's 1964 campaign slogan] ‘In your heart you know he’s right’ is not very compelling. Rand is a wonderful communicator, and I think a message of individual liberty can build wide support.”

Either way, Paul’s brand of politics is a distinct departure from the party’s traditional moorings. His occasional sympathy for Edward Snowden puts him on an island within the party. His critique of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance techniques and noninterventionist views on foreign policy are gaining some conservative followers, but are still outside the party mainstream. Many conservative foreign policy hawks could sooner support Clinton than Paul in a 2016 matchup.

And he’s got a history of questionable associations and controversial comments that would make Democratic opposition researchers salivate. Whether it’s hiring a top aide who was a former secessionist talk-show host (and defending him amid controversy), questioning the legality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act during his Senate campaign, or facing allegations of plagiarism from past speeches, Paul’s got plenty of controversies poised to reemerge in a presidential campaign. Paul’s invocation of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky to attack Hillary Clinton in recent weeks is classic Paul—throw red meat into the fire to energize the base, regardless of the political consequences.

At the same time, Paul has been doing more than almost any other Republican to expand the party’s appeal to nontraditional GOP voters—the type of activity that’s imperative for future success. He spoke at Howard University and historically black Simmons College in Kentucky (twice) as part of an outreach effort toward African-Americans. His Jack Kemp-like pitch for “economic freedom zones” has even drawn the interest of the NAACP, which invited him to speak. He’s been leading the call for reforming drug sentencing, an issue that’s won support from many young voters and minorities who disproportionately bear the burden of current zero-tolerance policy. This week, at a Missouri Republican Party banquet, he said the party needs “a more diverse party—with tattoos and without tattoos.”

Meanwhile, the politics of the 2016 Republican nomination look increasingly favorable to Paul. He is one of the top fundraisers in the field, has a ready-made base of support from his father’s presidential networks, and has proven his savvy political instincts with a made-for-TV drone filibuster and NSA lawsuit. The newly compressed Republican presidential calendar should benefit a Paul candidacy, since he’s got the grassroots support to play in the small states and the money to fight forward in the big media-market states that follow.

Paul’s mutually beneficial alliance with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who faces reelection this year, is a prime example of his political foresight. McConnell has helped him build chits with the establishment, including donors skeptical of his national viability. McConnell, meanwhile, has gotten tea-party validation to get him through a contested primary against businessman Matt Bevin. He’s also benefited from Paul’s swipes at former President Clinton, who is emerging as an important surrogate for McConnell’s Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes. McConnell, if he survives the general election, could become the next majority leader. But Paul, in taming the establishment skepticism toward him, could end up with the bigger prize.

“He is the Republican front-runner,” said Republican strategist Scott Jennings, who served as deputy political director in the George W. Bush administration and is now running a pro-McConnell super PAC in Kentucky. “The political instinct of when to do things is not something you teach—you either have it or you don’t. He’s got a knack for finding populist issues showing why the government is stupid, and people like it.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/rand-paul-is-the-gop-s-early-presidential-front-runner-20140225

Rand Paul

Randal Howard “Rand” Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of theRepublican Party and the son of former U.S. Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas. He first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father, who was campaigning for the Republican Party’s nomination for president. During his father’s final term in the house, he was the first United States senator to have served simultaneously with a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul began practicing ophthalmology in Bowling GreenKentucky in 1993 and established his own clinic in December 2007. He remained active in politics and founded Kentucky Taxpayers United in 1994, of which he is still chairman.[2]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, defeating Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the primary. He subsequently defeated Kentucky Attorney GeneralJack Conway in the general election. A member of the Tea Party movement, he supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, the Read the Bills Act, and widespread reduction in federal spending and taxation. Unlike his more stridently isolationist, or “non-interventionist“, father, Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases.[3][4] He has garnered attention for his positions, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.[5]

Rand Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Paul Rand.
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Page semi-protected
Rand Paul
Rand Paul, official portrait, 112th Congress alternate.jpg
Paul in January 2011
United States Senator
from Kentucky
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2011
Serving with Mitch McConnell
Preceded by Jim Bunning
Personal details
Born Randal Howard Paul
January 7, 1963 (age 51)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Kelley Ashby Paul (m. 1990)
Relations Ron Paul (father)
Carol Wells Paul (mother)
Children William
Robert
Duncan
Residence Bowling Green, Kentucky
Alma mater Baylor University
Duke University (M.D.)
Occupation Ophthalmologist
Religion Presbyterian[1]
(baptized Episcopalian)
Website Senator Rand Paul

Randal Howard “Rand” Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of theRepublican Party and the son of former U.S. Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas. He first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father, who was campaigning for the Republican Party’s nomination for president. During his father’s final term in the house, he was the first United States senator to have served simultaneously with a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul began practicing ophthalmology in Bowling GreenKentucky in 1993 and established his own clinic in December 2007. He remained active in politics and founded Kentucky Taxpayers United in 1994, of which he is still chairman.[2]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, defeating Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the primary. He subsequently defeated Kentucky Attorney GeneralJack Conway in the general election. A member of the Tea Party movement, he supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, the Read the Bills Act, and widespread reduction in federal spending and taxation. Unlike his more stridently isolationist, or “non-interventionist“, father, Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases.[3][4] He has garnered attention for his positions, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.[5]

Early life and education

Randal Howard Paul[6] was born on January 7, 1963, in PittsburghPennsylvania, to Carol (née Wells) and Ron Paul. His father is a physician and former U.S. Representative of Texas’ 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald “Ronnie” Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.[9] Despite his father’s libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelistAyn Rand was not the inspiration for his first name. Growing up, he went by “Randy”,[11] but his wife shortened it to “Rand.”[9][12][13]

The Paul family moved to Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1968,[11][14] where he was raised[15][16] and where his father began a medical practice and for an extent of time was the onlyobstetrician in Brazoria County.[11][14] When he was 13, his father was elected to the United States House of Representatives.[17] The younger Paul often spent summer vacations interning in his father’s congressional office.[18] In his teenage years, Paul studied the Austrian economists that his father respected, as well as the writings of Objectivistphilosopher Ayn Rand.[11] Paul went to Brazoswood High School and was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.[9][15] Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984. He was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test.[19] During the time he spent at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team and Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a secret organization known as the NoZe Brotherhood.[20] Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned an M.D. in 1988, and completed his residency in 1993.[19]

Medical career

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.[21] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Gilbert Graves Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing’s office.[22] After his election to the U.S. Senate, he merged his practice with Downing’s medical practice.[23] Paul has faced two malpractice lawsuits between 1993 and 2010; he was cleared in one case while the other was settled for $50,000.[22] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and he has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.[21][22]Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.[12] As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.[24]

National Board of Ophthalmology

In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards on his first attempt and earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years. In 1997, to protest the ABO’s 1992 decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to be recertified every 10 years in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO) to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system.[25][26] The NBO was incorporated in 1999, but he allowed it to be dissolved in 2000 after not filing the required paperwork with the Kentucky Secretary of State‘s office. Paul later recreated the board in September 2005, three months before his original 10-year certification from the ABO lapsed. His ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005. Paul has since been certified by the NBO,[21] with himself as the organization’s president, his wife as vice-president, and his father-in-law as secretary.[27] The ophthalmology board is not officially recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).[21] The NBO was again dissolved on September 10, 2011.[28]

Political activism

Paul served as the head of the local chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas during his time at Baylor University. While attending Duke Medical School, Paul volunteered for his father’s 1988 Libertarian presidential campaign. In response to President Bush breaking his election promise to not raise taxes, Paul founded the North Carolina Taxpayers Union in 1991.[18] In 1994, Paul founded the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU), serving as chair of the organization from its inception. He has often cited his involvement with KTU as the foundation of his involvement with state politics.[29] Described as “ideological and conservative” by the Lexington Herald-Leader, the group considered itselfnonpartisan,[30][31] examining Kentucky legislators’ records on taxation and spending and encouraging politicians to publicly pledge to vote uniformly against tax increases.[32][33]

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2010 that although Paul had told a Kentucky television audience as recently as September 2009 that KTU published ratings each year on state legislators’ tax positions and that “we’ve done that for about 15 years”, the group had stopped issuing its ratings and report cards after 2002 and had been legally dissolved by the state in 2000 after failing to file registration documents.[29]

Paul spoke on his father’s behalf when his father was campaigning for office,[34] including throughout the elder Paul’s run in the 2008 presidential election, during which Rand campaigned door-to-door in New Hampshire[35] and spoke in Boston at a fundraising rally for his father on the anniversary of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.[36]

In February 2014, Paul joined the Tea Party-affiliated conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks in filing a class-action lawsuit charging that the US government’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records metadata is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.[37][38][39] Commenting on the lawsuit at a press conference, Paul said, “I’m not against the NSA, I’m not against spying, I’m not against looking at phone records…. I just want you to go to a judge, have an individual’s name and [get] a warrant. That’s what the Fourth Amendment says.”[37] He also said there was no evidence the surveillance of phone metadata had stopped terrorism.[37] Critics, including Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz[40] and Steven Aftergood, the director of the American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy,[39] called the lawsuit a political “stunt”. Paul’s political campaign organization said that the names of members of the public who went to Paul’s websites and signed on as potential class-action participants would be available in the organization’s database for future campaign use.[37][41] On the announcement of the filing of the lawsuit, Mattie Fein, the spokeswoman for and former wife of attorney Bruce Fein, complained that Fein’s intellectual contribution to the lawsuit had been stolen and that he had not been properly paid for his work.[42] Paul’s representatives denied the charge, and Fein issued a statement saying that Mattie Fein had not been authorized to speak for him on the matter and that he had in fact been paid for his work on the lawsuit.[42]

Paul is co-author of a book entitled The Tea Party Goes to Washington (2011) with Jack Hunter, also known as the “Southern Avenger.”[43][44] Paul is also the author ofGovernment Bullies: How Everyday Americans Are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds (2012).[45]

Paul was included in Time magazine’s world’s most influential people, for 2013.[46]

Electoral history

Primary campaign

Then-U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul speaking with a supporter at a healthcare rally in Louisville, Kentucky in November 2009

At the beginning of 2009, there was an online grassroots movement to draft Paul in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of Paul’s potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the Los Angeles Times[47] and locally in the Kentucky press.[48] Paul’s father remarked, “Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator.”[49]

On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,[50] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly run in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,[51] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning ultimately decided to run for reelection. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, though a Kentucky news site first broke the news.[52]

On July 28, 2009, Bunning announced that he would not run for reelection in the face of insufficient fundraising. The announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the Republican nomination,[53] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as newspapers in Kentucky.[54][55][56]

Early fundraising success

On August 20, 2009, Paul’s supporters planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours. His website reported that this set a new record in Kentucky’s political fundraising history in a 24-hour period.[57]

A second “moneybomb” was held on September 23, 2009, to counter a D.C. fundraiser being held for primary opponent Trey Grayson, by 23 Republican United States Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bank bailout.[58] The theme was a UFC “fight” between Paul and “We the People” vs. Trey Grayson and the “D.C. Insiders”.[59] The money bomb ended up raising $186,276 for Paul in 24 hours on September 23;[60] bringing Paul’s Senate campaign’s total raised to over one million. Later in the campaign, Paul claimed his pledge to not take money from lobbyists and Senators who had voted for the bailout was only a “primary pledge”;[61] he subsequently held a DC fundraiser with the same Senators who had been the target of the September 23, 2009 “moneybomb”. Paul ended up raising some $3 million during the primary period.

Primary victory

Then-U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul with then-Senator Jim Bunning at a rally inHebron, Kentucky in November 2010

Although Grayson was considered the frontrunner in July 2009,[62] Paul found success characterizing Grayson as a “career politician” and challenging Grayson’s conservatism. Paul ran an ad in February that made an issue out of Grayson’s September 2008 admission that he voted for Bill Clinton when he was 20 years old.[63] James Dobson, a Christian evangelical figure, endorsed Grayson on April 26 based on the advice of what Dobson described as “senior members of the GOP”, but on May 3 the Paul campaign announced that Dobson had changed his endorsement to Paul[64] after Paul and some Paul supporters had lobbied Dobson insisting on Paul’s social conservative bona fides.[65]

On May 18, Paul won the Republican Senatorial primary by a 23.4% margin,[66] meaning he would face the Kentucky Attorney GeneralJack Conway, in the November 2 general election.[67]

General campaign

In the 2010 general election, Paul faced Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. The campaign attracted $8.5 million in contributions from outside groups, of which $6 million was spent to help Paul and $2.5 million to help Conway. This money influx was in addition to the money spent by the candidates themselves: $6 million by Paul and $4.7 million by Conway.[68][69] On June 28, 2010, Paul supporters held their first post-primary online fundraising drive, this time promoted as a “money blast”.[70][71]

Paul’s campaign got off to a rough start after his comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stirred controversy.[72] Paul stated that he favored 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that had he been a senator during the 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act.[73] Paul said that he abhors racism, and that he would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. to repeal Jim Crow Laws. He later released a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated “unequivocally … that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964″.[74][75] Later he generated more controversy by characterizing statements made by Obama Administration officials regarding the BP oil spill cleanup as sounding “un-American”.[76]

U.S. Senate career

Tenure

112th Congress (2011-13)

Rand Paul being sworn in as a senator by Vice President Joe Biden, along with his family, in the Old Senate Chamber in theUnited States Capitol building

Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011 along with his father, marking the first time in congressional history that someone served in the Senate while their parent simultaneously served in the House of Representatives.[77] He was assigned to serve on the Energy and Natural ResourcesHealth, Education, Labor and PensionsHomeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Businesscommittees.[78] Paul also formed the Senate Tea Party Caucus with Jim DeMint and Mike Lee as its inaugural members.[79] His first legislative proposal was to cut $500 billion from federal spending in one year. This proposal included cutting the Department of Educationby 83 percent and the Department of Homeland Security by 43 percent, as well as folding the Department of Energy into the Department of Defense and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Seven independent agencies would be eliminated and food stamps would be cut by 30 percent. Under Paul’s proposal, defense spending would be reduced by 6.5 percent and international aidwould be eliminated.[80] He later proposed a five-year budget plan intended to balance the budget.[81]

In February, Paul was one of two Republicans to vote against extending three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves”—individuals not linked to terrorist groups).[82] In May, he remained the last senator opposing the PATRIOT Act, and was ultimately defeated on May 26.[83]

On March 2, Paul was one of nine senators to vote against a stopgap bill that cut $4 billion from the budget and temporarily prevent agovernment shutdown, citing that it did not cut enough from the budget.[84] One week later, he voted against the Democratic and Republican budget proposals to keep funding the federal government, citing that both bills did not cut enough spending. Both bills failed to pass the Senate.[85] He later voted against stopgap measures on March 17 and April 8, both of which passed the senate.[86] On April 14, He was one of 19 senators to vote against a budget that cut $38.5 billion from the budget and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.[87] Paul voiced opposition to U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war and has criticized President Obama for not gaining congressional consent forOperation Odyssey Dawn.[88] During the debt ceiling crisis, the Senator stated that he would only support raising the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment was enacted.[89]Paul was a supporter of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was tabled by Democratic opposition.[90] On August 3, Paul voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.[91]

On September 7, Paul called for a vote of no confidence in U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.[92] Later that month, Paul blocked legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines because he stated the bill was not strong enough.[93] In October, Paul blocked a bill that would provide $36 million in benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, saying that he was concerned that it could be used to aid domestic terrorists. This was in response to two alleged terrorists, who came to the United States through a refugee program and were receiving welfare benefits, were arrested in 2011 in Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green.[94] Paul lifted his hold on the bill after Democratic leaders promised to hold a Congressional hearing into how individuals are selected for refugee status and request an investigation on how the two suspects were admitted in the country through a refugee program.[95]

113th Congress (2013-15)

For the 113th Congress, Paul was added to the Foreign Relations committee and retained his spot on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Business committees.[96]

On March 6–7, 2013, Paul engaged in a talking filibuster to delay voting on the nomination of John O. Brennan as the Director of the CIA. Paul questioned the Obama administration’s use of drones and the stated legal justification for their potential use within the United States.

Rand Paul speaking during his filibuster

Paul held the floor for 12 hours and 52 minutes.[97] He ceded to several Republican senators and Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, who generally also questioned drone usage.[98][99] Paul noted his purpose was to challenge drone policy in general and specifically as it related to noncombatants on U.S. soil. He requested a pledge from the Administration that noncombatants would not be targeted on U.S. soil.[100] Attorney General Eric Holder responded that the President is not authorized to deploy extrajudicial punishment without due process, against non combatant citizens. Paul answered that he was “quite happy” with the response.[101] The filibuster was ended with a cloture vote of 81 to 16, and Brennan was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 63 to 34.[102]

In March 2013, Paul, with Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, threatened another filibuster, this one opposing any legislative proposals to expand federal gun control measures.[103] The filibuster was attempted on April 11, 2013, but was dismissed by cloture, in a 68–31 vote.[104]

Also in March 2013, Paul endorsed fellow Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell‘s 2014 re-election campaign.[105] McConnell had previously hired Paul’s 2010 campaign manager, Jesse Benton, as his own campaign manager.[106] Paul’s endorsement was seen as a major win for McConnell in avoiding a challenge in the Republican primary.[105] In August 2013, a phone call was released to the public in which Benton said that he was “holding his nose” in supporting McConnell in order to help a potential Rand Paul presidential candidacy.[107]

In response to Detroit’s declaration of bankruptcy, Paul stated he would not allow the government to attempt to bail out Detroit. In a phone interview with Breitbart.com on July 19, 2013, Paul said, “I basically say he is bailing them out over my dead body because we don’t have any money in Washington.” Paul said he thought a federal bailout would send the wrong message to other cities with financial problems.[108] In September, Paul stated that the United States should avoid military intervention in the ongoing Syrian civil war.[109] In an op-ed, Paul disputed the Obama administration’s claims that the threat of military force caused Syria’s government to consider turning over its chemical weapons, instead arguing that the opposition to military action in Syria, and the delay that it caused, led to diplomatic progress.[110]

In October 2013, Paul was the subject of some controversy when it was discovered that he had plagiarized from Wikipedia part of a speech in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. Referencing the movie Gattaca, Paul quoted almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article about the film without citing the source.[111][112][113] Evidence soon surfaced that Paul had copied passages in a number of his other speeches and published works nearly verbatim from other authors without giving credit to the original sources,[114][115] including in the speech he had given as the Tea Party rebuttal to the president’s 2013 State of the Union address and in a three-page-long passage of Paul’s bookGovernment Bullies, which was taken directly from an article by the conservative think thank The Heritage Foundation.[116][117] When it became apparent that an op-ed article Paul had published in the Washington Times and testimony he had given before the Senate Judiciary Committee both contained material that was virtually identical to an article that had been published by another author in The Week a few days earlier,[118] the Washington Times said that the newspaper would no longer publish the weekly column Paul had been contributing to the paper.[119] After a week of almost daily news reports of new allegations of plagiarism, Paul said that he was being held to an “unfair standard”, but would restructure his office in order to prevent mistakes in the future, if that would be what it would take “to make people leave me the hell alone”.[120]

Committee assignments

Current
Previous

Political positions

A member of the Tea Party movement,[121][122] Paul has described himself as a “constitutional conservative”[123] and a libertarian.[124] The National Journal rated him the sixth most conservative senator based on votes cast in 2012.[125]

He supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation.[5] Unlike his more stridently “non-interventionist” father, Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases.[126]

Paul describes himself as “100% pro life”.[127] Paul opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.[128] He has been a sponsor or co-sponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban all abortions, except possibly in cases in which the mother’s life is at risk.[128] He believes legal personhood begins at fertilization.[129][130][131]

He opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.[132][133] He has argued that Congress’ political position is “ten years behind the American public.”.[134]

He has criticized mandatory minimums that have led to unreasonably harsh sentences for repeated offenders. He has highlighted the case of Timothy L. Tyler as particularly unfair.[135]

Rand Paul speaking at the 2013Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on March 14, 2013

In a January 2013 interview, he spoke of a possible 2016 presidential candidacy. While not promising a run, he stated the decision would be made within the next two years. He also indicated his intention to shape GOP politics regardless of a run.[136]

He delivered the Tea Party response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on February 13, 2013,[137] while Marco Rubio gave the official Republican response. This prompted some pundits to call that date the start of the 2016 Republican primaries.[138]

He spoke at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. on March 14, 2013.[139] Two days later he won the 2013 CPAC straw poll with 25% of the votes cast.[140] At a Christian Science Monitor sponsored breakfast on April 17, 2013, he reaffirmed that he was considering a 2016 run for the presidency and said no decision would be made before 2014.[141]

He won the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference poll, held April 19–20, 2013, with 39% [142] and the Tennessee Republican Assembly straw poll, also held on April 20, with 58%.[143] His 2013 itinerary reportedly included trips through several early primary states.[144]

Personal life

Paul is married to Kelley (née Ashby) Paul. They live in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where she is a freelance writer and manages payroll and marketing communications for his ophthalmology practice.[145] They have three sons: William, Duncan and Robert. Paul wears hearing aids in both ears

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

Will Governor Jerry Brown Challenge Hillary Clinton for Democratic Party Nomination For President in 2016? — Videos

Posted on February 27, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Employment, Faith, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-217

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: Will Governor Jerry Brown Challenge Hillary Clinton for Democratic Party Nomination For President?- Videos

Jerry Brown declares California drought emergency

Water wars: California drought spawns political fight

Gov. Jerry Brown Delivers 2014 State Of The State Address

Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown Nixes 2016 Presidential Bid

Keynote Address: Gov. Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown for President?

Gov Jerry Brown 14-15 Budget Press Conference

John King, USA : CNN: Jerry Brown running on experience

CA Gov. Jerry Brown interview- media in politics (Merv Griffin Show 1981)

BAY AREA FLASHBACK – Jerry Brown Presidential Campaign (1976)

Brown rules out presidential bid

By Seema Mehta

Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday that he will not run for president in 2016, dashing political speculation that he might make a fourth bid for the White House.

“No, that’s not in the cards. Unfortunately,” he told reporters at a news conference before brightening about his current job: “Actually, California is a lot more governable.”

Brown, who ran for president in 1976, 1980 and 1992, was the subject of some speculation recently when his office did not categorically rule out another run, the governor was touting his work in California as a template for the nation and some activists named him as an alternative to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is weighing a bid.

Brown was in Riverside to discuss prisons, education and water policy with local officials, part of a two-day, three-city trip to inland portions of the state. He visited Bakersfield on Tuesday morning and Fresno on Monday. Last week, he unveiled his budget in Sacramento, San Diego and Los Angeles.

Brown is up for reelection this year and has raised millions for a bid. But he has been coy about his intentions.

Asked about the purpose of his travel schedule, Brown declared Bakersfield a “wonderful place,” said politics did not interest him and continued to demur about his intentions.

“We have time,” he said. “I’m not running yet.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-pc-brown-rules-out-presidential-bid-20140114,0,869179.story#ixzz2uIGedGZa

Jerry Brown breaks some hearts: won’t run for president in 2016

California Gov. Jerry Brown will not run for president in 2016, he said Tuesday.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Governor Moonbeam put to rest speculation that he might launch his fourth bid for president, 40 years after he first sought the Democratic nomination in 1976.

“No, that’s not in the cards. Unfortunately,” he said.

Brown raised eyebrows last month when he declined to outright deny interest in a bid. He has touted his efforts to deal with California’s economic woes as a model for the whole country, which some took as an indication that he was seeking a national stage.

“Things happen in California that are not happening in Washington,” Brown in October, the Los Angeles Times reported. “We can do a lot of things in California to shift the [political] climate throughout the whole country.”

But Brown quashed any hopes that he might wade into the mire of politics in Washington, D.C.

“Actually,” he told reporters, “California is a lot more governable.”

This would have been Brown’s fourth try for the Democratic presidential nomination. In 1992 he mounted a strong but ultimately unsuccessful run against Bill Clinton, winning support from The New York Times and other major publications for his flat tax proposal. Brown lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, during his first tenure as governor of the Golden State. His 1980 campaign prompted the Dead Kennedys to warn that Brown would create a “Zen Fascist” dictatorship in which kids would be forced to “meditate in school,” in their punk classic “California Über Alles.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/jerry-brown-breaks-some-hearts-wont-run-for-president-in-2016/

Jerry Brown, urged to run for president, won’t rule out 2016 bid

|By Mark Z. Barabak

If he weren’t the nation’s oldest governor, a ripe 75, Jerry Brown would automatically be counted among serious Democratic candidates for president in 2016.

He boasts a household name, an impressive list of accomplishments in the country’s most populous state — a state some once deemed ungovernable — glowing national media coverage and a deep familiarity with the pitfalls and rigors of a White House bid, having run three times before.

Now, some are pushing Brown to consider another try for the White House, even if it means taking on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the prohibitive, if still undeclared, Democratic favorite.

“I think Jerry is precisely what America needs,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, the leader of a national nurses union and a strong political ally of Brown. “He has the courage of his convictions, which we haven’t seen in a very long while.”

Brown, who is up for reelection in 2014, has not yet stated his intention to seek another term, though he has raised millions of dollars for what would appear to be an easy campaign.

Asked if Brown would categorically rule out another presidential bid in 2016, a spokesman, Jim Evans, referred to a statement Brown made in May at a California Chamber of Commerce breakfast. Citing his past primary victories, Brown said “time is kind of running out on that.”

“I guess I’ll just have to stay and do the work of being the governor, which I actually enjoy because I have some perspective that I didn’t used to have,” Brown said.

The famously Delphic governor often leaves people guessing about his motivation and intentions, which leaves plenty of leeway ahead of 2016. Absent a clear-cut statement of disinterest from Brown — who sought the White House in 1976, 1980 and 1992 — some see familiar signs of a presidential-candidate-in-waiting.

The governor has widely touted California’s comeback and his record as a model for the rest of the country and, especially, a dysfunctional Washington, D.C. With support from an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature — and a combination of spending cuts and voter-approved tax hikes — Brown has brought the state’s deficit-ridden budget under control, overhauled the education finance system to benefit poorer students, pushed through major environmental initiatives and reaped the benefits — job growth, an improved housing market — of a slow but steady economic recovery.

“Things happen in California that are not happening in Washington,” Brown said during an October appearance at an electric-vehicle expo in San Francisco. “We can do a lot of things in California to shift the [political] climate throughout the whole country.”

In a victory lap a few weeks later, he traveled to the nation’s capital and ticked off the bills he had signed, including immigration-friendly legislation and laws promoting green energy. “We didn’t wait for the federal government,” he crowed.

At the same time, Brown has established himself as a moderating force in Sacramento, pushing back against liberals on issues such as gun control and business regulation, which, to some, suggests an effort to shed the kooky Left Coast image of his first time as governor, more than 20 years ago, and craft a more centrist profile ahead of 2016.

Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr. (born April 7, 1938) is an American politician who currently serves as the 39th Governor of California since 2011; he previously served as California’s 34th Governor[3] from 1975 to 1983. Both before and after his original two terms as Governor, Brown served in numerous state, local, and party positions. He was a member of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees (1969–1971), Secretary of State of California (1971–1975), chairman of the California Democratic Party (1989–1991), Mayor of Oakland (1999–2007) and Attorney General of California (2007–2011).

Brown sought the Democratic nominations for President of the United States in 19761980, and 1992, and was the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in California in 1982, but was unsuccessful in those attempts. He is the son of Pat Brown, the 32nd Governor of California. On October 7, 2013, he became the longest-serving governor in California history measured by cumulative service.

As a consequence of the 28-year gap between his second and third terms, Brown has been both the sixth-youngest California governor(and the youngest since the 1860s) and the oldest California governor in history.

Early life, education, and career

Brown was born in San Francisco, California, as the only son of four siblings born to Bernice Layne Brown, and District Attorney of San Francisco and later Governor of California, Edmund Gerald “Pat” Brown, Sr.[4] His father was of half Irish and half German descent.[5]He was a member of the California Cadet Corps at St. Ignatius High School, where he graduated in 1955.[citation needed]

In 1955, Brown entered Santa Clara University for a year, and left to attend Sacred Heart Novitiate, a Jesuit seminary, intent on becoming a Catholic priest. Brown left the seminary after three years,[6] enrolling at the University of California, Berkeley in 1960, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1961. Brown went on to Yale Law School and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1964.[4] After law school, Brown worked as a law clerk for California Supreme Court Justice Mathew Tobriner.

Returning to California, Brown took the state bar exam and passed on his second attempt.[7] Brown then settled in Los Angeles and joined the law firm of Tuttle & Taylor. In 1969, Brown ran for the newly created Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, which oversaw community colleges in the city, and placed first in a field of 124.[8]

Secretary of State (1971–1975)

In 1970, Brown was elected California Secretary of State. Brown argued before the California Supreme Court and won cases againstStandard Oil of CaliforniaInternational Telephone and TelegraphGulf Oil, and Mobil for election law violations.[8] In addition, he forced legislators to comply with campaign disclosure laws. While holding this office, he discovered the use of falsely notarized documents to earn a tax deduction by then-President Richard Nixon. Brown also drafted and helped to pass the California Political Reform Act of 1974, Proposition 9, passed by 70% of California’s voters in June, 1974. Among other provisions, it established the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Governor of California (1975–1983)

First term

California Chief Justice Donald Wright (left) swearing in Brown as Governor of California on January 6, 1975

In 1974, Brown ran in a highly contested Democratic primary for Governor of California against Speaker of the California Assembly Bob Moretti, San Francisco Mayor Joseph L. Alioto, Representative Jerome R. Waldie, and others. Brown won the primary with the name recognition of his father, Pat Brown, whom many people admired for his progressive administration.[9] In the General Election on November 5, 1974, Brown was elected Governor of California over California State Controller Houston I. Flournoy; Republicans ascribed the loss to anti-Republican feelings from Watergate, the election being held only ninety days after President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Brown succeeded Republican Governor Ronald Reagan, who had planned on retiring from office after serving two terms.

After taking office, Brown gained a reputation as a fiscal conservative.[10] The American Conservative later noted he was “much more of a fiscal conservative than Governor Reagan.”[11] His fiscal restraint resulted in one of the biggest budget surpluses in state history, roughly $5 billion.[12][13] For his personal life, Brown refused many of the privileges and perks of the office, forgoing the newly constructed governor’s residence and instead renting a modest apartment at the corner of 14th and N Streets, adjacent to Capitol Park in downtown Sacramento.[14] Instead of riding as a passenger in a chauffeured limousine as previous governors had done, Brown walked to work and drove in a Plymouth Satellite sedan.[15][16]

As governor, Brown held a strong interest in environmental issues. He appointed J. Baldwin to work in the newly created California Office of Appropriate Technology, Sim Van der Ryn as State Architect, Stewart Brand as Special Advisor, John Bryson as chairman of the California State Water Board. Brown also reorganized the California Arts Council, boosting its funding by 1300 percent and appointing artists to the council[8] and appointed more women and minorities to office than any other previous California Governor.[8] In 1977, he sponsored the “first-ever tax incentive for rooftop solar” among many environmental initiatives.[17] In 1975, Brown obtained the repeal of the “depletion allowance“, a tax break for the state’s oil industry, despite the efforts of lobbyist Joe Shell, a former intraparty rival to Richard M. Nixon.[18]

Like his father, Brown strongly opposed the death penalty and vetoed it as Governor, which the legislature overrode in 1977. He also appointed judges who opposed capital punishment. One of these appointments, Rose Bird as the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, was recalled by voters after a strong campaign financed by business interests upset by her “pro-labor” and “pro-free speech” rulings. The death penalty was only “a trumped-up excuse”[19] to use against her, even though the Bird Court consistently upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty.[20] In 1960, he lobbied his father, then Governor, to spare the life of Caryl Chessman and reportedly won a 60-day stay for him.[21][22]

Brown was both in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment and opposed to Proposition 13, the latter of which would decrease property taxes and greatly reduce revenue to cities and counties.[23] When Proposition 13 passed in June 1978, he heavily cut state spending, and along with the Legislature, spent much of the $5 billion surplus to meet the proposition’s requirements and help offset the revenue losses which made cities, counties, and schools more dependent on the state.[12][23] His actions in response to the proposition earned him praise from Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis who went as far to make a television commercial for Brown just before his successful reelection bid in 1978.[23][24] The controversial proposition immediately cut tax revenues and required a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes.[25] Proposition 13 “effectively destroyed the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue”.[26] Max Neiman, a professor at the Institute of Government Studies at University of California, Berkeley, credited Brown for “bailing out local government and school districts” but felt it was harmful “because it made it easier for people to believe that Proposition 13 wasn’t harmful.”[17]

Second term

Brown won re-election in 1978 against Republican state Attorney General Evelle J. Younger. Brown appointed the first openly gay judge in the United States when he namedStephen Lachs to serve on the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1979.[27] In 1981, he also appointed the first openly lesbian judge in the United States, Mary C. Morgan to the San Francisco Municipal Court.[28] Brown completed his second term having appointed a total of five gay judges, including Rand Schrader and Jerold Krieger.[29][30] Through his first term as Governor, Brown had not appointed any openly gay people to any position, but he cited the failed 1978 Briggs Initiative, which sought to ban homosexuals from working in California’s public schools, for his increased support of gay rights.[27]

In 1981, California Governor Jerry Brown, who had established a reputation as a strong environmentalist, was confronted with a serious medfly infestation in the San Francisco Bay Area. He was advised by the state’s agricultural industry, and the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection service (APHIS), to authorize airborne spraying of the region. Initially, in accordance with his environmental protection stance, he chose to authorize ground-level spraying only. Unfortunately, the infestation spread as the medfly reproductive cycle out-paced the spraying. After more than a month, millions of dollars of crops had been destroyed and billions of dollars more were threatened. Governor Brown then authorized a massive response to the infestation. Fleets of helicopters sprayed malathion at night, and the California National Guard set up highway checkpoints and collected many tons of local fruit; in the final stage of the campaign, entomologists released millions of sterile male medflies in an attempt to disrupt the insects’ reproductive cycle.

Ultimately the infestation was eradicated, but both the Governor’s delay and the scale of the action has remained controversial ever since. Some people claimed that malathion was toxic to humans, as well as insects. In response to such concerns, Brown’s chief of staff, B. T. Collins, staged a news conference during which he publicly drank a glass of malathion. Many people complained that, while the malathion may not have been very toxic to humans, the aerosol spray containing it was corrosive to car paint.

Brown proposed the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit to provide emergency communications for the state—a proposal similar to one that was indeed eventually adopted. In 1979, an out-of-state columnist, Mike Royko, at the Chicago Sun-Times, picked up on the nickname from Brown’s girlfriend at the time, Linda Ronstadt, who was quoted in a 1978 Rolling Stone magazine interview humorously calling him “Moonbeam”.[31][32] A year later Royko expressed his regret for publicizing the nickname,[33] and in 1991 Royko disavowed it entirely, proclaiming Brown to be just as serious as any other politician.[34][35][36][37]

Brown chose not to run for a third term in 1982, and instead ran for the United States Senate, but lost to San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson. He was succeeded as Governor by George Deukmejian, then state Attorney General, on January 3, 1983.

Senate defeat and public life

In 1982, Brown chose not to seek a third term as governor, instead, Brown ran for the United States Senate for the seat being vacated by Republican S.I. Hayakawa. He was defeated by Republican San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson by a margin of 52% to 45%. After his Senate defeat, Brown was left with few political options.[38] Republican George Deukmejian, a Brown critic, narrowly won the governorship in 1982, succeeding Brown, and was reelected overwhelmingly in 1986. After his Senate defeat in 1982, many considered Brown’s political career to be over.[38]

Brown traveled to Japan to study Buddhism, studying with Christian/Zen practitioner Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle under Yamada Koun-roshi. In an interview he explained, “Since politics is based on illusions, zazen definitely provides new insights for a politician. I then come back into the world of California and politics, with critical distance from some of my more comfortable assumptions.”[39] He also visited Mother Teresa in Calcutta, India, where he ministered to the sick in one of her hospices.[40] He explained, “Politics is a power struggle to get to the top of the heap. Calcutta and Mother Teresa are about working with those who are at the bottom of the heap. And to see them as no different than yourself, and their needs as important as your needs. And you’re there to serve them, and doing that you are attaining as great a state of being as you can.”[39]

Upon his return from abroad in 1988, Brown announced that he would stand as a candidate to become chairman of the California Democratic Party, and won against investment banker Steve Westly.[41] Although Brown greatly expanded the party’s donor base and enlarged its coffers, with a focus on grassroots organizing and get out the vote drives, he was criticized for not spending enough money on TV ads, which was felt to have contributed to Democratic losses in several close races in 1990. In early 1991, Brown abruptly resigned his post and announced that he would run for the Senate seat held by the retiring Alan Cranston. Although Brown consistently led in the polls for both the nomination and the general election, he abandoned the campaign, deciding instead to run for the presidency for a third time.

In 1995, with Brown’s political career at a low point, in the motion picture Jade, the fictional Governor of California tells an assistant district attorney to drop a case, “unless you want as much of a future in this state as Jerry Brown.” The assistant DA responds “Who’s Jerry Brown?”

Presidential bids

1976

Brown first ran for the Democratic nomination for President in March 1976, after the primary season had begun, and over a year after some candidates had started campaigning. Brown declared, “The country is rich, but not so rich as we have been led to believe. The choice to do one thing may preclude another. In short, we are entering an era of limits.”[42][43]

Brown’s name began appearing on primary ballots in May and he won in MarylandNevada, and his home state of California.[44] He missed the deadline inOregon, but he ran as a write-in candidate and finished in third behind Jimmy Carter and Senator Frank Church of Idaho. Brown is often credited with winning the New Jersey and Rhode Island primaries, but in reality, uncommitted slates of delegates that Brown advocated in those states finished first. With support from Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards, Brown won a majority of delegates at the Louisiana delegate selection convention; thus Louisiana was the only southern state to not support Southerners Carter or Alabama Governor George Wallace. Despite this success, he was unable to stall Carter’s momentum, and his rival was nominated on the first ballot at the 1976 Democratic National Convention. Brown finished third with roughly 300 delegate votes, narrowly behind Congressman Morris Udall and Carter.

1980

In 1980, Brown challenged Carter for renomination. His candidacy had been anticipated by the press ever since he won re-election as governor in 1978 over the Republican Evelle Younger by the largest margin in California history, 1.3 million votes. But Brown had trouble gaining traction in both fundraising and polling for the presidential nomination. This was widely believed to be the result of the more prominent candidate Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Brown’s 1980 platform, which he declared to be the natural result of combining Buckminster Fuller‘s visions of the future and E. F. Schumacher‘s theory of “Buddhist economics“, was much expanded from 1976. His “era of limits” slogan was replaced by a promise to, in his words, “Protect the Earth, serve the people, and explore the universe.”

Three main planks of his platform were a call for a constitutional convention to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment, a promise to increase funds for the space program as a “first step in bringing us toward a solar-powered space satellite to provide solar energy for this planet,”[45] and, in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, opposition to nuclear power. On the subject of the 1979 energy crisis, Brown decried the “Faustian bargain” that he claimed Carter had entered into with the oil industry, and declared that he would greatly increase federal funding of research into solar power. He endorsed the idea of mandatory non-military national service for the nation’s youth, and suggested that the Defense Department cut back on support troops while beefing up the number of combat troops.

Brown opposed Kennedy’s call for universal national health insurance and opposed Carter’s call for an employer mandate to provide catastrophic private health insurance.[46] As an alternative, he suggested a program of tax credits for those who do not smoke or otherwise damage their health, saying: “Those who abuse their bodies should not abuse the rest of us by taking our tax dollars.”[46] Brown also called for expanding the use of acupuncture and midwifery.[46]

As his campaign began to attract more members of what some more conservative commentators described as “the fringe”, including activists like Jane FondaTom Hayden, andJesse Jackson, however his polling numbers began to suffer. Brown received only 10 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, and he was soon forced to announce that his decision to remain in the race would depend on a good showing in the Wisconsin primary. Although he had polled well there throughout the primary season, an attempt to film a live speech in Madison, the state’s capital, into a special effects-filled, 30-minute commercial (produced and directed by Francis Ford Coppola) was disastrous.[47]

1992

When Brown announced his intention to run for president against President George H.W. Bush, many in the media and his own party dismissed his campaign as having little chance of gaining significant support. Ignoring them, Brown embarked on a grassroots campaign to, in his own words, “take back America from the confederacy of corruption,careerism, and campaign consulting in Washington”.[48] In his stump speech, first used while officially announcing his candidacy on the steps of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Brown told listeners that he would only be accepting campaign contributions from individuals and that he would not accept over $100.[49] Continuing with his populistreform theme, he assailed what he dubbed “the bipartisan Incumbent Party in Washington” and called for term limits for members of Congress. Citing various recent scandals onCapitol Hill, particularly the recent House banking scandal and the large congressional pay-raises from 1990, he promised to put an end to Congress being a “Stop-and-Shop for the moneyed special interests“.

As Brown campaigned in various primary states, he would eventually expand his platform beyond a policy of strict campaign finance reform. Although he focused on a variety of issues throughout the campaign, he highlighted his endorsement of living wage laws and opposition to free trade agreements such as NAFTA; he mostly concentrated on his tax policy, which had been created specifically for him by Arthur Laffer, the famous supporter of supply-side economics who created the Laffer curve. This plan, which called for the replacement of the progressive income tax with a flat tax and a value added tax, both at a fixed 13 percent rate, was decried by his opponents as regressive. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by The New York TimesThe New Republic, and Forbes, and its raising of taxes on corporations and elimination of various loopholes which tended to favor the very wealthy, proved to be popular with voters. This was, perhaps, not surprising, as various opinion polls taken at the time found that as many as three-quarters of all Americans believed the current tax code to be unfairly biased toward the wealthy. He “seemed to be the most left-wing and right-wing man in the field… [calling] for term limits, a flat tax, and the abolition of the Department of Education.”[50] Brown scored surprising wins in Connecticut and Colorado and seemed poised to overtake Clinton.

Due to his limited budget, Brown began to use a mixture of alternative media and unusual fund raising techniques. Unable to pay for actual commercials, he used frequent cable television and talk radio interviews as a form of free media to get his message to voters. In order to raise funds, he purchased a toll-free telephone number, which adorned all of his campaign stances.[51] During the campaign, Brown’s repetition of this number combined with the moralistic language used, led some to describe him as a “political televangelist” with an “anti-politics gospel”.[52]

Despite poor showings in the Iowa caucus (1.6%) and the New Hampshire primary (8%), Brown soon managed to win narrow victories in MaineColoradoNevadaAlaska, andVermont, but he continued to be considered a small threat for much of the campaign. It was not until shortly after Super Tuesday, when the field had been narrowed to Brown, former Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, and frontrunner Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, that Brown began to emerge as a major contender in the eyes of the press. On March 17, Brown forced Tsongas from the race when he received a strong third-place showing in the Illinois primary and then defeated the senator for second place in the Michigan primary by a wide margin. Exactly one week later, he cemented his position as a major threat to Clinton when he eked out a narrow win in the bitterly-fought Connecticut primary. As the press focused on the primaries in New York and Wisconsin, which were both to be held on the same day, Brown, who had taken the lead in polls in both states, made a gaffe: he announced to an audience of various leaders of New York City’s Jewish community that, if nominated, he would consider the Reverend Jesse Jackson as a vice-presidential candidate.[53] Jackson, who had made a pair of anti-semitic comments about Jews in general and New York City’s Jews in particular while running for president in 1984, was still despised in Jewish communities. Jackson also had ties to Louis Farrakhan, who said Judaism was a “gutter religion,” and with Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization.[53] Brown’s polling numbers suffered. On April 7, he lost narrowly to Bill Clinton in Wisconsin (37%–34%), and dramatically in New York (41%–26%).

Although Brown continued to campaign in a number of states, he won no further primaries. Although overwhelmingly outspent, Brown won upset victories in seven states and his votes won to money raised ratio was by far the best of any candidate in the race.[54] He still had a sizable number of delegates, and a big win in his home state of California would deprive Clinton of sufficient support to win the Democratic nomination, possibly bringing about a brokered convention. After nearly a month of intense campaigning and multiple debates between the two candidates, Clinton managed to defeat Brown in this final primary by a margin of 48% to 41%. Although Brown did not win the nomination, he was able to boast of one accomplishment: At the following month’s Democratic National Convention, he received the votes of 596 delegates on the first ballot, more than any other candidate but Clinton. He spoke at the convention, and to the national viewing audience, yet without endorsing Clinton, through the device of seconding his own nomination. There was animosity between the Brown and Clinton campaigns, and Brown was the first political figure to criticize Bill Clinton over what became the Whitewater controversy.[51]

Mayor of Oakland (1999–2007)

Mayor Jerry Brown (left) with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (middle) and San Francisco Supervisor Gavin Newsom (right).

What would become Brown’s re-emergence into politics after six years was in Oakland, California, an “overwhelmingly minority city of 400,000.”[55] Brown ran as an independent “having left the Democratic Party, blasting what he called the ‘deeply corrupted’ two-party system.”[55] Prior to taking office, Brown campaigned to get the approval of the electorate to convert Oakland’s weak mayor political structure, which structured the mayor as chairman of the city council and official greeter, to a strong mayor structure, where the mayor would act as chief executive over the nonpolitical city manager and thus the various city departments, and break tie votes on the Oakland City Council.[55] He won with 59% of the vote in a field of ten candidates.[55] The political left had hoped for some of the more progressive politics from Brown’s earlier governorship, but found Brown “more pragmatic than progressive, more interested in downtown redevelopment and economic growth than political ideology”.[56]

The city was rapidly losing residents and businesses, and Brown is credited with starting the revitalization of the city using his connections and experience to lessen the economic downturn, while attracting $1 billion of investments, including refurbishing the Fox Theatre, the Port of Oakland, and Jack London Square.[55] The downtown district was losing retailers, restaurateurs and residential developers, and Brown sought to attract thousands of new residents with disposable income to revitalize the area.[57] Brown continued his predecessor Elihu Harris‘s public policy of supporting downtown housing development in the area defined as the Central Business District in Oakland’s 1998 General Plan.[58] Since Brown worked toward the stated goal of bringing an additional 10,000 residents to Downtown Oakland, his plan was known as “10K.” It has resulted in redevelopment projects in the Jack London District, where Brown purchased and later sold an industrial warehouse which he used as a personal residence,[55] and in the Lakeside Apartments District near Lake Merritt. The 10k plan has touched the historic Old Oakland district, the Chinatown district, the Uptown district, andDowntown. Brown surpassed the stated goal of attracting 10,000 residents according to city records, and built more affordable housing than previous mayoral administrations.[57]

Brown had campaigned on fixing Oakland’s schools, but “bureaucratic battles” dampened his efforts. He concedes he never had control of the schools, and his reform efforts were “largely a bust”.[55] He focused instead on the creation of two charter schools, the Oakland School for the Arts and the Oakland Military Institute.[55] Another area of disappointment was overall crime. Brown sponsored nearly two dozen crime initiatives to reduce the crime rate,[59] although crime decreased by 13 percent overall, the city still suffered a “57 percent spike in homicides his final year in office, to 148 overall”.[55]

Attorney General of California (2007–2011)

Brown in 2009

In 2004, Brown expressed interest to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General of California in the 2006 election, and in May 2004, he formally filed to run. He defeated his Democratic primary opponent Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo 63% to 37%. In the general election, Brown defeated Republican State Senator Charles Poochigian 56.3% to 38.2%, one of the largest margins of victory in any statewide California race.[60] In the final weeks leading up to Election Day, Brown’s eligibility to run for Attorney General was challenged in what Brown called a “political stunt by a Republican office seeker” (Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee chairman and state GOP vice-chair candidateTom Del Beccaro). Plaintiffs claimed Brown did not meet eligibility according to California Government Code §12503, “No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.” Legal analysts called the lawsuit frivolous because Brown was admitted to practice law in the State of California on June 14, 1965, and had been so admitted to practice ever since. Although ineligible to practice law because of his voluntary inactive status in the State Bar of California from January 1, 1997 to May 1, 2003, he was nevertheless still admitted to practice. Because of this difference the case was eventually thrown out.[61][62]

As Attorney General, Brown represented the state in fighting death penalty appeals and stated that he would follow the law, regardless of his personal beliefs against capital punishment. Capital punishment by lethal injection was halted in California by federal judge Jeremy D. Fogel until new facilities and procedures were put into place.[63] Brown moved to resume capital punishment in 2010 with the execution of Albert Greenwood Brown after the lifting of a statewide moratoriumby a California court.[64] Brown’s Democratic campaign, which pledged to “enforce the laws” of California, denied any connection between the case and the gubernatorial election. Prosecutor Rod Pacheco, who supported Republican opponent Meg Whitman, said that it would be unfair to accuse Jerry Brown of using the execution for political gain as they never discussed the case.[65]

In June 2008, Brown filed a fraud lawsuit claiming mortgage lender Countrywide Financial engaged in “unfair and deceptive” practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means.”[66][67] Brown accused the lender of breaking the state’s laws against false advertising and unfair business practices, the lawsuit also claimed the defendant misled many consumers by misinforming them about the workings of certain mortgages such adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, low-documentation loans and home-equity loans while telling borrowers they would be able to refinance before the interest rate on their loans adjusted.[68] The suit was settled in October 2008 after Bank of America acquired Countrywide. The settlement involved the modifying of troubled ‘predatory loans’ up to $8.4 billion.[69]

Proposition 8, a contentious voter-approved amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage was upheld in May 2009 by the California Supreme Court.[70][71] In August 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[72] Brown and then Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger both declined to appeal the ruling.[73] The state appeals court declined to order the men to defend the proposition and scheduled a hearing in early December to see if there is “legal standing to appeal Walker’s ruling.”[74]

Governor of California (2011–present)

Third term

Brown at an campaign rally in Sacramento two days before the election

Brown announced his candidacy for governor on March 2, 2010.[75] First indicating his interest in early 2008, Brown formed an exploratory committee in order to seek a third term as governor in 2010, following the expiration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s term.[76][77]

Brown’s Republican opponent in the election was former eBay president Meg Whitman. Brown was endorsed by the Los Angeles Times,[78] The Sacramento Bee,[79] the San Francisco Chronicle,[80] the San Jose Mercury News,[81] and theService Employees International Union.[82] Brown won the race 53.8% to Whitman’s 40.9%.

Brown was sworn in for his third term as governor on January 3, 2011, succeeding Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. He will be up for re-election in 2014. Brown is working on a budget that would shift many government programs from the state to the local level, a reversal of trends from his first tenure as governor.[83]

On June 28, 2012, Governor Brown signed a budget that made deep cuts to social services with the assumption that voters would pass $8 billion in tax hikes in November 2012 to close California’s $15.7-billion budget deficit. “This budget reflects tough choices that will help get California back on track,” Governor Brown said in a statement.[84]

When asked by writer Marc Collins, in an article from Pacific Standard magazine on August 12, 2012, what the state needs to get back on track even if his initiative passes, Governor Brown remarked: “We need budget cuts. We need the continued growth of the economy for a long period of time. We’re suffering from the mortgage meltdown that killed 600,000 jobs in the construction industry. … We’re recovering from a national recession slowly—over 300,000 jobs [gained] since the recession. We’ve got a million to go. That needs to continue, but that depends not only on Barack Obama and the Congress and the Federal Reserve, but also on [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, China, the European Union, and the self-organizing quality of the world economy. We need all that, which we don’t have control over. What we do have control over is managing affairs to win public regard and confidence, and technically we need to make these hard cuts that Democrats don’t want to make, but a gimmicky sort of budget won’t lend itself to voters passing new taxes.”[85]

In September 2012, Brown signed legislation sponsored by California State Senator Ted Lieu that prohibits protesters at funerals within 300 feet, with convicted violators punishable with fines and jail time; the legislation was in response to protests conducted by the Westboro Baptist Church.[86]

In the November 2012 general elections, voters approved Brown’s proposed tax increases in the form of Proposition 30. Prop 30 raised the state personal income tax increase over seven years for California residents with an annual income over US$250,000 and increased in the state sales tax by 0.25 percent over four years. It allowed the state to avoid nearly $6 billion in cuts to public education.[87]

Electoral history

Personal life

Anne Gust, Brown’s wife and the First Lady of California

A bachelor as governor and mayor, Brown attracted attention for dating high-profile women, the most notable of whom was singer Linda Ronstadt.[88] In March 2005, Brown announced his engagement to his girlfriend since 1990, Anne Gust, former chief administrative officer for The Gap.[89] They were married on June 18 in a ceremony officiated by Senator Dianne Feinstein in the Rotunda Building in downtown Oakland. They had a second, religious ceremony later in the day in the Roman Catholic church in San Francisco where Brown’s parents had been married. Brown and Gust live in the Oakland Hills in a home purchased for $1.8 million, as reported by The Huffington Post.[90]

Beginning in 1995, Brown hosted a daily call-in talk show on the local Pacifica Radio station, KPFA-FM, in Berkeley broadcast to major US markets.[39] Both the radio program and Brown’s political action organization, based in Oakland, were called We the People.[39] His programs, usually featuring invited guests, generally explored alternative views on a wide range of social and political issues, from education and health care to spirituality and the death penalty.[39]

The official gubernatorial portrait of Jerry Brown, commemorating his first period as Governor of California was painted by Don Bachardyand unveiled in 1984. The painting has long been controversial due to its departure from the traditional norms of portraiture.[91]

Brown has a long-term friendship with Jacques Barzaghi, his aide-de-camp, whom he met in the early 1970s and put on his payroll. Author Roger Rapaport wrote in his 1982 Brown biography California Dreaming: The Political Odyssey of Pat & Jerry Brown, “this combination clerk, chauffeur, fashion consultant, decorator and trusted friend had no discernible powers. Yet late at night, after everyone had gone home to their families and TV consoles, it was Jacques who lingered in the Secretary (of state’s) office.” Barzaghi and his sixth wife Aisha lived with Brown in the warehouse in Jack London Square; Barzaghi was brought into Oakland city government upon Brown’s election as mayor, where Barzaghi first acted as the mayor’s armed bodyguard. Brown later rewarded Barzaghi with high-paying city jobs, including Arts Director[citation needed]. Brown dismissed Barzaghi in July 2004.[92]

In April 2011 Brown had surgery to remove a basal-cell carcinoma from the right side of his nose.[93] It was announced in December 2012 that Brown was being treated for early stage (the precise stage and grade was not stated) localized prostate cancer with a very good prognosis.[94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown

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

The Economy Still Stagnating As The 10 Million Plus Jobs Gap Widens — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-206

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 2: The Economy Still Stagnating As The 10 Million Plus Jobs Gap Widens — Videos

Making Sense of Today’s January Jobs Report

February 7th 2014 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (January Jobs Report)

gdp_large

sgs-emp

non-farm-payrolls-wide-201312

Employment Level

145,224,000

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 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138451(1) 138599 138752 139309 139247 139148 139179 139427 139393 139111 139030 139266
2011 139287(1) 139422 139655 139622 139653 139409 139524 139904 140154 140335 140747 140836
2012 141677(1) 141943 142079 141963 142257 142432 142272 142204 142947 143369 143233 143212
2013 143384(1) 143464 143393 143676 143919 144075 144285 144179 144270 143485 144443 144586
2014 145224(1)

Civilian Labor Force

155,460,000

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 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153404(1) 153720 153964 154642 154106 153631 153706 154087 153971 153631 154127 153639
2011 153198(1) 153280 153403 153566 153526 153379 153309 153724 154059 153940 154072 153927
2012 154328(1) 154826 154811 154565 154946 155134 154970 154669 155018 155507 155279 155485
2013 155699(1) 155511 155099 155359 155609 155822 155693 155435 155473 154625 155284 154937
2014 155460(1)

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.0%

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

labor_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 65.2 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 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0

Unemployment Level

10,236,000

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 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 14953 15121 15212 15333 14858 14483 14527 14660 14578 14520 15097 14373
2011 13910 13858 13748 13944 13873 13971 13785 13820 13905 13604 13326 13090
2012 12650 12883 12732 12603 12689 12702 12698 12464 12070 12138 12045 12273
2013 12315 12047 11706 11683 11690 11747 11408 11256 11203 11140 10841 10351
2014 10236

Unemployment Rate

6.6%

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_U_3
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 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6

Employment-Population Ratio

58.8%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.5
2012 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.2 58.6 58.6
2014 58.8

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 Yrs

20.7%

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

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 22.3 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 26.9 26.7
2010 26.0 25.6 26.2 25.4 26.5 26.0 25.9 25.6 25.8 27.3 24.8 25.3
2011 25.5 24.1 24.3 24.5 23.9 24.8 24.8 25.1 24.5 24.2 24.1 23.3
2012 23.5 23.8 24.8 24.6 24.2 23.7 23.7 24.4 23.8 23.8 23.9 24.0
2013 23.5 25.2 23.9 23.7 24.1 23.8 23.4 22.6 21.3 22.0 20.8 20.2
2014 20.7

Average Weeks Unemployed

35.4 Weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over
average_weeks_unemployed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.2 20.9 21.7 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.6 27.5 28.9 29.7
2010 30.3 29.9 31.6 33.3 33.9 34.5 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.2 33.9 34.8
2011 37.2 37.5 39.2 38.7 39.5 39.7 40.4 40.2 40.2 39.1 40.3 40.7
2012 40.1 40.0 39.4 39.3 39.6 40.0 38.8 39.1 39.4 40.3 39.2 38.0
2013 35.4 36.9 37.0 36.6 36.9 35.7 36.7 37.0 36.8 36.0 37.1 37.1
2014 35.4

Median Weeks Unemployed

16.0 weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

median_weeks_unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.2 17.2 16.0 16.3 17.8 18.9 19.8 20.1
2010 20.0 19.9 20.5 22.1 22.3 25.0 22.2 20.9 20.2 21.4 21.0 22.0
2011 21.5 21.2 21.7 20.9 21.6 22.1 21.8 22.2 21.9 20.7 20.9 20.6
2012 20.9 20.0 19.6 19.2 19.8 19.8 17.2 18.2 18.7 20.0 18.6 17.8
2013 16.0 17.7 18.1 17.3 16.9 16.2 15.8 16.5 16.4 16.5 17.0 17.1
2014 16.0

Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available

2,592,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Available to work now
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 1207 1281 1219 1216 1113 1142 1172 1097 1166 1044 1100 1125 1157
2001 1295 1337 1109 1131 1157 1170 1232 1364 1335 1398 1331 1330 1266
2002 1532 1423 1358 1397 1467 1380 1507 1456 1501 1416 1401 1432 1439
2003 1598 1590 1577 1399 1428 1468 1566 1665 1544 1586 1473 1483 1531
2004 1670 1691 1643 1526 1533 1492 1557 1587 1561 1647 1517 1463 1574
2005 1804 1673 1588 1511 1428 1583 1516 1583 1438 1414 1415 1589 1545
2006 1644 1471 1468 1310 1388 1584 1522 1592 1299 1478 1366 1252 1448
2007 1577 1451 1385 1391 1406 1454 1376 1365 1268 1364 1363 1344 1395
2008 1729 1585 1352 1414 1416 1558 1573 1640 1604 1637 1947 1908 1614
2009 2130 2051 2106 2089 2210 2176 2282 2270 2219 2373 2323 2486 2226
2010 2539 2527 2255 2432 2223 2591 2622 2370 2548 2602 2531 2609 2487
2011 2800 2730 2434 2466 2206 2680 2785 2575 2511 2555 2591 2540 2573
2012 2809 2608 2352 2363 2423 2483 2529 2561 2517 2433 2505 2614 2516
2013 2443 2588 2326 2347 2164 2582 2414 2342 2302 2283 2096 2427 2360
2014 2592

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

12.7%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.1 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                      USDL-14-0168
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 7, 2014

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 -- JANUARY 2014

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate
was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining. 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                        Changes to the Employment Situation Data                    |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual benchmarking  |
 |process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. Also, household survey data|
 |for January 2014 reflect updated population estimates. See the notes at the end of  |
 |this release for more information about these changes.                              |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.2 million, and the unemployment rate, at
6.6 percent, changed little in January. Since October, the jobless rate has decreased by
0.6 percentage point. (See table A-1.)  (See the note and tables B and C for information
about the effect of annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates.) 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult
women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),
and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians
was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million,
declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the
unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year.
(See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustment to the population controls, the civilian labor
force rose by 499,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 63.0
percent. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over
the month, and the employment-population ratio increased by 0.2 percentage point to 58.8
percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population
adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals
were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.6 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 837,000 discouraged workers in January, about
unchanged from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.8 million persons
marginally attached to the labor force in January 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 113,000 in January. In 2013, employment growth
averaged 194,000 per month. In January, job gains occurred in construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, and mining. (See table B-1.)

Construction added 48,000 jobs over the month, more than offsetting a decline of 22,000 in
December. In January, job gains occurred in both residential and nonresidential building
(+13,000 and +8,000, respectively) and in nonresidential specialty trade contractors
(+13,000). Heavy and civil engineering construction also added 10,000 jobs.

Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains
occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts
(+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.

In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in
nondurable goods (+10,000).

Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs
in 2013.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in January (+36,000).
The industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per month in 2013. Within the industry,
professional and technical services added 20,000 jobs in January. 

Leisure and hospitality employment continued to trend up over the month (+24,000). Job
growth in the industry averaged 38,000 per month in 2013. 

Employment in health care was essentially unchanged in January for the second consecutive
month.  Health care added an average of 17,000 jobs per month in 2013. 

Employment in retail trade changed little in January (-13,000). Within the industry, sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores lost 22,000 jobs, offsetting job gains in the prior 3
months. In January, motor vehicle and parts dealers added 7,000 jobs.

In January, federal government employment decreased by 12,000; the U.S. Postal Service
accounted for most of this decline (-9,000).

Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information,
and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.

In January, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged
at 34.4 hours. The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory
overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.5 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 cents to
$24.21. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 46 cents, or 1.9 percent. In
January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
increased by 6 cents to $20.39. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised from +241,000 to
+274,000, and the change for December was revised from +74,000 to +75,000. With these
revisions, employment gains in November and December were 34,000 higher than previously
reported. Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses since
the last published estimates and the monthly recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual
benchmark process also contributed to the revisions in this news release.

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday, March 7, 2014,
at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

                                  Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have been
benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2013. These counts
are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which
enumerates jobs covered by the UI tax system. The benchmark process results in revisions
to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2012 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from
January 2009 forward are subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to
2009, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate revisions.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2013 was revised upward by 369,000 (+347,000
on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or 0.3 percent). The average benchmark revision over
the past 10 years was plus or minus 0.3 percent. 

This revision incorporates the reclassification of jobs in the QCEW. Private household
employment is out of scope for the establishment survey. The QCEW reclassified some
private household employment into an industry that is in scope for the establishment
survey--services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This reclassification
accounted for an increase of 466,000 jobs in the establishment survey. This increase of
466,000 associated with reclassification was offset by survey error of -119,000 for a
total net benchmark revision of +347,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Historical
time series have been reconstructed to incorporate these revisions. 

The effect of these revisions on the underlying trend in nonfarm payroll employment was
minor. For example, the over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for 2013 was
revised from 2,186,000 to 2,322,000 seasonally adjusted. Table A presents revised total
nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis for January through December 2013.

All revised historical CES data, as well as an article that discusses the benchmark and
post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues can be accessed through the CES
homepage at www.bls.gov/ces/. Information on the data released today also may be obtained
by calling (202) 691-6555.

Table A. Revisions in total nonfarm employment, January-December 2013, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |                                    |                                
                    |                Level               |      Over-the-month change     
                    |---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Year and month  |    As     |           |            |    As    |         |           
                    |previously |    As     | Difference |previously|   As    | Difference
                    |published  |  revised  |            |published | revised |           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
          2013      |           |           |            |          |         |           
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
 January............|  134,839  |  135,261  |     422    |    148   |    197  |      49   
 February...........|  135,171  |  135,541  |     370    |    332   |    280  |     -52   
 March..............|  135,313  |  135,682  |     369    |    142   |    141  |      -1   
 April..............|  135,512  |  135,885  |     373    |    199   |    203  |       4   
 May................|  135,688  |  136,084  |     396    |    176   |    199  |      23   
 June...............|  135,860  |  136,285  |     425    |    172   |    201  |      29   
 July...............|  135,949  |  136,434  |     485    |     89   |    149  |      60   
 August.............|  136,187  |  136,636  |     449    |    238   |    202  |     -36   
 September..........|  136,362  |  136,800  |     438    |    175   |    164  |     -11   
 October............|  136,562  |  137,037  |     475    |    200   |    237  |      37   
 November...........|  136,803  |  137,311  |     508    |    241   |    274  |      33   
 December (p).......|  136,877  |  137,386  |     509    |     74   |     75  |       1   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   p = preliminary

                Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey

Effective with data for January 2014, updated population estimates have been used in the
household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S.
Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information
and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous decennial census. The
change in population reflected in the new estimates results from adjustments for net
international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some
methodological changes in the estimation process. 

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates
for December 2013 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustments, however,
differences in selected December 2013 labor force series based on the old and new population
estimates are shown in table B. 

The adjustments increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in
December by 2,000, the civilian labor force by 24,000, employment by 22,000, and unemployment
by 2,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was reduced by 22,000. The total
unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and labor force participation rate were
unaffected. 

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the comparability
of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new
population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2013
and January 2014. Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect on
national labor force estimates is available at www.bls.gov/cps/cps14adj.pdf.

Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2013 estimates by sex, race, and
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
                                        |      |     |      |       |  Black |       |            
                                        |      |     |      |       |    or  |       |  Hispanic  
                  Category              | Total| Men | Women| White | African| Asian | or Latino  
                                        |      |     |      |       |American|       | ethnicity  
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|____________
                                        |      |     |      |       |        |       |            
  Civilian noninstitutional population..|    2 |  29 |  -27 |   -65 |     48 |    33 |     -57    
    Civilian labor force................|   24 |  24 |    0 |   -17 |     34 |    15 |     -38    
      Participation rate................|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
     Employed...........................|   22 |  22 |    0 |   -16 |     31 |    14 |     -34    
      Employment-population ratio.......|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
     Unemployed.........................|    2 |   3 |   -1 |    -1 |      4 |     1 |      -4    
      Unemployment rate.................|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |    .0 |     .0 |    .0 |      .0    
    Not in labor force..................|  -22 |   4 |  -27 |   -48 |     14 |    18 |     -18    
________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|____________

   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups
(white, black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented
for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Table C. December 2013-January 2014 changes in selected labor force measures,
with adjustments for population control effects
(Numbers in thousands)

______________________________________________________________________________
                                       |           |            |             
                                       |           |            |  Dec.-Jan.  
                                       | Dec.-Jan. |    2014    |   change,   
                                       |  change,  | population |  after re-  
                Category               |    as     |   control  |  moving the 
                                       | published |   effect   |  population 
                                       |           |            |   control   
                                       |           |            |  effect (1) 
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________
                                       |           |            |             
  Civilian noninstitutional population.|    170    |       2    |     168     
    Civilian labor force...............|    523    |      24    |     499     
      Participation rate...............|     .2    |      .0    |      .2     
     Employed..........................|    638    |      22    |     616     
      Employment-population ratio......|     .2    |      .0    |      .2     
     Unemployed........................|   -115    |       2    |    -117     
      Unemployment rate................|    -.1    |      .0    |     -.1     
    Not in labor force.................|   -353    |     -22    |    -331     
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________

   (1) This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population 
control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally
adjusted estimates.
   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                    |
 |                            Change to the Household Survey Tables                   |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Effective with this release, household survey table A-10 includes two new seasonally|
 |adjusted series for women age 55 and over--the number of unemployed persons and the |
 |unemployment rate. These replace the series that were previously displayed for this |
 |group, which were not seasonally adjusted.                                          |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                    |
 |               Updated Veteran Weighting Methodology for Household Survey           |
 |                                                                                    |
 |Beginning with data for January 2014, estimates for veterans in table A-5 of this   |
 |release incorporate updated weighting procedures. The new weighting methodology more|
 |accurately reflects the current demographic composition of the veteran population.  |
 |The primary impact of the change was an increase in the "Gulf War-era I" veteran    |
 |population and a decrease in the number of veterans in the "Other service periods"  |
 |category. The updated methodology had little effect on unemployment rates for       |
 |veterans, regardless of gender or period of service. Additional information on the  |
 |effect of the change on labor force estimates for veterans is available at          |
 |www.bls.gov/cps/vetsweights2014.pdf.                                                |
 |                                                                                    |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryJan.
2013Nov.
2013Dec.
2013Jan.
2014Change from:
Dec.
2013-
Jan.
2014Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population244,663246,567246,745246,915-Civilian labor force155,699155,284154,937155,460-Participation rate63.663.062.863.0-Employed143,384144,443144,586145,224-Employment-population ratio58.658.658.658.8-Unemployed12,31510,84110,35110,236-Unemployment rate7.97.06.76.6-Not in labor force88,96391,28391,80891,455- Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over7.97.06.76.6-Adult men (20 years and over)7.46.76.36.2-Adult women (20 years and over)7.26.26.05.9-Teenagers (16 to 19 years)23.520.820.220.7-White7.16.15.95.7-Black or African American13.812.411.912.1-Asian (not seasonally adjusted)6.55.34.14.8-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity9.78.78.38.4- Total, 25 years and over6.55.85.65.4-Less than a high school diploma12.010.69.89.6-High school graduates, no college8.17.37.16.5-Some college or associate degree7.06.46.16.0-Bachelor’s degree and higher3.83.43.33.2- Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs6,6755,7315,3665,407-Job leavers984890862818-Reentrants3,5203,0653,0362,937-New entrants1,2741,1691,2011,184- Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,7532,4392,2552,434-5 to 14 weeks3,0772,5852,5062,429-15 to 26 weeks1,8671,7421,6511,689-27 weeks and over4,7074,0443,8783,646- Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,9837,7237,7717,257-Slack work or business conditions5,1174,8694,8844,405-Could only find part-time work2,6132,4992,5922,571-Part time for noneconomic reasons18,55618,85818,73119,165- Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,4432,0962,4272,592-Discouraged workers804762917837– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Jan.
2013
Nov.
2013
Dec.
2013(p)
Jan.
2014(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 197 274 75 113
Total private 219 272 89 142
Goods-producing 43 68 -13 76
Mining and logging 3 1 1 7
Construction 23 32 -22 48
Manufacturing 17 35 8 21
Durable goods(1) 9 19 2 15
Motor vehicles and parts 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7
Nondurable goods 8 16 6 6
Private service-providing(1) 176 204 102 66
Wholesale trade 16.9 16.8 10.2 13.9
Retail trade 26.9 22.3 62.7 -12.9
Transportation and warehousing 9.8 32.4 10.6 9.9
Information -1 1 -10 0
Financial activities 8 -4 3 -2
Professional and business services(1) 45 73 4 36
Temporary help services 4.9 36.6 30.1 8.1
Education and health services(1) 17 25 -4 -6
Health care and social assistance 23.5 24.4 1.1 1.5
Leisure and hospitality 47 37 20 24
Other services 7 -1 7 4
Government -22 2 -14 -29
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.5 49.5 49.4
Total private women employees 48.0 48.0 48.0 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 34.4 34.4
Average hourly earnings $23.75 $24.15 $24.16 $24.21
Average weekly earnings $817.00 $833.18 $831.10 $832.82
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 97.5 99.6 99.4 99.5
Over-the-month percent change 0.2 0.5 -0.2 0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 110.5 114.8 114.6 114.9
Over-the-month percent change 0.4 0.8 -0.2 0.3
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.6 33.7 33.5 33.5
Average hourly earnings $19.95 $20.30 $20.33 $20.39
Average weekly earnings $670.32 $684.11 $681.06 $683.07
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.9 107.1 106.6 106.7
Over-the-month percent change -0.2 0.5 -0.5 0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 139.8 145.3 144.8 145.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.1 0.8 -0.3 0.3
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (264 industries) 64.0 66.9 56.4 61.2
Manufacturing (81 industries) 56.8 65.4 59.9 54.3
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2013 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Weakness Continues as 113,000 Jobs Are Added in January

Employers added jobs at a slower-than-expected pace in January, the second month in a row that hiring has been disappointing and a sign that the labor market remains anemic despite indications of growth elsewhere in the economy.

Payrolls increased by 113,000, the Labor Department reported Friday morning, well below the gain of 180,000 that economists expected. The unemployment rate, based on a separate survey of households that was more encouraging, actually fell by a tenth of a percentage point, to 6.6 percent.

The data for January come after an even more disappointing report on the labor market for December, which was revised upward only slightly Friday, to show a gain of just 75,000 jobs, from 74,000. The level of hiring in January was also substantially below the average monthly gain of 178,000 positions over the last six months, as well as the monthly addition of 187,000 over the last year.

The two weak months in a row will prompt questions about whether the Federal Reserve acted prematurely when policy makers in December voted to begin scaling back the central bank’s expansive stimulus efforts.

The new data is not expected to alter the Fed’s course, economists said, but another poor report on hiring next month might force policy makers to rethink their plan when they next meet in late March.

“In one line: grim,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a note to clients Friday morning.

While seasonal adjustments may have played a role and upward revisions for hiring in October and November were more encouraging, he said, “The payroll rebound clearly is disappointing; none of the ground lost in December was recovered.”

Other economists conceded the picture for January was hardly bright, but cautioned it was too soon to conclude there had been a fundamental loss of momentum in the economy, especially given seasonal fluctuations in the data and the possibility that weather inhibited some hiring.

“We’re not seeing the takeoff that people wanted to see, but it’s not a disaster,” said Julia Coronado, chief economist for North America at BNP Paribas. “The 113,000 figure is definitely way below trend, but we want another month or two of data before we can draw conclusions.”

One mystery economists will be focusing on is why employment gains have not kept up with economic growth as measured by gross domestic product, which picked up substantially in the second half of 2013. The annualized pace of expansion was 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, and 4.1 percent in the third quarter.

One reason may be that new technologies are allowing employers to make do with fewer workers, for instance the use of automated customer service systems instead of call centers, or Internet retailers’ taking over from brick-and-mortar stores where sales associates prowl the floors.

Another shift is evident from the yawning gap in employment for college graduates versus workers who lack a high school diploma. For people with a college degree or higher, the jobless rate was 3.1 percent, compared with 9.6 percent for Americans who did not finish high school.

Wintry conditions that held back hiring were blamed for the weakness in December, a theory popular among more optimistic economists after those numbers came out in early January.

But despite what seems like an endless series of snowstorms on the East Coast and arctic conditions in the Midwest recently, the reference week for the latest survey was Jan. 12-18, when conditions were fairly normal as Januaries go, limiting some of the impact of the weather in this report.

In the report on January, one sector holding back payrolls was the government, which shrank by 29,000 jobs in January. Excluding that loss, private employers added 142,000 positions, a slightly better showing.

Several other sectors which had been strong in recent months – education and health care as well as retailing – also lost positions, contributing to the overall weakness.

The falloff in hiring in the health care sector was especially notable. In December and January together, just 2,600 health care positions were filled. By contrast, as recently as November, nearly 25,000 health care workers were added to payrolls.

Although this area of the economy is going through a transformation as President Obama’s new health care plan is slowly introduced, that is unlikely to have caused the abrupt slowdown in hiring, said Ethan Harris, a head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. If anything, he said, the law should create new jobs in the sector as health care coverage is expanded, even if higher costs for some employers result in job cuts elsewhere in the economy.

As for retail, which lost nearly 13,000 jobs in January, some of that reduction could have essentially been because of excessive hiring in December, Mr. Harris said, when stores added nearly 63,000 positions as the holiday shopping season peaked. The cuts may also have been spurred by weak results at some retailers, with chains like J. C. Penney announcing major job cuts last month, and Loehmann’s, the venerable discounter, now in liquidation.

The employment-population ratio, which has been falling as more workers drop out of the job market, edged up 0.2 percentage points to 58.8 percent. In recent years, the exit of people from the work force has reduced the unemployment rate, but it is a sign that people are giving up hope of finding a job in the face of slack conditions, hardly the way policy makers would like to see joblessness come down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/business/us-economy-adds-113000-jobs-unemployment-rate-at-6-6.html?_r=0

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014
BEA 14-03

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2013 (advance estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the third quarter, real GDP increased 4.1 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-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 4
and “Comparisons of Revisions to GDP” on page 5). The “second” estimate for the fourth quarter, based
on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2014.

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

The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected a deceleration in private inventory
investment, a larger decrease in federal government spending, a downturn in residential fixed
investment, and decelerations in state and local government spending and in nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by accelerations in exports and in PCE and a deceleration in imports.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in the third.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in
the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent in the third.

_______
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 www.bea.gov along with the Technical Note and Highlights
related to this release.
_______

Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.0 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 5.9 percent, compared with an
increase of 7.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 4.4 percent, compared with an increase of 2.9
percent. Services increased 2.5 percent, compared with an increase of 0.7 percent.

Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with
an increase of 4.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.2 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 13.4 percent. Equipment increased 6.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.2 percent, compared with an increase of 5.8 percent. Real
residential fixed investment decreased 9.8 percent, in contrast to an increase of 10.3 percent.

Real exports of goods and services increased 11.4 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with
an increase of 3.9 percent in the third. Real imports of goods and services increased 0.9 percent,
compared with an increase of 2.4 percent.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 12.6 percent
in the fourth quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased
14.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.5 percent. Nondefense decreased 10.3 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.1 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.5 percent, compared with an increase of 1.7 percent.

The change in real private inventories added 0.42 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 1.67 percentage points to the third-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $127.2 billion in the fourth quarter, following increases of $115.7 billion in the
third quarter and $56.6 billion in the second.

Real final sales of domestic product — GDP less change in private inventories — increased 2.8
percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the third.

Gross domestic purchases

Real gross domestic purchases — purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced — increased 1.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 3.9 percent in the
third.

Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income increased $69.4 billion (2.0 percent) in the fourth quarter,
compared with an increase of $140.0 billion (4.0 percent) in the third. The deceleration in personal
income primarily reflected downturns in personal dividend income and in farm proprietors’ income and
a deceleration in personal current transfer receipts that were partly offset by an acceleration in wages
and salaries.

Personal current taxes increased $23.7 billion in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of
$11.0 billion in the third.

Disposable personal income increased $45.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of $151.0 billion (5.0 percent) in the third. Real disposable personal income increased
0.8 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in the third.

Personal outlays increased $118.6 billion (4.0 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an
increase of $113.4 billion (3.9 percent) in the third. Personal saving — disposable personal income less
personal outlays — was $545.1 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $618.0 billion in the third.

The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was
4.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 4.9 percent in the third. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s financial accounts of the United States 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
4.6 percent, or $189.6 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $17,102.5 billion. In the third quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 6.2 percent, or $251.9 billion.

2013 GDP

Real GDP increased 1.9 percent in 2013 (that is, from the 2012 annual level to the 2013 annual
level), compared with an increase of 2.8 percent in 2012.

The increase in real GDP in 2013 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, residential fixed investment, nonresidential fixed investment,
and private inventory 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 deceleration in real GDP in 2013 primarily reflected a deceleration in nonresidential fixed
investment, a larger decrease in federal government spending, and decelerations in PCE and in exports
that were partly offset by a deceleration in imports and a smaller decrease in state and local government
spending.

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.2 percent in 2013, compared with an
increase of 1.7 percent in 2012.

Current-dollar GDP increased 3.4 percent, or $558.4 billion, in 2013, compared with an increase
of 4.6 percent, or $710.8 billion, in 2012.

During 2013 (that is, measured from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013) real
GDP increased 2.7 percent. Real GDP increased 2.0 percent during 2012. The price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.1 percent during 2013, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent in
2012.

________
BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
“Key Source Data and Assumptions” file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis
of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on
Survey of Current Business, “GDP and the Economy.” For information on revisions, see “Revisions to GDP, GDI,
and Their Major Components.

________

BEA’s national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

* * *

Next release — February 28, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2013 (Second Estimate)

* * *

Release dates in 2014

Gross Domestic Product

2013: IV and 2013 annual 2014: I 2014: II 2014: III

Advance… January 30 April 30 July 30 October 30
Second…. February 28 May 29 August 28 November 25
Third….. March 27 June 25 September 26 December 23

Corporate Profits

Preliminary… …… May 29 August 28 November 25
Revised……. March 27 June 25 September 26 December 23

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 0.3 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 0.5 0.4
Advance to third………………… .2 .7 .4
Second to third…………………. .0 .3 .2

Advance to latest……………….. .3 1.3 1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second……………….. 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third………………… .1 .6 .4
Second to third…………………. .0 .2 .2

Advance to latest……………….. .3 1.3 1.0

NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2010.http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 206, February 7, 2015, Story 1, Bombshell: CBO’s Impact of Obamacare On Economy Devastating — Time To Repeal Obamacare and Replace It With Affordable, Portable, Individual Health Insurance With Health Saving Accounts! — Videos

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 )

Downsize Federal Government — Eliminate The Department of Energy — Home Energy Score — Government Intervention Into The Private Sector — Videos

Posted on January 13, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, history, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Science, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

us-doe-logodoe-energyscore

home energy score timeline internachi energy rating ben gromicko

ScoreCard

DOE-logo

Our Ever Growing Dependence on Government

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Giving Away Money Costs More Than You Think

Downsizing the Federal Government

Downsize the Department of Energy

Can We Eliminate the Department of Education? (Charles Murray)

$5 Billion Loan for Solar Energy — Department of Energy

Phil Kerpen on Neil Cavuto to discuss the DOE loan program

Our Ever Growing Dependence on Government

Obamanomics: A Legacy of Wasteful Spending

Why Does Big Business Love Big Government? (Domhoff, Rothbard, and Evers)

G. William Domhoff is a research professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He is the author of Who Rules America? (1967), Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in Ruling-Class Cohesiveness (1974), and other books.

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

Bill Evers was a resident scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution (and is currently a research fellow there) and also served as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Education from 2007-09.

In this lecture Domhoff, Rothbard, and Evers talk about the “interlocking overlappers” that get together to influence the government, in California and in the country generally. They each spend some time describing what it is that draws businesspeople to market-capturing and rent-seeking behaviors, and take questions from the audience.

Walter Block – Free-Market Environmentalism [Australian Mises Seminar 2012]

How Murray Rothbard Became a Libertarian

The tide is rising for America’s libertarians

By Edward Luce

The new spirit in a rising climate of anti-politics has become an attitude, rather than a movement

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc9a31b8-7928-11e3-b381-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2qJAmizcR

Robert Nozick, the late US libertarian, smoked pot while he was writing Anarchy, State and Utopia. He would applaud the growth of libertarianism among today’s young Americans. Whether it is their enthusiasm for legalised marijuana and gay marriage – both spreading across the US at remarkable speed – or their scepticism of government, US millennials no longer follow President Barack Obama’s cue. Most of America’s youth revile the Tea Party, particularly its south-dominated nativist core. But they are not big-government activists either. If there is a new spirit in America’s rising climate of anti-politics, it is libertarian.

On the face of it this ought to pose a bigger challenge to the Republican party – at least for its social conservative wing. Mr Obama may have disappointed America’s young, particularly the millions of graduates who have failed to find good jobs during his presidency. But he is no dinosaur. In contrast, Republicans such as Rick Santorum, the former presidential hopeful, who once likened gay sex to “man on dog”, elicit pure derision. Even moderate Republicans, such as Chris Christie, who until last week was the early frontrunner for the party’s 2016 nomination, are considered irrelevant. Whether Mr Christie was telling the truth last week, when he denied knowledge of his staff’s role in orchestrating a punitive local traffic jam, is beside the point. Mr Christie’s Sopranos brand of New Jersey politics is not tailored to the Apple generation.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc9a31b8-7928-11e3-b381-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2qJAvkWVr

The opposite is true of Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator, whose chances of taking the 2016 prize rose with Mr Christie’s dented fortunes last week. Unlike Ron Paul, the senator’s father, who still managed to garner a large slice of the youth vote in 2008, Rand Paul eschews the more outlandish fringes of libertarian thought. Rather than promising an isolationist US withdrawal from the world, he touts a more moderate “non-interventionism”. Instead of pledging to end fiat money, he promises to audit the US Federal Reserve – “mend the Fed”, rather than “end the Fed”. Both find echo among the Y generation. So too does his alarmism about the US national debt. Far from being big spenders, millennials are more concerned about US debt than other generations, according to polls. They are also strongly in favour of free trade. More than a third of the Republican party now identifies as libertarian, according to the Cato Institute. Just under a quarter of Americans do so too, says Gallup.

All of which looks ominous for Ted Cruz, the Texan Republican whose lengthy filibuster against Obamacare last year lit the fuse for the US government shutdown. Mr Cruz, also a 2016 aspirant, leads the pugilistic wing of the Republican party that is prepared to burn the house down in order to save the ranch. Although also a Tea Partier, Mr Paul is cultivating a sunnier Reaganesque optimism that draws on the deep roots of US libertarianism. His brand of politics also strikes a chord with those who fear the growth of the US surveillance state – the types who view Edward Snowden (another millennial) as a hero rather than a traitor. Last year the US House of Representatives came within 12 votes of passing a bill to defund the National Security Agency. Mr Paul led the bill in the Senate. Next time they could succeed.

November 2012: While Obama lost ground among white male voters, his 2012 victory was the product of perhaps the most diverse electoral coalition in American history. Voters talk about how they interpret the president’s re-election

What does it mean for the Democrats? In terms of social values, libertarians are almost identical to liberals. Smoking pot and same-sex marriage both meet with big approval. The same is not necessarily true of guns. In spite of recent school massacres, 40 US states now have “concealed weapons” laws – many passed in the past 12 months. Again, millennials are surprisingly sceptical of gun control, say the polls. But it is on economic policy where they really part company with liberals. The Great Depression helped forge a generation of solid Democrats. The same does not appear to be true of the Great Recession. Franklin Roosevelt helped dig people out of misery in the 1930s by providing direct public employment. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has stuck largely to economic orthodoxy. He may have missed a golden opportunity to mould a generation of social democrats.

He has also inadvertently fuelled scepticism about the role of government. Mr Obama came to power in 2008 on a surge of voluntarism. He did so in part by appealing to youthful idealism about public service. That now feels like a long time ago. Distrust in public institutions has continued to rise during his presidency – most strongly among the youngest generation. The share of voters who identify as independents, rather than Democrats or Republicans, recently hit an all-time high of 42 per cent, according to Gallup. This is bad news for established figures in either party – and, indeed, in any walk of life. Hillary Clinton should beware. So should Jeb Bush.

On the minus side, libertarians have no real answer to many of America’s biggest problems – not least the challenges posed to US middle-class incomes by globalisation and technology. Nor are they coherent as a force. Libertarianism is an attitude, rather than an organisation. It is also potentially fickle. Young Americans disdain foreign entanglements. That could change overnight with a big terrorist attack on the homeland. They feel let down by Democrats and hostile to mainstream Republicans. Yet they could flock to an exciting new figure in either party. Theirs is a restless generation that disdains authority. Establishment figures should take note. Tomorrow belongs to them.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc9a31b8-7928-11e3-b381-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qJAO0w8t

DOE Plugs Energy Rating for Homes, Similar to MPG Rating for Cars

The Energy Department on Tuesday is rolling out new, improved software to help Americans measure the energy efficiency of their homes.

DOE says its energy-scoring software — called the Home Energy Scoring Tool – is like a vehicle’s mile-per-gallon rating because it allows homeowners to compare the energy performance of their homes to other homes nationwide. It also provides homeowners with suggestions for improving their homes’ efficiency.

The software is part of the government’s effort to reduce the nation’s energy consumption; but it’s also billed as a way to keep home-retrofitting going, at a time when stimulus funds for weather-proofing have run out.

The Home Energy Scoring Tool “can be a powerful motivator in getting homeowners to make energy efficiency improvements,” DOE says. “It’s also a great way to help trained workers enter the private sector energy improvement market as funding for weatherization efforts decline.”

DOE says its Home Energy Score is useful if you are a homeowner looking to renovate or remodel your home, lower your utility bills, improve the comfort of your home, or reduce your energy usage. Moreover, “the score serves as an official way to document these improvements and thereby enhance your home’s appeal when you’re ready to sell.”

Right now, getting your home scored is voluntary.

To produce a Home Energy Score, a trained, “qualified assessor” comes to your home — for a fee — and collects approximately 40 pieces of data about the home’s “envelope” (e.g., walls, windows, heating and cooling systems) during an hour-long walk-through.

Based on the home’s characteristics, the DOE software estimates the home’s annual energy use, assuming “typical homeowner behavior.” The software then converts the estimated energy use into a score, based on a 10-point scale (10 being the most energy-efficient). The 1-10 scale accounts for differences in weather conditions by using the zip code to assign the house to one of more than 1,000 weather stations.

In addition to showing the home’s current energy efficiency — or inefficiency — the score also shows where a home would rank if all of the energy-saving improvements identified during the home walk-through were made. That may prompt some homeowners to buy new windows or doors, for example, boosting the market for home retro-fitters.

DOE recommends getting a Home Energy Score “as soon as the program becomes available in your area.” The program launched in 2012, and at this time, only single-family homes and townhouses can be scored.

The scoring is available only through DOE’s participating partners, which include state and local governments, utilities, and non-profits. DOE does not determine how much an assessor charges to score a house. “It will depend on what the local market supports.” But DOE says its partners “have indicated plans to charge between $25 and $125 for the Home Energy Score.”

And yes, the size of the home matters because larger homes use more energy.

The Home Energy Score and the associated report is generated through DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory software. The 2014 version of DOE’s Home Energy Scoring Tool will be introduced at a webinar on Tuesday.

So far,

home energy scoreThe Home Energy Score is similar to a vehicle’s mile-per-gallon rating, says the U.S. Energy Department. (Graphic is from DOE website)

DOE says more than 8,500 homes have been scored by the Energy Department’s growing network of more than 25 partners and 175 qualified assessors.

The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/doe-plugs-energy-rating-homes-similar-mpg-rating-cars#sthash.CQAafjhv.9gcKr0Ng.dpuf

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/doe-plugs-energy-rating-homes-similar-mpg-rating-cars

Home Energy Assessments

Cathy Zoi on the new Home Energy Score pilot program

Acting Under Secretary Cathy Zoi talks about the new Home Energy Score pilot program that was announced today by Vice President Biden and U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The Home Energy Score will offer homeowners straightforward, reliable information about their homes’ energy efficiency. A report provides consumers with a home energy score between 1 and 10, and shows them how their home compares to others in their region. The report also includes customized, cost-effective recommendations that will help to reduce their energy costs and improve the comfort of their homes.

200,000 homes weatherized under the Recovery Act

Home Energy Score Pilot Program Launched By DOE

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 1 intro

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 2

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 3

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 4

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 5

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 6

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 7

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 8

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 9

Home Energy Score Qualified Assessor module 10

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

Three Cheers for Phil Robertson — Duck Dynasty, Free Speech, and Religious Freedom Win One — GLAAD IS SAD — Live With It and Move On — Videos

Posted on December 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Art, Art, Babies, Blogroll, Business, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Heroes, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Rifles, Talk Radio, Television, Television, Vacations, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson reinstated

 

A & E lifts suspension on ‘Duck Dynasty’

‘This Week’ Roundtable: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Debate

‘Duck Dynasty’ Reversal Shows GLAAD Has an Expiration Date

A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations

By Brandon Ambrosino

Phil v. The Gays. With which will we side? Or rather, against which will we side? This is the question that society demands we answer. Are we anti-Phil or anti-gay or anti-GLAAD or anti-A&E or anti- … ?

Perhaps no other word sums up the Duck Dynasty fiasco as aptly as the word “anti.”

Whenever I hear that someone is anti-this or that, I immediately think of the old quip about MADD – are there any mothers for drunk driving? – and ask myself if anyone is really in favor of the particular thing being protested. Since GLAAD has recently taken a hard-line stance against Phil Robertson’s “anti-gay” comments, I’ve been asking myself a similar question about defamation: Who among us is for it? Most of us are decidedly against defamation, although we choose not to publicly participate in institutional demonstrations to prove how against it we are. But, of course, GLAAD is an institution, and therefore their criticism reverberates at systemic levels.

Founded in 1985 in the wake of the AIDS crisis, GLAAD was formed to protest skewed coverage of LGBT issues and “to put pressure on media organizations to end homophobic reporting.” The original name was an acronym for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,” and although the organization has recently rebranded itself by deciding that the letters G-L-A-A-D aren’t actually going to stand for anything any more, their reputation for protesting defamatory speech is well known both within and without the LGBT community.

It goes without saying that GLAAD has done a great deal of good for the LGBT community, and for that they deserve our applause and honor. As they noted in their announcement heralding their name change, their work continues to educate and influence the greater culture. Historically they’ve been a symbol of inclusion and tolerance, and they’ve worked tirelessly to infuse these values into our controlling media discourses. Frankly, though, I don’t think their hasty reaction to Phil Robertson displayed our LGBT community’s best values.

Before many of us even learned that Phil Robertson was interviewed by GQ, GLAAD had already convinced us that Phil’s words were vile and offensive, and called upon A&E “to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (I still wonder how many of us – commentators included – have read the actual story in GQ.) A&E offered its own kneejerk response to GLAAD’s kneejerk response, and placed Phil on “indefinite” hiatus, which then prompted some Evangelicals to offer up their own kneejerk response which had something to do with the freedom of speech and now – did I hear this correctly? – Chick-fil-A. In the end, after carefully reviewing all of the responses, A&E issued a final response explaining their decision to lift Phil’s suspension, which resulted in yet another predictable response from GLAAD. I’m not sure how we do it, but we manage to craft responses to our opponents without ever having actual conversations with them.

It isn’t shocking that a conservative Christian duck-hunter from Louisiana has opinions that GLAAD deemed “anti-gay,” and it isn’t shocking that A&E immediately kowtowed to GLAAD at the first drop of the word “homophobic.” What is shocking, however, is that A&E lifted Phil’s hiatus in spite of the fact that they knew GLAAD wasn’t going to be happy about it. A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations. A&E is certainly setting a precedent – which makes me wonder about where we are today with queer politics.

In the ’80s and ’90s, GLAAD was necessary, if only because top media outlets needed to be reminded that journalistic ethics applied to AIDS coverage, too. But in 2014, how necessary is GLAAD? I don’t mean to suggest that the organization isn’t doing some good for our world – as I’ve already noted, they are! But as America edges closer and closer to unqualified and full inclusion of LGBT persons, I wonder if an organization whose raison d’etre is to find and shame instances of discrimination isn’t just a bit archaic.

If our goal is to progress beyond defamation against LGBT persons, then that means GLAAD has a sell-by date. To put it in a different, albeit cheekier way: Defamation is good for GLAAD’s business. To bankrupt our society of LGBT defamation would certainly put GLAAD out of work. It’s hard for me to imagine I’m the only one who’s wondered about this. In fact, GLAAD’s recent name-change only confirms that their leadership has been reexamining and revising their purposes moving forward. Again, I’m not suggesting our world doesn’t need GLAAD: There certainly is a place for them. But A&E’s latest reversal should make us question what exactly that place is.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-reversal-shows-glaad-has-an-expiration-date/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

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

Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos

Posted on December 18, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year

Merry-Christmas-Happy-New-Year

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 2, 2014

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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 184

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

Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos

Bernanke-press-conference-Dec-18-2

Bernanke on Fed taper in 90 seconds

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Final Speech

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

FED Downgrades Economic Outlook & Says It Will Not Change Policy – Stuart Varney

US Federal Reserve to pull back on stimulus program in economic vote of confidence

Assessing the Ben Bernanke Legacy

Background Articles and Videos

Max Keiser Discusses QE & Rigged Global Markets

Peter Schiff Was Right – ‘Taper’ Edition (Dec 18, 2013 Update)

Peter Schiff We’re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming

Peter Schiff Money Causes Economic Crises – Peter Schiff Economic Crisis – Peter Schiff Money

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 184, December 19, 2013, Segment 0: God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

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

Obama Wins Award — Lie of The Year — Obama is An Habitual Liar — The Many Legends of Barry Davis — Videos

Posted on December 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

lie of the year

obama_lies

keep-it-image

A Montage of Obama’s “If You Like Your Plan Keep It” Lies

Obama Lies Compilation – WAKE UP YOU SHEEPLE!

Glenn Beck Presidential Lies Do You Know Anybody Like Barack Obama

CNN: Politifact Names Obama’s “Keep Your Plan” Promise Its Lie Of The Year

Obama Receives PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” Award For This Lie

“Lie Of The Year” – Obama Lied To America – O’Reilly

Glenn Beck: Lie Of The Year

Obama Lie – Broken Obamacare Promise ‘If You Like Your Plan’ Named Lie Of The Year – The Kelly File

The Many Legends of Barry Davis

side-photos-of-frank-and-obama

the_communist_frank_marshall davis

Who is the REAL Barack Obama?

Paul Kengor & Glenn Beck “The Communist” on GBTV Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor

Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

Frank Marshall Davis Interview (Obama’s Real Father From The Book “Dreams From My Real Father”)

Was Obama’s Real Daddy Running a Sex Club in Hawaii ?

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Legends_Robert_Littell_NBC_TV_series_Penguin_paperback

Legends_robert_littell

Legends Audiobook Sample

The article:

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.

Related rulings:

Pants on Fire!

“What we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Barack Obama, Monday, November 4th, 2013.

Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details

False

“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.”

Valerie Jarrett, Monday, October 28th, 2013.

Ruling: False | Details

Half-True

“If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

Barack Obama, Thursday, June 28th, 2012.

Ruling: Half-True | Details

Share this article:

We counted dozens of times that President Barack Obama said that if people liked their health plans, they could keep them.

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep.

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.  Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice. (PolitiFact first announced its selection on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.)

For four of the past five years, PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year has revolved around the health care law, which has been subject to more erroneous attacks than any other piece of legislation PolitiFact has fact-checked.

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s “you can keep it” claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

Why the cancellations happened

How did we get to this point?

The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called “grandfathering,” which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” when seeking re-election last year.

In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was likely that some private insurers would continue to force people to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate.

In the final months of 2013, several critical elements of the health care law were being enacted, and media attention was at its height. Healthcare.gov made its debut on Oct. 1. It didn’t take long for the media, the public and Obama’s own team to realize the website was a technological mess, freezing out customers and generally not working.

Also on Oct. 1, insurers started sending out cancellation letters for 2014.

No one knows exactly how many people got notices, because the health insurance market is largely private and highly fragmented. Analysts estimated the number at about 4 million (and potentially higher), out of a total insured population of about 262 million.

That was less than 2 percent, but there was no shortage of powerful anecdotes about canceled coverage.

One example: PBS Newshour interviewed a woman from Washington, D.C., who was a supporter of the health care law and found her policy canceled. New policies had significantly higher rates. She told Newshour that the only thing the new policy covered that her old one didn’t was maternity care and pediatric services. And she was 58.

“The chance of me having a child at this age is zero. So, you know, I ask the president, why do I have to pay an additional $5,000 a year for maternity coverage that I will never, ever need?” asked Deborah Persico.

The administration’s botched response

Initially, Obama and his team didn’t budge.

First, they tried to shift blame to insurers. “FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans,” said Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to Obama, on Oct. 28.

PolitiFact rated her statement False. The restrictions on grandfathering were part of the law, and they were driving cancellations.

Then, they tried to change the subject. “It’s important to remember both before the ACA was ever even a gleam in anybody’s eye, let alone passed into law, that insurance companies were doing this all the time, especially in the individual market because it was lightly regulated and the incentives were so skewed,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But what really set everyone off was when Obama tried to rewrite his slogan, telling political supporters on Nov. 4, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Pants on Fire! PolitiFact counted 37 times when he’d included no caveats, such as a high-profile speech to the American Medical Association in 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Even Obama’s staunchest allies cried foul.

On Nov. 6, columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune wrote that the public “was entitled to hear the unvarnished truth, not spin, from their president about what they were about to face. I don’t feel good about calling out Obama’s whopper, because I support most of his policies and programs. But in this instance, he would have to be delusional to think he was telling the truth.”

The next day, Obama apologized during a lengthy interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

“We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he said.

Political fist-fight

The reaction from conservative talk shows was withering. On Nov. 11, Sean Hannity put Obama’s statements up there with President Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook,” and President Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

On the liberal network MSNBC, Joy-Ann Reid said the Obama administration’s intention was to fight off attacks like the ones that scuttled Clinton’s health proposals in the early 1990s.

“That’s why the administration boiled it down to that, if you like your health care, you can keep it. Big mistake, but it was a mistake that I think came a little bit out of the lesson” of the Clinton years, she said Nov. 12.

Two days later, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi defended Obama’s statement as accurate and blamed insurance companies. “Did I ever tell my constituents that, if they like their plan, they could keep it? I would have, if I’d ever met anybody who liked his or her plan, but that was not my experience,” she said.

Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.

In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. “There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said. “It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.”

It is too soon to say what the lasting impact of “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” will be.

The president’s favorability ratings have tumbled in recent weeks.

A Pew Research/USA Today poll conducted Dec. 3-8 found the percentage of people viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points over the course of the year, from 30 percent to 45 percent.

Much depends on the law’s continuing implementation and other events during Obama’s final three years in office, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist who runs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Still, Obama has work to do to win back public trust, Sabato said.

“A whole series of presidents developed credibility gaps, because people didn’t trust what they were saying anymore. And that’s Obama’s real problem,” he said. “Once you lose the trust of a substantial part of the American public, how do you get it back?”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

CIA Rattles White House Cage Over Walking Back The Cat On Obama–Lapdog Holder Barks At CIA–No Bite!

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

Republican Senators Oppose House Budget Deal — Republicans Voting For Deal Will Be Targeted By Tea Party and Conservative Movement Voters — Videos

Posted on December 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Regulations, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

.

IP_BUDGETDEAL7

house_deal

ryan_murray

Breakthrough budget passed in US House of Representatives

Budget deal passes, what’s next?

Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal

Senator Rubio React To Compromise Budget Deal Approved By House America’s Newsroom

JEFF SESSIONS: SENATE GOP TO FILIBUSTER PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET DEAL

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that Senate Republicans plan to filibuster the budget deal that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

The deal passed the House 332-94, with 62 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting against it. The bill is expected to come up for votes in the Senate early next week, either Monday or Tuesday.

The type of filibuster Sessions spoke of is not the traditional “talking filibuster” like the one Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched earlier this year to protest Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s drone policies. It is a procedural filibuster, The Hill reports, that would require Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to at least twice obtain 60 votes to pass the bill.

“They’ll need 60 votes on cloture and 60 votes on the budget point of order,” Sessions said, according to The Hill.

Since there are only 55 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Reid will twice need at least five Republicans to break from their party and support the budget deal. Reid may need more Republicans if liberals like Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) or Bernie Sanders (I-VT) oppose the deal because it does not extend unemployment benefits. Considering 32 Democrats voted against the deal in the House, it seems plausible Reid may lose at least one, maybe two Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Republicans largely seem unified against the bill. As of late Thursday, not one Senate Republican confirmed suppot of the plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will vote against it, and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn and GOP conference chairman John Thune have indicated their opposition to it as well. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) has said he opposes it. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Sessions each oppose it too.

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), who usually support similar measures, have each announced their opposition.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is undecided as of this point, and while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—easily the Senate’s most liberal Republican—has said he is leaning “yes,” he has not yet committed to voting for the deal, citing concerns with military pension cuts in it.

Appropriators like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have not committed either, according to Roll Call.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Majority Whip in the Senate, confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the Democrats need GOP votes to make this happen.

“We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,” Durbin said. “We need at least five, and I’m hoping that there’ll be more than that. There are not five who Republicans have announced they’re for it, I mean to my knowledge, and I hope there are many more than that, and they’re just holding back for any number of reasons.”

While the deal is more likely to pass the Senate than not, the question becomes about which Republicans — if any — Reid will be able to attract to support the Ryan budget deal.

It’s war! Senate gears up for epic battle as ZERO Republicans line up to support budget agreement (and Democrats need to find at least five)

  • Congress needs to pass a new budget by January 15 to avoid another government shutdown
  • Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray negotiated a framework and tried to sell it to their respective majorities
  • The GOP-led House passed the plan Thursday night despite complaints from tea partiers and other budget hawks
  • But objections from Senate Republicans, including a claim that the plan restores spending cuts by shortchanging veterans’ pensions, could kill it

By DAVID MARTOSKO

A landmark budget agreement that passed in the U.S. House on Thursday faces certain death in the Senate unless at least five Republicans step up to support it – but so far there are no takers at all.

The GOP’s Senate leaders plan to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin conceded that he needs to find Republicans who will vote for the measure after Republicans announced their intention Thursday night to block the deal.

‘We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,’ Durbin told reporters on Thursday. ‘We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.’

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and the third-most powerful Senate leader, acknowledged that ‘there are not five Republicans who have announced they’re for it.’

In fact, no Republican senators have publicly said that they will vote in favor of the agreement that Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray unveiled Tuesday evening.

Their plan would roll back $63 billion in mandatory cuts from the so-called budget sequester that took effect in March. Some of that restored spending would be offset by cuts to military and civilian government pensions.

Annual cost-of-living increases in most military veterans’ retirement benefits would be cut by 1 per cent, an amount that the Military Officers Association of America says could cost a typical former soldier or sailor $80,000 over a 20-year period.

The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’

Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, all considered top-tier presidential contenders in 2016, are all lined up against the measure.

The proposal ‘spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare,’ Cruz said Thursday. ‘I cannot support it.’

Rubio emailed supporters on Wednesday, saying that the agreement Ryan and Murray negotiated over a six-week period ‘continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.’

House Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal -- but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill itHouse Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal — but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill it

And Paul said in a statement that the March sequester cuts ‘were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed.’

Other Republicans who face primary challenges from tea party-backed candidates are also vowing to cast ‘no’ votes.

‘After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,’ South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.

‘Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.’

Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, echoed Graham’s complaint.

‘I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,’ Wicker’s Thursday statement read. ‘Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military. … The plan should be rejected.’

Other Republicans object to what one GOP Senate staffer told MailOnline is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting.’

‘We’re doing what we always do,’ said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ‘We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.’

Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions explained that Democrats will need 60 ‘yes’ votes – on two separate procedural ballots – in order to pass it.

The GOP’s parliamentary roadblocks will have the same effect as a traditional filibuster without consuming countless hours of Senate time when the measure is considered early next week.

Even if Senate Democrats manage to find enough Republican support to pass the agreement, it won’t have the force of law.

What Ryan and Murray proposed Wednesday is merely a framework for a budget that has yet to be written. Members of Congress who sit on appropriation committees will still be required to craft – and pass in both houses – a final budget bill by January 15.

Unless they can pull it off, the federal government will be headed for its second shutdown in three months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523120/ZERO-Senate-Republicans-support-budget-agreement-Democrats-five.html

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

After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

Posted on December 12, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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 174-180

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

Segment 0: After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

sgs-emp

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

December 6th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (November Jobs Report)

November Unemployment Rate Falls To 7% – Crowley: If This Numbers Are To Be Believed Thats A Big If

Jobs report doesn’t improve outlook for long-term jobless

Nightly Business Report — December 6, 2013

Stock Markets Latest News: Wall St. Eyes Weekly Gain After Jobs Report

Bob Browne: Last week’s strong U.S. jobs report — December 9, 2013

The long-term effects of unemployment among young workers

Friday, December 6, 2013

Larry Kudlow Admits to Being Wrong About Bernanke And The Economy NOT PETER SCHIFF THOUGH!

Employment Level

144,386,000

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 144170 144303 143568 144386
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

155,254,000

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 155486 155559 154839 155294
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.0%

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 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0

Employment-Population Ratio

58.6%

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_Level

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 58.6 58.6 58.3 58.6

Unemployment Level

10,907,000

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 11316 11255 11272 10907

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.0%

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

U_3_Unemployment_Rate

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 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.0

U-6 Unemployment Rate

13.2%

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

U_6_Unemployment_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.9 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.0 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.8 16.0 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 16.0 15.5 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.5 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.3 14.0 13.7 13.6 13.8 13.2

Teenage Unemployment Rate 16-19 Year

20.8%

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2 20.8

Average Weeks Unemployed

37.2 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Average_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.7 27.4 29.0 29.7
2010 30.4 29.8 31.6 33.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.0 34.1 34.8
2011 37.3 37.4 39.2 38.6 39.5 39.6 40.4 40.3 40.4 38.9 40.7 40.7
2012 40.2 39.9 39.5 39.1 39.6 39.7 38.8 39.3 39.6 39.9 39.7 38.1
2013 35.3 36.9 37.1 36.5 36.9 35.6 36.6 37.0 36.9 36.1 37.2

Median Weeks Unemployed

17.0 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Median_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.3 17.1 15.9 16.2 17.8 18.8 19.8 20.2
2010 20.0 20.0 20.5 22.2 22.4 24.8 22.1 20.9 20.2 21.1 21.2 22.1
2011 21.5 21.3 21.8 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.5 22.2 21.9 20.4 21.1 20.8
2012 20.8 20.1 19.7 19.3 20.1 19.4 16.8 18.2 18.7 19.6 18.9 18.0
2013 16.0 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.3 16.3 15.7 16.4 16.3 16.3 17.0

Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries

7,719,000

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time

Employment_Level_Part_Time_Economic_Reasons

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3208 3167 3231 3186 3283 3209 3144 3211 3217 3179 3467 3243
2001 3332 3296 3280 3289 3439 3792 3556 3380 4233 4437 4317 4393
2002 4112 4289 4101 4199 4103 4048 4145 4301 4329 4314 4329 4321
2003 4607 4844 4652 4798 4570 4592 4648 4419 4882 4813 4862 4750
2004 4705 4549 4742 4568 4588 4443 4449 4474 4487 4820 4547 4427
2005 4389 4250 4388 4278 4315 4432 4400 4491 4675 4269 4219 4115
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8042 8788 9076 8904 9103 9051 8941 9030 8869 9005 9103 9092
2010 8493 8897 9122 9171 8816 8646 8610 8826 9226 8913 8862 8933
2011 8432 8398 8525 8649 8562 8536 8416 8816 9101 8726 8436 8168
2012 8220 8127 7664 7896 8116 8210 8245 8043 8607 8286 8138 7918
2013 7973 7988 7638 7916 7904 8226 8245 7911 7926 8050 7719

Employment Situation News Release

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                   USDL-13-2315
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 6, 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 -- NOVEMBER 2013

The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total
nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care,
and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.9 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.0 percent, declined in November. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being
on temporary layoff decreased by 377,000. This largely reflects the return to work of
federal employees who were furloughed in October due to the partial government shutdown.
(See tables A-1 and A-11.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.7 percent),
adult women (6.2 percent), teenagers (20.8 percent), whites (6.2 percent), blacks
(12.5 percent), and Hispanics (8.7 percent) changed little in November. The jobless
rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks declined by 300,000 in November,
partially reflecting the return to work of federal employees on furlough in October.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially
unchanged at 4.1 million in November. These individuals accounted for 37.3 percent of
the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 718,000 over the
past 12 months. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force rose by 455,000 in November, after declining by 720,000 in
October. The labor force participation rate changed little (63.0 percent) in November.
Total employment as measured by the household survey increased by 818,000 over the
month, following a decline of 735,000 in the prior month. This over-the-month increase
in employment partly reflected the return to work of furloughed federal government
employees. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 58.6
percent in November, reversing a decline of the same size in the prior month. (See
table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 331,000 to 7.7 million in November. 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 November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
409,000 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 762,000 discouraged workers in November, down
by 217,000 from a year ago. (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 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor  force in
November 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 203,000 in November. Job growth averaged
195,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred in
transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 31,000 in November, with gains
in couriers and messengers (+9,000), truck transportation (+8,000), warehousing and
storage (+5,000), and air transportation (+3,000).

Health care employment continued to increase over the month (+28,000). Job gains occurred
in home healthcare services (+12,000) and offices of physicians (+7,000), while nursing
care facilities lost jobs (-4,000). Job growth in health care has averaged 19,000 per
month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.

In November, manufacturing added 27,000 jobs. Within the industry, job gains occurred in
food manufacturing (+8,000) and in motor vehicles and parts (+7,000).

In November, employment in professional and business services continued to trend up
(+35,000). Over the prior 12 months, the industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per
month.

Retail trade employment also continued to expand in November (+22,000). Within the
industry, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+14,000); in sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+12,000); and in automobile dealers (+7,000).
Over the prior 12 months, job growth in retail trade averaged 31,000 per month.

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in November (+18,000). Job growth in this industry averaged 28,000 per month
over the prior 12 months.

Employment in construction continued to trend up in November (+17,000). Monthly job
gains in the industry averaged 15,000 over the prior 12 months.

Federal government employment continued to decline (-7,000) in November. Over the past
12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 92,000.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, wholesale trade,
information, and financial activities, showed little or no change in November.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour
to 41.0 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $24.15. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 48 cents,
or 2.0 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 3 cents to $20.31. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +163,000
to +175,000, and the change for October was revised from +204,000 to +200,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 8,000 higher
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 10, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                       |
  |                           Household Survey Reference Period                           |
  |                                                                                       |
  |In the household survey, the reference period for November 2013 was the calendar week  |
  |that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household  |
  |survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. The November reference|
  |week was moved up in 2013 due to the timing of the November and December holidays. In  |
  |accordance with usual practice, this change is made in November when necessary to allow|
  |for sufficient time to process data and conduct survey operations.                     |
  |                                                                                       |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                        |
 |               Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                    |
 |                                                                                        |
 |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2013,  |
 |scheduled for January 10, 2014, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted|
 |unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
 |data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision.                               |
 |                                                                                        |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                      |
  |                  Upcoming Change to the Household Survey Tables                      |
  |                                                                                      |
  |Effective with the release of January 2014 data on February 7, 2014, household survey |
  |table A-10 will include two new seasonally adjusted series for women age 55 and over— |
  |the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate. These will replace the    |
  |series that are currently displayed for this group, which are not seasonally adjusted.|
  |                                                                                      |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Category Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013
Nov.
2013
Change from:
Oct.
2013-
Nov.
2013
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population 244,174 246,168 246,381 246,567 186
Civilian labor force 155,319 155,559 154,839 155,294 455
Participation rate 63.6 63.2 62.8 63.0 0.2
Employed 143,277 144,303 143,568 144,386 818
Employment-population ratio 58.7 58.6 58.3 58.6 0.3
Unemployed 12,042 11,255 11,272 10,907 -365
Unemployment rate 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Not in labor force 88,855 90,609 91,541 91,273 -268
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Adult men (20 years and over) 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.7 -0.3
Adult women (20 years and over) 7.0 6.2 6.4 6.2 -0.2
Teenagers (16 to 19 years) 23.6 21.4 22.2 20.8 -1.4
White 6.8 6.3 6.3 6.2 -0.1
Black or African American 13.2 12.9 13.1 12.5 -0.6
Asian (not seasonally adjusted) 6.4 5.3 5.2 5.3 -
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity 9.9 9.0 9.1 8.7 -0.4
Total, 25 years and over 6.5 6.0 6.1 5.9 -0.2
Less than a high school diploma 12.1 10.3 10.9 10.8 -0.1
High school graduates, no college 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.3 0.0
Some college or associate degree 6.6 6.0 6.3 6.4 0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.4 -0.4
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 6,429 5,844 6,253 5,804 -449
Job leavers 926 989 861 893 32
Reentrants 3,325 3,181 3,117 3,073 -44
New entrants 1,326 1,222 1,223 1,165 -58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks 2,596 2,596 2,761 2,461 -300
5 to 14 weeks 2,757 2,703 2,656 2,597 -59
15 to 26 weeks 1,820 1,804 1,782 1,766 -16
27 weeks and over 4,784 4,146 4,063 4,066 3
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons 8,138 7,926 8,050 7,719 -331
Slack work or business conditions 5,084 4,960 5,047 4,869 -178
Could only find part-time work 2,648 2,557 2,599 2,486 -113
Part time for noneconomic reasons 18,594 18,967 18,786 18,876 90
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force 2,505 2,302 2,283 2,096 -
Discouraged workers 979 852 815 762 -
- 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 Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013(p)
Nov.
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 247 175 200 203
Total private 256 168 214 196
Goods-producing 43 29 31 44
Mining and logging 12 4 3 0
Construction 24 17 12 17
Manufacturing 7 8 16 27
Durable goods(1) 17 12 11 17
Motor vehicles and parts 9.7 2.5 4.1 6.7
Nondurable goods -10 -4 5 10
Private service-providing(1) 213 139 183 152
Wholesale trade 9.8 15.7 -8.1 6.8
Retail trade 69.6 23.3 45.8 22.3
Transportation and warehousing 20.2 36.9 3.1 30.5
Information 14 2 4 -1
Financial activities 5 -3 7 -3
Professional and business services(1) 55 47 48 35
Temporary help services 26.5 27.4 9.1 16.4
Education and health services(1) 14 14 30 40
Health care and social assistance 30.2 19.7 21.3 29.6
Leisure and hospitality 21 -1 49 17
Other services 7 4 4 4
Government -9 7 -14 7
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 34.4 34.4 34.5
Average hourly earnings $23.67 $24.09 $24.11 $24.15
Average weekly earnings $814.25 $828.70 $829.38 $833.18
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 97.0 98.7 98.8 99.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 109.5 113.3 113.6 114.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.7
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.7 33.7 33.6 33.7
Average hourly earnings $19.88 $20.25 $20.28 $20.31
Average weekly earnings $669.96 $682.43 $681.41 $684.45
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.7 106.3 106.2 106.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 138.9 143.8 143.9 144.8
Over-the-month percent change 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.6
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 63.9 61.3 61.1 63.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 52.5 54.3 56.8 63.0
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.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Inventory Increases of 1.7% Pumps Up Real GDP in 3 Quarter 2013 to 3.6% — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Raves, Economics, Links, People, Life, Investments, Talk Radio, Employment, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Wisdom, liberty, Fiscal Policy, government spending, media, history, Language, government, Federal Government, Wealth, American History, Microeconomics, Unemployment, Macroeconomics, Tax Policy, Federal Government Budget, Writing, Obamacare | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

Breaking views: U.S. growth mirage

Fall of the dollar 2014 – America Economy Will Soon Collapse! – Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff – Whatever the Fed Does, Gold Will Rally! US Economy Already Ruined!

Peter Schiff was Right – The party is over, Ben Stein thinks the earnings are huge

Peter Schiff: US lost ability to produce, can’t live without debt

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
BEA 13-57

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Howard Krakower: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2013 (second estimate);
Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2013 (preliminary estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3). With this second estimate for the third quarter, the increase in
private inventory investment was larger than previously estimated.

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending 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 growth in the third quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in
private inventory investment, a deceleration in imports, and an acceleration in state and local
government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in exports, in PCE, and in nonresidential
fixed investment.

_________
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.  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".
_________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.8 percent in the third quarter, the same increase as in the advance estimate; this index
increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.8 percent
in the second.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.8 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 7.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 6.2 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent.  Services was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter, services increased 1.2
percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.7 percent in the second.  Nonresidential structures increased 13.8 percent, compared with
an increase of 17.6 percent.  Equipment was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter,
equipment increased 3.3 percent.  Intellectual property products increased 1.7 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 13.0 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.2 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 8.0 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 6.9 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.4 percent
in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.6 percent in the second.  National defense decreased
0.3 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.1 percent, the same
decrease as in the second quarter.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 1.68 percentage points to the third-quarter change in
real GDP, after adding 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $116.5 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $56.6 billion in the second quarter
and $42.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.9
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the
second.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $13.7 billion in the third quarter after increasing $7.7 billion in the second; in the
third quarter, receipts increased $1.7 billion, and payments decreased $12.1billion.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.6 percent, or $229.8 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $16,890.8 billion.  In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 3.1 percent, or $125.7 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.2 percent (revised) in the second.  For a given quarter, the estimates of
GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent
source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar
patterns of change.

Revisions

      The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment and to nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upward
revision to imports and a downward revision to exports.

                                                                     Advance Estimate             Second Estimate
                                                                       (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP................................................                    2.8                        3.6
Current-dollar GDP......................................                    4.8                        5.6
Gross domestic purchases price index....................                    1.8                        1.8

                                            Corporate Profits

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $38.3 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $66.8 billion in the second.  Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion, in contrast to
an increase of $10.0 billion.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $43.0 billion, compared
with an increase of $56.9 billion.

      Dividends decreased $179.7 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $273.5
billion in the second.  The large third-quarter decrease primarily reflected dividends paid by Fannie Mae
to the federal government in the second quarter.  Undistributed profits increased $222.8 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $216.6 billion.  Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to
corporations for investment -- increased $234.5 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $205.3 billion.

_________
BOX.  Profits from current production reflect the depreciation of
fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation profiles.
These profiles are based on used-asset prices and do not depend on the
depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns.  The IVA and CCAdj are
adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of fixed assets reported on a tax-return,
historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in the national income and product
accounts.
_________

Corporate profits by industry

      Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $8.6 billion in the third quarter, compared to
an increase of $24.5 billion in the second.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased $13.0
billion, compared to an increase of $37.8 billion.

      The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $16.7 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $4.6 billion in the second.  This measure is calculated as the difference between
receipts from rest of the world and payments to rest of the world.

Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business

      In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices that
was partly offset by increases in both unit labor costs and nonlabor costs incurred by corporations.

                                     *          *          *

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 -- December 20, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                       Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2013 (Third Estimate)
                          Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter (Revised Estimate)

                                     *          *          *
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 )

Repeal Obamacare Tax (ROT) — ROT NOW! — Videos

Posted on November 18, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Video, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

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

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-169

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

Segment 0: Repeal Obamacare Tax (ROT) — ROT NOW! — Videos

obamacare-taxes (1)2013-Capital-Gains-Tax-RatesObamacare tax increaseobamacare-tax11-fine_taxes_and_obamacareObamacare-Tax-Penaltiesindividual_mandate_tax

five_top_obamacare_taxesObamacare-Healthcare-Taxes21NEWTAXESobamacare-taxes3

ObamaCare-Taxes1

Obamacare-Taxes

specialobamacaretaxesmiddleclass

special-obamacare-spending-and-taxesObamacarebl-obama-taxes-on-richvero marginal tax rate smallaffordable-tax_care

Obamacare-New-Taxes

Higher Taxes In 2013 Can’t Help The Government (But Can Hurt You!)

historical-burden-of-federal-spending (1)

totalfederaltaxesshareofgdp-thumb1

Obama in 2009: “Absolutely Not a Tax Increase”

Obama_Postage_xlarge

Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

Ben Swann Truth in Media: Obamacare Navigators Won’t Have To Pass Background Checks

Obama: Healthcare Law Raised Taxes On “Somethings” – Obamacare – Wake Up America!

ObamaCare Obama’s Regressive Tax on the Middle Class

Fail-Safe In Obamacare Puts Taxpayers On The Hook For Insurer Bailout – Wake Up America

Judge Jeanine Pirro – Unions Dodging Obamacare Tax – RPT: Rule Allows Labor Unions A Pass

Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax Stuns WH Chief of Staff Lew

ObamaCare Slaps 3.8% Net Income Tax On Individuals, Trusts And Estates

New ObamaCare Taxes You Probably Don’t Know About

Wake Up, America – Aka, “Obamacare Tax’ New Term: Shared Responsibility Payments

Reporter Uncovers Massive Fraud In Obamacare !!

Glenn Beck- ObamaCare Lies

Pelosi: ObamaCare Is Not “In Trouble”

The Obamacare Extension – Government Without Painkillers

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

Labor Participation Drops To Low of 62.8% Lowest in 35 Years — Record 91.5 Million Americans Not In Labor Force —720,000 Leave Labor Force in October — U-3 Unemployment Rate Increases to 7.3%

Posted on November 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

sgs-emp

November 8th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (October Jobs Report)

Employment Level

143,568,000

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 144170 144303 143568
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

154,839,000

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_Participation_Rate
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 155486 155559 154839
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8

Unemployment Level

11,272,000

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 11316 11255 11272

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.3%

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
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 7.3 7.2 7.3

Employment-Population Ratio

58.3%

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 58.6 58.6 58.3

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 Years Old

22.2%

Series Id:           LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 years
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2

Unemployment Rate – White

6.3%

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

Unemployment_Rate_White
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 6.4 6.3 6.3

Unemployment Rate – Black or African American

13.1%

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
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4
2001 8.2 7.7 8.3 8.0 7.9 8.3 8.0 9.1 8.9 9.5 9.8 10.1
2002 10.0 9.9 10.5 10.7 10.2 10.5 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.8 10.7 11.3
2003 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.5 10.9 10.9 11.1 11.4 10.2 10.1
2004 10.4 9.7 10.3 9.8 10.1 10.2 11.0 10.5 10.3 10.8 10.7 10.7
2005 10.6 10.9 10.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 9.2 9.7 9.4 9.1 10.6 9.2
2006 8.9 9.5 9.5 9.4 8.7 8.9 9.5 8.8 9.0 8.4 8.5 8.3
2007 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.1 7.6 8.0 8.5 8.5 9.0
2008 9.1 8.4 9.2 8.6 9.6 9.4 10.0 10.6 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1
2009 12.7 13.7 13.6 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.9 15.3 15.9 15.7 16.1
2010 16.5 16.1 16.8 16.5 15.5 15.3 15.6 16.0 15.9 15.8 16.0 15.6
2011 15.8 15.5 15.7 16.3 16.3 16.2 15.8 16.5 15.8 14.9 15.5 15.6
2012 13.6 14.1 14.0 13.1 13.6 14.4 14.1 14.0 13.4 14.5 13.2 14.0
2013 13.8 13.8 13.3 13.2 13.5 13.7 12.6 13.0 12.9 13.1

Unemployment Rate – Hispanic or Latino

9.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000009
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Hispanic or Latino
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Ethnic origin:       Hispanic or Latino
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.6 5.7 6.1 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.7
2001 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.7
2002 7.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.9
2003 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.6
2004 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.5
2005 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.4 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 6.2 6.1
2006 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 4.7 5.1 5.0
2007 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.9 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.3
2008 6.5 6.3 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.7 7.6 8.1 8.0 8.8 8.6 9.3
2009 10.0 11.1 11.7 11.4 12.6 12.2 12.5 13.1 12.7 12.9 12.5 12.8
2010 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 12.0 12.5 12.5 13.0 12.9
2011 12.1 11.6 11.4 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.3 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.0
2012 10.5 10.6 10.3 10.3 11.0 11.0 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 9.9 9.6
2013 9.7 9.6 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.4 9.3 9.0 9.1

Average Weeks Unemployed

36.1 Weeks

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

Average_Weeks_Unemployes
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.7 27.4 29.0 29.7
2010 30.4 29.8 31.6 33.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.0 34.1 34.8
2011 37.3 37.4 39.2 38.6 39.5 39.6 40.4 40.3</