Enivornment

First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1 Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing — Videos

Posted on December 6, 2014. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Technology, Taxes, Raves, Resources, Economics, Links, War, Immigration, Religion, People, Life, Investments, Regulations, Talk Radio, Education, Energy, Security, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, liberty, Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, government spending, media, Psychology, history, Demographics, government, Federal Government, College, Money, Banking, Wealth, Public Sector, American History, European History, Nuclear Power, Diasters, Enivornment, Oil, Natural Gas, Microeconomics, Inflation, Unemployment, Weapons, Macroeconomics, Tax Policy, Federal Government Budget, Radio, Literacy, Terrorism, Constitution, Islam, Islam, Press, Illegal, Shite, Sunni, Photos, Obamacare, Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom, Oil, Natural Gas, Data, National Security Agency (NSA_, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), British History, Crisis | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Story 1: First Good Jobs Report In Years with 321,000 Jobs Created In November With 5.8% Unemployment Rate U-3, 9.1  Million Unemployed — Still 10-12 Million Jobs Short Due To Low Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% — Years Away From Near Full Unemployment Rate of 3% With 67% Labor Participation Rate — National Debt Hits $18 Trillion and Climbing —  Videos

national-debt-wave

37b-cartoon Cartoon-Stretched-Thin-ALG-600 national_debt

sinkhole-cartoon_thumb

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

sgs-emp

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

private sector payroll employment monthly change

gdp_large

world-oil-supplyunnamed

Crude Oil Brent

Latest Price & Chart for Crude Oil Brent

End of day Commodity Futures Price Quotes for Crude Oil Brent

oil_spot

 http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil-brent.aspx#ixzz3LA0mUyxX

OilPriceChartDec2014

Get Ready for More Layoffs and Higher Unemployment

Ep 28: Media Spins Horrible Holiday Sales as Reflecting Economic Strength

The Real Reason for Falling Oil and Gas Prices

Crude Oil Drop – Richard Perrin – December 5, 2014

Could Oil Fall To $60?

Series Preview: The Global Drop in Oil Prices

Falling Gas Prices Impact US Oil Extraction

Over $150 Billion of Oil Projects Face Axe in 2015

Nook Fail, Jobs Report, Buffet backs Clinton – Today’s Investor News

Mohamed El-Erian: Nov. Jobs Report Is Great News for Economy

Hiring surge: 321k jobs added in November

Employment Situation Report – November 2014

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Employment Level

147,287,000

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) 145266 145742 145669 145814 146221 146352 146368 146600 147283 147287
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Civilian Labor Force Level

156,397,000

Civilian Labor Force


Series Id:           
LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 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) 155724 156227 155421 155613 155694 156023 155959 155862 156278 156397
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

Labor Participation Rate

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 65.2 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 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.8

 

Unemployment Level

9,110,000

 

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 10459 10486 9753 9799 9474 9671 9591 9262 8995 9110

Unemployment Rate U-3

5.8%

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 9.7 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 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8

 

Employment -Population Ratio

5.9%

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 58.6 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 58.8 58.9 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.2 59.2

 

Unemployment Rate 16-19 Years Old

17.7%


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 yearsteenage unemployment rate

 

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 21.4 20.9 19.1 19.2 21.0 20.2 19.6 20.0 18.6 17.7

 

Average Weeks Unemployed

33.0%

 


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 37.1 35.6 35.1 34.5 33.5 32.4 31.7 31.5 32.7 33.0

Not In Labor Force

2,109,000


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

Not In Labor force
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 2303 2168 2160 2130 2028 2178 2141 2226 2192 2109

 

Not In Labor Force Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking

698,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects  (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 236 267 258 331 280 309 266 203 253 232 236 269 262
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770 698

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

11.4%

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 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.5 11.4

 

Employment Situation Summary

 

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                  USDL-14-2184
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 5, 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 -- NOVEMBER 2014


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 321,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 5.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Job gains were widespread, led by growth in professional and business services, retail
trade, health care, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.8 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons was little changed at 9.1 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and
the number of unemployed persons were down by 1.2 percentage points and 1.7 million,
respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men rose to 5.4 percent
in November. The rates for adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.7 percent), whites
(4.9 percent), blacks (11.1 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little change
over the month. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 30.7 percent of
the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed declined
by 1.2 million. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate held at 62.8 percent in November and has
been essentially unchanged since April. The employment-population ratio, at 59.2
percent, was unchanged in November but is up by 0.6 percentage point over the year.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers), at 6.9 million, changed little in November. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, 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,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 698,000 discouraged workers in November,
little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in 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 rose by 321,000 in November, compared with an
average monthly gain of 224,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
was widespread, led by gains in professional and business services, retail trade,
health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 86,000 in November,
compared with an average gain of 57,000 per month over the prior 12 months. Within
the industry, accounting and bookkeeping services added 16,000 jobs in November.
Employment continued to trend up in temporary help services (+23,000), management
and technical consulting services (+7,000), computer systems design and related
services (+7,000), and architectural and engineering services (+5,000).

Employment in retail trade rose by 50,000 in November, compared with an average
gain of 22,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred
in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+11,000); clothing and accessories stores
(+11,000); sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+9,000); and nonstore
retailers (+6,000).

Health care added 29,000 jobs over the month. Employment continued to trend up in
offices of physicians (+7,000), home health care services (+5,000), outpatient care
centers (+4,000), and hospitals (+4,000). Over the past 12 months, employment in
health care has increased by 261,000.

In November, manufacturing added 28,000 jobs. Durable goods manufacturers accounted
for 17,000 of the increase, with small gains in most of the component industries.
Employment in nondurable goods increased by 11,000, with plastics and rubber products
(+7,000) accounting for most of the gain. Over the year, manufacturing has added
171,000 jobs, largely in durable goods.

Financial activities added 20,000 jobs in November, with half of the gain in insurance
carriers and related activities. Over the past year, insurance has contributed 70,000
jobs to the overall employment gain of 114,000 in financial activities.

Transportation and warehousing employment increased by 17,000 in November, with a
gain in couriers and messengers (+5,000). Over the past 12 months, transportation
and warehousing has added 143,000 jobs.

Employment in food services and drinking places continued to trend up in November
(+27,000) and has increased by 321,000 over the year.

Construction employment also continued to trend up in November (+20,000). Employment in
specialty trade contractors rose by 21,000, mostly in the residential component. Over
the past 12 months, construction has added 213,000 jobs, with just over half the gain
among specialty trade contractors.

In November, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2 hour to 41.1 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 was unchanged at
33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents
to $24.66 in November. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1 percent.
In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 4 cents to $20.74. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +256,000
to +271,000, and the change for October was revised from +214,000 to +243,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 44,000 more
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 9, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |               Upcoming Changes to the Employment Situation News Release          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Effective with the release of January 2015 data on February 6, 2015, the U.S.     |
  |Bureau of Labor Statistics will introduce several changes to The Employment       |
  |Situation news release tables.                                                    |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-2 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Asians. These series will appear in addition to the not  |
  |seasonally adjusted data for Asians currently displayed in the table. Also, in    |
  |summary table A, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Asians will replace|
  |the not seasonally adjusted series that is currently displayed for the group.     |
  |                                                                                  |
  |Household survey table A-3 will introduce seasonally adjusted series on the labor |
  |force characteristics of Hispanic men age 20 and over, Hispanic women age 20 and  |
  |over, and Hispanic teenagers age 16 to 19. The not seasonally adjusted series for |
  |these groups will continue to be displayed in the table.                          |
  |                                                                                  |
  |The establishment survey will introduce two data series: (1) total nonfarm        |
  |employment, 3-month average change and (2) total private employment, 3-month      |
  |average change. These new series will be added to establishment survey summary    |
  |table B. Additionally, in the employment section of summary table B, the list     |
  |of industries will be expanded to include utilities (currently published in       |
  |table B-1). Also, hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees   |
  |will be removed from summary table B, although these series will continue to be   |
  |published in establishment survey tables B-7 and B-8. A sample of the new summary |
  |table B is available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/ces/cesnewsumb.pdf.        |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|




   __________________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                                  |
  |            Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                 |
  |                                                                                  |
  |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation news release for      |
  |December 2014, scheduled for January 9, 2015, will incorporate annual revisions in|
  |seasonally adjusted household survey data. Seasonally adjusted data for the most  |
  |recent 5 years are subject to revision.                                           |
  |__________________________________________________________________________________|



 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

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

CategoryNov.
2013Sept.
2014Oct.
2014Nov.
2014Change from:
Oct.
2014-
Nov.
2014

Employment status

 

Civilian noninstitutional population

246,567248,446248,657248,844187

Civilian labor force

155,284155,862156,278156,397119

Participation rate

63.062.762.862.80.0

Employed

144,443146,600147,283147,2874

Employment-population ratio

58.659.059.259.20.0

Unemployed

10,8419,2628,9959,110115

Unemployment rate

7.05.95.85.80.0

Not in labor force

91,28392,58492,37892,44769

Unemployment rates

 

Total, 16 years and over

7.05.95.85.80.0

Adult men (20 years and over)

6.75.35.15.40.3

Adult women (20 years and over)

6.25.55.45.3-0.1

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

20.820.018.617.7-0.9

White

6.15.14.84.90.1

Black or African American

12.411.010.911.10.2

Asian (not seasonally adjusted)

5.34.35.04.8-

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

8.76.96.86.6-0.2

Total, 25 years and over

5.84.74.74.70.0

Less than a high school diploma

10.68.47.98.50.6

High school graduates, no college

7.35.35.75.6-0.1

Some college or associate degree

6.45.44.84.90.1

Bachelor’s degree and higher

3.42.93.13.20.1

Reason for unemployment

 

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

5,7314,5304,3584,483125

Job leavers

89082979483844

Reentrants

3,0652,8092,8712,773-98

New entrants

1,1691,1051,0631,0641

Duration of unemployment

 

Less than 5 weeks

2,4392,3832,4732,52956

5 to 14 weeks

2,5852,5082,3122,39078

15 to 26 weeks

1,7421,4161,4171,43114

27 weeks and over

4,0442,9542,9162,815-101

Employed persons at work part time

 

Part time for economic reasons

7,7237,1037,0276,850-177

Slack work or business conditions

4,8694,1624,2144,064-150

Could only find part-time work

2,4992,5622,4472,4536

Part time for noneconomic reasons

18,85819,56119,76920,004235

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

 

Marginally attached to the labor force

2,0962,2262,1922,109-

Discouraged workers

762698770698-

- Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

 

 

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Nov.
2013
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014(p)
Nov.
2014(p)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

274 271 243 321

Total private

272 249 236 314

Goods-producing

68 36 28 48

Mining and logging

1 6 1 0

Construction

32 18 7 20

Manufacturing

35 12 20 28

Durable goods(1)

19 11 18 17

Motor vehicles and parts

4.7 1.7 2.0 3.0

Nondurable goods

16 1 2 11

Private service-providing(1)

204 213 208 266

Wholesale trade

16.8 2.9 6.1 2.5

Retail trade

22.3 39.9 34.2 50.2

Transportation and warehousing

32.4 7.0 15.3 16.7

Information

1 3 -5 4

Financial activities

-4 14 6 20

Professional and business services(1)

73 66 52 86

Temporary help services

36.6 23.2 19.5 22.7

Education and health services(1)

25 35 37 38

Health care and social assistance

24.4 24.8 31.5 37.2

Leisure and hospitality

37 47 55 32

Other services

-1 0 7 15

Government

2 22 7 7

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.4 49.4 49.3

Total private women employees

48.0 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

34.5 34.5 34.5 34.6

Average hourly earnings

$24.15 $24.54 $24.57 $24.66

Average weekly earnings

$833.18 $846.63 $847.67 $853.24

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

99.6 101.4 101.6 102.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

114.8 118.7 119.1 120.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9

HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

33.7 33.7 33.8 33.8

Average hourly earnings

$20.30 $20.67 $20.70 $20.74

Average weekly earnings

$684.11 $696.58 $699.66 $701.01

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)

107.1 109.1 109.6 109.8

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 -0.1 0.5 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4)

145.3 150.6 151.6 152.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 -0.1 0.7 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)

Total private (264 industries)

66.9 63.4 63.8 69.7

Manufacturing (81 industries)

65.4 59.3 64.2 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

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2014
BEA 14-59

* 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
Kate Shoemaker: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2014 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter 2014 (Preliminary Estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United
States, adjusted for price changes -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter of
2014, according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second
quarter, real GDP increased 4.6 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 3.5
percent.  With the second estimate for the third quarter, private inventory investment decreased less than
previously estimated, and both personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and nonresidential fixed
investment increased more.  In contrast, exports increased less than previously estimated (see
"Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions from PCE,
nonresidential fixed investment, federal government spending, exports, residential fixed investment, and
state and local government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from private
inventory investment.  Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

      The deceleration in the percent change in real GDP reflected a downturn in private inventory
investment and decelerations in exports, in nonresidential fixed investment, in state and local
government spending, in PCE, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a downturn
in imports and an upturn in federal government spending.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, 0.1 percentage point more than in the advance estimate; this
index increased 2.0 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for
gross domestic purchases increased 1.6 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.7
percent in the second.


_____
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 "The Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."
_____

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.5 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 8.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.1 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.2 percent, the same increase as in the second
quarter.  Services increased 1.2 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 7.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 9.7 percent in the second.  Investment in nonresidential structures increased 1.1 percent,
compared with an increase of 12.6 percent.  Investment in equipment increased 10.7 percent, compared
with an increase of 11.2 percent.  Investment in intellectual property products increased 6.4 percent,
compared with an increase of 5.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 8.8 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 4.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 11.1 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.7 percent, in
contrast to an increase of 11.3 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.9 percent
in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second.  National defense increased
16.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.9 percent.  Nondefense increased 0.4 percent, in contrast to
a decrease of 3.8 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.12 percentage point from the third-quarter
change in real GDP after adding 1.42 percentage points to the second-quarter change.  Private
businesses increased inventories $79.1 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $84.8 billion in
the second quarter and $35.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 4.1
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 3.2 percent in the second.


Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.0 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.8 percent in the
second.


Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the value of the goods and services produced by the labor and
property supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.8 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.6 percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the
rest of the world, which decreased $1.6 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $1.4
billion in the second; in the third quarter, receipts decreased $1.1 billion, and payments increased $0.5
billion.


Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the production of goods and services in the United
States -- increased 5.3 percent, or $227.0 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $17,555.2 billion.  In
the second quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 6.8 percent, or $284.2 billion.


Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the value of the production of goods and
services in the United States as the costs incurred and the incomes earned on that production, increased
4.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 4.0 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, to personal consumption expenditures, and to nonresidential fixed
investment that were partly offset by a downward revision to exports and an upward revision to imports.


                                         Advance Estimate  Second Estimate

                                     (Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP...............................         3.5            3.9
Current-dollar GDP.....................         4.9            5.3
Real GDI...............................         --             4.5
Gross domestic purchases price index...         1.3            1.4
Corporate Profits


Profits from current production

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $43.8 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $164.1 billion in the second.

      Profits of domestic financial corporations increased $20.3 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $33.3 billion in the second.  Profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations increased
$22.5 billion, compared with an increase of $134.3 billion.  The rest-of-the-world component of profits
increased $1.0 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $3.6 billion.  This measure is calculated as the
difference between receipts from the rest of the world and payments to the rest of the world.  In the third
quarter, receipts were unchanged, and payments decreased $1.0 billion.

      Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase
of $45.7 billion in the second.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $48.6 billion, compared
with an increase of $118.4 billion.

      Dividends decreased $3.9 billion in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of $0.5 billion in
the second.  Undistributed profits increased $52.5 billion, compared with an increase of $118.8 billion.
Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $25.1
billion, compared with an increase of $133.4 billion.

	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.  The IVA increased $16.8 billion in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of $11.9 billion in the second.  The CCAdj increased $1.2 billion, in contrast
to a decrease of $0.8 billion.


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 gross value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices
that was partly offset by an increase in unit nonlabor costs; unit labor costs were unchanged.


                                     *          *          *

      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 23, 2014 at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                  Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2014 (Third Estimate)
                    Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter 2014 (Revised Estimate)


                                     *          *          *


Release dates in 2015


Gross Domestic Product

                 2014: IV and 2014 annual     2015: I          2015: II          2015: III

Advance....           January 30              April 29         July 30           October 29
Second.....           February 27             May 29           August 27         November 24
Third......           March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22


Corporate Profits

Preliminary...        ..                      May 29           August 27         November 24
Revised.......        March 27                June 24          September 25      December 22

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 )

Reviving The United States, European and Japanese Economies With Saudi Oil Production and Plummeting Oil Prices — How Low and For How Long Will This Continue? — Punishing Iran and Russian Economies Dependent Upon High Oil Prices For Exports — Videos

Posted on December 2, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Crisis, Data, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

oil production

Why are oil prices falling – explained in 60 seconds?

Plunging Prices for Oil 

How will plunging oil prices affect the economy?

PRIME TIME NEWS 22:00 OPEC refuses to cut production, oil prices slump

OPEC Curtain Raiser

Plunging Oil Prices Have Unpredictable Impact on Politics, Economics

The Real Reason for Falling Oil and Gas Prices

Will OPEC Spark Oil Price War With Production Cuts?

Oil Prices Tumble Again: How Long Will This Go On?

Series Preview: The Global Drop in Oil Prices

Stratfor Vice President of Global Analysis Reva Bhalla and Global Energy Analyst Matt Bey discuss highlights of an upcoming series on the geopolitical impact of oil below $90 a barrel.
For more analysis, visit: http://www.Stratfor.com

“USA-SAUDI ARABIA” WILL PAY FOR THEIR “OIL PRICE MANIPULATIONS”!

Impact of Low Oil Prices: Petro Power or Petro Poverty?

Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World 2013-2014 -

At present transportation has become the major sector in the world which has facilitated all the people living around the different countries.So there is a need of billions barrels of fuel. There is no country in the world which has not the need of fuel, so there are several countries which are producing the fuels at their own resources while some countries are importing fuel from the other producers just to survive their transportation as well as the industrial sector.

So its importance can not be denied because its precious resources are also known as black gold.The nations having largest reserves in their geographical boundaries are considered the luckiest and richest countries. Following is a list of top ten countries which are considered the largest oil producers in the world.

List of Top 10 Largest Oil Producing Countries in the world 2013

1. Saudi Arabia

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil-producing and exporting country producing more than 11.75 million barrels per day which is more than 13% of world’s entire output. It has very good reputation in the Muslim countries around the world having the number of Islamic historical places.

2. United States

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

USA is the 2nd largest oil-producing nation it is not only the second biggest producer.Although it has it has a huge amount of production and more than 21 billion barrels proven reserves yet it is an oil importing country because it has the highest fuel consumption rate than other countries .It is producing more than 10.59 million barrels per day which is about 12% of the world’s over all production.

3. Russia

Russia has the 11.4% share in the world’s entire production.Its reserves are accounted more than 60 billion barrels making it the third biggest oil-producing country around the globe.

Russian-Oil-Reserves

4. China

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

China is officially recognized as People Republic of China which is the largest country in the world by its population. Most of its cities are considered the largest cities of the world by population.It is the fourth largest oil-producing country in the world with daily production of 4.19 billion barrels which is 4.7% of world’s total production.China is World’s Largest Rice Producing country click here to see its annual rice output.

5. Iran

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Iran is the fifth nation in the ranking list of top 10 largest oil-producing countries in the world. It has 4.6 % share in the world’s overall production which more than 4.13 million barrels per day production.

6. Canada

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Canada has a fantastic and stable economy in the world. It one of the biggest oil-producing nations around the globe having more than 179 billion barrels proven reserves. Its daily production is 3.92 million barrels which is 4.4% of world’s total production.

7. United Arab Emirates

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

UAE is producing 3.23 million barrels oil per day which is 3.6% of the world production. Its further oil reserves are accounted more than 98 billion barrels.UAE is going to increase it’s per day production up to 5 million barrels in the next coming years. And according to a recent estimate United States of Arab Emirates has further reserves enough for the next 93 years.UAE is the 7th richest country in the world by per capita GDP.

8. Mexico

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Mexico is officially recognized as United Mexican States covering the total area of 1,972,550 square km. it has the 8th rank in the list of top ten largest oil producers in the world.  It is producing 2.95 million barrels per day which is the 3.3 percent of the global output.

9. Brazil

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Brazil is the 9th largest oil-producing nation in the world, its production share in the global output is 3.15%. It is producing 2.8 million barrels per day. Brazil has already 12.86 billion barrels proven oil reserves and according to an estimate, which is expected to increase after the discovery of Jupiter Oil Field.

10. Kuwait

Top 10 oil producing countries, the biggest oil producers, oil production by country

Kuwait is the 9th richest country in the world having the strongest currency rate in the world. It has more than 104 billion barrels in its proven oil reserves while its share in the world’s entire oil output is accounted for 3.1% making it the 10th largest oil-producing country in the world. It is producing about 2.75 million barrels per day.

Question of the day

Q : what country produces the most oil in the world?

Ans : At present Saudi Arabia the biggest oil producer in the world having 11.75 billion barrels daily production which is 13% of world’s total output.

- See more at: http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-10-oil-producing-countries-in-the-world-2013-2014/#sthash.oTfzW92z.dpuf

As oil prices plunge, wide-ranging effects for consumers and the global economy

By Steven Mufson

Tumbling oil prices are draining hundreds of billions of dollars from the coffers of oil-rich exporters and oil companies and injecting a much-needed boost for ailing economies in Europe and Japan — and for American consumers at the start of the peak shopping season.

The result could be one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history, potentially reshaping everything from talks over Iran’s nuclear program to the Federal Reserve’s policies to further rejuvenate the U.S. economy.

The price of oil has declined about 40 percent since its peak in mid-June and plunged last week after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries voted to continue to pump at the same rate. That continued a trend driven by a weak global economy and expanding U.S. domestic energy supplies.

The question facing investors, companies and policymakers is how low oil prices will go — and for how long. Every day, American motorists are saving $630 million on gasoline compared with what they paid at June prices, and they would get a $230 billion windfall if prices were to stay this low for a year. The vast majority of that will flow into the economy, with lower-income households living on tight budgets likely to use money not otherwise spent on gas to buy groceries, clothing and other staples.

On Monday, the average U.S. price for a gallon of regular-grade gasoline was $2.77, according to AAA, which projects that prices could drop by an additional 10 to 20 cents.
(The Washington Post)
Big American companies are better off, too. Every penny the price of jet fuel declines means savings of $40 million for Delta Air Lines, the company’s chief executive said in a recent CBS interview.

(Related stories: A simple guide to the sudden collapse in oil prices
How plunging oil prices could affect your pocketbook

Could gas prices go as low as $2 a gallon?)

“Despite the impressive recent gains in natural gas and crude oil production, the U.S. still is a net importer of energy,” William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said Monday at Bernard Baruch College. “As a result, falling energy prices are beneficial for our economy and should be a strong spur to consumer spending.”
An employee changes figures on a board showing currency exchange rates in Moscow on Monday. (Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters)
Although falling oil prices lower inflation, the Federal Reserve tends to view that as a fleeting effect that would not alter its underlying judgments about policy. Nonetheless, Dudley said, “the slump in oil prices may also help to persuade” the European and Japanese central banks to implement further monetary easing as prices remain subdued.

The consequences of the decline in oil prices are also evident in politics and pocketbooks.

At current prices, the annual revenue of OPEC members would shrink by $590 billion, money that will instead stay within the borders of the world’s biggest oil importers, led by the United States, China and Japan.

The size of the global economy will “easily be between 0.5 percent and 1.0 percent higher as a result of the decline in oil prices,” wrote Andrew Kenningham, senior global economist for London-based Capital Economics.

The 40 percent drop in the price of the international benchmark Brent-grade crude oil over the past five months will reduce annual revenue to oil producers worldwide by a whopping $1.5 trillion.

“Those losses are staggering,” Edward Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, wrote to investors Monday.

The losers include Russia, where the value of the ruble has been crumbling, inflation has crept up to more than an 8 percent rate and oil prices have done more to hurt the economy than Western sanctions.

In Iran, whose economy and government budget rely heavily on oil sales, low prices could intensify the effect of sanctions that have curbed the country’s oil exports in an effort to pressure the regime into reaching a diplomatic accord on its nuclear program.
In Venezuela, dwindling oil revenue has exacerbated an economic crisis that is also tied to fuel subsidies, price controls and generous social programs.

In the United States, there are losers, too — mostly in the oil patch. The oil services giant Halliburton has lost 44 percent of its value since July 23. Heavily indebted Continental Resources, a huge shale oil producer in North Dakota’s Bakken region, has lost half its value since Aug. 29. Even BP, a big, integrated firm, has lost a quarter of its value in just the past few months.

“It happened so fast, it’s been a shock to the system,” said Scott D. Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources. Sheffield said that if oil prices had stayed between $90 and $100 a barrel, Pioneer would have added 10 new rigs to its fleet of 40, nearly all drilling shale oil wells. Now he is going to wait and see before announcing capital spending plans in February.

The prospect of low oil prices over an extended period grew much stronger last week after OPEC opted to maintain output instead of paring back to prop up prices.

Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s swing producer, with about 9.7 million barrels of production a day, has usually adjusted its output to moderate lurches in oil prices. But the kingdom has grown worried that production will continue to grow outside OPEC, reducing the cartel to a smaller and smaller share of the global market. So Saudi Arabia has chosen to fight for market share by letting prices slide.

That could jump-start global oil demand, currently about 94 million barrels a day. But it could also slow down or halt the growth in global oil supplies.
The biggest target of this strategy: U.S. shale oil, which has grown from a negligible amount six years ago to 4 million barrels a day, nearly half of U.S. production and more than any OPEC member except Saudi Arabia. Other high-cost oil projects, such as Canada’s oil sands, could also be curtailed or postponed.

But oil prices have historically swung from one extreme to another; it takes years for price signals to change exploration plans and production levels. U.S. exploration firms might be able to withstand lower oil prices than OPEC members that need oil revenue to balance their budgets and keep their citizens content. A Citibank analysis says that current prices will not eliminate growth in U.S. shale oil output, only trim that growth by 30 percent.

Within OPEC, there was discord. “It is not good for OPEC,” Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in an interview with the newsletter Argus Global Markets. “Some of our colleagues in OPEC believe they should wait and see what the market reaction is, especially in U.S. shale investment.” He added that “it’s a very risky issue” and could require “years, not months.”

There are risks in the United States, too. Kathy Jones, fixed-income strategist at Charles Schwab, said that while lower oil prices will boost consumer spending, which makes up 68 percent of the U.S. economy, it could also hurt investment, which runs high in the petroleum business. She also noted that oil and gas companies account for 15 percent of the Barclays U.S. high-yield index, double what it was a few years ago.
“High yield means more highly leveraged, and we don’t know what a 30 or 40 percent drop in oil prices will mean,” Jones said. “It’s going to show up in places, I’m sure. It’s just a question of where.”

The Fed’s Dudley was less concerned. “Even after the large gains in recent years, oil and gas investment remains a small fraction of GDP,” he said.

On Monday, traders and investors struggled to grasp OPEC’s stance; prices slid then rebounded sharply to $69 a barrel.

Although analysts said that global production is running about 2 million barrels a day over consumption, barely 2 percent of world demand, slight economic changes or a renewal of paralyzing civil strife in Libya could shrink that extra margin.

On the other hand, the sudden glut — while small — could grow even larger if Libya restores more of its former production, Iraq continues to expand output from its low-cost reservoirs and Iran strikes a deal over its nuclear program that would lift sanctions and permit a jump in exports.

Iran’s oil minister told Argus Global Markets that Iran could increase output by 1 million barrels a day within two months.

That has left people guessing. Richard Anderson, chief executive of Delta Air Lines, said on “CBS This Morning” on Nov. 25 that the airline was planning on jet fuel costing $2.80 a gallon in 2015, though he acknowledged that “all this is a bit of a thumb in the wind.”

Robert McNally, president of the Rapidan Group consulting firm, said OPEC seemed to be letting non-OPEC countries resolve the market surplus and surprised the industry by not scheduling another meeting until June 5. “This was about as bearish a signal as OPEC could have sent to the market,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/2014/12/01/904984b2-7971-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

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

Meet The Democratic Candidate For President in 2016: California Governor Jerry Brown — Balancing Budgets and Building A Presidential Campaign Chest — Achilles Heel California Created a Sanctuary State For Illegal Aliens — Save Water — Save Money — Save Illegals? — Progressive But Fiscally Responsible — Videos

Posted on November 17, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Constitution, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Faith, Family, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014

Story 1: Meet The Democratic Candidate For President in 2016: California Governor Jerry Brown — Balancing Budgets and Building A Presidential Campaign Chest — Achilles Heel California Created a Sanctuary State For Illegal Aliens — Save Water — Save Money — Save Illegals? — Progressive But Fiscally Responsible — Videos jerry_brown
jerry brown

jerry-brownjerry brown 2

Jerry Brown for President?

KQED Newsroom Segment: Jerry Brown Exclusive Interview, May 2, 2014

Brown wins historic fourth term as California’s governor

How Jerry Brown is undermining American immigration law

Gov. Jerry Brown talks about Central American immigrants

Gov. Brown to sign illegal immigrant license bill into law

Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants – CA

California Governor Jerry Brown Signs Bill Giving Undocumented Immigrants Right To Obtain Driver’s Licenses

Jerry Brown – Limits To Government

Jerry Brown, 1975. An innovative free thinker before party politics ground him into a garden-variety statist.

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

California Governor Jerry Brown talks with Merv about the role of the media in modern American politics. Not much has changed in 30 years, it seems. Merv Griffin had over 5000 guests appear on his show from 1963-1986. Footage from the Merv Griffin Show is available for licensing to all forms of media through Reelin’ In The Years Productions. http://www.reelinintheyears.com.

Jerry Brown 1992

Jerry Brown Announcement Video

Brown-Whitman Debate: Illegal Immigration

Governor Brown Halts Budget Negotiations

Governor Brown Update on the Budget 06.12.11

Budget Veto

Address to the People of California: Governor Brown Discusses 2012-2013 State Budget

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Balancing the State Budget

Mexican president in California to talk trade, border issues

JERRY BROWN FOR PRESIDENT? MEETS WITH DONORS THIS WEEK

California Governor Jerry Brown, who was re-elected in a landslide earlier this month to what he says is his last term in office, will ask political donors on Monday to keep contributing, the Los Angeles Times reports. Brown defeated his opponent, Neel Kashkari, while retaining $20 million or more in his reelection account as of mid-October. However, Brown–who says he will not run for President–is still asking for cash.

The Sacramento reception asks for donations of $5,000 for a “private reception and sit down conversation” with Brown at Mulvaney’s B&L. Capitol Advocacy, a top lobbying firm, plans to attend; the firm will reportedly bring some of its major clients, including PepsiCo, Corrections Corporation of America, T-Mobile USA Inc., WellCare Health Plans, Pacific Compensation Insurance Co., and Diageo.

The Times, which secured a copy of the invitation, reports that Brown has spent little of his reelection funds since mid-October; he had told the Times that he was thinking of using any funds left over from his campaign to support ballot measures in his new term.

The Washington Post reported in October that Brown’s campaign said it had spent over $3.3 million on ads for Propositions 1 and 2. At that point he had not run a single television ad for his campaign.

Some journalists, notably Chuck Todd of NBC News, have speculated that Brown would likely run for president. Recently, HBO’s Bill Maher said that Brown ought to do so, and condemned what he said was age discrimination. (Brown would be 78 years old in 2016.)

Neither spokesmen for Brown nor his chief fundraiser, Angie Tate, had any comment when contacted by the Times.

 

 

The Obstacles to a Jerry Brown Run in 2016

When a governor in one of the country’s largest states is reelected by landslide margins, questions about that governor’s presidential prospects arise even before the polls close. But California’s Jerry Brown, who on Tuesday was given an unprecedented fourth termby Golden State voters, will almost certainly not be a candidate for the White House in 2016. The reasons have less to do with actuarial tables than with the nature of the national Democratic primary electorate.

The most noticeable obstacle to a Brown candidacy is his age. Although he was the youngest governor in California’s history when he was first elected in 1974, at age 36, Mr. Brown is now the state’s oldest governor ever. In November 2016, he will be 78, meaning that he would conclude his first term in the Oval Office at 82. The governor is in very good health, and this advanced age would not disqualify him from the presidency, but it does appear to have made him less ambitious about national office he was in 1976 and 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency. He has already said that he intends to use the many unspent millions of dollars he raised during this year’s gubernatorial campaign to fund future state ballot initiatives. Not only can most of that money not be transferred into a presidential campaign fund, but trying to run for president while also seeking to pass ballot initiatives in California would be enormously challenging–certainly given the time required to succeed at either task.

But the bigger obstacle for Mr. Brown is that his brand of centrism has no logical place in a 2016 primary field. If a challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to emerge, it will almost certainly be a populist voice from the Democratic base. Mr. Brown’s insistence on budget cuts that frustrated his party’s legislators, his unwillingness to ban fracking, and his continued interest in revamping California’s environmental regulations make him an unlikely flag-carrier for progressive primary voters. The key to Mr. Brown’s large victory Tuesday was fashioning an agenda of sufficient appeal to the state’s business community to deprive his Republican challenger of substantive financial backing.

A benefit of not running for president, of course, is that it allows the governor to focus his full attention on his day job. That might not be the stuff of national headlines, but, at this point in his long career, that might be good enough for Jerry Brown.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/05/why-jerry-brown-is-unlikely-to-run-in-2016/

Gov. Jerry Brown says 2016 Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s ‘if she wants’

When Bill Clinton arrived at the 1992 Democratic National Convention as the party’s all-but-certain presidential nominee, his persistent and pesky primary opponent, former California governor Jerry Brown, refused to endorse him.Two decades later, Brown is again governor of the nation’s most-populous state. Yet in a sign that he has patched things up with the first family of Democratic politics, Brown is ready to support Hillary Rodham Clinton if she seeks the presidency in 2016.“I really believe that Hillary Clinton has the presence, the experience and the support of the vast majority of Democrats in a way that I have not seen in my lifetime,” Brown said in a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post. “She has this if she wants.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-jerry-brown-says-2016-democratic-nomination-is-hillary-clintons-if-she-wants/2014/05/28/de3d0e0c-e5cc-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

More And More People Are Not Running For President In 2016

Posted: 01/16/2014 6:25 pm EST Updated: 01/25/2014 4:01 pm EST
JERRY BROWN NOT RUNNING 2016

It is 2014 at the moment, but since there isn’t any kind of massive unemployment problem and it’s totally safe for pregnant women to drink the water, water, everywhere, the media are filling the hole in their lives with only the hottest speculation about the 2016 presidential election.

For example, this week Time magazine istackling the phenomenon that is Hillary Clinton’s shadow campaign for president, noting that the mere threat of her candidacy is keeping other Democrats out of the race. This is less a “news story” than it is a fun and bouncy ball that is being passed from news organization to news organization. Time all but announced the unoriginality of the idea with its cover, which was created by going to a clip art archive and doing a global search for “women” and “clichés.” As with the story’s trope itself, it’s best examined in the gray light of the afterglow of an afterthought.

Against the 2016 onslaught, and our own contributions to it, let us now praise the real heroes of this period of premature frenzy — those men and women who have seen the light of presidential speculation beaming in their direction and have forthrightly declared, “You can include me out.” This week’s award for Valor In The Face Of People Wondering If You’ll Run For President goes to California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who is not running for president:

Speaking at a Tuesday news conference in Riverside, Calif., Brown scuttled speculation about his presidential prospects when a reporter asked if he planned to throw his hat in the ring for a fourth time.

“No, that’s not in the cards. Unfortunately,” Brown said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Actually, California is a lot more governable.”

Supporters of Brown — who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1976, 1980 and 1992 — had hoped the popular governor would enter the 2016 race. Brown stoked speculation by not explicitly ruling out the possibility, although in May the 75-year-old noted that “time is kind of running out on that.”

You are forgiven if you weren’t aware that “Jerry Brown 2016″ was even a thing about which people were even talking. It was an idea that had a share of anonymous supporters, but only just enough news coverage to warrant an inclusion onWikipedia’s list of potential 2016 candidates.

That page, by the way, is one of the most hilarious reflections of American politics on the Internet, because it turns out it doesn’t take much to be included. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) ended up there because a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story speculating on whether Nixon’s future included a turn in the national spotlight led to a Politico story speculating on whether Nixon might not get his turn in the national spotlight because of Hillary Clinton, which led to another St. Louis Post-Dispatch story about the aforementioned Politico story, which led to a Washington Post story … speculating on whether Nixon’s future included a turn in the national spotlight, again.

Meanwhile, outside of Missouri, you have probably never heard of Jay Nixon. But you’re probably aware that Jerry Brown, between his first and latest stint as the Golden State’s governor, ran for president a bunch of times. And so, unsurprisingly, there was always someone on hand to stoke the fires of retro chic. In July 2013, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that some of Brown’s “allies” were “starting to talk up a possible 2016 presidential bid,” while another group of Brown’s associates were saying that Brown was going to be “78 [years old] by Election Day 2016,” that he “ran for statewide office only to end [California’s] budget crisis,” and that he was thus “nearly done with politics.”

A month later, Bernie Quigley, writing for The Hill, attempted to coax a Brown candidacy into being with the awesome force of the purplest prose he could muster:

California rises again with Brown, and it should come as no surprise. California brings the final destiny of our American journey, the final edge of expectation, the end and then the beginning again, the place and time of our American turning. Steve Jobs put it succinctly at the end: “The spaceship has landed.”

I asked an astute Californian about Brown’s prospects for national office. He said he will be too old in 2016. But Brown, Zen man of contemporary politics, is in a sense timeless.

Yeah … so that was a lot to absorb. The salient point is that Brown, obviously, doesn’t have the same opinion of his own timelessness. (Perhaps he finally decided to not run when he failed to regenerate into Peter Capaldi?)

Brown joins a happy confederacy of other men and women who have indicated that everyone can stop wondering if they are going to run for president, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (D), San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (D), New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D).

Also, Tim Pawlenty is not going to run for president. (I did some digging and found out that this Pawlenty fellow was a former Republican governor of Minnesota who ran for president once before. Who knew? I guess I totally spaced.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/jerry-brown-not-running-2016_n_4612584.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-372

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

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 )

2015 Hyundai Sonata — Videos

Posted on November 2, 2014. Filed under: Autos, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Oil, People, Photos, Technology, Transportation, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , |

2015-Hyundai-Sonata2015_hyundai_sonat2015-Hyundai-Sonata-12015-Hyundai-Sonata-6Hyundai-Sonata-72015-hyundai-sonata-2015-Hyundai-Sonata-center-stack2015-Hyundai-Sonata-USA372015-hyundai-sonata-20t-interior-022015-hyundai-sonata-sport-20t-interior-photo-624988-s-1280x7822015-hyundai-sonata-20t-front-interior-seats2015-hyundai-sonata-eco-front-three-quarters-04

2015 Hyundai Sonata Review

2015 Hyundai Sonata Start Up and Review 2.4 L 4-Cylinder

2015 Hyundai Sonata Turbo Review: More Style, Comfort & Car

2015 Hyundai Sonata: Almost Everything You Ever Wanted to Know

2015 Hyundai Sonata Limited w/ Tech Pkg. Start Up, Exterior/ Interior Review

2015 Hyundai Sonata — First Drive with Alabama Factory Tour & In Depth Apple Car Play Demo

Hyundai Sonata Sings a New Song – Autoline After Hours 249

 

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

Breaking News: Mount Ontake Stratovolcano Erupts Trapping Hikers Near Summit — 36 Dead, 7 Missing, 40 Injured — The Ring of Fire Explodes Once Again — Videos

Posted on September 27, 2014. Filed under: Data, Diasters, Doumentary, Economics, Energy, Enivornment, Geology, media, People, Photos, Science, Vacations, Video, Volcano, Water, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

ontake27-9-14mount_ontake_erruptshikers run

japan-volcano

mount_ontake_2

Mt+Ontake+Japan2volcano

Aerial Japan volcano footage: Mt Ontake spews giant ash cloud, locals flee

Japanese volcano: more than 30 feared dead after Mount Ontake erupts

Incredible Footage | Japan’s Mt. #Ontake Volcano Eruption | Sep 27, 2014

RAW: Japanese helicopters rescue hikers on erupting Mt Ontake, over 30 feared dead

Japan’s Mt Ontake volcano erupts, kills one and over 32 seriously injured

Alert! Mt Ontake volcano erupts in Japan spewing 3km ash column

Japan’s Mount Ontake Volcanic Eruption Traps Hikers – Volcano Erupts In Japan; 250 Trapped, 11 Hurt

Ontake Volcano Eruption In Japan Ontakesan 27/09/2014 | RAW VIDEO

Mount Ontake Volcano Eruption In Japan RAW VIDEO

Japan’s Mount Ontake volcanic eruption traps hikers

Lack of warning in Japan’s Mt. Ontake volcano eruption raises questions

With all of the technology in place to monitor volcanoes and earthquakes, especially in Japan, it’s a fair question to ask: why was there no warning before the deadly eruptionof Mount Ontake in Japan on Saturday?

Compare Mount Ontake’s eruption to that of the recent lava show of Bardarbunga in Iceland. Seismometers in Iceland detected the potential movement of magma about two weeks in advance of the fissure eruption in the Holuhraun lava field, and officials were issuing warnings to surrounding residents well in advance.

But on Mount Ontake, the only warning hikers received on Saturday was a loud boom, “like thunder,” minutes before a massive ashcloud overtook the mountain.

Though it may seem that Saturday’s eruption took scientists by surprise, there’s probably little else they could have done to prevent the tragedy, at least with the current monitoring equipment. And when it comes to predicting the events themselves, “it depends on the type of eruption,” says Joe Dufek, professor of geophysics at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Dufek explains that Saturday’s eruption had a large steam component — what scientists call a phreatic eruption. Red hot magma boiled ground water around the volcano until it exploded and was released as steam, launching ash high into the air. Saturday’s phreatic eruption was similar to those seen on Mount Ontake in 1979, 1991, and 2007.

The difficult aspect of this kind of eruption is that it can go virtually undetected. “An eruption like this doesn’t even require magma to move around,” says Dufek, which means that it wouldn’t have been noticeable on seismometers, like the Iceland eruption was.

Of the 110 active volcanoes in Japan, 47 of them are monitored closely by scientists. Mount Ontake is one of them. Scientists have 12 seismometers on the volcano, as well as five GPS instruments and a tiltmeter, used to measure whether or not the ground is moving. Eleven minutes before the eruption, the seismometers showed a volcanic tremor, but neither the GPS nor the tiltmeter showed any changes.

However, some argue that with different monitoring devices, early signs might have been visible to scientists. David Cyranoski of Nature News writes:

Some volcanoes in Japan, although not Ontake, also have devices for measuring gas release. This could, for example, show whether increased amounts of sulphur dioxide are escaping — a possible sign of an imminent eruption. Some volcanoes also have devices for measuring underground electrical conductivity: an increase in conductivity can signal rising water or magma.

While it was possible for officials to have taken some action prior to the eruption — tremors were recorded earlier this month — the question remains whether that kind of precautionary step would be a good idea, especially when there’s very little evidence suggesting there could even be an eruption. “We could just restrict everywhere, but people don’t want that,” said Toshikazu Tanada, the head of volcano research at the Japan National Research Institute for Earth Science, in an interview with Nature News.

There will likely be future conversations in Japan of how to better predict volcanic eruptions, but Dufek cautions that in fairness, the country’s geo-monitoring system is already quite advanced. “There’s not a lot of lead time in this kind of eruption,” said Dufek. “The monitoring in Japan as a whole is probably the densest network anywhere in the world. If anyone could catch it, it would probably be these guys.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/30/lack-of-warning-in-japans-mt-ontake-volcano-eruption-raises-questions/

Related Articles and Videos

Top 10: Deadliest Volcanic Eruptions

The Pacific Ring of Fire

Naked Science – Super Volcanoes

Top Ten Natural Disasters

Photographing a Catastrophic Explosion at Mt. St. Helens

Volcano erupts at St Helens – Mega Disasters – Documentary

Mt. St. Helens Eruption May 18, 1980 720p HD

Dome collapse and pyroclastic flow at Unzen Volcano

Volcano Eruption – The Eruption of Mt St Helens (1980) – Rare Footage

In 1980, a major volcanic eruption occurred at Mount St. Helens, a volcano located in Washington, in the United States. The eruption (which was a VEI 5 event) was the only significant one to occur in the contiguous 48 U.S. states since the 1915 eruption of Lassen Peak in California.[1] The eruption was preceded by a two-month series of earthquakes and steam-venting episodes, caused by an injection of magma at shallow depth below the volcano that created a huge bulge and a fracture system on the mountain’s north slope.

volcano eruption, volcanic eruption, st helens, mount st helens eruption, st helens reporter, volcanoes erupting, why do volcanoes erupt, how do volcanoes erupt, arenal costa rica, mt st helens facts, st helens rugby, erupting volcano, st helens school, volcano eruption video, volcano erupting, costa rica volcano, how volcanoes erupt, how to make a volcano erupt, mount st helen, mt st helen, volcano eruptions, what causes a volcano to erupt, mt st helens eruption video, st helens volcano, st helens chamber, biggest volcano eruption, iceland volcano eruption, recent volcano eruption, mt st helens national park, mt st helens video, my st helens, volcano eruption in hawaii, mt st helens hike, mount st helens national park

Fukushima: 108 Active Volcanoes in Japan [IGEO.TV]

NOVA In The Path Of A Killer Volcano

PBS Nova S33E04 Volcano Under the City – Full Documentary

13 Impressively Beautiful Snowcapped Volcanoes of Japan

s part of the Pacific “Ring of Fire”, Japan is one of the countries in the world with so many active and inactive volcanoes.  These volcanoes whether active or dormant are popular tourist attractions. These volcanoes are scattered in the different parts of the country which is consists of many islands and islets.

Volcanoes included on this article are the snowcapped ones.

1. Mount Fuji

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Fuji-san
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Elevation: 3,776 meters
  • Last eruption: 1708
  • Location: About kilometers southwest of Tokyo.
  • Activities in the area: Hiking, Paragliding
  • Distinction: It is the mountain in Japan. It is one of Japan’s most famous symbols.

2. Mount Haku

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Haku-san
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Last eruption: 1659
  • Location: Borders of Gifu, Fukui and Ishikawa Prefectures
  • Activities in the area: Hiking
  • Distinction: It is one of the “Three Holy Mountains” of Japan

3. Mount Yotei

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Yoteizan, Yezo Fuji or Ezo Fuji, Makka Nupuri, Mount Shiribeshi
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Elevation:  1,898 meters
  • Last eruption: Holocene
  • Location: Shikotsu-Toya National Park in Hokkaido
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

4. Mount Iwate

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Iwate-san
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Location: Southwest of Morioka City, Iwate Prefecture in Tohoku
  • Activities in the area:
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

5. Mount Norikura

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Norikura-dake
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Elevation: 3,026 meters
  • Last eruption: 6870 BC ± 500 yea
  • Location: Borders of Gifu and Nagano Prefectures
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains and the New 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

6. Mount Ontake

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Ontake-san, Mount Kiso Ontake
  • Elevation: 3,063 meters
  • Last eruption: 1980
  • Location: Borders of Otaki and Kiso in Nagano prefectures and Gero in Gifu Prefectures
  • Distinction: It is the second highest volcano in Japan

7. Mount Myoko

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Myoko-san
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Elevation: 2,446 meters
  • Last eruption: 2360 BC ± 150 years
  • Location: Myoko City, Niigata Prefecture in Honshu Island
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains
  •                    “Famous Mountain” of Niigata Prefecture

8. Mount Nikko-Shirane

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Nikkō-Shirane-san
  • Type: Shield volcano
  • Elevation: 2,578 meters
  • Last eruption: 1890
  • Location: Nikko National Park in central Honshu
  • Activities in the area:
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

9. Mount Chokai

Image Source

  • Type:  Chokai-san
  • Elevation: 2,237 meters
  • Last eruption: 1974
  • Location: Border of Yamagata and Akita prefectures
  • Activities in the area: Hiking
  • Distinction: It is second tallest mountain in Tohoku region. It is regarded as a sacred mountain by Shugendo. One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

10. Mount Iwaki

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Iwaki-san, Tsugaru-Fuji
  • Type: Stratovolcano
  • Elevation: 1,625 meters
  • Last eruption: 1853
  • Location: Western Aomori Prefecture, Tohuko
  • Activities in the area: It can be reach only through hiking
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

11. Mount Asama

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Asama-yama
  • Type: Complex volcano
  • Elevation:  2,544 meters
  • Last eruption: 2009
  • Location: Gunma and Nagano Prefecture border in Central Honshu
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

12. Mount Tate

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Tate-yama
  • Elevation: 2,621 meters
  • Last eruption: 1858
  • Location: Southeastern area of Toyama Prefecture
  • Activities in the area: Climbing from April to November
  • Distinction: It is Japan’s “Three Holy Mountains”.
  •       It is one of the tallest peaks in the Hilda Mountains

13. Mount Tateshina

Image Source

  • Other name/s: Tateshina-yama, Suwa Fuji
  • Type: Complex volcano
  • Elevation: 2,530 meters
  • Last eruption: Unknown
  • Location: Border of Chino and Tateshina municipalities in Nagano Prefecture
  • Distinction: One of the 100 Famous Japanese Mountains

http://japan.knoji.com/13-impressively-beautiful-snowcapped-volcanoes-of-japan/

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

Got Google Glass — Explorer 2.0 With New Form Factor — Department of Homeland Security Questions You! — Videos

Posted on January 21, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Enivornment, Entertainment, External Hard Drives, Federal Government, Films, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, People, Philosophy, Photos, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Systems, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-195

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: Got Google Glass — Explorer 2.0 With New Form Factor — Department of Homeland Security Questions You! — Videos

google_glass

I used Google Glass

Google Glasses (how it works)

How Guys Will Use Google Glass

Google Glass Review

Google Glass Cracked

CNET Top 5 : Best uses for Google Glass

Introduction to Google Glass

Google Glass Hacked?

Google Glass Explorer Edition: Explained!

Explorer Story: Patrick Jackson [through Google Glass]

Google Glass Explorer Edition 2.0 Unboxing and First Impressions

Amazing Google Glasses Demonstration at Google I/O 2012

GOOGLE GLASS FOR KIDS!

GOOGLE GLASS SUCKS!

Introducing Google Nose

Google Glasses Project

Motion Picture Association of America

“TITS and GLASS”: Porn Blocked from Google Glass

WTF- Porn App Coming Soon On Google Glass

Google Glass Bans PORN

Police Wearing Google Glass-type System to Record Encounters

Story 1: Got Google Glass — Explore 2.0 With New Form Factor — Department of Homeland Security Questions You! — Videos

AMC movie theater calls “federal agents” to arrest a Google Glass user

By: Julie Strietelmeier

A long time Gadgeteer reader contacted me today through Google Hangouts to tell me that he had a story that he thought I’d be interested in reading. He then forwarded me a long email with a story from a very good friend of his. It was such a surprising story that I asked if I could have permission to post it here on The Gadgeteer. I ended up communicating with the author of the story and have posted it here for everyone to read…

I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time. There were no stories to write about, until yesterday (1/18/2014).

I went to AMC (Easton Mall, Columbus, OH) to watch a movie with my wife (non- Google Glass user). It is the theater we go to every week, so it has probably been the third time I’ve been there wearing Google Glass, and the AMC employees (guy tearing tickets at the entrance, girl at the concession stand) have asked me about Glass in the past and I have told them how awesome Glass is with every occasion.

Because I don’t want Glass to distract me during the movie, I turn them off (but since my prescription lenses are on the frame, I still wear them). About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit), a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says “follow me outside immediately”. It was quite embarrassing and outside of the theater there were about 5-10 cops and mall cops. Since I didn’t catch his name in the dark of the theater, I asked to see his badge again and I asked what was the problem and I asked for my Glass back. The response was “you see all these cops you know we are legit, we are with the ‘federal service’ and you have been caught illegally taping the movie”.

I was surprised by this and as I was obviously just having a nice Saturday evening night out with my wife and not taping anything whether legally or illegally, I tried to explain that this is a misunderstanding. I tried to explain that he’s holding rather expensive hardware that costed me $1500 for Google Glass and over $600 for the prescription glasses. The response was that I was searched and more stuff was taken away from me (specifically my personal phone, my work phone – both of which were turned off, and my wallet). After an embarrassing 20-30 minutes outside the movie theater, me and my wife were conducted into two separate rooms in the “management” office of Easton Mall, where the guy with the badge introduced himself again and showed me a different ID. His partner introduced herself too and showed me a similar looking badge. I was by that time, too flustered to remember their names (as a matter of fact, now, over 30 hours later I am still shaking when recounting the facts).

What followed was over an hour of the “feds” telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a “voluntary interview”, but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me (is it legal for authorities to threaten people like that?). I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them, I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but personal photos with my wife and my dog on it. I also insisted they look at my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first. They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I’m making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don’t I just give up the guy up the chain, ’cause they are not interested in me. Over and over and over again.

I kept telling them that I wasn’t recording anything – my Glass was off, they insisted they saw it on. I told them there would be a light coming out the little screen if Glass was on, and I could show them that, but they insisted that I cannot touch my Glass for the fear “I will erase the evidence against me that was on Glass”. I didn’t have the intuition to tell them that Glass gets really warm if it records for more than a few minutes and my glasses were not warm. They wanted to know where I got Glass and how did I came by having it. I told them I applied about 1000 times to get in the explorer program, and eventually I was selected, and I got the Glass from Google. I offered to show them receipt and Google Glass website if they would allow me to access any computer with internet. Of course, that was not an option. Then they wanted to know what does Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie.

Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong.

I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room. A guy who claimed his name is Bob Hope (he gave me his business card) came in the room, and said he was with the Movie Association and they have problems with piracy at that specific theater and that specific movie. He gave me two free movie passes “so I can see the movie again”. I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why didn’t they ask me not to wear them in the theater? I would have probably sat five or six rows closer to the screen (as I didn’t have any other pair of prescription glasses with me) and none of this would have happened. All he said was AMC called him, and he called the FBI and “here are two more passes for my troubles”. I would have been fine with “I’m sorry this happened, please accept our apologies”. Four free passes just infuriated me.

Considering it was 11:27pm when this happened, and the movie started at 7.45, I guess 3 and a half hours of my time and the scare my wife went through (who didn’t know what was going on as nobody bothered to tell her) is worth about 30 bucks in the eyes of the Movie Association and the federal militia (sorry, I cannot think of other derogatory words). I think I should sue them for this, but I don’t have the time or the energy to deal with “who is my boss – they don’t want me, they want the big guy” again, so I just spilled the beans on this forum, for other to learn from my experience.

I guess until people get more familiar with Google Glass and understand what they are, one should not wear them to the movies. I wish they would have said something before I went to the movies, but it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won’t be any incident either. As for the federal agents and their level of comprehension… I guess if they deal with petty criminals every day, everybody starts looking like a petty criminal. Again, I wish they would have listened when I told them how to verify I did nothing illegal, or at least apologize afterwards, but hey… this is the free country everybody praises. Somewhere else might be even worse.

Crazy huh? His story read like something out of the Jack Ryan movie that he and his wife had gone to see. Are there any other Google Glass users out there that have been treated badly just for your wearable tech? If not, are you reconsidering wearing a pair to the next movie you attend?

Update (01/21/14):

Wow, this article has completely blown up our web server due to the traffic. I just wanted to follow up with a few comments and info. First of all, I’m not a journalist, I’m a tech geek writer. Posting this article has given me a good learning lesson though, which I’ll use if I ever post a similar article in the future.

I have been criticized for not citing my sources and following up with the theater to verify that the story was true. I didn’t feel the need at the time because the person who gave me the story is a long time Gadgeteer reader and works in law enforcement. I felt 100% confident the story was not a hoax. I did however call the theater in question and tried to get in touch with someone there for a comment. My calls went unanswered.

After the article was posted. Rob Jackson of Phandroid posted his take on the article and asked me for the author’s contact info. With the author’s permission, I forwarded that info and Rob followed up with some questions and answers that he posted on his site. Take a look for more info on this story:

http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/

Update #2:

I just received info from the author with regards to the agents that questioned him:

For the sake of having all the facts right.
I have been trying to find out who the agents that “interviewed” me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the “federal agents”
talking to me were DHS.

Update #3:

The title of the article has been changed to reflect the recent update from the author that it was actually the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) who detained him and not the FBI as he originally thought.

Update #4:

The story has been confirmed. I just received this email from the author:

Julie, Rob.

I spoke with a reporter from Columbus Dispatch, who obtained a
statement from DHS and forwarded it to me. Here it is:

From: Walls, Khaalid H [mailto:Khaalid.H.Walls@ice.dhs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Allison Manning
Subject: ICE

H Ally,

Please attribute the below statement to me:

On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations
and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an
electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in
Columbus. The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to
authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of
prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been
inactive. No further action was taken.

Khaalid Walls, ICE spokesman

Khaalid Walls
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Google Glass at the movies gets man interrogated

A man wearing Google Glass in an Ohio movie theater says the FBI pulled him out and accused him of recording the movie with his device.

There are enemies of the state, and then there are enemies of Jack Ryan.

A Google Glass wearer has told an extraordinary story of going to his local movie theater in Ohio and allegedly being accosted by the FBI for wearing his device.

In an impassioned and slightly shiver-making e-mail to The Gadgeteer, the man, who only gave his initials as T.U., said that he went to the AMC theater at the Easton Mall in Columbus in order to see the new Jack Ryan movie, “Shadow Recruit.”

Google Glass wearers, beware.(Credit: Federal Bureau of Investigations)

He was, he said, wearing Google Glass. His wife accompanied him, Glass-less.

What allegedly transpired was macabre. He wrote that it was not the first time he’d worn Glass to that theater.

However, an hour into the movie: “A guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says ‘follow me outside immediately.'”

Outside, he said, was a group of policemen. T.U. says that the man who dragged him out explained he was from the “federal service.”

What was the Glass-wearer’s alleged crime? He was, he said, being accused of recording the movie on his device.

He wrote:

I tried to explain that he’s holding rather expensive hardware that costed me $1500 for Google Glass and over $600 for the prescription glasses. The response was that I was searched and more stuff was taken away from me (specifically my personal phone, my work phone – both of which were turned off, and my wallet).

T.U. insisted that he wasn’t recording anything. The Glass was off. He wasn’t believed.

I kept telling them that I wasn’t recording anything — my Glass was off, they insisted they saw it on. I told them there would be a light coming out the little screen if Glass was on, and I could show them that, but they insisted that I cannot touch my Glass for the fear ‘I will erase the evidence against me that was on Glass’

T.U. said that he was happy for his Google Glass to be hooked up to a laptop to prove there was nothing recorded on it.

He wrote:

The FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong.

Finally, T.U. said that the FBI left and a man from the “Movie Association” entered and told him that they’d had trouble with people recording at that theater. He says he was offered free movie passes to see the Jack Ryan movie again.

In the comments section of her piece, the Gadgeteer’s Julie Strietelmeier insisted: “I talked to the author and know his friend who has frequented The Gadgeteer for years. I believe them and the story.”

I have contacted AMC in an attempt to confirm that the substance of this story is true and will update, should I hear. It will be interesting to see if an anti-Google Glass stance is, indeed, AMC policy.

This is merely the latest incident in which Google Glass has caused consternation. Some bars and restaurants have banned wearers. Only last week, software developer Cecilia Abadie won her case against a ticket for driving while Glassing. Just as T.U. claimed, she said hers was turned off.

T.U. seemed merely relieved that the ordeal — which he said lasted more than three hours — was over. Still, he said he wished someone had told him that wearing Glass at the movie theater wasn’t allowed.

As for the “federal service,” he wasn’t impressed with their alleged lack of understanding about Google Glass. He wrote: “I guess if they deal with petty criminals every day, everybody starts looking like a petty criminal.”

Google Glass is becoming anything but petty.

Google Glass moviegoer detained for hours on suspicion of piracy

A man attending a movie on Saturday at an AMC theater in Columbus, Ohio was pulled from a theater, detained, and questioned for over two hours by US Dept. of Homeland Security special agents tasked with fighting piracy – all for wearing Google Glass.

The man, who asked to remain anonymous, said that about an hour into a 19:45 EST showing of ‘Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,’ a man who flashed an official-looking badge “yank[ed] the Google Glass” off his face, asking him to exit the theater. The man was attending the film with his wife at the AMC theater at Easton Town Center.

Two officers then ordered him to hand over his wallet and both his work and personal cell phones, according to tech site The Gadgeteer. The man said he was questioned for 20 or 30 minutes on why he was attempting to record the film. Because he had recently added prescription lenses to his Google Glass, the 35-year-old man wore them into the movie. The device has a voice-activated computer and does have an attached camera.

“I said, ‘Want me to prove I’m not recording the movie? It’s very easy,’” the man told the Columbus Dispatch on Tuesday. He said he indicated to the agents that Google Glass has a USB port where the device can be reviewed. “There’s nothing but pictures of my wife and my dog on it,” he told the agents.

The agents declined, electing to detain and question the man in a downstairs “management” office for around two hours, repeatedly asking the same questions again and again. The man says he was asked who he was working for, how many computers he had at home, why he had attempted to record the film, and “why don’t I just give up the guy up the chain.” The agents, of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), finally reviewed the device to see there was no material of interest. He was allowed to leave just after 23:00 EST, with two free movie passes.

The Columbus Dispatch learned the agents were from ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit, which is tasked with combating piracy and counterfeit goods.

ICE spokesman Khaalid Walls said the unit and local authorities “briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an electronic recording device to record a film.”

“The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been inactive. No further action was taken,” Walls said in a statement.

An AMC spokesman said the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was at the same theater last weekend when the man wearing Google Glass was pointed out. An MPAA representative flagged the man thought to be recording the film for the Department of Homeland Security.

“While we’re huge fans of technology and innovation, wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theater,” AMC’s Ryan Noonan said.

The MPAA said in a statement that it has not seen any reason to believe that Google Glass poses a threat that could lead to film piracy.

The man said he acquired Google Glass in November during Google’s exclusive offer, known as the Explorer program. He and around 30,000 others have paid US$1,500 to test-run the device before it is released to the public later this year. In addition, the prescription lenses cost him $600.

He said he regrets wearing Glass to a movie, despite having done so in the recent past at the same theater without issue.

“I realize it’s stupid to have a device with a camera pointed at the screen,” he said. “But I didn’t even think of it, because I don’t use Google Glass to record other people.”

http://rt.com/usa/google-glass-movie-dhs-piracy-993/

Why a creepy new porn app isn’t bad news for Google Glass

The porn industry has a pretty good track record as an early adopter

By John Aziz

G

oogle promises that Glass, its new augmented reality eyepiece, will open up a new world of hands-free computing — a way to search, translate, record video, and take photographs without having to press buttons or rummage through pockets to retrieve a smartphone or tablet.

There are lots of potential applications. To start things off, Google lists cooking, cycling, skiing, golf, and firefighting — physical activities where holding a device is impractical if not impossible. But really, it was only a matter of time before people began using it for sex.

The first attempt, an app called Tits and Glass, allowed Glass users to stream pornographic images to their headset. The app was promptly banned from Google’s app store, but was recently reinstated.

Now a new app for Glass developed by Lebanese product design student Sherif Maktabi and called Sex with Google Glass lets couples use the wearable technology to record their intimate activities, and — if both partners are wearing a headset — even see sex through their partner’s eyes by streaming the view from their respective devices.

The app is controlled through groan-worthy voice commands. For example, saying “Ok Glass, it’s time” begins the recording process. Once sex is over, recording is ended by the voice command “Ok Glass, pull out.” Video can be replayed for up to five hours before being automatically deleted from the app.

Frankly, I think the idea of having sex while watching a stream from the perspective of your partner sounds narcissistic at best, and mildly disturbing at worst, so I highly doubt that this feature will become immensely popular. And putting a barrier of technology between partners may prove a turnoff and intimacy killer for many.

But Glass as a tool to easily record or stream homemade porn? There is probably a big market for this kind of thing.

Concerns about morals or privacy aside, it’s important to remember that porn is a big driver of technology adoption. The adult film industry has been at the forefront of technology for years, at least since it picked VHS over Betamax. Technological innovations pioneered by the porn industryinclude online payment systems, streaming video and video chat, DVD, and HD video formats.

It’s hard to say at this point if augmented reality computing will usurp smartphones, tablets, and laptops, or if it will remain a niche activity. But if augmented reality computing like Google Glass is really going to take off and become a market leader, it should be expected that sex and porn will be a key driver of adoption. The fact that some people are already using Google Glass for sex paints a rosy picture for the technology in the longer term.

http://theweek.com/article/index/255293/why-a-creepy-new-porn-app-isnt-bad-news-for-google-glass

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

U.S. Unfreezes $8 Billion in Iranian Assets — Iran Continues to Enrich Uranium Approaching Weapons Grade — Will Not Give Up Right to Enrich Uranium — Videos

Posted on November 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Iran_enriched_uranium_stockpileUranium-enriched

percentofu235

countries_enriched_uranium

Uranium enrichment ‘a red line’ for Iran

In an address to Parliament in Tehran on Sunday, the Iranian President said the country made progress with world powers during talks over Tehran’s nuclear programme, but insisted the nation cannot be pushed to give up uranium enrichment.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran have not bowed to threats by any power and it will not do so,” he said.

Mr Rouhani repeated past declarations the country has a right to produce nuclear fuel, seeking to assure hard-line critics at home that Iran will not make sweeping concessions in the negotiations.

Talks ended without agreement in Geneva early on Sunday morning, but all sides said progress had been made and negotiations are scheduled to resume next week.
The West and its allies fear Iran’s uranium enrichment labs could one day produce weapons-grade material.

Iran insists it does not seek nuclear weapons and says its reactors are only for electricity and medical applications.

Mr Rouhani said asking Iran to end all uranium enrichment would be crossing a red line.
“National interests are our red line. Among those rights are nuclear rights within the framework of international law, including the right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil,” he said.

The US and others are considering easing economic sanctions in return for a possible suspension of 20 percent enrichment.

Rouhani said this proved sanctions had failed.

“They have come to the negotiating table to talk to us because they have realised that sanctions are not the answer,” he told Parliament.

The six powers party to the talks, especially France, expressed concern about a new reactor under construction that will make a plutonium by-product that could be used to build nuclear weapons, although Iran does not currently possess the technology required.

Making a nuclear weapon

How to enrich Uranium – Periodic Table of Videos

President Obama’s Statement on Iran Nuclear Program Deal: The World Will Be Safer

BREAKING: Deal Reached With Iran Halts Its Nuclear Program -

11/25/13 Former Amb. Bolton on the Obama’s Iran deal lies

Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor

Breaking: Explosion at Iran’s Nuclear Facility! Was it Israel?

UN Nuclear Watchdog says Iran can Double Uranium Enrichment

Iran’s ability to enrich Uranium in Qom to 20% doesn’t say anything about any nuclear bomb

Nuclear Power – Virtual Tour of Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility

Cold War Nuclear Factories [FULL VIDEO]

Reports: U.S. Unfreezes $8 Billion in Iranian Assets

Iranian officials praise ‘new path towards Iran’

The United States released $8 billion in frozen assets to Iran on Sunday in a move meant to ensure Tehran’s compliance with a nuclear pact signed over the weekend, according to top Iranian officials.

Iranian government spokesman Mohammad Baqer Nobakht confirmedon Monday morning that the U.S. government had unfrozen $8 billion in assets that had been previously blocked by the Obama administration.

The confirmation followed multiple reports of the release on Sunday in the Arab and Iranian news outlets.

Iran will be provided with about $7 billion in sanctions relief, gold, and oil sales under anuclear deal inked late Saturday in Geneva with Western nations.

Iranian officials lauded the deal as a path to opening up greater trade relations between Iran and the world.

“The agreement will open a new path towards Iran,” Alinaqi Khamoushi, the former head of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce said on Sunday as he announced the release by the United States of some $8 billion in assets, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Nobakht confirmed the figure early Monday during a briefing with reporters in Tehran.

“The agreement will ease the anti-Iran sanctions, which will have significant impacts on the Iranian economy,” the state-run Fars News Agency quoted him as saying.

One senior GOP aide on Capitol Hill was not pleased with the reports.

“It’s pretty clear the White House and State Department have been lying to the American people since the beginning of this process so it wouldn’t shock me to learn they are lying about how much sanctions relief they’re giving Iran now,” said the aide.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) criticized the deal on Sunday, when he said to a Jewish audience that both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were united in opposition.

“Democrats and Republicans are going to work to see that we don’t let up on these sanctions … until Iran gives up not only all of their weapons but all nuclear weapon capabilities,” Schumer said. “I want to leave you with that assurance.”

A State Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on the reported assets relief.

Additionally, Iran announced on Sunday that its nuclear work will continue despite the deal, which aimed to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.

Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who helped ink the deal, praised it for recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a key sticking point that had delayed the deal until Saturday evening.

“The [nuclear] program has been recognized and the Iranian people’s right to use the peaceful nuclear technology based on the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and as an inalienable right has been recognized and countries are necessitated not to create any obstacle on its way,” Zarif told reporters over the weekend.

“The program will continue, and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” he added.

Iran’s most well-known nuclear sites will remain operational under the deal, according to Zarif, who presented a very different version of the agreement than that described by the White House on Saturday.

Over the next six months, Iran will see “the full removal of all [United Nations] Security Council, unilateral and multilateral sanctions, while the country’s enrichment program will be maintained,” Zarif said.

The Fordo and Natanz nuclear sites will also continue to run, he said.

“None of the enrichment centers will be closed and Fordo and Natanz will continue their work and the Arak heavy water [nuclear reactor] program will continue in its present form and no material [enriched uranium stockpiles] will be taken out of the country and all the enriched materials will remain inside the country,” Zarif said. “The current sanctions will move towards decrease, no sanctions will be imposed and Iran’s financial resources will return.”

America recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium up to 5 percent under the deal, according to both the Iranians and a White House brief on the deal.

The United States agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to a fact sheet provided by the White House.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

The State Department denied that sanctions have been altered since an interim deal with Iran was announced.

“This report is false. Sanctions today are same as they were last week,” a senior State Department official said in response to the Fars report. “We will be forthcoming with guidance on how the technical terms of the relief package are worked out once all that is determined.”

Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own

Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own

By 

A senior advisor to the Saudi royal family has accused its Western allies of deceiving the oil rich kingdom in striking the nuclear accord withIran and said Riyadh would follow an independent foreign policy.

Nawaf Obaid told a think tank meeting in London that Saudi Arabia was determined to pursue its own foreign and policy goals. Having in the past been reactive to events, the leading Sunni Muslim nation was determined to be pro-active in future.

Mr Obaid said that while Saudi Arabia knew that the US was talking directly to Iran through a channel in the Gulf state of Oman, Washington had not directly briefed its ally.

“We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” he said. “The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done.”

In a statement the Saudi government gave a cautious welcome to the Geneva nuclear deal. It said “good intentions” could lead to a comprehensive agreement on Tehran’s atomic programme. “This agreement could be a first step towards a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear programme, if there are good intentions,” the Saudi government said

But it warned that a comprehensive solution should lead to the “removal of all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear, from the Middle East and the Gulf”.

A fellow of Harvard University’s Belfer Centre and adviser to Prince Mohammad, the Saudi ambassador to London, Mr Obaid said Saudi Arabia would continue to resist Iranian involvement in the Syrian civil war. In particular he pointed to Iranian Revolutionary Guards involvement in battles in Syria on behalf of the regime.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) hugs French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius

“[Saudi Arabia] will be there to stop them wherever they are in Arab countries,” he said. “We cannot accept Revolutionary Guards running round Homs.”

Saudi Arabia’s fury at the diplomatic detente with Iran is commonly held with Israel. While both countries are in the same posion Saudi Arabia disavows any suggestion of an open alliance. Until the Palestinians have a state, Saudi Arabia will not work with Israel.

Saudi Arabia is increasingly at odds with Washington over Syria. It rejected a seat on the UN Security Council in protest at the body’s failure to “save” Syria.

Qatar is the latest Gulf Arab state to welcome the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, calling it a step toward greater stability in the region.

Saudi Arabia, has previously expressed unease about US overtures to Iran. The dialogue helped pushed along efforts by Washington and others to strike a deal with Iran seeking to ease Western concerns that Tehran could move toward nuclear weapons.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the deal is an “important step toward safeguarding peace and stability in the region”.

Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have issued similar statements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html

Iran nuclear deal ‘loophole’ may allow off-site reactor work

Nuclear agreement bans “further advances” at Arak reactor but off-site component work not explicitly banned.

Sunday’s agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program contains an apparent gap that could allow Tehran to build components off-site to install later in a nuclear reactor where it has promised to halt work, experts said.

They said any impact of the omission is likely to be small if Iran follows other undertakings in the interim accord, which is designed to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program for six months in return for limited sanctions relief.

But the gap, which one diplomat described as a potential “loophole”, could provide a test of Iran’s intentions, and demonstrates how difficult it will be to reach a final deal to resolve Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West once and for all.

Iran’s uncompleted heavy-water research reactor near the town of Arak emerged as one of the most important issues in marathon negotiations in Geneva last week that ended early on Sunday with a breakthrough deal.

Tehran has earlier said it could open the reactor as soon as next year. It says its purpose is only to make medical isotopes, but Western countries say it could also produce plutonium, one of two materials, along with enriched uranium, that can be used to make the fissile core of a nuclear bomb.

Much of the final day of negotiations was taken up with the major powers pressing hard for language that would stop Iran from completing the reactor.

In the deal, Iran agreed that it will “not make any further advances of its activities” at Arak, language that also covers its two big uranium enrichment plants, Fordow and Natanz.

Footnotes hammered out in the final hours of the talks set out a range of activities that would be forbidden at the reactor. For the half year covered by the agreement, Iran is barred from starting the reactor up, bringing fuel or heavy water to it, testing or producing more fuel for it, or installing any remaining components.

But no language explicitly prevents it from making components elsewhere, which could then be installed later.

Former chief UN nuclear inspector Olli Heinonen, now at Harvard university, said the measures were good, but could have been better: “I would have also included the manufacturing of key components,” he told Reuters in an e-mail.

“NOT FATAL”

One Western diplomat, who deals with nuclear issues but is not from one of the six world powers that negotiated the deal with Iran, said he did not see the gap as big.

While it was one of several possible “loopholes” in a very complicated agreement, the accord would still achieve its main aims, provided that Iran abides by it.

“If Iran is committed then none of these loopholes are fatal,” said the diplomat, who is based in Vienna, headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency which will play an expanded role monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.

Among other steps, Iran has agreed to the suspension of its most sensitive enrichment of uranium, to constraints on other atomic activities and to improved monitoring by the IAEA.

International inspectors say they are confident they can keep tabs on Iran’s declared nuclear activities at known sites, although without wider access they cannot rule out undeclared activity at secret locations.

The diplomat said the most important work to complete Arak is the work to be done at the plant which is barred by the accord, meaning that any manufacturing of components at another location may not be that significant for the timeline.

“The estimate of one to two years to actually get the thing going assumes everything required offsite is already procured and/or manufactured,” the diplomat said.

Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the non-proliferation program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank, also noted the lack of prohibition on the manufacture of components but said most parts had probably already been built.

“I expect that most of the work on those components has already been completed, but no doubt some such work will continue,” he said. “Iran adheres to the principle that what is not prohibited is allowed.”

“DEVIL IN THE DETAIL”

Iran appears to have largely built the facility’s external structure in a valley among barren desert highlands, gradually installing key components over the years.

In May, UN nuclear inspectors observed that the reactor vessel had been delivered to the site.

But the IAEA’s latest quarterly report on Iran said other major parts – such as control room equipment, the refuelling machine and reactor cooling pumps – had yet to be put in place.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told Reuters on Nov. 13 that Iran still had “quite a lot to do” to complete the plant, which the U.S. Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said has been under construction since mid-2004.

While attention has long focused on Iran’s established uranium enrichment work, its progress at Arak also rang alarm bells, raising concern that Tehran could pursue both possible bomb core alternatives – uranium and plutonium – simultaneously.

To make a plutonium bomb, Iran would also need to build a reprocessing plant to extract the material, and it has no declared plans to do so.

Nuclear analyst Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank said Iran might be able to do some Arak-related work off-site under Sunday’s interim accord.

“But the agreement puts a firewall around the reactor, meaning that no equipment will be installed … and no fuel will be loaded,” Hibbs said.

Middle East expert Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said it could be argued that the deal also covers building components at another location.

“Of course, the fact that we are having this argument is itself acknowledgment of a possible loophole. Remember the US-DPRK ‘leap day’ deal? Devil in the detail,” Joshi said, referring to an ultimately failed agreement between North Korea and the United States early last year.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-nuclear-deal-loophole-may-allow-off-site-reactor-work-332975

Source: Netanyahu Scolded Obama in Phone Call on Iran Deal

by Joel B. Pollak

“The prime minister made it clear to the most powerful man on earth that if he intends to stay the most powerful man on earth, it’s important to make a change in American policy because the practical result of his current policy is liable to lead him to the same failure that the Americans absorbed in North Korea and Pakistan, and Iran could be next in line.”

That was the message conveyed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Barack Obama in a private telephone call Sunday to discuss the interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a senior Israeli lawmaker in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, as reported by the Jerusalem Post.

The White House’s own official statement on the telephone call made no mention of any disagreement being aired, merely referring to “their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile, Netanyahu said that he would send a high-level diplomatic team to the U.S. to lobby for a tough final agreement with Iran that sees that country’s entire nuclear enrichment program dismantled.

In a development that may be related, British Foreign Secretary William Hague warned Israel not to interfere with the emerging deal, perhaps voicing a sentiment shared by Obama and other diplomatic partners.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/25/Source-Netanyahu-Scolded-Obama-in-Phone-Call-on-Iran-Deal

Enriched uranium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proportions of uranium-238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found naturally versus enriched grades

Enriched uranium is a type of uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased through the process ofisotope separation. Natural uranium is 99.284% U238 isotope, with U235 only constituting about 0.711% of its weight. U235 is the onlynuclide existing in nature (in any appreciable amount) that is fissile with thermal neutrons.[1]

Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control enriched uranium supplies and processes in its efforts to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.

During the Manhattan Project enriched uranium was given the codename oralloy, a shortened version of Oak Ridge alloy, after the location of the plants where the uranium was enriched.[citation needed] The term oralloy is still occasionally used to refer to enriched uranium. There are about 2,000 tonnes (t, Mg) of highly enriched uranium in the world,[2] produced mostly for nuclear weapons, naval propulsion, and smaller quantities for research reactors.

The U238 remaining after enrichment is known as depleted uranium (DU), and is considerably less radioactive than even natural uranium, though still very dense and extremely hazardous in granulated form – such granules are a natural by-product of the shearing action that makes it useful for armor-penetrating weapons and radiation shielding. At present, 95% of the world’s stocks of depleted uranium remain in secure storage.

Slightly enriched uranium (SEU)

A drum of yellowcake (a mixture of uranium precipitates)

Slightly enriched uranium (SEU) has a 235U concentration of 0.9% to 2%. This new grade can be used to replace natural uranium (NU) fuel in some heavy water reactors like the CANDU. Fuel designed with SEU could provide additional benefits such as safety improvements or operational flexibility, normally the benefits were considered in safety area while retaining the same operational envelope. Safety improvements could lower positive reactivity feedback such as reactivity void coefficient. Operational improvements would consist in increasing the fuel burnup allowing fuel costs reduction because less uranium and fewer bundles are needed to fuel the reactor. This in turn reduces the quantity of used fuel and its subsequent management costs.[citation needed]

Reprocessed uranium (RepU)

Main article: Reprocessed uranium

Reprocessed uranium (RepU) is a product of nuclear fuel cycles involving nuclear reprocessing of spent fuel. RepU recovered from light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel typically contains slightly more U-235 than natural uranium, and therefore could be used to fuel reactors that customarily use natural uranium as fuel, such as CANDU reactors. It also contains the undesirable isotope uranium-236 which undergoes neutron capture, wasting neutrons (and requiring higher U-235 enrichment) and creating neptunium-237 which would be one of the more mobile and troublesome radionuclides in deep geological repository disposal of nuclear waste.

Low-enriched uranium (LEU)

Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU)

A billet of highly enriched uranium metal

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable);[3][4] in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, approaching infinity at 6% 235U.[5] For criticality experiments, enrichment of uranium to over 97% has been accomplished.[6]

The very first uranium bomb, Little Boy dropped by the United States on Hiroshima in 1945, used 64 kilograms of 80% enriched uranium. Wrapping the weapon’s fissile core in a neutron reflector (which is standard on all nuclear explosives) can dramatically reduce the critical mass. Because the core was surrounded by a good neutron reflector, at explosion it comprised almost 2.5 critical masses. Neutron reflectors, compressing the fissile core via implosion, fusion boosting, and “tamping”, which slows the expansion of the fissioning core with inertia, allow nuclear weapon designs that use less than what would be one bare-sphere critical mass at normal density. The presence of too much of the 238U isotope inhibits the runaway nuclear chain reaction that is responsible for the weapon’s power. The critical mass for 85% highly enriched uranium is about 50 kilograms (110 lb), which at normal density would be a sphere about 17 centimetres (6.7 in) in diameter.

Later US nuclear weapons usually use plutonium-239 in the primary stage, but the secondary stage which is compressed by the primary nuclear explosion often uses HEU with enrichment between 40% and 80%[7] along with the fusion fuel lithium deuteride. For the secondary of a large nuclear weapon, the higher critical mass of less-enriched uranium can be an advantage as it allows the core at explosion time to contain a larger amount of fuel. The 238U is not fissile but still fissionable by fusion neutrons.

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, whose cores require about 20% or more of fissile material, as well as in naval reactors, where it often contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U. Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.[8]

Enrichment methods

Isotope separation is difficult because two isotopes of the same elements have very nearly identical chemical properties, and can only be separated gradually using small mass differences. (235U is only 1.26% lighter than 238U.) This problem is compounded by the fact that uranium is rarely separated in its atomic form, but instead as a compound (235UF6 is only 0.852% lighter than 238UF6.) A cascade of identical stages produces successively higher concentrations of 235U. Each stage passes a slightly more concentrated product to the next stage and returns a slightly less concentrated residue to the previous stage.

There are currently two generic commercial methods employed internationally for enrichment: gaseous diffusion (referred to as first generation) and gas centrifuge (second generation) which consumes only 2% to 2.5%[9] as much energy as gaseous diffusion. Later generation methods will become established because they will be more efficient in terms of the energy input for the same degree of enrichment and the next method of enrichment to be commercialized will be referred to as third generation. Some work is being done that would use nuclear resonance; however there is no reliable evidence that any nuclear resonance processes have been scaled up to production.

Diffusion techniques

Gaseous diffusion

Main article: Gaseous diffusion

Gaseous diffusion is a technology used to produce enriched uranium by forcing gaseous uranium hexafluoride (hex) through semi-permeable membranes. This produces a slight separation between the molecules containing 235U and 238U. Throughout the Cold War, gaseous diffusion played a major role as a uranium enrichment technique, and as of 2008 accounted for about 33% of enriched uranium production,[10] but is now an obsolete technology that is steadily being replaced by the later generations of technology as the diffusion plants reach their ends-of-life.[11]

Thermal diffusion

Thermal diffusion utilizes the transfer of heat across a thin liquid or gas to accomplish isotope separation. The process exploits the fact that the lighter 235U gas molecules will diffuse toward a hot surface, and the heavier 238U gas molecules will diffuse toward a cold surface. The S-50 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee was used during World War II to prepare feed material for the EMIS process. It was abandoned in favor of gaseous diffusion.

Centrifuge techniques

Gas centrifuge

Main article: Gas centrifuge

A cascade of gas centrifuges at a U.S. enrichment plant

The gas centrifuge process uses a large number of rotating cylinders in series and parallel formations. Each cylinder’s rotation creates a strong centrifugal force so that the heavier gas molecules containing 238U move toward the outside of the cylinder and the lighter gas molecules rich in 235U collect closer to the center. It requires much less energy to achieve the same separation than the older gaseous diffusion process, which it has largely replaced and so is the current method of choice and is termed second generation. It has a separation factor per stage of 1.3 relative to gaseous diffusion of 1.005,[10] which translates to about one-fiftieth of the energy requirements. Gas centrifuge techniques produce about 54% of the world’s enriched uranium.

Zippe centrifuge

Diagram of the principles of a Zippe-type gas centrifuge with U-238 represented in dark blue and U-235 represented in light blue

The Zippe centrifuge is an improvement on the standard gas centrifuge, the primary difference being the use of heat. The bottom of the rotating cylinder is heated, producing convection currents that move the 235U up the cylinder, where it can be collected by scoops. This improved centrifuge design is used commercially by Urenco to produce nuclear fuel and was used by Pakistan in their nuclear weapons program.

Laser techniques

Laser processes promise lower energy inputs, lower capital costs and lower tails assays, hence significant economic advantages. Several laser processes have been investigated or are under development. Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX) is well advanced and licensed for commercial operation in 2012.

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS)

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation employs specially tuned lasers[12] to separate isotopes of uranium using selective ionization of hyperfine transitions. The technique uses lasers which are tuned to frequencies that ionize 235U atoms and no others. The positively charged 235U ions are then attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected.

Molecular laser isotope separation (MLIS)

Molecular laser isotope separation uses an infrared laser directed at UF6, exciting molecules that contain a 235U atom. A second laser frees a fluorine atom, leaving uranium pentafluoride which then precipitates out of the gas.

Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX)

Separation of isotopes by laser excitation is an Australian development that also uses UF6. After a protracted development process involving U.S. enrichment company USEC acquiring and then relinquishing commercialization rights to the technology, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) signed a commercialization agreement with Silex Systems in 2006.[13][dead link] GEH has since built a demonstration test loop and announced plans to build an initial commercial facility.[14] Details of the process are classified and restricted by intergovernmental agreements between United States, Australia, and the commercial entities. SILEX has been projected to be an order of magnitude more efficient than existing production techniques but again, the exact figure is classified.[10] In August, 2011 Global Laser Enrichment, a subsidiary of GEH, applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a commercial plant.[15] In September 2012, the NRC issued a license for GEH to build and operate a commercial SILEX enrichment plant, although the company had not yet decided whether the project would be profitable enough to begin construction, and despite concerns that the technology could contribute to nuclear proliferation.[16]

Other techniques

Aerodynamic processes

Schematic diagram of an aerodynamic nozzle. Many thousands of these small foils would be combined in an enrichment unit.

Aerodynamic enrichment processes include the Becker jet nozzle techniques developed by E. W. Becker and associates using the LIGA process and the vortex tube separation process. These aerodynamic separation processes depend upon diffusion driven by pressure gradients, as does the gas centrifuge. They in general have the disadvantage of requiring complex systems of cascading of individual separating elements to minimize energy consumption. In effect, aerodynamic processes can be considered as non-rotating centrifuges. Enhancement of the centrifugal forces is achieved by dilution of UF6 with hydrogen or helium as a carrier gas achieving a much higher flow velocity for the gas than could be obtained using pure uranium hexafluoride. The Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa (UCOR) developed and deployed the continuous Helikon vortex separation cascade for high production rate low enrichment and the substantially different semi-batch Pelsakon low production rate high enrichment cascade both using a particular vortex tube separator design, and both embodied in industrial plant.[17] A demonstration plant was built in Brazil by NUCLEI, a consortium led by Industrias Nucleares do Brasil that used the separation nozzle process. However all methods have high energy consumption and substantial requirements for removal of waste heat; none is currently still in use.

Electromagnetic isotope separation

Main article: Calutron

Schematic diagram of uranium isotope separation in a calutron shows how a strong magnetic field is used to redirect a stream of uranium ions to a target, resulting in a higher concentration of uranium-235 (represented here in dark blue) in the inner fringes of the stream.

In the electromagnetic isotope separation process (EMIS), metallic uranium is first vaporized, and then ionized to positively charged ions. The cations are then accelerated and subsequently deflected by magnetic fields onto their respective collection targets. A production-scale mass spectrometer named the Calutron was developed during World War II that provided some of the 235U used for the Little Boy nuclear bomb, which was dropped over Hiroshima in 1945. Properly the term ‘Calutron’ applies to a multistage device arranged in a large oval around a powerful electromagnet. Electromagnetic isotope separation has been largely abandoned in favour of more effective methods.

Chemical methods

One chemical process has been demonstrated to pilot plant stage but not used. The French CHEMEX process exploited a very slight difference in the two isotopes’ propensity to change valency in oxidation/reduction, utilising immiscible aqueous and organic phases. An ion-exchange process was developed by the Asahi Chemical Company in Japan which applies similar chemistry but effects separation on a proprietary resin ion-exchange column.

Plasma separation

Plasma separation process (PSP) describes a technique that makes use of superconducting magnets and plasma physics. In this process, the principle of ion cyclotron resonance is used to selectively energize the 235U isotope in a plasma containing a mix of ions. The French developed their own version of PSP, which they called RCI. Funding for RCI was drastically reduced in 1986, and the program was suspended around 1990, although RCI is still used for stable isotope separation.

Separative work unit

“Separative work” – the amount of separation done by an enrichment process – is a function of the concentrations of the feedstock, the enriched output, and the depleted tailings; and is expressed in units which are so calculated as to be proportional to the total input (energy / machine operation time) and to the mass processed. Separative work is not energy. The same amount of separative work will require different amounts of energy depending on the efficiency of the separation technology. Separative work is measured in Separative work units SWU, kg SW, or kg UTA (from the German Urantrennarbeit – literally uranium separation work)

  • 1 SWU = 1 kg SW = 1 kg UTA
  • 1 kSWU = 1 tSW = 1 t UTA
  • 1 MSWU = 1 ktSW = 1 kt UTA

The work W_\mathrm{SWU} necessary to separate a mass F of feed of assay x_{f} into a mass P of product assay x_{p}, and tails of mass T and assay x_{t} is given by the expression

W_\mathrm{SWU} = P \cdot V\left(x_{p}\right)+T \cdot V(x_{t})-F \cdot V(x_{f})

where V\left(x\right) is the value function, defined as

V(x) = (1 - 2x)  \ln \left(\frac{1 - x}{x}\right)

The feed to product ratio is given by the expression

\frac{F}{P} = \frac{x_{p} - x_{t}}{x_{f} - x_{t}}

whereas the tails to product ratio is given by the expression

\frac{T}{P} = \frac{x_{p} - x_{f}}{x_{f} - x_{t}}

For example, beginning with 102 kilograms (225 lb) of NU, it takes about 90 SWU to produce 10 kilograms (22 lb) of LEU in 235U content to 4.5%, at a tails assay of 0.3%.

The number of separative work units provided by an enrichment facility is directly related to the amount of energy that the facility consumes. Modern gaseous diffusion plants typically require 2,400 to 2,500 kilowatt-hours (kW·h), or 8.6–9 gigajoules, (GJ) of electricity per SWU while gas centrifuge plants require just 50 to 60 kW·h (180–220 MJ) of electricity per SWU.

Example:

A large nuclear power station with a net electrical capacity of 1300 MW requires about 25 tonnes per year (25 t/a) of LEU with a 235U concentration of 3.75%. This quantity is produced from about 210 t of NU using about 120 kSWU. An enrichment plant with a capacity of 1000 kSWU/a is, therefore, able to enrich the uranium needed to fuel about eight large nuclear power stations.

Cost issues

In addition to the separative work units provided by an enrichment facility, the other important parameter to be considered is the mass of natural uranium (NU) that is needed to yield a desired mass of enriched uranium. As with the number of SWUs, the amount of feed material required will also depend on the level of enrichment desired and upon the amount of 235U that ends up in the depleted uranium. However, unlike the number of SWUs required during enrichment which increases with decreasing levels of 235U in the depleted stream, the amount of NU needed will decrease with decreasing levels of 235U that end up in the DU.

For example, in the enrichment of LEU for use in a light water reactor it is typical for the enriched stream to contain 3.6% 235U (as compared to 0.7% in NU) while the depleted stream contains 0.2% to 0.3% 235U. In order to produce one kilogram of this LEU it would require approximately 8 kilograms of NU and 4.5 SWU if the DU stream was allowed to have 0.3% 235U. On the other hand, if the depleted stream had only 0.2% 235U, then it would require just 6.7 kilograms of NU, but nearly 5.7 SWU of enrichment. Because the amount of NU required and the number of SWUs required during enrichment change in opposite directions, if NU is cheap and enrichment services are more expensive, then the operators will typically choose to allow more 235U to be left in the DU stream whereas if NU is more expensive and enrichment is less so, then they would choose the opposite.

  • Uranium enrichment calculator designed by the WISE Uranium Project

Downblending

The opposite of enriching is downblending; surplus HEU can be downblended to LEU to make it suitable for use in commercial nuclear fuel.

The HEU feedstock can contain unwanted uranium isotopes: 234U is a minor isotope contained in natural uranium; during the enrichment process, its concentration increases but remains well below 1%. High concentrations of 236U are a byproduct from irradiation in a reactor and may be contained in the HEU, depending on its manufacturing history. HEU reprocessed from nuclear weapons material production reactors (with an 235U assay of approx. 50%) may contain 236U concentrations as high as 25%, resulting in concentrations of approximately 1.5% in the blended LEU product. 236U is a neutron poison; therefore the actual 235U concentration in the LEU product must be raised accordingly to compensate for the presence of 236U.

The blendstock can be NU, or DU, however depending on feedstock quality, SEU at typically 1.5 wt% 235U may used as a blendstock to dilute the unwanted byproducts that may be contained in the HEU feed. Concentrations of these isotopes in the LEU product in some cases could exceed ASTM specifications for nuclear fuel, if NU, or DU were used. So, the HEU downblending generally cannot contribute to the waste management problem posed by the existing large stockpiles of depleted uranium.

A major downblending undertaking called the Megatons to Megawatts Program converts ex-Soviet weapons-grade HEU to fuel for U.S. commercial power reactors. From 1995 through mid-2005, 250 tonnes of high-enriched uranium (enough for 10,000 warheads) was recycled into low-enriched-uranium. The goal is to recycle 500 tonnes by 2013. The decommissioning programme of Russian nuclear warheads accounted for about 13% of total world requirement for enriched uranium leading up to 2008.[10]

The United States Enrichment Corporation has been involved in the disposition of a portion of the 174.3 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) that the U.S. government declared as surplus military material in 1996. Through the U.S. HEU Downblending Program, this HEU material, taken primarily from dismantled U.S. nuclear warheads, was recycled into low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, used by nuclear power plants to generate electricity.[18]

  • A uranium downblending calculator designed by the WISE Uranium Project

Global enrichment facilities

The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[19] Belgium, Iran, Italy, and Spain hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant, with Iran’s holding entitling it to 10% of the enriched uranium output. Countries that had enrichment programs in the past include Libya and South Africa, although Libya’s facility was never operational.[20] Australia has developed a laser enrichment process known as SILEX, which it intends to pursue through financial investment in a U.S. commercial venture by General Electric.[21] It has also been claimed that Israel has a uranium enrichment program housed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center site near Dimona.[22]

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

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

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? — Videos

Posted on November 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , |

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 1 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 2 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 3 of 4)

America’s Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development? (Part 4 of 4)

Agenda 21 For Dummies

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21

Agenda 21, Glenn Beck’s Latest Book Talks w/ UN A21 Expert Rose Koire a Democrat

The Glenn Beck Program – Air Date: Monday, November 19, 2012

The Depopulation Agenda For a New-World-Order Agenda 21

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

United Nations Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development — Videos

 

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

United Nations Earth Summit Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development — Videos

Posted on November 5, 2013. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, Climate, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

9781482672770

Sustainability

Glenn Beck – Agenda 21 On O’Reilly

Glenn Beck Supports Agenda 21…His Book that is!

UN Agenda 21 ~ The End of Freedom

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version

Agenda 21 -Progress 2/24/13

TrutherGirl Infiltrates NWO Conference!

Agenda 21- Codex- Fema Camps-80% Depopulation = New World Order (Terror Camps: The Global Agenda)

Honourable Ann Bressington Exposes UN Agenda 21 Club of Rome Population Control World Government

Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part1

Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part 2

H.A.A.R.P., Agenda 21 and Google’s Role In The Sinister DNA Plan – Mature Content

Agenda 21: Global Control Starts Here – An Interview with Glenn Beck

Agenda 21 The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order

► Agenda 21, the NWO, Executive Order 13575, Sustainable Development, and Population Reduction

UN AGENDA 21 ” Sustainable Development “…..For Dummies. (Low).flv

Agenda 21 in Less Than 5 Minutes

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development States Block Communist Socialist Land Grab

United Nations Agenda 21

Nature of Sustainable Development / United Nations AGENDA 21

John Birch Society on Agenda 21

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

Alex Jones Leads Glenn Beck Follows — Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery — Alex Has A Point — Videos

Posted on July 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Art, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Culture, Education, Enivornment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Alex Jones

File photo of Fox News host Glenn Beck at the National Rifle Association's 139th annual meeting in Charlotte

Glenn Beck is Rat Poison  (Infowars Paul Revere Contest)

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

Bill O’Reilly’s Smack Down of President Obama Race Speech — Videos

Posted on July 24, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Diasters, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Enivornment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Genocide, government spending, history, Homes, Homicide, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Music, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

bill_o'reilly

O’Reilly Smacks Down Obama’s Race Speech: President Has ‘No Clue’ How To Combat ‘Gangsta Culture’

Bill O’Reilly Says Most Crimes Are Committed By Young Black Males

Bill O’Reilly gives stats of Black crime, unemployment, poverty

Chris Hayes Blasts Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Super-Racist Rant': Maybe Problem Is ‘White Culture’

President Obama: ‘Trayvon Martin could have been me’

President Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin

President Obama Trayvon Martin FULL SPEECH. 7/19/2013. White House Briefing

American Violence: The Future of a Catastrophe 

Glenn Beck Weighs in on What You May Have Missed in Obama’s Race Speech  ‘IT’S HIS LIFELONG PASSION’

GLENN BECK,Who is really dividing the U.S. along racial lines? OBAMA,SHARPTON,AND THE MEDIA

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Electronic Lynching of George Zimmerman By President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP and Mainstream Media  — Shame On Them — Videos

The Great Divider Obama, “White African-American”, Incites Eric Holder and Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Relations Service (CRS) Racist Attack Against George Zimmerman To Rally Black Voters In 2012 Presidential Campaign — Holder Should Be Impeached — Racist Racketeering And Outside Agitators and Media Show Trial and Electronic Lynching — Videos

George Zimmerman Trial Defense Closing Argument — Not Guilty of All Charges Including Murder and Manslaughter — Police Chief Was Right No Probable Cause To Arrest George Zimmerman For Anything — Malicious Political Prosecution and Media Political Show Trial and Electronic Lynching Fails Big Time — Killing Justified Self-defense! –Videos

How Much Did The Piers Morgan Show Pay Rachel Jeantel For Exclusive Interview? $100,000 — New Theory — Trayvon Martin Thought George Zimmerman Gay Rapist Cop or Security Guard — Creepy Ass Cracka? — Videos

Race Racketeers Running Race Rallies — Black Gangs Kill Blacks By The Thousands and Planned Parenthood Kills Black Babies By The Millions — Race Never Played A Role in Zimmerman Verdict Says Juror #b37!– Videos

The Electronic Lynching of George Zimmerman By President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP and Mainstream Media — Shame On Them — Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 117, July 19, 2013, Segment 0: How Much Did The Piers Morgan Show Pay Rachel Jeantel For Exclusive Interview? $100,000 — New Theory — Trayvon Martin Thought George Zimmerman Gay Rapist Cop or Security Guard — Creepy Ass Cracka? — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 117, July 19, 2013, Segment 2: Race Racketeers Running Race Rallies — Black Gangs Kill Blacks By The Thousands and Planned Parenthood Kills Black Babies By The Millions — Race Never Played A Role in Zimmerman Verdict Says Juror #b37!– Videos

Pronk Pops Show 117, July 19, 2013, Segment 3: Where is the National Media When Two Teenage Blacks Killed a 12 Year Old Autumn Pasquale For Bicycle Parts! — Videos

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

Democratic Controlled U.S. Senate Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for the Federal Government — Videos

Posted on April 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Senate-Budget-Committee-Chair-Patty-Murray-via-AFPThe-Presidents-Fiscal-Year-2014-Budget-proposal-is-delivered-to-the-Senate-Budget-Committee_10_1The Hosue Budget Committee releases it's FY2014 Budget in Washington

Paul Ryan Questions OMB Director – President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

Sessions: Obama’s Persistent Budget Misrepresentations Make Compromise More Difficult

‘When Do We Hold People Accountable?’ Sessions Slams Dems For Falsely Claiming ‘Balance’ To Nation

WASHINGTON, March 22—Throughout the course of the budget debate, Democratic Senators have repeatedly suggested their budget contains a “balanced approach,” a rhetorical description that has no accounting value. (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went even further last night and repeatedly said his party’s plan called for “balancing the budget.”)

But as Sen. Sessions pointed out this morning, “They know they don’t have a balanced budget. They won’t tell the American people they don’t have one. They just use the word. But it’s not in their document. Where and when do we hold people accountable in this United States Senate for an accurate [description] of legislation? It’s wrong.”

To view for yourself the budget tables with the Democrats’ own numbers (in other words, before one even begins to strip out all the gimmicks and accounting tricks), please click here: http://1.usa.gov/YwdsbM. Note that cumulative deficits will amount to $5.198 trillion, and the nation’s gross debt will climb to $24.365 trillion by 2023.

Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget

Hatch on Senate Democrats’ Budget: ‘A Cynical Political Document’

Senator King Discusses 2014 Fiscal Year Budget Blueprint

Sessions: Dem Budget Would Trap Millions In Poverty By Shielding Failed Government Programs

 Senate Budget Committee Hearing | 4.10.13 | Chairman Murray Opening Remarks

Chairman Murray Kicks Off Senate Budget Resolution Debate with Speech on Senate Floor

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

U.S. Senate Budget Committee

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray unveils her vision for the Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget resolution.

For more information: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democrat­ic

Portman Remarks at Senate Budget Committee Markup 

Hatch: Entitlement Reform Not an Option, a Necessity

Background Articles and Videos

Making the Federal Budget

How do you spend four trillion dollars? Turns out, you don’t; it takes the President and the Congress to allocate, authorize, appropriate, resolve, outlay, sequester, impound, and just plain spend that much in 2011. Such a process is baffling at times. It’s so complex that you may marvel that Washington can get any action accomplished and paid for at all. So how does the federal budget happen?

Join the Mercatus Center’s Capitol Hill Campus and Senior Research Fellow Jason J. Fichtner for a walk through the process of making the federal budget. He explains the process from its beginnings in the halls of the White House, highlight the many roles Congress takes to authorize and enforce the budget, and navigate the twisting, puzzling conglomeration of bureaucratic steps, political goals, and accountancy rules that go into making our government function.

Changing the Budget Process to Promote Fiscal Responsibility

A Sustainable Approach to Entitlement Reform 

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.

The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.

This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/senatebudget

 

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.

The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.

This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent.

The highest priority of the Senate Budget is to create the conditions for job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down.

The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy and that true national prosperity comes from the middle out, not the top down. We believe that deficit reduction at the expense of economic growth is doomed to failure, and policies that promote a strong middle class are essential to tackling our long-term deficit and debt challenges.

The policies President Barack Obama and Congress put in place in response to the Great Recession pulled our economy back from the brink and helped to add back jobs. But with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. Therefore, the Senate Budget:

• Fully replaces the harmful cuts from sequestration with smart, balanced, and responsible deficit reduction, which would save hundreds of thousands of jobs while protecting families, communities, and the fragile economic recovery.

• Invests in long-term economic growth and national competitiveness by tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation to create jobs now and lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth.

2

• Includes a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21

st century jobs. This jobs investment package is fully paid for by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

• Protects and continues tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.

The Senate Budget builds on the work we have done over the last two years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

At the end of 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission report laid out a responsible goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. Since that time, Congress and the administration have implemented $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion coming from new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. The Senate Budget:

• Surpasses the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction and puts our deficit and debt on a downward, sustainable, and responsible path.

• Builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.

• Includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code.

• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction through responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget:

o

$493 billion saved on the domestic spending side, including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families.

 

o

$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations.

 

o

$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments.

• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

• Includes reconciliation instructions, a fast-track process that makes sure that the new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations cannot be filibustered in the Senate.

3

The Senate Budget keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities.

The Senate Budget takes the position that the promises we made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities ought to be fulfilled. This budget:

• Preserves and protects Medicare so that it is strong for seniors today and will be there for our children and grandchildren.

• Rejects calls to dismantle, privatize, or voucherize Medicare.

• Builds on the responsible changes made in the Affordable Care Act to continue reducing health care costs while protecting patients.

• Protects the expansion of health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans and ensures the federal-state partnership on Medicaid is preserved.

• Rejects efforts to simply shift health care costs to states or make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families.

• Maintains the key principle that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable families and communities.

• Continues to make the investments we need in national defense, homeland security, and law enforcement to keep our country and our communities strong and secure.

• Keeps the promise we have made to our veterans that their country will be there for them and provide the resources and support they need when they come home.

The House Republican approach would hurt middle class families and the economy and break the promises we have made to our seniors.

The Senate Budget offers a very different vision than the approach taken by House Republicans.

Their proposals would cut the legs out from under our fragile economic recovery and threaten millions of jobs. They would slash the investments in infrastructure, education, and innovation that we need to lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth and that would position us to compete and win in the 21

st century global economy.

House Republicans would dismantle Medicare and cut off programs that support the middle class and most vulnerable families. And they would do all that while refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to contribute their fair share.

We believe that the American people strongly support the pro-growth, pro-middle class approach taken in the Senate Budget. And we look forward to engaging with families and seniors across the country as we work to pass the responsible, fair, and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve.

April 2013
March 2013

The following timetable is used to guide the federal budget process each year (see 2. U.S.C. 631)

Date Action
1st Monday in February President’s budget submission (includes OMB sequester preview report and adjustments to spending caps).
February 15 CBO budget and economic outlook report
Within 6 weeks of President’s budget Committees submit views and estimates to the Budget Committees
April 1 Senate Budget Committee reports resolution
April 15 Congress completes budget resolution. If not, Chairman of House Budget Committee files 302(a) allocations; Ways and Means is free to proceed with pay-as-you-go measures
May 15 Appropriations bills may be considered in the House
June 10 House Appropriations reports last bill
June 15 Congress completes action on reconciliation reconciliation (if applicable)
June 30 House completes action on annual appropriation bills
July 15 President submits mid-session review
October 1

Fiscal year begins

Home / Committee Resources / Glossary

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. I
  8. J
  1. M
  2. N
  3. O
  4. P
  5. R
  6. S
  7. T
  8. U

Appropriations Act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, that generally provides authority for Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Currently, there are 13 regular appropriations acts for each fiscal year. From time to time, Congress also enacts supplemental appropriations acts. (See Appropriations under Budget Authority; Continuing Resolution; Supplemental Appropriation.)

Authorizing Committee: A committee of the House or Senate with legislative jurisdiction over laws that set up or continue the operations of Federal programs and provide the legal basis for making appropriations for those programs. Authorizing committees also have direct control over spending for mandatory programs since the Government’s obligation to make payments for such program is contained in the authorizing legislation (See Entitlement.)

Authorizing Legislation: Legislation enacted by Congress that sets up or continues the operation of a Federal program or agency indefinitely or for a specific period of time. Authorizing legislation may limit the amount of budget authority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appropriation of “such sums as are necessary.” (See Budget Authority; Entitlement.)

return to top

B

Backdoor Spending: (See Direct Spending or Mandatory Spending.)

Budget Authority: The authority Congress gives to Government agencies, permitting them to enter into obligations which will result in immediate or future outlays.

Budget authority may be classified in several ways. It may be classified by the form it takes: appropriations, borrowing authority, or contract authority. Budget authority may also be classified by the determination of amount: definite authority or indefinite authority. Finally budget authority may be classified by the period of availability: 1-year authority, multi-year authority, or no-year authority (available until used).

Forms of Budget Authority

Appropriations.–An act of Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most common means of providing budget authority.

Borrowing Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to incur obligations and to make payments for specified purposes out of money borrowed from the Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank, or the public. The Budget Act in most cases requires that new authority to borrow must be approved in advance in an appropriation act.

Contract Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to enter into contracts in advance of appropriations. Under the Budget Act, most new authority to contract must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Offsetting collections and receipts.–Income from the public which is displayed in the budget as negative budget authority. (See Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts.

Budget Baseline: Projected Federal spending, revenue and deficit levels based on the assumption that current policies will continue unchanged for the upcoming fiscal year.

In determining the budget baseline under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Directors of OMB and CBO estimate revenue levels and spending levels for entitlement programs based on continuation of current laws. For estimating discretionary spending amounts (both defense and non- defense), the Directors assume an adjustment for inflation (GNP deflator) added to the previous year’s discretionary spending levels. The baseline also includes sufficient appropriations to cover a Federal pay comparability raise (without absorption).

Budget Deficit: The amount by which the Government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues for a given fiscal year. (See Outlays; Revenues.)

Budget Resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress setting forth, reaffirming, or revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for a fiscal year. A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution of Congress. Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature because they are not laws. Budget resolutions do not need to be laws because they are a legislative device for the Congress to regulate itself as it works on spending and revenue bills.

(Unified) Budget Surplus: The amount by which the Government’s revenues exceed its outlays for a given fiscal year. The “on-budget surplus” excludes spending and revenues of the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Postal Service. (See Outlays; Revenues.)

return to topC

Capital Budget: A budget that segregates capital spending from all other spending, what is usually considered the “operating budget.” In a capital budget, spending and receipts in the capital budget are excluded from the operating budget and are not included in the operating budget’s deficit or surplus calculations. A capital budget would include spending only for capital assets. Capital assets are usually defined to be limited to land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property that are owned and used by the Federal government and have a useful life of more than 2 years. However, some proponents of capital budgeting have suggested that capital should be defined to include Federal “investment” spending that yields long-term benefits. President Clinton established a Commission to Study Capital Budgeting by issuing Executive Order 13037 on March 3, 1997. The Commission is required to issue its report by December 17, 1998.

Congressional Budget: (See Budget Resolution.)

Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill.

A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However, there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills.

A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused with the budget resolution.

Credit Authority: Authority to incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guarantee commitments. Under the Budget Act, new credit authority must be approved in advance in an appropriation act.

Crosswalk: Also known as “committee allocation” or “section 302 allocation.” The means by which budget resolution spending totals are translated into binding guidelines with respect to budget authority and outlays for committee action on spending bills. The Budget Committees allocate the budget resolution totals among the committees by jurisdiction, Crosswalk allocations of budget authority and outlays to the committee appear in the joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution.

Current Services Budget: A section of the President’s budget, required by the Budget Act, that sets forth the level of spending or taxes that would occur if existing programs and policies were continued unchanged through the fiscal year and beyond, with all programs adjusted for inflation so that existing levels of activity are maintained. (See Baseline.)

return to topD

Deferral of Budget Authority: An action by the executive branch that delays the obligation of budget authority beyond the point it would normally occur. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President must provide advanced notice to the Congress of any proposed deferrals. A deferral may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President’s message proposing the deferral is made. Congress may overturn a deferral by passing a law disapproving the deferral.

Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year.

Direct Spending: A term defined in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to include entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and budget authority provided in law other than appropriations acts. From the perspective of the appropriations process, all direct spending is classified as mandatory as opposed to discretionary spending. New direct spending is subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. Direct spending is synonymous with mandatory spending. (See Mandatory Spending and Entitlement.)

Discretionary Spending: A category of spending (budget authority and outlays) subject to the annual appropriations process. (See Appropriations Acts.)

return to topE

Entitlement: Programs that are governed by legislation in a way that legally obligates the Federal government to make specific payments to qualified recipients. Payments to persons under the Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ pensions programs are considered to be entitlements. (See Direct Spending and Mandatory Spending.)

Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order.

There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget–as required by Pub. L. No. 102-55 for the determination of whether to designate spending as an emergency spending:

Necessary expenditure.–an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is merely useful or beneficial;

Sudden.–quickly coming into being, not building up over time;

Urgent.–pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action;

Unforseen.–not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, would not be “unforseen”); and

Not permanent.–the need is temporary in nature.

Expenditures: (See Outlays.)

return to topF

Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public.

Debt held by the government.–Represents the holdings of debt by federal trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires that this surplus be invested in government securities.

Debt held by the public.–Represents the holdings of debt by individuals, institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely tracks the unified budget deficit for that year.

Fiscal Policy: Federal government policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management intended to promote the nations’ macroeconomic goals, particularly with respect to employment, gross national product, price level stability, and equilibrium in balance of payments. The budget process is a major vehicle for determining and implementing Federal fiscal policy. The other major component of Federal macroeconomic policy is monetary policy. (See Monetary Policy.)

Fiscal Year: A fiscal year is a 12-month accounting period. The fiscal for the Federal Government begins October 1 and ends September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example fiscal year 1997 is the year beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1997.

Functional Classification: A system of classifying budget resources by major purpose so that budget authority, outlays, and credit activities can be related in terms of the national needs being addressed (for example, national defense, health) regardless of the agency administrating the program. There are currently 20 functions. A function may be divided into two or more subfunctions depending upon the complexity of the national need addressed by that function. (See Budget Authority; Outlays.)

return to topIImpoundment: A generic term referring to any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority in the manner intended by Congress. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Rescission of Budget Authority.) return to topJJoint Committee on Taxation (JCT): Section 8001 of the Internal Revenue Code authorized the creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation. By statute, it is composed of five members from the Committee on Finance (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee and five members from the Committee on Ways and Means (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee. In practice, the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Taxation has rotated between the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means with each new Congress. Among other things, the JCT’s duties are to investigate the operation and effects of the federal tax system. return to topM

Mandatory Spending: Refers to spending for programs the level of which is governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by appropriations. Examples of mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, rehabilitation services, Members’ pay, judges pay and the payment of interest of the public debt. Many of these programs are considered entitlement. (See Direct Spending.)

Mark-Up: Meetings where congressional committees work on language of bills or resolutions. At Budget Committee mark-ups, the House and Senate Budget Committees work on the language and numbers contained in budget resolutions and legislation affecting the congressional budget process.

Monetary Policy: Management of the money supply, under the direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, with the aim of achieving price stability and full employment. Government actions in guiding monetary policy, include currency revaluation, credit contradiction or expansion, rediscount policy, regulation of bank reserves and the purchase and sale of Government securities. (See Fiscal Policy.)

return to topNNet Deficit Reduction: Savings below the defined budget baseline achieved for the upcoming fiscal year because of laws enacted or final regulations promulgated since January 1. CBO and OMB independently estimate these savings in their initial and final sequester reports. return to topO

Offsetting Collections: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public, such as the sale of products or the rendering of a service. Examples include proceeds funds derived from the sale of postage stamps. Offsetting collections are credited against the level of budget authority or outlays associated with a specific program or account. (See Offsetting receipts.)

Offsetting Receipts: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public such as the sale of products or the rendering of services. Examples include proceeds from the sale of timber from Federal lands or entrance fees paid at national parks. Rather than being credited against the spending of a particular program or account, (as in the case with offsetting collections) offsetting receipts are deducted from total budget authority and outlays rather than added to Federal revenues even though they are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Generally offsetting receipts are associated with mandatory spending. (See Offsetting collections.)

Off-budget Federal Entity: Any Federal fund or trust fund whose transactions are required by law to be excluded from the totals of President’s budget submission and Congress’ budget resolution, despite the fact that these are part of the government’s total transactions. Current law requires that the Social Security trust funds (the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability trust fund) and the Postal Service be off-budget. However, these entities are reflected in the budget in that they are included in calculating the deficit in order to derive the total government deficit that must be financed by borrowing from the public or by other means. All other federal funds and trust funds are on budget. (See Unified Budget.)

Outlays: Outlays are disbursements by the Federal Treasury in the form of checks or cash. Outlays flow in part from budget authority granted in prior years and in part from budget authority provided for the year in which the disbursements occur.

Outlay Rates: The ratio of outlays (actual government disbursements) in a fiscal year relative to new budgetary resources in that fiscal year. In estimating the budget baseline and baseline deficit for their sequestration reports, CBO and OMB use outlay rates for projecting levels of spending resulting from available budget authority.

return to topP

Pay-as-you-go: Arises in two separate contexts: a point of order in the Senate and a sequester order from OMB.

Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.–Since fiscal year 1994, the budget resolution has included a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. The rule provides a 3/5ths vote point of order in the Senate against consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in the deficit over a ten year period. It applies to all legislation except appropriations legislation. To determine a violation, CBO measures the budget impact of a direct spending or revenue bill combined with the budget impact of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the latest budget resolution’s adoption to see if the legislation would result in a net deficit increase for any one of three time periods (the first year, the sum of years 1 through 5, and the sum of years 6 through 10.) The pay-go rule sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2002.

Pay-as-you-go and sequestration under the BEA.–The Budget Enforcement Act requires OMB to also enforce a “pay-as-you-go” requirement which has a similar effect as the Senate’s point of order: Congress is required to “pay for” any changes to programs which result in an increase in direct spending, or in this case risk a sequester. If OMB estimates that the sum of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since 1990 will result in a net increase in the deficit for the fiscal year, then the President is required to issue a sequester order reducing all non-exempt direct spending accounts by a uniform percentage in order to eliminate the net deficit increase. Most direct spending is either exempt from a sequester order or operates under special rules that minimize the reduction that can be made in direct spending. Social Security is exempt from a pay-as-you-go sequester and Medicare cannot be reduced by more than 4 percent.

President’s Budget: The document sent to Congress by the President in January or February of each year, requesting new budget authority for Federal programs and estimating Federal revenues and outlays for the upcoming fiscal year.

return to topR

Revenues: Collections from the public arising from the Government’s sovereign power to tax. Revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes (such as social security payroll taxes), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and the like.

Reconciliation Process: A process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution “reconciliation instructions” to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single “reconciliation bill under expedited procedures.”  Reserve Fund: A provision in a budget resolution that grants the Chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to make changes in budget aggregates and committee allocations once some condition or conditions have been met. Since a budget resolution establishes a binding ceiling on aggregate budget authority and outlay levels and a binding floor on revenues, budget resolutions frequently include reserve funds for deficit-neutral legislation that would otherwise violate the budget resolution and be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. For example, the FY 1997 budget resolution included a tax reduction reserve fund that allowed the Chairman to reduce the revenue floor and the relevant spending allocations to accommodate legislation that reduced taxes if that legislation also contained offsetting spending reductions.

Rescission of Budget Authority: Cancellation of budget authority before the time when the authority would otherwise cease to be available for obligation. The rescission process begins when the President proposes a rescission to the Congress for fiscal or policy reasons. Unlike the deferral of budget authority which occurs unless Congress acts to disapprove the deferral, rescission off budget authority occurs only if Congress enacts the rescission. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Impoundment.)

return to topS

Scoring or Scorekeeping: The process for estimating budget authority, outlay, revenue and deficit levels which result from congressional budgetary actions. Scorekeeping data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office include status reports on the effect of congressional actions and comparisons of these actions to targets and ceilings set by Congress in budget resolutions. These reports are published in the Congressional Record on a regular basis. OMB is responsible for scoring legislation to determine if a sequester is necessary.

Sequester: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a presidential spending reduction order that occurs by reducing spending by uniform percentages.

Sequestrable Resource: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings federal funding authority (budgetary resources) subject to reductions under a presidential sequester order for achieving required outlay reductions (in non-exempt programs).

Supplemental Appropriation: An act appropriating funds in addition to those in the 13 regular annual appropriations acts. Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority beyond the original estimates for programs or activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriation act) in cases where the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until enactment of the next regular appropriation bill. (See Appropriations Act.)

return to topTTax Expenditures: Revenue losses attributable to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or to a special credit, preferential rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. return to topU

Unfunded Mandates: A Federal Intergovernmental Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal government, except as conditions of assistance or duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Exceptions to this rule are: enforcing constitutional rights; statutory prohibitions against discrimination; emergency assistance requested by states; accounting/auditing for federal assistance; national security; Presidential designated emergencies; and Social Security. Provisions that increase stringency of conditions of assistance or decrease federal funding for large state entitlement programs (greater than $500 million) if states lack authority to decrease their responsibilities are considered mandates as well.

A Federal Private Sector Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector. The exceptions are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.

Unified Budget: A comprehensive display of the Federal budget. This display includes all revenues and all spending for all regular Federal programs and trust funds. The 1967 President’s Commission on Budget Concepts recommended the unified budget and it has been the basis for budgeting since 1968. The unified budget replaced a system of the budgets that existed before 1968 (an administrative budget, a consolidated cash budget, and a national income accounts budget).

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/glossary

Budget Control Act

The Budget Control Act Serves as the Budget for 2012 and 2013

The Budget Control Act states: “For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 … the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.” In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. Number one, it has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a Congressional document; the Budget Control Act is a law. Number two, it sets discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. Number three, it provides enforcement mechanisms, including two years of “deeming resolutions,” which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And fourth, it creates a reconciliation-like “Super Committee” process to address both entitlements and tax reform. And it backs that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.

Budget Control Act Legislative Text

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

The Progressive End Game — Gun Grabbers — Drugs — Wealth Confiscation — Ending The Second Amendment — Videos

Posted on March 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

glenn_beck_and_the_war_on_progressives

Glenn Beck » The Progressive End Game

Beck: “System X” Is Upon Us!

Glenn Beck interviews law abiding citizens who had their guns confiscated, 2013-03

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

Carbon Dioxide Is Neither A Polutant Nor A “Bad” That Needs To Be Taxed– Gore Is A Fanatic — Videos

Posted on March 22, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Tax Policy | Tags: , , , , |

CO2-Pollutant or Miracle Gas? 

CO2 is Not a Pollutant

Blood & Gore – Al Gore Directly Profits from Carbon Tax

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade

“Time has come” for a carbon tax on the need for a national carbon tax

By Al Gore

“Taxes are always a regrettable necessity, but some are less regrettable than others. A tax that strengthens energy security and cuts pollution, while minimising the damage done to employment and investment, is one of the least regrettable of all.”

“Yet a carbon tax, which has all those characteristics, is struggling to find support from the US administration or in Congress. It deserves much wider enthusiasm.”

“One of the few uncontroversial conclusions of economics is that it is better to tax “bads” than “goods”. Wages and profits are desirable objectives, and governments have no good excuse for obstructing them. They are taxed largely for reasons of convenience, at the cost of disincentives to wage-earning and profitmaking that are a drag on the economy.”

“Energy consumption, on the other hand, is not an objective for anyone. Indeed, the negative externalities of energy use, including local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, mean that, other things being equal, an economy that burns less fuel is better off.”

“That insight lies behind support from across the political spectrum for a tax linked to the carbon content of fossil fuels, generating revenue that could be recycled through cuts in other taxes. Four leading Democrats in Congress this month proposed such a tax, and asked for suggestions for how it could be implemented. On the Republican side, a carbon tax has been backed by several prominent figures, most notably Greg Mankiw of Harvard, a former economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.”

“Carbon taxes have their drawbacks, it is true, but their problems are mostly fixable. They are regressive, but that could be offset by changes to other taxes. They can create difficulties for energy-intensive sectors, but those could be eased with targeted reliefs.”

“The claim made this week by more than 85 Republican members of Congress that carbon taxes would “kill millions more jobs” has no evidence to support it.”

“While the adjustment to higher energy costs would have some negative impact, it would be offset by the benefits of cuts in other taxes. Curbing consumption would also improve energy security, making the economy less vulnerable to commodity price shocks. President Barack Obama on Friday set out an energy agenda including reduced oil imports, greater use of natural gas and increased energy efficiency. A carbon tax would help meet all of those goals.”

“The prospect that extra revenues will be needed to stabilise the public finances in the long term suggests that some taxes are likely to rise, and a carbon tax would be one of the least painful ways to do it. Shifting the tax burden off incomes and on to carbon would be a good idea at any time. Right now, the case is overwhelming.”

<:article id=singleArticle checkedByCssHelper=”true” data-story=”386129″><:header checkedByCssHelper=”true”> 

Blizzards, 60mph gales and panic buying: 36 hours of snow chaos on the way

HEAVY snow is expected over the next 36 hours as Britain shivers on the coldest March weekend for 50 years.

Up to 16ins will fall over high ground with several inches likely across much of the UK, the Met Office said last night.

Over 1,000 schools were shut and transport was disrupted as any hopes of spring were dashed by yet another onslaught of snow and flooding today as temperatures fell as low as -12C (10F).

Emergency services saw an early surge in -related call-outs as some parts of the country were hit by blizzard conditions. Government agencies issued a string of warnings urging the public to take care on the roads.

The South-west, which will escape the worst of the winter blast, faces flooding with up to 100mm of rain – almost two months’ worth – over the next 24 hours as yesterday’s heavy rain continues.

In total The Environment Agency issued 12 flood warnings tonight across the country and 81 less serious flood alerts.

In east Cornwall emergency services were searching for a missing woman her partially property collapsed during heavy rainfall overnight.

It is believed the severe weather triggered a landslide, and while a dozen residents were evacuated Susan Norman has not been accounted for.

Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service said they believed the woman in her 60s is still in the building.

Further north, snow blanketed many parts with up to eight inches expected to hit the worst affected areas of north west England, north Wales and south west Scotland.

Higher areas could even see up to 16 inches, while bitterly cold gale-force winds create blizzard-like conditions and plunge temperatures down to well below freezing.

Over 1,500 homes in Cumbria had to cope without power and road closure was preveting access to some communites to carry out repair work.

Energy firm Electricity North West said they were considering using helicopters to transport engineers to conduct repairs around Cumbria.

Elsewhere, more than 28,000 homes and businesses in Northern Ireland were left freezing and without power today after snow, sleet and storm force winds hit the province.

Thousands of gritters were on standby last night as councils ­prepared for the “worst winter onslaught” of the year.

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

President Barack Obama’s State of The Union Address, February 12, 2013– Rand Paul’s Tea Party Response and Marc Rubio’s Republican Response–Videos

Posted on February 12, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Entertainment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Golf, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Newtown-residents-invited-to-President-Obamas-State-of-the-Union-Address

how_congress_spends_your_money_chart

SurplusDeficitGDP

us_president_barack_obama_spending_money_for_debt_policy_speech_strategy_comic_political_cartoon_economist_funny_best_top_free_greatest1

The 2013 State of the Union Address

Rand Paul Gives The Tea Party Response To The President’s State of the Union Address

Marco Rubio – 2013 State of the Union – GOP Response w/ Water Break (12:01) (English)

Obama--State-of-the-Union-2013-4-jpg


Transcript: Obama’s State Of The Union Address As Prepared For Delivery

 

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, fellow citizens:


Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress…It is my task,” he said, “to report the State of the Union – to improve it is the task of us all.”


Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in twenty. Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.


Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.


But we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs – but too many people still can’t find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs – but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.


It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class.


It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love.


It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.


The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem. They don’t expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue. But they do expect us to put the nation’s interests before party. They do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. For they know that America moves forward only when we do so together; and that the responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all.


Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget – decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery.


Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion – mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.


Now we need to finish the job. And the question is, how?


In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.


Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits.


That idea is even worse. Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms – otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.


But we can’t ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful. We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers, cops, and firefighters. Most Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that’s the approach I offer tonight.


On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs. The reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep – but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.


To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?


Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring; a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas, and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that create jobs right here in America. That’s what tax reform can deliver. That’s what we can do together.


I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform won’t be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, and visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let’s set party interests aside, and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.


Now, most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of our agenda. But let’s be clear: deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs – that must be the North Star that guides our efforts. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?


A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than one million new jobs. I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda, and I urge this Congress to pass the rest. Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.


Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.


After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. After locating plants in other countries like China, Intel is opening its most advanced plant right here at home. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.


There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns. So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Departments of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. And I ask this Congress to help create a network of fifteen of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America.


If we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas. Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s; developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries ten times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race. And today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy.


After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.


But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.


The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.


Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.


In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.


Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long. I’m also issuing a new goal for America: let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years. The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen.


America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire: a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and internet; high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America – a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina – has said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs. And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I’ve seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings.


Tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let’s start right away.


Part of our rebuilding effort must also involve our housing sector. Today, our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years, home purchases are up nearly 50 percent, and construction is expanding again.


But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected. Too many families who have never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no. That’s holding our entire economy back, and we need to fix it. Right now, there’s a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today’s rates. Democrats and Republicans have supported it before. What are we waiting for? Take a vote, and send me that bill. Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What’s holding us back? Let’s streamline the process, and help our economy grow.


These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs. And that has to start at the earliest possible age.


Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.


Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.


Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering.


We need to give every American student opportunities like this. Four years ago, we started Race to the Top – a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.


Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education. It’s a simple fact: the more education you have, the more likely you are to have a job and work your way into the middle class. But today, skyrocketing costs price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt.


Through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years. But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education. Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they do. Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. And tomorrow, my Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.


To grow our middle class, our citizens must have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require. But we also have to make sure that America remains a place where everyone who’s willing to work hard has the chance to get ahead.


Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.


Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my Administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.


Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.


And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.


In other words, we know what needs to be done. As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts. Now let’s get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.


But we can’t stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. I urge the House to do the same. And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.


We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, nineteen states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.


Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.


Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it’s virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that is why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.


Let’s offer incentives to companies that hire Americans who’ve got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance. Let’s put people back to work rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods. And this year, my Administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. We’ll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety, education, and housing. We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest. And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and doing more to encourage fatherhood – because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.


Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity – broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class – that has always been the source of our progress at home. It is also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world.


Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda. Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.


Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.


Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.


As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.


Of course, our challenges don’t end with al Qaeda. America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. The regime in North Korea must know that they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations. Provocations of the sort we saw last night will only isolate them further, as we stand by our allies, strengthen our own missile defense, and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats.


Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. At the same time, we will engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals, and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands – because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead.


America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber-attacks. We know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private e-mail. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, and our air traffic control systems. We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy.


That’s why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks.


Even as we protect our people, we should remember that today’s world presents not only dangers, but opportunities. To boost American exports, support American jobs, and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.


We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all. In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades: by connecting more people to the global economy and empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and helping communities to feed, power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation.


Above all, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change. I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon – when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States. I want our country to be like that.”


In defense of freedom, we will remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa; from Europe to Asia. In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy. The process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt; but we can – and will – insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people. We will keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian. And we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security and a lasting peace. These are the messages I will deliver when I travel to the Middle East next month.


All this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk – our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world. We will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending. We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families – gay and straight. We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat. We will keep faith with our veterans – investing in world-class care, including mental health care, for our wounded warriors; supporting our military families; and giving our veterans the benefits, education, and job opportunities they have earned. And I want to thank my wife Michelle and Dr. Jill Biden for their continued dedication to serving our military families as well as they serve us.


But defending our freedom is not the job of our military alone. We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans – no matter where they live or what their party – are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals. That’s why, tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And I’m asking two long-time experts in the field, who’ve recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign, to lead it. We can fix this, and we will. The American people demand it. And so does our democracy.


Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children.


It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment – have come together around commonsense reform – like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.


Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.


One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.


Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote.


Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.


The families of Newtown deserve a vote.


The families of Aurora deserve a vote.


The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.


Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.


We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example.


We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, her thoughts were not with how her own home was faring – they were with the twenty precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.


We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her. Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read “I Voted.”


We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back until help arrived, and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the Americans worshiping inside – even as he lay bleeding from twelve bullet wounds.


When asked how he did that, Brian said, “That’s just the way we’re made.”


That’s just the way we’re made.


We may do different jobs, and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title:


We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.


Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/12/171841852/transcript-obamas-state-of-the-union-as-prepared-for-delivery


Full Text of Rand Paul’s Tea Party Response to State of the Union

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul delivered the Tea Party rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union speech


These are the prepared remarks of Rand Paul’s Tea Party rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union Speech. Follow U.S. News’s live coverage here.


I speak to you tonight from Washington, D.C. The state of our economy is tenuous but our people remain the greatest example of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.


People say America is exceptional. I agree, but it’s not the complexion of our skin or the twists in our DNA that make us unique. America is exceptional because we were founded upon the notion that everyone should be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.


For the first time in history, men and women were guaranteed a chance to succeed based NOT on who your parents were but on your own initiative and desire to work.


We are in danger, though, of forgetting what made us great. The President seems to think the country can continue to borrow $50,000 per second. The President believes that we should just squeeze more money out of those who are working.

The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this Administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation.

Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.

Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.

What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous.

What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.

He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.

All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don’t have.

I was elected to the Senate in 2010 by people worried about our country, worried about our kids and their future. I thought I knew how bad it was in Washington. But it is worse than I ever imagined.

Congress is debating the wrong things.

Every debate in Washington is about how much to increase spending – a little or a lot.

About how much to increase taxes – a little or a lot.

The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade.

Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade be called a cut.

So, what is the President’s answer? Over the past four years he has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.

He says he wants a balanced approach.

What the country really needs is a balanced budget.

Washington acts in a way that your family never could – they spend money they do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other for never fixing the problem.

Tonight I urge you to demand a new course.

Demand Washington change their ways, or be sent home.

To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution!

The amendment must include strict tax and spending limitations.

Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six or seven years.

The Penny Plan has been crafted into a bill that millions of conservatives across the country support.

It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up here.

That is not true.

In fact, there is plenty.

Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.

It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.

It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.

Where would we cut spending; well, we could start with ending all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America.

The President could begin by stopping the F-16s and Abrams tanks being given to the radical Islamic government of Egypt.

Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America’s credit rating.

Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess.

Bipartisanship is not what is missing in Washington. Common sense is.

Trillion-dollar deficits hurt us all.

Printing more money to feed the never-ending appetite for spending hurts us all.

We pay higher prices every time we go to the supermarket or the gas pump. The value of the dollar shrinks with each new day.

Contrary to what the President claims, big government and debt are not a friend to the poor and the elderly. Big-government debt keeps the poor poor and saps the savings of the elderly.

This massive expansion of the debt destroys savings and steals the value of your wages.

Big government makes it more expensive to put food on the table. Big government is not your friend. The President offers you free stuff but his policies keep you poor.

Under President Obama, the ranks of America’s poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work.

The cycle must be broken.

The willpower to do this will not come from Congress. It must come from the American people.

Next month, I will propose a five-year balanced budget, a budget that last year was endorsed by taxpayer groups across the country for its boldness, and for actually solving the problem.

I will work with anyone on either side of the aisle who wants to cut spending.

But in recent years, there has been no one to work with.

The President’s massive tax hikes and spending increases have caused his budgets to get ZERO votes in both houses of Congress. Not a single Democrat voted for the President’s budget!

But at least he tried.

Senate Democrats have not even produced a budget in the time I have been in office, a shameful display of incompetence that illustrates their lack of seriousness.

This year, they say they will have a budget, but after just recently imposing hundreds of billions in new taxes, they now say they will include more tax hikes in their budget.

We must stand firm. We must say NO to any MORE tax hikes!

Only through lower taxes, less regulation and more freedom will the economy begin to grow again.

Our party is the party of growth, jobs and prosperity, and we will boldly lead on these issues.

Under the Obama economy, 12 million people are out of work. During the President’s first term 800,000 construction workers lost their jobs and another 800,000 simply gave up on looking for work.

With my five-year budget, millions of jobs would be created by cutting the corporate income tax in half, by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%, and by cutting the regulations that are strangling American businesses.

The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it!

For those who are struggling we want to you to have something infinitely more valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and pathway to success.

We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future.

We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities.

We must be the party that says, “If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you.”

For those striving to climb the ladder of success we must fix our schools.

America’s educational system is leaving behind anyone who starts with disadvantages.

We have cut classroom size in half and tripled spending on education and still we lag behind much of the world.

A great education needs to be available for everyone, whether you live on country club lane or in government housing.

This will only happen when we allow school choice for everyone, rich or poor, white, brown, or black.

Let the taxes you pay for education follow each and every student to the school of your choice.

Competition has made America the richest nation in history. Competition can make our educational system the envy of the world.

The status quo traps poor children in a crumbling system of hopelessness.

When every child can, like the President’s kids, go to the school of their choice, then will the dreams of our children come true!

Washington could also use a good dose of transparency, which is why we should fight back against middle of the night deals that end with massive bills no one has read.

We must continue to fight for legislation that forces Congress to read the bills!

We must continue to object when Congress sticks special interest riders on bills in the dead of night!

And if Congress refuses to obey its own rules, if Congress refuses to pass a budget, if Congress refuses to read the bills, then I say:

Sweep the place clean. Limit their terms and send them home!

I have seen the inner sanctum of Congress and believe me there is no monopoly on knowledge there.

If they will not listen, if they will not balance the budget, then we should limit their terms.

We are the party that adheres to the Constitution. We will not let the liberals tread on the Second Amendment!

We will fight to defend the entire Bill of Rights from the right to trial by jury to the right to be free from unlawful searches.

We will stand up against excessive government power wherever we see it.

We cannot and will not allow any President to act as if he were a king.

We will not let any President use executive orders to impinge on the Second Amendment.

We will not tolerate secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial.

Montesquieu wrote that there can be no liberty when the executive branch and the legislative branch are combined. Separation of powers is a bedrock principle of our Constitution.

We took the President to court over his unconstitutional recess appointments and won.

If necessary, we will take him to court again if he attempts to legislate by executive order.

Congress must reassert its authority as the protector of these rights, and stand up for them, no matter which party is in power.

Congress must stand as a check to the power of the executive, and it must stand as it was intended, as the voice of the people.

The people are crying out for change. They are asking for us to hear their voices, to fix our broken system, to right our economy and to restore their liberty.

Let us tonight let them know that we hear their voices. That we can and must work together, that we can and must re-chart our course toward a better future.

America has much greatness left in her. We will begin to thrive again when we begin to believe in ourselves again, when we regain our respect for our founding documents, when we balance our budget, when we understand that capitalism and free markets and free individuals are what creates our nation’s prosperity.

Thank you and God Bless America.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/12/full-text-of-rand-pauls-tea-party-response-to-state-of-the-union?page=4

Text of Senator Marc Rubio’s response to the Union address on Tuesday night

Good evening. I’m Marco Rubio. I’m blessed to represent Florida in the United States Senate. Let me begin by congratulating President Obama on the start of his second term. Tonight, I have the honor of responding to his State of the Union address on behalf of my fellow Republicans.  And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world. You may be thousands of miles away, but you are always in our prayers.

The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.

But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.

Like most Americans, for me this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at an even better one. They made it to the middle class, my dad working as a bartender and my mother as a cashier and a maid. I didn’t inherit any money from them. But I inherited something far better – the real opportunity to accomplish my dreams.

This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington.  It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.

Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle-class prosperity.

But President Obama?  He believes it’s the cause of our problems.  That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.

This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle-class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead.  It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities.  It’s going to limit them.

And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs.  It’s going to create uncertainty.

Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can’t afford to follow.

Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.

And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.

For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle-class Americans afford health insurance.  But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with.  And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring.  Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.

Now does this mean there’s no role for government?  Of course not.  It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government’s role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can’t play its essential role when it ignores those limits.

There are valid reasons to be concerned about the president’s plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the president’s agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.

When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.

When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves.

And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.

But his favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.

Mr. President, I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires. They’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They’re immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.

The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle-class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.

And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.

So Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.

Hard-working middle-class Americans who don’t need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.

Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class.  Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012.

But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private-sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the president will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.

One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called “clean energy” companies like Solyndra, let’s open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let’s reform our energy regulations so that they’re reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle-class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.

Simplifying our tax code will also help the middle class, because it will make it easier for small businesses to hire and grow.

And we agree with the president that we should lower our corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, so that companies will start bringing their money and their jobs back here from overseas.

We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.

Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today’s jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow’s world will require.

We need to incentivize local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training.

We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.

And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.

I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn’t have gone to college without it. But it’s not just about spending more money on these programs; it’s also about strengthening and modernizing them.

A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today’s students aren’t only 18-year-olds.  They’re returning veterans. They’re single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they’re workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.

We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.

When I finished school, I owed over $100,000 in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they’re taking out.

All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won’t be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.

Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn’t being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren’t hiring.

The president loves to blame the debt on President Bush. But President Obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight.

The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending $1 trillion more than it takes in every year. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment.

The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.

I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.

Republicans have offered a detailed and credible plan that helps save Medicare without hurting today’s retirees. Instead of playing politics with Medicare, when is the president going to offer his plan to save it? Tonight would have been a good time for him to do it.

Of course, we face other challenges as well. We were all heart broken by the recent tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.

On foreign policy, America continues to be indispensable to the goal of global liberty, prosperity and safeguarding human rights. The world is a better place when America is the strongest nation on earth. But we can’t remain powerful if we don’t have an economy that can afford it.

In the short time I’ve been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the president laid out tonight.

The choice isn’t just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs.

We don’t have to raise taxes to avoid the president’s devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.

In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need.  Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.

And the truth is every problem can’t be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.

Despite our differences, I know that both Republicans and Democrats love America. I pray we can come together to solve our problems, because the choices before us could not be more important.

If we can get our economy healthy again, our children will be the most prosperous Americans ever.

And if we do not, we will forever be known as the generation responsible for America’s decline.

At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can’t or won’t make the right choices anymore.

But our strength has never come from the White House or the Capitol.  It’s always come from our people. A people united by the American idea that, if you have a dream and you are willing to work hard, nothing should be impossible.

Americans have always celebrated and been inspired by those who succeed. But it’s the dreams of those who are still trying to make it that sets our nation apart.

Tonight, all across this land, parents will hold their newborn children in their arms for the first time. For many of these parents, life has not gone the way they had planned.

Maybe they were born into circumstances they’ve found difficult to escape. Maybe they’ve made some mistakes along the way. Maybe they’re young mothers, all alone, the father of their child long gone.

But tonight, when they look into the eyes of their child for the first time, their lives will change forever. Because in those eyes, they will see what my parents saw in me, and what your parents saw in you. They will see all the hopes and dreams they once had for themselves.

This dream – of a better life for their children – it’s the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.

But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.

Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life.

Now, let that hope bring us together again.  To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known.

Thank you for listening.  May God bless all of you. May God bless our president. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12438&Itemid=199

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

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  01/13

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

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

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

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                            887,778              1,178,193                290,415
 http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0113.txt
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

U.S. Debt By Presidents–Obama: $5.073 Trillion in Four Years, Bush: $3.294 Trillion in Eight Years–Videos

Posted on November 27, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.federalbudget.com/

The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department. <<< Click on the chart for more info.The “Debt Total” bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department’s “Debt Report” found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt interestinformation. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.

“Deficit” vs. “Debt”—Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a “budget deficit”. So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you’ll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger). If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don’t have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

“Reducing the deficit” is a meaningless soundbite. If the DEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site’s deficit analysis. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it cuts into our budget big time.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

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

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  10/12

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

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

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

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                            184,316                304,311                119,995

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1012.txt

Another Day Older & Deeper In Debt: Federal Deficit to Top $1 Trillion for Fiscal Year  2012

Peter Schiff U.S. Debt Crisis

Vicious cycle of the US Debt & Deficit

President Obama Blaming Bush for Debt

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

Public Opinion for Libertarians – Bryan Caplan

Social Security trustees: We’re going broke

John C. Goodma

“…Here’s some bad news: The latest report of the Social Security and Medicare trustees shows an unfunded liability for both programs of $63 trillion. That is equal to about 4.5 times the entire U.S. gross domestic product.

The unfunded liability is the amount we have promised in benefits, looking indefinitely into the future, minus the payroll taxes and premiums we expect to collect. It’s the amount we must have in the bank today, earning interest, for these entitlement programs to be solvent.

We not only don’t have the money in the bank, no one has a serious plan to put it there.

Now — some really bad news. The actual liability is almost twice what the government is reporting. In 2009, the trustees calculated the two programs’ unfunded liability at about 6.5 times the size of the U.S. economy. But the next year the unfunded liability was cut in half. The reason: “Obamacare.” The minute President Barack Obama signed his health reform bill, he cut Medicare’s unfunded liability by more than $50 trillion.

You would think this accomplishment would be an occasion for great joy — for dancing and celebration in the streets. If you’re like most Americans, however, you probably haven’t heard about it. Certainly, the Obama administration isn’t talking.

Here is what’s going on: Obamacare uses cuts in Medicare to pay for more than half the cost of expanding health insurance for young people. So even if the Medicare cuts take place, they won’t reduce the government’s overall obligations. They just replace entitlements for seniors with entitlements for young people. In addition, the health reform bill contains no serious plan for making Medicare more efficient.

So the only realistic way to make cuts in Medicare spending is a mechanism that will pay less and less to doctors and hospitals over time.

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s Office of the Actuaries has predicted what this can mean for seniors. By the end of this decade, the fees that Medicare pays to doctors will be lower than what Medicaid pays. From an economic view, seniors will represent a less profitable sector than welfare mothers represent. Also by the end of the decade, one in seven hospitals will be forced out of business. In the decades that follow, the consequences only seem to get worse.

Many serious people inside the Beltway believe these cuts will never take place, however. The reason: Congress has been unwilling to allow similar reductions in doctor fees for nine straight years under previous legislation.

In fact, the possibility of “Obamacare” policies cutting Medicare’s unfunded liability in half is so unlikely that Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, provides an “alternative” report, in addition to the official trustees report, in which he projects much higher levels of Medicare spending.

What about the Medicare trust fund? Workers have been repeatedly told that their payroll taxes are being securely held in trust funds. But they are actually spent the very minute they arrive in the Treasury’s bank account. No money has been saved. No investments have been made. No cash has been stashed in bank vaults. Today’s payroll tax payments are being spent to pay medical bills for today’s retirees. And if any surplus materializes, it is spent on other government programs. As a result, when today’s workers reach the eligibility age of 65, they will be able to receive benefits only if future taxpayers pay (even higher) taxes to support them.

To address these defects, Medicare must be truly reformed. That means shifting from the current “pay as you go” system to one in which workers pay their own way.

My colleagues and I have calculated that workers (and their employers) must save and invest 4 percent of payroll. Eventually, we will reach the point where each generation of retirees will pay for the bulk of its own post-retirement medical care — with a payroll tax no higher than the one we have today.

We also need other reforms, of course. Seniors should be free to manage more of their own health care dollars. Doctors should be free to repackage their services in ways that lower the cost to patients and raise the quality of care. Seniors should also have access to more services, whose price is set in the marketplace rather than dictated by governments.

Most importantly, we need bipartisan commitment from those on Capitol Hill who can make all of this happen.

John C. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the book “Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis,” due out in June. …”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75603.html#ixzz2DRkCo9CU

US could be on path to fifth straight $1 trillion deficit after government runs $120 billion October deficit

“…The federal government started the 2013 budget year with a $120 billion deficit, an indication that the nation is on a path to its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus deficit.

Another soaring deficit puts added pressure on President Barack Obama and Congress to seek a budget deal in the coming weeks.

The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the October deficit — the gap between the government’s tax revenue and its spending — was 22 percent higher than the same month last year.

Tax revenue increased to $184.3 billion — 13 percent greater than the same month last year. Still, spending also rose to $304.3 billion, a 16.4 percent jump. The budget year begins on Oct. 1. Officials said last year’s figures were held down by a quirk in the calendar: the first day of October fell on a Saturday, which resulted in some benefits being paid in September 2011.

The deficit, in simplest terms, is the amount of money the government has to borrow when revenues fall short of expenses. The government ran a $1.1 trillion annual budget deficit in fiscal year that ended in September. That was lower than the previous year but still painfully high by historical standards.

Obama’s presidency has coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus deficits — the first in history and record he had to vigorously defend during his successful re-election campaign.

The size and scope of this year’s deficit will largely depend on what happens with the so-called fiscal cliff — a package of tax increases and spending cuts set to take effect in January unless the White House and Congress reach a budget deal by then.

If the economy goes over the fiscal cliff, this year’s deficit would shrink to $641 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the CBO also warns that the economy would sink into recession in the first half of 2013.

If the White House and Congress can reach a budget deal that extends the tax cuts and avoids the spending cuts, the deficit will end up roughly $1 trillion for the budget year, the CBO says.

The deficits have been growing for more than a decade but reached a record $1.41 trillion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office. That was largely because of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Tax revenue plummeted during the downturn, while the government spent more on stimulus programs.

The deficits first began to widen after President George W. Bush won approval for broad tax cuts and launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of the biggest challenges for the federal budget is the aging of the baby boom generation. That is raising government spending on Social Security and on Medicare and Medicaid. At the same time, the fragile economy, along with tax cuts, has reduced government revenue.

Over the past three years, revenue has fallen below 16 percent of the total economy as measured by the gross domestic product. Spending has exceeded 22 percent of GDP. The government has been forced to borrow to make up the gap, which has pushed the federal debt to $16.2 trillion.

The government is expected to hit its borrowing limit of $16.39 trillion by the end of December, unless Congress votes to raise it again. …”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/us-government-runs-120-billion-october-deficit/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/13/us-government-runs-120-billion-october-deficit/#ixzz2DRXL3c6c

The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank

James K. Glassman, Contributor

“…Please forgive me. Over and over, I hear misinformation about deficits in prior administrations, and I can’t keep quiet any longer. I have to correct the record.

The latest was on “Squawk Box” on Monday morning. Joe Kernan, the host, is interviewing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, ex-candidate for president and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kernen cites campaign comments about “bad policies” going back “decades” affecting the high rate of unemployment today.

He asks, “What specific policies in the Bush Administration do you think are still being used to explain 8 percent unemployment?”

Dean responds, “The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up…. The deficits were enormous

Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?”

We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run.

I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2

Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5

George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7

Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)

As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.

Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

U.S. Debt by President

By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President:

“…Therefore, the most accurate way to measure the debt by President is to sum all the budget deficits. That’s because the President is responsible for his budget priorities. It takes into account spending, and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes.

There are a few caveats, however. First, Congress does have a role, since it must approve the budget. Second, each President inherits a previous President’s policies. For example, every President has had to compensate for lower revenue thanks to President Reagan’s tax cuts. That’s because tax increases are a sure way to prevent re-election.

Third, while every President has had to deal with a recession, all recessions were not created equal. Furthermore, some Presidents have had to deal with unusual events, like the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. While these weren’t part of the business cycle, they required responses that came with economic price tags.

President Barack Obama:

President Obama contributed the most to the debt, with cumulative deficits totaling $5.073 trillion in just four years. Obama’s budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama’s budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn’t show up until the later years.

President George W. Bush:

President Bush is next, racking up $3.294 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to a new records, between $600-$800 billion a year. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts.

President Ronald Reagan:

President Reagan added $1.412 trillion to the debt during his two terms. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, and the corporate rate from 48% to 34%.  He also increased government spending by 2.5% a year. This included a 35% increase in the defense budget, and an expansion of Medicare. Although $1.412 trillion doesn’t sound like a lot, compared to 2012 debt levels, in fact Reagan’s economic policies doubled the debt during his Presidency.

President George H.W. Bush:

President George H.W. Bush added $1.03 trillion to the debt in one term. He responded to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversaw the $125 billion bailout to end the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. Part of his debt contribution was due to lost tax revenue from the 1991 recession.
Although many other Presidents added to the debt, none comes close to these four in terms of overall spending. Part of that is because the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, was so much smaller for other Presidents.  For example, in 1981 GDP was only $3 trillion, growing by five times to $15 trillion in 2012. See the table below for a year-by-year detail of each President’s budget deficit since President Woodrow Wilson. (Updated September 12, 2012)

Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year Since 1960:

President Barack Obama: First Term = $5.073 trillion.

  • FY 2013 – $901 billion.
  • FY 2012 – $1.327 trillion.
  • FY 2011 – $1.299 trillion.
  • FY 2010 – $1.546 ($1.293 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

President George W. Bush: First Term = $1.267 trillion.  Second Term = $2.027 trillion. Total = $3.294.

  • FY 2009 – $1.16 trillion. ($1.416 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama’s Stimulus Act)
  • FY 2008 – $458 billion.
  • FY 2007 – $161 billion.
  • FY 2006 – $248 billion.
  • FY 2005 – $318 billion.
  • FY 2004 – $413 billion.
  • FY 2003 – $378 billion.
  • FY 2002 – $158 billion.

President Bill Clinton: First Term = $496 billion. Second Term = ($559 billion surplus). Total = ($63 billion surplus).

  • FY 2001 – $128 billion surplus.
  • FY 2000 – $236 billion surplus.
  • FY 1999 – $126 billion surplus.
  • FY 1998 – $69 billion surplus.
  • FY 1997 – $22 billion.
  • FY 1996 – $107 billion.
  • FY 1995 – $164 billion.
  • FY 1994 – $203 billion.

President George H.W. Bush: First Term = $1.03 trillion.

  • FY 1993 – $255 billion.
  • FY 1992 – $290 billion.
  • FY 1991 – $269 billion.
  • FY 1990 – $221 billion.

President Ronald Reagan: First Term = $733 billion. Second Term = $679 billion. Total = $1.412 trillion.

  • FY 1989 – $153 billion.
  • FY 1988 – $155 billion.
  • FY 1987 – $150 billion.
  • FY 1986 – $221 billion.
  • FY 1985 – $212 billion.
  • FY 1984 – $185 billion.
  • FY 1983 – $208 billion.
  • FY 1982 – $128 billion.

President Jimmy Carter: First Term = $253 billion

  • FY 1981 – $79 billion.
  • FY 1980 – $74 billion.
  • FY 1979 – $41 billion.
  • FY 1978 – $59 billion.

President Gerald Ford: Three Years = $181 billion.

  • FY 1977 – $54 billion.
  • FY 1976 – $74 billion.
  • FY 1975 – $53 billion.

President Richard Nixon: First Term = $64 billion. First Year of Second Term = $6 billion. Total = $70 billion.

  • FY 1974 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1973 – $15 billion.
  • FY 1972 – $23 billion.
  • FY 1971 – $23 billion.
  • FY 1970 – $3 billion.

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Two Years in First Term = $7 billion.  Second Term = $35 billion. Total = $42 billion.

  • FY 1969 – $3 billion surplus.
  • FY 1968 – $25 billion.
  • FY 1967 – $9 billion.
  • FY 1966 – $4 billion.
  • FY 1965 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1964 – $6 billion.

President John F. Kennedy: Two Years in First Term = $11 billion.

  • FY 1963 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1962 – $7 billion.

President Dwight Eisenhower: First Term = $3 billion surplus. Second Term = $19 billion. Total = $16 billion.

  • FY 1961 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1960 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1959 – $13 billion.
  • FY 1958 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1957 – $3 billion surplus.
  • FY 1956 – $4 billion surplus.
  • FY 1955 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1954 – $1 billion.

President Harry Truman: First Term = $1 billion surplus. Second Term = $4 billion. Total = $3 billion.

  • FY 1953 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1952 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1951 – $6 billion surplus.
  • FY 1950 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1949 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1948 – $12 billion surplus.
  • FY 1947 – $4 billion surplus.
  • FY 1946 – $16 billion.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: First Term = $13 billion. Second Term = $11 billion. Third Term = $172 billion. Total = $196 billion.

  • FY 1945 – $48 billion.
  • FY 1944 – $48 billion.
  • FY 1943 – $55 billion.
  • FY 1942 – $21 billion.
  • FY 1941 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1940 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1939 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1938 – $0 billion (slight deficit).
  • FY 1937 – $2 billion.
  • FY 1936 – $4 billion.
  • FY 1935 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1934 – $4 billion.

President Herbert Hoover: First Term = $5 billion.

  • FY 1933 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1932 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1931 – $0 billion (slight deficit).
  • FY 1930 – $1 billion surplus.

President Calvin Coolidge: Two Years of First Term = $2 billion surplus. Second Term = $4 billion surplus. Total = $6 billion surplus.

  • FY 1929 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1928 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1927 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1926 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1925 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1924 – $1 billion surplus.

President Warren G. Harding: Two Years of First Term = $2 billion surplus.

  • FY 1923 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1922 – $1 billion surplus.

President Woodrow Wilson: First Term = $1 billion. Second Term = $21 billion. Total = $22 billion.

  • FY 1921 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1920 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1919 – $13 billion.
  • FY 1918 – $9 billion.
  • FY 1917 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1916 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1915 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1914 – $0 billion.

FY 1789 – FY 1913 – $24 billion surplus. (Source: OMB, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2017) …”

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

Mitt Romney’s Vision For America–Acceptance Speech at Republican National Convention–Videos

Posted on August 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Sports, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Mitt Romney Acceptance Speech at the Republican National Convention (C-SPAN) – Full Speech

“I was born in the middle of the century in the middle of the country, a classic baby boomer.  It was a time when Americans were returning from war and eager to work. To be an American was to assume that all things were possible.  When President Kennedy challenged Americans to go to the moon, the question wasn’t whether we’d get there, it was only when we’d get there.

  The soles of Neil Armstrong’s boots on the moon made permanent impressions on OUR souls and in our national psyche. Ann and I watched those steps together on her parent’s sofa. Like all Americans we went to bed that night knowing we lived in the greatest country in the history of the world.

God bless Neil Armstrong.

Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon. And I don’t doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong’s spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.”

“It’s the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.

  That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: “you are better off today than you were four years ago.”

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president.”

“Now is the time to restore the Promise of America. Many Americans have given up on this president but they haven’t ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America.

What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn’t take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.

What America needs is jobs.

Lots of jobs.”

 

“I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon.

And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.

First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.

Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.

Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.

And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Today, women are more likely than men to start a business. They need a president who respects and understands what they do.

And let me make this very clear – unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class.

As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise…is to help you and your family.”

Background Articles and Videos

Full Text: Mitt Romney’s Acceptance Speech at the RNC

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/full-text-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech-at-the-rnc/261822/

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

Getting To Know You–Getting To Know All About You–2016 Obama’s America–The Movie–Videos

Posted on August 24, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Crime, Cult, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Films, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Introduction to “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza 

2016: Obama’s America – Trailer 1

2016: Obama’s America – Trailer 2

2016: Obama’s America – Trailer 3

2016 Obama’s America: Downsizing America 

part 1 Glenn Beck gbtv real news 2012 07 13 Dinesh D’Souza 2016 Obama

part 2 Glenn Beck gbtv real news 2012 07 13 Dinesh D’Souza 2016 Obama

(last) part 3 Glenn Beck gbtv real news 2012 07 13 Dinesh D’Souza 2016 Obama 

Megyn Kelly – Obama’s America 2016

Julie Andrews – Getting to know you

Rush: Go See D’Souza’s ‘2016: Obama’s America’, It’s Going Gangbusters

FIRST BOX OFFICE: Anti-Obama Movie #1

By NIKKI FINKE |

“…FRIDAY 2 PM: The anti-Obama movie 2016 Obama’s America went into wider release around America today and is opening right now in first place at the domestic box office. That’s quite a feat since the Rocky Mountain Pictures political documentary is still playing in only 1,090 North American theaters – or about 1/3 as many theaters as big-budget actioner The Expendables 2 (3,355 theaters). But these political documentaries like faith-based films are frontloaded. The Stallone picture from Millenium/Lionsgate is still expected to end the weekend #1 and should top the box office tonight. And, based on matinee trends, 2016 Obama’s America looks to gross $1.2M-$1.7M Friday for a $3.7M-$5.0M weekend. But right now it has grossed $700,000 today compared to $300,000 for The Expendables 2. Its new cume after this weekend could make it the #1 conservative documentary (ahead of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’s $7.7M). The success of the anti-Obama pic is based on big pre-sales leading into the Republican National Convention August 27-30, and exhibitors are reporting busloads of filmgoers arriving at theaters around the country in pre-organized trips. It also employed much of the same marketing techniques used to garner attention and support for faith-based films, understandable since the audience is overlapping. Its campaign included advertising nationally over the past two weeks on talk radio and cable news channels including Fox News Channel, A&E, History and MSNBC. …”

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Barack Obama’s Real Biological and Ideological Father and Mentor Was Frank Marshall Davis–Communist Party Member–Is Obama A Communist Agent of Influence Mole?–Who is your daddy?–Videos

The Smoking Gun: Barack Obama a.k.a. Barry Soetoro At Occidental College Claimed He Was A Foreign Citizen On Financial Aid Application!–Videos

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

Niall Ferguson–Obama’s Gotta Go–Videos

Posted on August 23, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Ferguson – Hit the Road Barack

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

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

Joel Skousen–Strategic Relocation: Preparing for the Economic Collapse–Videos

Posted on April 28, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

 

Secrets of Survival with Joel Skousen

Joel Skousen is a political scientist, by training, specializing in the philosophy of law and Constitutional theory, and is also a designer of high security residences and retreats. He has designed Self-sufficient and High Security homes throughout North America, and has consulted in Central America as well. His latest book in this field is Strategic Relocation–North American Guide to Safe Places, and is active in consulting with persons who need to relocate for security and increased self-sufficiency. He also assists people who need to live near a large city to develop contingency retreat plans involving rural farm or recreation property.
http://www.joelskousen.com/

Strategic Relocation: Preparing for the Economic Collapse with Joel Skousen

Joel Skousen: Strategic Relocation – North American Guide to Safe Places 1/5

Joel Skousen: Strategic Relocation – North American Guide to Safe Places 2/5

Joel Skousen: Strategic Relocation – North American Guide to Safe Places 3/5

Joel Skousen: Strategic Relocation – North American Guide to Safe Places 4/5

Joel Skousen: Strategic Relocation – North American Guide to Safe Places 5/5

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

“If I wanted America to fail” –Obama’s Radical Progressive Socialist Agenda for America–An Economic Suicide Pact–Videos

Posted on April 26, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24

“If I wanted America to fail”

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Obama says he wants high gas prices

President Obama Wants Higher Energy Prices

Tribute to Milton Friedman and the Humble Pencil

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Gas Prices Soar–President’s Popularity Plummets–Stop Wall Street Excessive Speculation Now!

Posted on March 13, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Courtney calls on CFTC to issue rules limiting the role of oil speculators

The Price Of Oil

‘We’ll see $5 at the pump in 2012′ – Oil Tycoon

Oil Cartel and speculators readying to push up oil prices

Facts About What is Driving High Gas Prices

CHHS Director discusses excessive speculation in oil markets

Oil Speculation

Gas prices in Dallas hit $3.80 per gallon and nationally averaged $3.95 per gallon.

When President Obama was sworn in in January 2009, gas prices were around $1.90.

In just over three years, gas prices have more than doubled and increased by over $2 per gallon.

In a CBS poll, 4 out of 5 Americans or 80 percent now believe they are not better off than they were when Obama took office.

President Obama’s job approval has now hit a new time low of 41 percent.

What has Obama done to lower gas price–next to nothing.

Obama lobbied against the Keystone XL pipeline that would have created nearly 100,000 jobs and supplied over 400,000 barrels of oil per day.

Obama faces backlash over Keystone pipeline

Barack Obama rejects Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada

Obama refused to lift the ban or moratorium on deep water oil exploration and drilling in the Gulf coast.

Voices from the Gulf

Bill Cassidy Address Obama’s Moratorium on Deep Water Drilling

Obama is destroying jobs not creating them.

Obama refused to lease land in ANWR in Alaska for oil exploration and drilling.

ANWR Drilling

Truth About ANWR

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil)

Obama’s deficit spending will add over $5 trillion to the national debt in just four years.

The value of the U.S. dollar has declined in value making the cost of all imports including crude oil, significantly more expensive.

Ron Paul ∞ Silver Price of Gas 10¢ a Gallon vs Fiat Dollar Lunatics Run the World Your a Slave !

The single most important thing to do to reduce gas prices is to reduce, if not eliminate excessive speculation in the futures contract commodities market.

Obama and both the Democratic and Republican parties have failed to stop this excessive speculation by hedge funds and investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Goldman Sachs Shares Fall After Greg Smith Resignation and Op-Ed

Can You Feel Sorry for Goldman?

The Real TRUTH Behind The OIL PRICES

CHHS Director on CNBC’s “Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril”

Goldman Sachs speculators take $1 for every gallon of gasoline you buy

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Weekly recap: What is behind rising gas prices?

Sen. Rand Paul Questions Energy Sec. Chu

Why?

The executives of these financial institutions are a major source of campaign contributions to both political parties.

As gas prices rise and unemployment remains above 8 percent, the chances of Barack Obama being re-elected become slim and none.

A Mere 80% Say They’re Not Better Off Than Four Years Ago

In today’s CBS News poll:

Compared to four years ago, is your family’s financial situation better today, worse today, or about the same?

The survey finds 20 percent say better today, 37 percent say worse today, and 43 percent say “about the same.”

Adjusted for Inflation, Gas Prices Look Even Worse

:…While the peak in the summer of 2008 was $4.27, the March 12 average of $3.83 surpasses everything else before it – from the beginning of the chart in 1920 (when only a small fraction of Americans owned cars!) and through the Great Depression and through the 1973 oil crisis and through the late 1970s and 1980s, the Persian Gulf War, and after 9/11. Note that every other spike in prices tends to coincide with economic hard times.In other words, adjusted for inflation, today’s gas prices – in March! — are worse than during every preceding gas pricespike, except the peak of summer in 2008. So what will the peak price be this summer?In March 2008, the national average was $3.20 per gallon. By June it was $4.08.The usually great Phil Klein says, “gas prices are highly volatile and it’s often hard to differentiate short-term fluctuations from long-term trends.” True enough, but there are a couple of factors driving up the price that aren’t likely to be alleviated between now and November: global demand, tensions with Iran, a weak dollar, industry fears that the administration is eager to impose new costs upon them, regulatory obstacles to expanding refinery capacity, etc. Then throw in the traditional increase in demand as summer approaches (which will slide as autumn arrives), and we’ll be enduring, at the very least, a long hot summer of high gas prices, even if autumn isn’t quite so bad. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/293313/adjusted-inflation-gas-prices-look-even-worse

Flashback – Obama on Gas Prices

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 65, March 9, 2012: Segment 2: Barack Obama Out of Silver Bullets In Reducing Gas Prices–Target Excessive Speculation In Crude Oil Future Contracts–The Silver Bullets–Overall Volume Limits, Individual Position Limits and Higher Margin Requirements–A Belt Load of Silver Bullets–Any Questions Mr. President?–Videos

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

Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination? Mitt Romney–Updated March 30, 2012–Videos

Posted on February 1, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Crime, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Expanded, Revised and Updated March 30, 2012

Big Government Progressive Neocon Romney

Will Be Republican Presidential Nominee In 2012

Fiscal, Libertarian and Traditional Conservatives

Will Bolt The Republican Party

 Santorum Takes Kansas, Romney Wins in Wyoming

Mitt Romney Wins Michigan and Arizona 

Ron Paul: “We’ve Drifted From Original Intent”

Ron Paul Michigan State University speech pt. 1

Romney Wins Maine Caucus – February 11, 2012

Ron Paul speech after 2nd place finish in Maine caucus 2/11/2012 

Santorum scores hat-trick in the Republican race

Rick Santorum Sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado Primaries; Mitt Romney Losing Frontrunner Status? 

 

27% Second Place Finish in Minnesota: Ron Paul Breaks through Yet Another Ceiling! 

Romney wins Nevada, hanging on to frontrunner status  

Romney Triumphs in Florida 

Ron Paul Interview on ABC’s ‘This Week’

The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012

Ron Paul ~ I Think We Can Get Out Of Our Mess By Having People Read The Constitution And Obey It 

Ron Paul Post FL Primary Speech ~ 1-30-2012 

2 Parties vs Ron Paul – Judge Andrew Napolitano

Who is winning the race for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination?

On March 13 Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum won 18 delegates in Alabama, 13 delegates in Mississippi and no delegates in America Soma.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won 11 delegates in Alabama, 12 delegates in Mississippi, and 9 delegates in America Soma. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won 12 delegates in Alabama and 11 delegates in Mississippii and none in Americ Soma. Texas Rep Ron Paul did win a single delegate.

On March 10 Romney won 9 delegates in Guam, 9 delegates in the Northern Marinas, 7 delegates in the Virgin Islands and 7 delegates in Kansas for a total of 32 delegates.  Santorum won the most delegates in Kansas, 33. Paul won a single delegate in the Virgin Islands.  Gingrich won no delegates.

Romney with 449 delegates is clearly the front-runner in the race for the 1,144 delegates needed to be nominated the Republican presidential candidate. Santorum is in second place with 224 delegates. Gingrich is in third place with 144 delegates. Paul is in fourth place with 73 delegates.

On March 6 Super TuesdayRomney won the most delegates in Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio Vermont and Virginia. Sen. Rick Santorum won the most delegates in Oklahoma, North Dakota and Tennessee.   Gingrich won 43 delegates out of 76 delegates in his home state of Georgia. Paul did not win a single state but did add a total of 21 delegates in Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia.

On March 3 Romney won the Washington primary with 19,111 votes or 37.65 percent of the popular vote winning 16 delegates. Ron Paul came in second with 12,954 votes or 24.81 percent of the popular vote winning 10 delegates. Santorum came in third with 12,089 votes or 23.81 percent. Gingrich received 5,221 votes or 10.28 percent of the popular vote.

On Feb.28, Romney won the Michigan and Arizona primaries. Both Michigan and Arizona were penalized for scheduling their primary early and lost 50 percent of their delegates. Arizona was a closed primary with the statewide winner taking all the 29 delegates. Michigan was an open primary with winner-take-all in each congressional district and proportional for the statewide delegates.

Romney received 216,085 votes or 44.27 percent of the popular vote, thereby winning all of Arizona’s 29 delegates. Santorum received 122,008 votes or 26.62 percent of the popular vote. Gingrich received 74,110 votes or 16.66 percent of the popular vote. Paul received 38,753 votes or 8.45 percent of the popular vote.

Romney defeated Santorum in Michigan’s open primary by over 30,000 vote. Romney received 409,131 votes or 40.07 percent of the popular vote, winning 15 delegates. Santorum received 377, 153 or 37.86 of the popular vote, winning 13 delegates. Paul came in third with 115,778 votes or 11.62percent of the vote and received zero delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 65,007 or 6.53 percent and received zero delegates.

On Feb. 11, Romney narrowly beat Paul in the Maine caucus by just 194 votes. Romney received 2,190 or 39.6 percent of the popular vote, winning eight delegates. Paul received 1,996 or 36.1 percent of the popular vote, winning eight delegates. Santorum came in third with 989 or 17.9 percent of the popular vote, winning four delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 349 or 6.3 percent of the popular vote, winning one delegate.

Since several Maine counties have scheduled their county caucuses after Feb. 11, the vote count will change. Washington County was the only county caucus scheduled for Feb. 11 that was postponed due to a forecasted 3-5-inch snow storm. Washington County was expected to heavily favor Paul over Romney based on the Feb. 7 precinct caucus results.

The voters of Maine are usually accustomed to driving on snow-covered roads. Several counties along Maine’s coastline had the same snow storm forecast including Cumberland County, which includes Portland, where Romney ran ahead of Paul. The Washington County caucus postponement appears politically motivated. Romney’s campaign needed a first-place win in Maine to counter the momentum of Santorum’s three wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Paul was apparently robbed of a first-place finish by Maine’s Republican Party’s decision to postpone the Washington County caucus due to snow.

When all the votes are counted next week, Paul said, “If I were a betting man, I would bet that we will control the Maine caucus when we go to Tampa,” the site of the Republican National Convention.

Romney is still the national front-runner in the race for the Republican Party’s nomination for president with an estimated total of 107 delegates. Santorum is second with 43 delegates, former Speaker of the House Gingrich is third with 42 delegates and Paul is fourth with 36 delegates.

On Feb. 7, Santorum jolted the race for 1,144 delegates and the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination by a three state sweep of first place finishes in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. In his victory speech to his supporters, Santorum said, “Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.” His supporters shouted, “We pick Rick.”

Santorum won the Republican open non-binding Minnesota caucus on Feb. 7 with 21,436 or 44.81 percent of the popular vote, winning 17 delegates. Paul came in second with 13,030 or 27.24 percent of the popular vote, winning 10 delegates. Romney came in third with 8,096 or 16.92 percent of the popular vote, winning 6 delegates. Gingrich came in fourth with 5,134 or 10.73 percent or 10.73 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates.

No candidate won any of the 52 delegates in the Missouri “straw poll” or non-binding primary on Feb.7. However, Santorum won with the primary with 138,957 or 55.17 percent of the popular vote. Romney came in second with 63,826 or 25.34 percent of the popular vote. Paul came in third with 30,641 or 12.17 percent of the popular vote. Delegates will be selected on the March 7 county caucus.

Santorum also won the Republican closed non-binding Colorado caucus on Feb.7 with 26,372 or 40.24 percent of the populat vote, winning 13 delegates. Romney came in second with 22,875 or 34.91 percent of the popular vote winning 12 delegates. Gingrich came in third with 8,394 or 12.81 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates. Paul came in fourth with 7,713 or 11.77 percent of the popular vote, winning 4 delegates.

Romney won the Republican closed Nevada Caucus on Feb. 5 with 16,486 or 50.10 percent of the popular vote, winning 14 delegates. Romney beat out second place finisher, Gingrich, with 6,956 votes or 21.10 percent of the popular vote, winning 6 delegates. Paul finished third with 6,175 votes or 18.73 percent of the popular vote, winning 5 delegates. Santorum came in fourth with 3,277 votes or 9.94percent of the popular vote. winning 3 delegates.

Romney won the Republican Party’s closed Florida primary on Jan 31 with 774,989 votes or 46.42 percent of the popular vote, thereby winning all of the state’s 50 delegates. Romney beat out second place finisher, Gingrich, with 533,091 votes or 31.93 percent of the popular vote. Santorum came in third with 222,790 votes or 13.34 percent of the popular vote. Paul finished fourth with 117,100 votes or 7.01 percent of the popular vote.

Romney has now won in five states–Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Florida and Nevada–and has a total of 99 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 1,117,894. In second place is Gingrich, with a total of 41delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 837,302. In third place is former Santorum with 39 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 381,793 votes. In fourth place is Paul with 28 delegates with an estimated total popular vote of 305,228.

Gingrich will petition the Republican Party of Florida to allocate delegates proportionally rather than on a winner-take-all basis. Republican Party rule 15 (b) (2) clearly states “Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.” This rule was approved by the Republican Party National committee in August 2010 for the 2012 Presidential nominating process. If Gingrich is successful, Romney would receive 23 delegates instead of 50 and Gingrich would receive 16 delegates instead of zero. Gingrich would then have a total of 48 delegates and would be slightly behind Romney with 54 delegates.

The estimated total delegate count is summarized in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012

Estimated Delegate Count By Candidate and State

State

Romney

Gingrich

Santorum

Paul

Totals*

Iowa

6

4

6

6

28

New Hampshire

9

0

0

3

12

South Carolina

2

23

0

0

25

Florida

50

0

0

0

50

Nevada

14

6

3

5

28

Minnesota

6

4

17

10

40

Colorado

12

4

13

4

36

Maine

8

2

4

7

24

Arizona

29

0

0

0

29

Michigan

15

0

15

0

30

Wyoming

10

2

8

6

29

Washington

16

4

10

10

43

Alaska

 8  3  7  6

27

Georgia

 13  46  2  0

76

Idaho

 32  0  0  0

32

Massachusetts

 38  0  0  0

41

North Dakota

 7  2  11  8

28

Ohio

 35  0  21  0

66

Oklahoma

 13  13  14  0

43

Tennessee

 10  8  25  0

58

Vermont

 9  0  4  4

17

Virginia

 43  0  0  3

49

Guam

9 0 0 0

9

Northern Marianas

9 0 0 0

9

Virgin Islands

7 0 0 1

9

Kansas

7 0 33 0

40

America Soma

9 0 0 0

9

Alabama

11 14 22 0

50

Mississippi

12 12 13 0

40

Hawaii

9 0 5 3

20

Missouri

0 0 0 0

52

Utah

0 0 0 0

40

Washington

16 4 10 10

43

Puerto Rico

20 0 0 0

23

Illinois

42 0 12 0

69

Louisiana

5 0 10 0

46

District of Columbia

0 0 0 0

19

Maryland

0 0 0 0

37

Wisconsin

0 0 0 0

42

0 0 0 0

0

Totals

521

148

249

73

1205

*Totals include all delegates including those that are available but not pledged to a candidate such as each state’s party leadership delegates or delegates for candidates that have dropped out of the race.

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R     http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WY-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AK-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ID-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ND-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OK-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/TN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VT-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GU-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MP-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/KS-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AS-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AL-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MS-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/HI-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA     http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/PR-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IL-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/LA-R

The estimated popular vote count is set forth in the table below:

Republican Party U.S. Presidential 2012

Estimated Popular Vote By Candidate and State

State

Romney

Gingrich

Santorum

Paul

Totals*

Iowa

29,805

16,163

29,839

26,036

121,501

New Hampshire

97,591

23,421

23,432

56,872

248,475

South Carolina

168,152

244,113

102,482

78,362

603,856

Florida

776,159

534,121

223,429

117,461

1,672,634

Nevada

16,486

6,956

3,277

6,175

32,963

Colorado

23,012

8,445

26,614

7,759

66,027

Minnesota

8,222

5,272

21,932

13,228

48,795

Maine

2,269

391

1,052

2,030

5,814

Arizona

216,805

74,110

122,088

38,753

458,631

Michigan

409,120

65,002

377,144

115,778

996,156

Wyoming

822

165

673

439

2,108

Washington

19,111

5,221

12,089

12,594

50,764

Alaska

 4,224  1,832  3,760  3,106     12,956

Georgia

     225,925  417,362  172,471  57,126  879,763

Idaho

 27,513  938  8,113  8,087   44,667

Massachusetts

 260,508  16,754  43,612  34,576  361,387

North Dakota

 2,690 960  4,508  3,187  11,345

Ohio

453,926 174,604 441,906  110,634  1,194,873

Oklahoma

80,290 78,684  96,757  27,573  286,301

Tennessee

153,888 132,140  204,976  49,783  550,174

Vermont

 22,532  4,606  13,399  14,408  59,614

Virginia

 158,049  0  0  107.471  265,520

Guam

207 0 0 0 207

Northern Marianas

740 27 53 78 848

Virgin Islands

101 18 23 112 384

Kansas

6,250 4,298 15,290 3,767 29,855

American Soma

0 0 0 0 70

Alabama

180,249 182,195 214,543 30,893 621,747

Mississippi

88,714 90,407 94,749 12,750 289,939

Hawaii

4,513 1,096 2,555 1,902 10,066

Missouri

63,826 0 138,957 30,641 251,868

Utah

0 0 0 0 0

Washington

19,111 5,221 12,089 12,594 50,764

Puerto Rico

98,375 2,431 9,524 1,452 118,696

Illinois

433,695 73,999 325,482 86,602 929,015

Louisiana

49,749 29,655 91,305 11.460 186,377

District of Columbia

0 0 0 0 0

Maryland

0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Total Vote*

   2,929,937

1,815,603

1,948,919 895,395

8,005,619

Popular Vote Percentage

36.60%

22.68%

24.34%

11.18%

100.00%

*For all candidates on the ballot and write-ins.

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R     http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WY-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AK-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ID-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ND-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OH-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OK-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/TN-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VT-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VA-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GU-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MP-R http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/KS-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AS-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AL-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MS-R  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/HI-R    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA     http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/PR-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IL-R   http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/LA-R

 On March 24 the voters of Louisiana voted in a closed primary.

Results for Louisiana Republican Closed Primary

U.S. Presidential March 24, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 91,305 48.99% 10
Willard “Mitt” Romney 49,749 26.69% 5
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 26,655 15.91% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 11,460 6.15% 0
Available

31

Totals 12,956 100.00%

46

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/LA-R

*Alaska has a total of 46 delegates consisting of 18 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 15 bonus.

On March 20 the voters of Illinois voted in a open primary.

Results for Illinois Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 20, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 433,695 46.68% 44
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 325,482 35.04% 12
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 86,602 9.32% 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 73,999 7.97% 0
Available

13

Totals 929,015 100.00%

69

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IL-R

*Illinois has a total of 69 delegates consisting of 54 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 2 bonus.

On March 18 the voters of Puerto Rico voted in a open primary.

Results for Puerto Rico Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 18, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 98,375 82.88% 20
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 69,524 8.02% 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 2,431 2.05% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 1,452 1.22% 0
Available/Uncommitted

3

Totals 118,696 100.00%

23

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/PR-R

*Puerto Rico has a total of 23 delegates consisting of 20 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On March 3 the voters of Washington voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Washington Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 3, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 19,111 37.65% 16
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 12,594 24.81% 10
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 12,089 23.81% 10
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 5,221 10.28% 4
Available

3

Totals 50,764 100.00%

43

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA-R

*Washington has a total of 43 delegates consisting of 30 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On February 7 the voters of  Missouri voted in a non-binding primary.

Results for Missouri Republican Non-binding Primary

U.S. Presidential February 7, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 138,957 55.17% 0
Willard “Mitt” Romney 63,826 25.34% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 30,641 14.40% 0
 Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 0 0.00% 0
Available

0

Totals 251,868 100.00%

52

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MO-R

*Missouri has a total of 52 delegates consisting of 24 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 15 bonus.

On March 13 the voters of Hawaii voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Hawaii Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 13, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 4,513 44.83% 9
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 2,555 25.38% 5
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 1,902 18.09% 3
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 1,096 10.89% 0
Available/Uncommitted

3

Totals 10,066 100.00%

20

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AK-R

*Hawaii has a total of 20 delegates consisting of 6 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 1 bonus.

On March 13 the voters of Mississippi voted in a open primary.

Results for Mississippi Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 13, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 94,979 32.76% 13
Willard “Mitt” Romney 90,407 31.18% 12
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 88,714 30.60% 12
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 12,750 4.40% 0
Available/Uncommitted

3

Totals 289.939 100.00%

40

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MS-R

*Mississippi has a total of 40 delegates consisting of 12 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 15 bonus.

On March 13 the voters of Alabama voted in an open primary.

Results for Alabama Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 13, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 214,543 34.51% 22
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 182,195 29.30% 14
Willard “Mitt” Romney 180,249 28.99% 11
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 30,893 4.97% 0
Available/Uncommitted

3

Totals 621,747 100.00%

50

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AL-R

*Alabama has a total of 50delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus.

On March 13 the voters of America Soma voted in a open caucus.

Results for America Soma Republican Open Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 13, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 9
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 0
Available

0

Totals 70 estimate 100.00%

9

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AS-R

*America Soma has a total of 9 delegates consisting of 6 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On March 10 the voters of Kansas voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Kansas Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 15,290 51.21% 33
Willard “Mitt” Romney 6,250 20.93% 7
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 4,298 14.40% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 3,767 12.62% 0
Available

0

Totals 29,855 100.00%

40

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/KS-R

*Kansas has a total of 40 delegates consisting of 12 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 15 bonus.

On March 10 the voters of Virgin Islands voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Virgin Islands Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 112 29.17% 1
Willard “Mitt” Romney 101 23.60% 3
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 23 5.99% 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 18 4.69% 0
Available/Uncommitted  130  33.85%

5

Totals 12,956 100.00%

9

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R

*Virgin Islands has a total of 9 delegates consisting of 6 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On March 10 the voters of Northern Marianas voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Northern Marianas Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 740 87.26% 9
 Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 53 20.93% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 28 14.40% 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 27 12.62% 0
Available

0

Totals 848 100.00%

9

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MP-R

* Northern Marianas has a total of 9 delegates consisting of6 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On March 10 the voters of Guam voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Guam Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 207 100.00% 9
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 0 0.00% 0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich 0 0.00% 0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul 0 0.00% 0
Available

0

Totals 29,855 100.00%

9

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GU-R

*Guam has a total of 9 delegates consisting of 6 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On March 6 the voters of Alaska voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Alaska Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 6 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney  4,224  32.60%  8
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  3,760  29.02%  7
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  3,106  23.97%  6
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  1,832  14.14%  3
Available

3

Totals  12,956  100.00%

27

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AK-R

*Alaska has a total of 27 delegates consisting of 3 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 11 bonus.

On March 6 the voters of Georgia voted in a modified primary.

Results for Georgia Republican Modified Primary

U.S. Presidential March 7, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
    417,362    47.44%  46
Willard “Mitt” Romney    225,925   25.68%  13
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum    172,471   19.60%  2
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul     57,126  6.49%  0
Available  15
Totals     879,763

100.00%

76

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-R

*Georgia has a total of 76 delegates consisting of 42 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 21 bonus delegates.

On March 6 the voters of Idaho voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Idaho Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney  27,513  61.60%  32
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  8,113  18.16%  0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  8,087  18.11%  0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  938  2.10%  0
Available  0
Totals  44,667

100.00%

32

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ID-R

*Idaho has a total of 32 delegates consisting of 6 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 13 bonus delegates

On March 6 the voters of Massachusetts voted in a modified primary.

Results for Massachusetts Republican Modified Primary

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney  260,508  72.09%  38

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum

 43,612  12.07%  0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  34,576  9.57%  0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  16,754  4.64%  0
Available

3

Totals  361,387

100.00%

41

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MA-R

*Massachusetts has a total of 41 delegates consisting of 9 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 1 bonus delegate.

On March 6 the voters of North Dakota voted in a closed caucus.

Results for North Dakota Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum
4,508  39.74%  11
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  3,187  28.09%  8
Willard “Mitt” Romney  2,690  23.71%  7
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  960  8.46%  2
Available  0
Totals  11,345

100.00%

28

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ND-R

*North Dakota has a total of 28 delegates consisting of 3 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 12 bonus delegates.

On March 6 the voters of Ohio voted in a modified primary.

Results for Ohio Republican Modified Primary

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney   453,926  37.99%  35
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  441,906  36.98%  21
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  174,604  14.61%  0
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  110,634  9.26%  0
Available

10

Totals 1,194,873

100.00%

66

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OH-R

*Ohio has a total of 66 delegates consisting of 48 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates and 5 bonus delegates.

On March 6 the voters of Oklahoma voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Oklahoma Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  96,757  33.80%  14
Willard “Mitt” Romney  80,290  28.04%  13
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  78,684  27.48%  13
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  27,573  9.63%  0
Available

3

Totals

100.00%

43

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/OK-R

*Oklahoma has a total of 43 delegates consisting of 15 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 15 bonus delegates.

On March 6 the voters of  Tennessee voted in a open primary.

Results for Tennessee Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  204,976  37.26%  25
Willard “Mitt” Romney  153,888  27.97% 10
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  132,140  24.02%  8
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  49,783  9.05%  0
Available

15

Totals  550,174

100.00%

58

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/TN-R

*Tennessee has a total of 58 delegates consisting of 27 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates and 18 bonus delegates

On March 6 the voters of Vermont voted in an open primary.

Results for Vermont Republican Open Primary

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney 22,532  39.80%  9
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  14,408  25.45%  4
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum  13,399  23.67%  4
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  4,606  8.14% 0
Available
Totals  56,614

100.00%

17

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VT-R

*Vermont has a total of 17 delegates consisting of 3 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 1 bonus delegate.

On March 6 the voters of Virginia voted in an open primary.

Results for Virginia Republican Closed Caucus

U.S. Presidential March 6, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard “Mitt” Romney   158,049  59.52%  43
Ronald E. “Ron” Paul  107.471  40.48%  3
Richard J. “Rick” Santorum 0  0.00%  0
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich  0 0.00%  0
Available  3
Totals    265,520

100.00%

49

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VA-R

*Virginia has a total of 49 delegates consisting of 33 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates.

On March 3 the voters of Washington voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Washington Republican Closed Caucus 

U.S.   Presidential March 3, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

19,111

37.65%

16

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

12,594

24.81%

10

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

12,089

23.81%

10

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

5,221

10.28%

4

Available

3

Totals

996,156

100.00%

43

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WA-R

*Wyoming has a total of  43 delegates consisting of 30 congressional district delegates, 10  at-large delegates and 3 party leader delegates.

On Feb. 29 the voters of Wyoming voted in a closed caucus.

Results for Wyoming Republican Caucus

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 29, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

822

38.99%

10

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

673

31.03%

8

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

439

20.83%

6

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

165

7.83%

2

Available

3

Totals

996,156

100.00%

29

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WY-R

*Wyoming has a total of  29 delegates consisting of 3 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 13 bonus delegates.

On Feb. 28 the voters of Michigan voted in an open primary.

Results for Michigan Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 28, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

409,131

40.07%

15

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

377,153

37.86%

13

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

115,778

11.62%

0

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

65,007

6.53%

0

Available

2

Totals

996,156

100.00%

30

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and   Conventions.http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MI-R*Michigan would have had a total of  59 delegates consisting of 42 congressional district delegates, 10   at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 4 bonus delegates.   However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Feb. 28 and under the   Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.
On Feb. 28 the voters of Arizona voted in an open primary.

Results for Arizona Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 28, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

216,805

47.27%

29

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

122,088

26.62%

0

Newton Leroy   “Newt” Gingrich

74,110

16.66%

0

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

38,753

8.45%

0

Totals

458,681

100.00%

50

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and   Conventions.http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/AZ-R#0228*Arizona would have had a total of 58 delegates consisting of 27 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 18 bonus delegates.   However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the   Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as guests.

From Feb.3-11 the voters of Maine voted in a closed causus.

Results for Maine Republican Caucus

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 11, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

2,190

39.64%

8

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

1,996

36.13%

8

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

989

17.90%

4

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

349

6.32%

1

Available

3

Totals

5,585

100.00%

24

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ME-R#0211

*Maine has a total of 24 delegates consisting of 6 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 5 bonus delegates. The 24 National Convention delegates are not bound to the candidate.

On Feb. 7 the voters of Minnesota voted in a closed causus.

Results for Minnesota Republican Caucus

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 7, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

21,436

44.81%

17

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

13,030

27.24%

10

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

8,096

16.92%

6

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

5,134

10.73%

4

Available

3

Totals

47,836

100.00%

40

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/MN-R#0207

*Minnesota has a total of 40 delegates consisting of 24 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates. The 40 National Convention delegates are proportionally bound to Presidential candidates based on the caucus vote.

On Feb. 7 the voters of Colorado voted in a closed causus.

Results for Colorado Republican Caucus

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 7, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

26,372

40.24%

13

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

22,875

43.91%

12

Newton Leroy   “Newt” Gingrich

8,394

12.81%

4

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

7,713

11.77%

4

Available

3

Totals

32,961

100.00%

36

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CO-R#0207

*Colorado has a total of 36 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 2 bonus delegates. The 36 National Convention delegates are are not bound to Presidential candidates.

On Feb.5 the voters of Nevada voted in the second closed causus state.

Results for Nevada Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Feb. 7, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

16,486

50.02%

14

Newton Leroy   “Newt” Gingrich

6,956

21.10%

6

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

6,175

18.73%

5

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

3,277

9.94%

3

Totals

32,961

100.00%

28

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and   Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R#0204

*Nevada has a total of 28 delegates consisting of 12 congressional district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 3 bonus delegates. The 28 National Convention delegates are proportionally bounf to Presidential candidates based on the caucus vote.

On Jan. 31 the voters of Florida voted in the first closed primary state where the candidate with the most votes statewide receives all of the state’s 50 delegates. Romney won and received all Florida’s 50 delegates.

Results for Florida Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Jan. 31, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

774,989

46.42%

50

Newton Leroy   “Newt” Gingrich

533,091

31.93%

0

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

222,790

13.34%

0

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

117,100

7.01%

0

Totals

1,669,585

100.00%

50

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/FL-R

*Florida would have had a total of   99 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates, 10   at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus delegates.   However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under the   Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also,   the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as   guests.

On Jan. 21 the voters of South Carolina voted in the second open primary state where the candidate with the most votes statewide receives 11 delegates and the winner in each congressional district receives two delegates. Gingrich won statewide and received 11 delegates and won six congressional districts for additional 12 delegates for a total of 23 delegates. Romney won one congressional district and received two delegates.

Results for South Carolina Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Jan. 21, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Newton Leroy   “Newt” Gingrich

244,113

40.43%

23

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

168,152

27.85%

2

Richard J.   “Rick” Santorum

102,482

16.97%

0

Ronald E.   “Ron” Paul

78,362

12.98%

0

Herman Cain

6,338

1.05%

0

James Richard   “Rick” Perry

2,534

0.42%

0

Jon M.   Huntsman, Jr.

1,173

0.19%

0

Michele   M. Bachmann

491

0.03%

0

Totals

603,856

100.00%

25

Source: The Green Papers, 2012 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and   Conventions.     http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/SC-R

*South Carolina would have had a   total of 50 delegates consisting of 21 congressional district delegates,   10 at-large delegates, 3 party leader delegates and 16 bonus delegates.   However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 22 and under   the Rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates.   Also, the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention   as guests.

On Jan 10 the voters of New Hampshire voted in the first state primary where the states 12 delegates were bound proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.

Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary

U.S.   Presidential Jan. 10, 2012

Candidate

Popular   Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Willard   “Mitt” Romney

97,591

39.28%

7

Ronald   E. “Ron” Paul

56,872

22.89%

3

Jon M.   Huntsman, Jr.

41,964

16.89%

2

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

23,421

9.43%

0

Richard   J. “Rick” Santorum

23,405

9.42%

0

James   Richard “Rick” Perry

1,764

.71%

0

Michele   M. Bachmann

350

.14%

0

Available

3

Totals

248,448

100.00%

15

Source: The Green Papers, 2012   Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions.       http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NH-R

*New Hampshire  would have had a total of 23 delegates consisting of six district delegates,   10 at-large delegates, three party leader delegates and four bonus delegates.   However, the state rescheduled the state primary to Jan. 10 and under the   rules of the Republican Party forfeited 50 percent of its delegates. Also,   the three state party leader delegates attend the national convention as   nonvoting delegates.

On Jan. 3 the voters of Iowa met in 1,774 precinct caucuses to vote for their choice for the Republican presidential candidate by electing delegates to their county conventions.  The 99 county conventions then select delegates to the Iowa Congressional District Convention and the State Convention on June 12. This convention determines the delegates to the Republican National Convention. In 2012 Iowa will send 28 delegates to the nominating convention including 10 at-large, 12 for the four congressional districts (three per district), three party and three bonus. However, unlike other states where delegates are usually bound for the first vote, Iowa delegates are soft-pledged or not bound to vote for a particular candidate.

Results for Iowa   Republican Caucus

U.S. Presidential Jan. 03, 2012

Candidate

Popular Vote

Percentage

Delegates*

Richard J. “Rick” Santorum

29,839

24.56%

6

Willard “Mitt” Romney

29,805

24.53%

6

Ronald E. “Ron” Paul

26,036

21.43%

6

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich

16,163

13.30%

4

Richard J. “Rick” Perry

12,557

10.33%

3

Michele M. Bachmann

6,046

4.98%

0

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.

739

0.61%

0

Available

3

Totals 

121,501

100.000%

28

Source: The Green Papers, 2012   Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/IA-R   

*Iowa has a total of 28 delegates   consisting of 12 district delegates, 10 at-large delegates, three party   leader delegates and three bonus delegates. The 25 non- party leader   delegates were allocated to the candidates with more than five percent of the   popular vote. This is an estimate that will change by the time the state   convention meets.

On Super Tuesday, March 6, the greatest number of states hold their primary and caucus elections with the greatest number of national convention delegates, 437, elected on a single date. There are seven primary states–Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia; and three caucus states–Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota holding elections on this date.

A firm date for the Texas open primary is still awaiting a federal court decision by a three-judge panel in San Antonio approving Texas voting maps. The primary will most likely take place on May 29 for 155 delegates.

 [Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Pronk Pops Show 61:February 8, 2011

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Republican Party Presidential Candidates Race to Win 1,144 Delegates–Updated Delegate Count–Videos

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondpronk.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D54603%26action%3Dedit%26message%3D1&jsref=&rnd=1328723617395

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

Newt Gingrich Attacks Short-Sighted Stunningly Stupid Socialist: Comrade Obama Rejects Canadian Keystone XL Pipeline–Job Creator and Energy Supplier For Communist China!–Barack Hussein Obama–The Redistributor–Videos

Posted on January 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

  WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.”

~Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Newt calls Obama’s Pipeline decision “stupidity” – like he’s “governing Mars”

Obama Nixes Keystone Pipeline 

Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade

Obama rejects Canada pipeline plan

Glimmer of Hope: Obama Admin Rejects Keystone XL

Speaker Boehner: “This is Not the End of the Fight” for Keystone Energy Jobs

Rep. Fred Upton discusses Keystone pipeline project with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow

Flores Denounces Obama’s Decision to Reject the Job-Creating Keystone XL Pipeline

Canada Will Sell Oil To China If US Keeps Delaying The Pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline Controversy

Keystone Pipeline: No Brainer

Keystone pipeline fallout

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1EeEb1DGg&feature=related]

Obama faces Canadian pipeline dilemma

Energy Security: Rep. Barton urges President to