Immigration

The Skyrocketing U.S. National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities For Medicare and Social Security — Videos

Posted on May 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Climate, College, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Bankruptcy of the United States, Business, deficit spending, deficits, Federal Reserve System, government, Gross National Debt, Jobs, Money, national debt, Politics, Publicly Held Debt, Unfunded Liabilities, Who Holds The Publicly Held Debt |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Most Important Problem

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts

Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke

Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco

US Debt A Threat To National Security

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

Funding Government by the Minute

Why Not Print More Money?

Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?

US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained

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

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.

With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.

Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.

Revenues

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

Outlays

In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.

Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.

Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:

Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.

Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.

Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.

Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.

The Economic Outlook for 2013

CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.

Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

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

Stephen Coughlin — Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe — Videos

Posted on April 29, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Strategy, Terrorism, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: Islamic Law, Jihadist, Stephen Coughlin, Terrorism |

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had an demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

PARTS OF THIS SERIES:

(1) Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
(2) Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
(3) Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process
(4) The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
(5) The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Enforcing Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Steven Coughlin Remarks on the Benghazi Embassy Cover Up

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

The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos

Posted on April 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Bankrupt, Bonds, Boom, Bubble, Bust, Central Banks, Currency War, deficit spending, Economic Collapse, Economics, fiat money, fiscal policy, Global Economic Crash, gold, Harry Dent, inflation, Jim Rickards, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Max Kaiser, monetary policy, national debt, New Gold Standard, Peter Schifff, Photos, Politics, Printing Money, Stock and Bond Bubble Burst, Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014, Stocks, Tax Policy, The Fed, The Federal Reserve System, Videos |

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!

Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April

U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers

JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′

Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014

Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis

Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets

Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?

MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report

ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!

Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards

Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)

James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar

Currency Wars: Jim Rickards

Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser

CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber

Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1

Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2

Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!

Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything

Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview

Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists

Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”

ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING

Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013

Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014

Background Articles and Videos

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010

Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)

The Fall of Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.

Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

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

Special Report Breit Baier On The Saudi National Deportation 212 3-b for Terrorist Activities — Videos

Posted on April 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Terrorism, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi, Breit Baier, deportation, Deportation Order, Event File, Glenn Beck, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Saudi Arabia, Saudi National, Sean Hannity, Terrorist Activities |

Bret Baier – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Bob Trent – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.24

The Glenn Beck Program Saudi Suspect/Boston Bombing Air Date: 4-24-13.

Multiple Confirmations of Immediate Deportation of Saudi National in Boston Bombing

Saudi National and Boston Student Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Is Being Deported

Janet Napolitano Speaks About Saudi National – TheBlazeTV – Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Janet Napolitano refuses to answer questions about the deportation of Saudi national 04/18/13

Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection

Saudi Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Boston Bombing Suspect Deported–why????

Background Articles and Videos

Rand Paul Discusses Gun Control, Immigration Reform, and Boston Bombing – Glenn Beck 4/18/2013

Piers Morgan BULLIES Gun Right Advocate John Lott Live on TV: ‘I Suggest You Keep Quiet’

Politics of Gun Control, Part 1: NRA, Congress and America’s Social Capital

Politics of Gun Control, Part 2: NRA, Congress and America’s Social Capital

Second Amendment Activist Nikki Goeser and Author John Lott

Feldman The Appeaser

I noticed Uncle linked to this piece in the Seattle PI. It’s worthwhile to remind everyone exactly who Richard Feldman is. As it mentions at the end of the article, Feldman “became too close to ‘the enemy’ and was sacked as a lobbyist.” Feldman was canned because he was more interested in cutting deals with anti-gunners, and seeking out media attention than he was fighting for gun rights.

Now, before anyone goes “But Sebastian, you always say that sometimes you have to make a deal?” That’s true, but there’s a difference between brokering a deal that makes something that would be really bad a bit less awful, which sometimes you have to do, and actively trying to make deals you don’t need to with the anti-gunners and hope they go away happy. We all know that won’t work. Feldman is the latter type.

It’s worthwhile to remember why he was forced to resign from his position at American Shooting Sport Council. After a series of disastrous appeasements of the Clinton Administration, Feldman became an advocate for settling the lawsuits that were brought by various cities against the firearms industry instead of fighting them. Feldman poorly understood when it was smart to cut a deal, and when you should fight. NRA chose to fight, and the industry quickly got together on that and showed Feldman the door.

So it’s worthwhile to remember that Feldman has an axe to grind.

The NRA, he says, would love to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, because once again it would have an adversary in power. “In the endless struggle, it is always better to fight than to win,” he said last week. “For the NRA, losing is winning.”

And the NRA will spend large sums of money trying to defeat Hillary, just like they did Al Gore, even though Feldman also claims Al Gore would have been better for fund raising. If they are in it merely for the money, it would seem that they don’t know what’s good for them.

The gun issue ain’t going away folks, and there will never be a time when we can stop fighting and NRA can go back to being a shooting sports organization. I doubt highly that Chris Cox lies awake at night worrying he might be so successful that he’ll be out of a job.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/11/05/feldman-the-appeaser/

Richard Feldman’s Middle Ground

There’s a few ways you can look at Richard Feldman’s middle ground. SayUncle thinks Richard Feldman needs to take a closer look at the media, and that’s certainly true, but I also think Feldman, perhaps as a public relations tactic, or perhaps out of a desire to appear reasonable, often makes the assertion that both sides are extreme, and can’t we all just come to a middle ground and this issue? I can understand the sentiment, and agree that Feldman’s position can be useful in persuading people who are perhaps a bit tired of the issue. But as Feldman, who has a background in lobbying ought to know, there’s nothing about the political process that involves people, in good faith and with honest, sincere intentions, coming together to fix a problem.

I’ve read Feldman’s book Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, which I enjoyed, even though I have disagreements with him on a number of things. One of the areas I disagree with him, and that he hints at in his LA Times article, is that both sides in this issue want to keep things going for the sake of fundraising, and that is preventing us from bringing this issue to a reasonable conclusion. Both sides use some shameful methods of fundraising. I’ve criticized NRA for it in the past, and have done so privately with staff in Fairfax as well. But fundraising is a necessary and vital function of every interest group out there, and I wouldn’t say our issue is alone in that. We do it, the Bradys do it, ACU does it, ACLU does it, NRLF does it, NOW does it, and all of them, at one point or another, will use scare tactics to get you to open up your wallet, because scare tactics work. But as much as Feldman might want to believe that’s what’s keeping the issue from resolving, he’s kidding himself. Let’s take a look at his article:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren’t ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

The LA Times aside, I think that’s the direction the debate is actually moving in, largely because the Supreme Court has settled the debate over guns in our society by taking prohibition off the table. But is that going to resolve the issue? Are both sides going to suddenly come to an agreement and find Congress completely willing to broker the deal for us, no tricks or subterfuge? Hardly. I don’t think you’d find any fundamental disagreement between Richard Feldman, most of us, and many gun control groups, over the statement above. It’s the details where you’ll find the devil, not in the intransigence of either side. As much as I think Mr. Feldman will seem the reasonable one for looking for a middle ground, I think it cheapens the legitimate disagreements and concerns of both sides in the debate, which I will talk about in the next post.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/12/09/richard-feldmans-middle-ground/

National Rifle Association of America (NRA)

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization^[3] founded in 1871 that promotes firearm ownership, as well as police training, firearm safety, marksmanship, hunting and self-defense training in the United States. The NRA is designated by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) and its lobbying branch is a 501(c)(4) organization.^[4]^[5]^[6]

The NRA is the parent organization of affiliated groups such as the tax-deductible NRA Foundation and a lobbying group, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA). The NRA is also one of the United States’ largest certifying bodies for firearm safety training and proficiency training courses for police departments, recreational hunting, and child firearm safety. The organization publishes several magazines and sponsors marksmanship events featuring shooting skill and sports.

The NRA’s political activity is based on the idea that firearm ownership is a civil right protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.^[7] The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members. Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington.^[6]^[8] NRA membership reached 4.5 million in 2013.^[9]^[10]

History

Origins

The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 17, 1871^[11] by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate. Its first president was Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, and Wingate was the original secretary of the organization. Church succeeded Burnside as president in the following year.

Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, causing General Burnside to lament his recruits: “Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn.”^[12] The generals attributed this to the use of volley tactics, devised for earlier, less accurate smoothbore muskets.^[13]^[14]

Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies’ marksmanship training programs. With plans provided by Wingate, the New York Legislature funded the construction of a modern range at Creedmore, Long Island, for long-range shooting competitions. Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.^[12]

After winning the British Empire championship at Wimbledon, London, in 1874, the Irish Rifle Team issued a challenge through the New York Herald to riflemen of the United States to raise a team for a long-range match to determine an Anglo-American championship. The NRA organized a team through a subsidiary amateur rifle club. Remington Arms and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing Company produced breech-loading weapons for the team. Although muzzle-loading rifles had long been considered more accurate, eight American riflemen won the match firing breech-loading rifles. Publicity of the event generated by the New York Herald helped to establish breech-loading firearms as suitable for military marksmanship training, and promoted the NRA to national prominence.^[12]

Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.^[15]

Rifle clubs

The NRA organized rifle clubs in other states, and many state National Guard organizations sought NRA advice to improve members’ marksmanship. Wingate’s markmanship manual evolved into the United States Army marksmanship instruction program.^[12] Former President Ulysses S. Grant served as the NRA’s eighth President^[16] and General Philip H. Sheridan as its ninth.^[17] The U.S. Congress created the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice in 1901 to include representatives from the NRA, National Guard, and United States military services. A program of annual rifle and pistol competitions was authorized, and included a national match open to military and civilian shooters. NRA headquarters moved to Washington, D.C. to facilitate the organization’s advocacy efforts.^[12] In 1903, Congress authorized the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which was designed to train civilians who might later be called to serve in the U.S. military.^[18] Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal began the manufacture of M1903 Springfield rifles for civilian members of the NRA in 1910.^[19]

Lobbying

Along with the president, executive vice president (CEO), and board of directors, the organization’s lobbying division, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), is considered a power center of the NRA.^{[citation needed]}

The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act,^[20] the first major gun control legislation in the United States. At the time, the NRA supported the act without studying its impact on the second amendment, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed taxes on the private ownership of machine guns.^[21]

In 1975, the NRA created the Institute for Legislative Action to lobby for Second Amendment rights as a complement its core mission of supporting hunting, conservation and marksmanship.

Until the middle 1970s, the NRA had mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and had downplayed issues of gun control. The 1977 annual convention in Cincinnati would be a defining election for the organization and came to be known as “The Cincinnati Revolution.”^[22] At the convention, the leadership had planned an elaborate new headquarters in Colorado, designed to promote sportsmanship and conservation. Within the organization, now existed a group of members whose central concern was Second Amendment rights. Those activists defeated the incumbents in 1977 and elected Harlon Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.^[23]^[24]

After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.^[25] With a goal to weaken the Gun Control Act of 1968, Knox’s NRA successfully lobbied Congress to pass the McClure-Volker firearms decontrol bill of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.^[26]

At the 1991 national convention, Knox’s supporters were elected to the board, and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the executive vice president. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton Administration.^[27] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston’s past support of gun control legislation.^[28] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but successfully lobbied for the ban’s 2004 expiration.^[29] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA’s image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.^[30]

Safety and sporting programs

NRA firearms safety programs

NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia

The NRA sponsors a range of programs designed to encourage the safe use of firearms. NRA hunting safety courses are offered in the United States for both children and adults. Classes focusing on firearm safety, particularly for women, have become popular. Intended for school-age children, the NRA’s “Eddie Eagle” program encourages the viewer to “Stop! Don’t touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!” if the child ever sees a firearm lying around.^[31] The NRA has also published an instructional guide, called The Basics of Personal Protection In The Home (published in 2000).^[32]

Shooting sports

Prior to 1992, the NRA governed shooting sports in the United States.^{[citation needed]} In 1992, USA Shooting replaced the NRA as the national governing body for Olympic shooting, and in 2000, the NRA chose not to be a member of the National Three-Position Air Rifle Council. Additionally, the NRA is not directly involved in the practical pistol competitions conducted by the International Practical Shooting Confederation and International Defensive Pistol Association, or in cowboy action shooting.

The NRA hosts the National Rifle and Pistol Matches at Camp Perry, events which are considered to be the “world series of competitive shooting.”^[33] Commonly known as Bullseye or Conventional Pistol, shooters from the military as well as many top-ranked civilians gather annually in July and August for this competition. The NRA also sponsors its National Muzzle Loading Championship at the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association’s Friendship, Indiana facility. Additionally, the Bianchi Cup, hosted by NRA, is considered among the most lucrative of all the shooting sports tournaments.^{[citation needed]}

The NRA house magazine, American Rifleman, covers major shooting competitions and related topics, and the NRA offers a publication dedicated to competitive shooting, Shooting Sports USA. Most competitive shooters are NRA members.^{[citation needed]} The current NRA competitions division publishes its own rulebooks, maintains a registry of marksmanship classifications, and sanctions matches. The NRA also represents the United States on the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations (ICFRA),^{[citation needed]} which administers the World Long-Range Rifle Team Championships, contested every four years for the PALMA trophy.

Instructors

The National Rifle Association issues credentials and trains firearm instructors in a variety of disciplines. NRA-credentialed instructors teach marksmanship, maintenance, and legalities.^[34] NRA Instructors are commonly found at privately owned firearms ranges, and are often employed by the Boy Scouts of America on their summer camps.^{[citation needed]}

Relationship with other organizations

The National Rifle Association maintains ties with other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America and 4-H.^[35] Involvement includes monetary donations, equipment to supply firearms ranges, and instructors to assist in their programs. Notably, the Boy Scouts of America has strict guidelines on who is allowed to operate their ranges, the recognized personnel groups including NRA Certified Instructors along with military and law enforcement.^[36]

The NRA joined the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil liberties organizations in joint letters to President Clinton on 10 January 1994 and to the House Committee on the Judiciary on 24 October 1995 calling for federal law enforcement reforms drawing on lessons from the Waco siege and Ruby Ridge.^[37]

Fundraising and shooting support

Friends of NRA is a grassroots program that raises money for The NRA Foundation, the organization’s 501(c)(3).^[38] As part of Friends of NRA activities, volunteers in the United States organize committees and plan events in their communities.

Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm related public interest activities. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context. Funds granted by The NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.^[39]

Political advocacy

Because the NRA considers gun ownership to be a civil right, the organization calls itself the “largest and oldest civil rights organization in the United States.”^[40]^[41]^[42]^[43]

The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying branch of the National Rifle Association of America.^[44] Members of Congress have ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country several years in a row.^[6] Chris W. Cox is the NRA’s chief lobbyist and principal political strategist, a position he has held since 2002. Jim Baker is the head of the federal affairs division at the institute.^[45]

In its lobbying for gun rights, the NRA asserts that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. The NRA opposes measures which it believes conflict with the Second Amendment and the right to privacy as it relates to gun owners. Additionally, the organization has invoked the Tenth Amendment to defend gun rights.

Legislation

The NRA currently opposes most new gun-control legislation, calling instead for stricter enforcement of existing laws such as prohibiting convicted felons and violent criminals from possessing firearms and increased sentencing for gun-related crimes. The NRA also advocates for concealed carry in the United States. It also takes positions on non-firearm hunting issues, such as supporting wildlife management programs that allow hunting and opposing restrictions on devices like crossbows and leg hold traps.^{[citation needed]}

The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which regulated what were considered at the time “gangster weapons” such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers.^[46]^[47]^[48] However, the organization’s position on parts of the act has since changed.^[49]

The 1937 Pittman–Robertson Act was passed which put an excise tax on the manufacture of firearms. The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats.^[50]^[51] Prior to the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans.^[50]

The NRA supported the 1938 Federal Firearms Act (FFA) which established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) program. The FFA required all manufacturers and dealers of firearms who ship or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to have a license, and forbade them from transferring any firearm or most ammunition to any person interstate unless certain conditions were met.^[52] As a practical matter, this did not affect the interstate commerce in firearms or ammunition. It was with the adoption of the Gun Control Act in 1968, which repealed most of the FFA, that the lawful interstate trade of firearms was limited almost entirely to persons holding a federal firearms license.

The NRA supported and opposed parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which broadly regulated the firearms industry and firearms owners, primarily focusing on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. The law was supported by America’s oldest manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence. The NRA supported elements of the law, such as those forbidding the sale of firearms to convicted criminals and the mentally ill.^[53]^[54]

In 2000, when evidence surfaced that the Pittman-Robertson Act sportsman`s conservation trust funds were being mismanaged, NRA board member and sportsman, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act. The NRA backed bill passed the House 423-2 and became law on Nov. 1, 2000 and defines in what manner the monies can be spent.

In 2004, the NRA opposed renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. The ban expired at midnight on September 13, 2004.^[55]

In 2005 President Bush signed into law the NRA backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.^[56]

The NRA-backed Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 prohibited the confiscation of legal firearms from citizens during states of emergency.^[57]

In 2012, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the NRA called on the United States Congress to appropriate funds for a “National School Shield Program,” under which armed police officers would protect students in every U.S. school.^[58]^[59] The NRA also announced the creation of a program that would advocate for best practices in the areas of security, building design, access control, information technology, and student and teacher training.^[59]^[60]^[61]^[62]

Lawsuits

In 2005, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and others successfully sued New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and others to stop gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.^[63]^[64]^[65]^[66]^[67]^[68] On October 4, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.

In November 2005, the NRA and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco Proposition H, which banned the ownership and sales of firearms. The NRA argued that the citizen-passed proposition overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The San Francisco County Superior Court agreed with the NRA position.^[69] The city appealed the court’s ruling, but lost a 2008 appeal.^[70] In October 2008, San Francisco was forced to pay a $380,000 settlement to the National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs to cover the costs of litigating Proposition H.^[71]

After a 2008 ruling (District of Columbia v. Heller) by the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmed the individual right to own a handgun, the NRA has participated in lawsuits contesting such legislation.^[72]

In 2009 the NRA filed suit again (Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority) in the city of San Francisco challenging the city’s ban of guns in public housing. On January 14, 2009, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building.^[73]

In 2010, the NRA sued the city of Chicago, Illinois (McDonald v. Chicago) and the Supreme Court ruled that like other substantive rights, the right to bear arms is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to the states.^[74]^[75]

The NRA supported the case of Brian Aitken, a New Jersey resident sentenced to seven years in state prison for transporting guns without a carry permit.^[76] The organization’s Civil Rights Defense Fund helped to pay Brian Aitken’s legal bills.^[77] On December 20, 2010, Governor Chris Christie granted Aitken clemency and ordered Aitken’s immediate release from prison.^[78]

Endorsements

The NRA’s policy is that it will endorse any incumbent politician who supports its positions, even if the challenger supports them as well. For example, in the 2006 Senate Elections the NRA endorsed Rick Santorum over Bob Casey, Jr. even though they both had an “A” rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund, because Santorum was the incumbent.^[79]

The NRA endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in 1980 backing Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.^[80]^[81]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the NRA spent $10 million in opposition of the election of then Senator Barack Obama.^[82]

Publications

The NRA publishes a number of periodicals including ^[83] American Rifleman,^[84] American Hunter, Shooting Illustrated, America’s 1st Freedom and Shooting Sports USA. They have also published a collection of firearms titles through its affiliate Palladium Press LLC.

Current leadership and policies

The National Rifle Association is governed by a seventy-six member^[85] board of directors. There are seventy-five elected Directors that each serve a three year term. One director, the seventy-sixth, is elected to serve as a cross-over Director and “holds office from the adjournment of the Annual Meeting of Members at which [this person] was elected until the adjournment of the next Annual Meeting of Members, or until a successor is elected and qualified.”

The directors choose the President, one or more Vice Presidents, and the Executive Vice President (the leading spokesman for the organization), along with a Secretary, and Treasurer from among the elected Directors. Additionally two other officers are elected by the Board of Directors, the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association General Operations and the Executive Director of the National rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

Charlton Heston served famously as president from 1997 to 2003, and David Keene is the current president, replacing Ron Schmeits who served 2009–2011. John C. Sigler served 2007–2009. Sandra Froman served 2005–2007. Marion P. Hammer was the first female president, serving from 1995 to 1998.^[86]

The organization’s executive vice president functions as chief executive officer. Wayne LaPierre has held this position since 1991. Chris W. Cox is the executive director of the NRA’s lobbying branch, the Institute for Legislative Action. Cox has been appointed by LaPierre every year since 2002. Kayne Robinson is executive director of general operations.^[87]

Finances and organizational structure

The NRA is a 501(c)(4) membership association with four 501(c)(3) charitable subsidiaries and a Section 527 Political Action Committee separate segregated fund. The NRA’s four charities are NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, NRA Foundation Inc., NRA Special Contribution Fund (dba NRA Whittington Center), and NRA Freedom Action Foundation.^[1]

According to published statements,^[1] the NRA’s total income for 2011 was $218,983,530, with total expenditures of $231,071,589. In 2010, the organization reported an income of $227.8 million with roughly $115 million in revenue generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, with the remainder originating from membership dues.^[88] Corporate sponsors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.^[88]^[89]

Since 2005, the organization has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms^[88] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson reached $1 million.^[90] According to an April 2012 press release, Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012.^[90]

In 2010, one of the organization’s tax exempt 501(c)3 groups, the NRA Foundation, distributed $12.6 million to the NRA itself, and gave a further $5.5 million to local organizations such as 4-H and shooting clubs. The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries.^[88]^[90]

The NRA also raises a portion of its revenues through “round-up” programs, in which gun buyers and participating stores are invited to “round up” the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA’s 2010 tax forms, the “round-up” funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.^[90]

Public opinion

In six out of seven surveys conducted by Gallup since 1993, the majority of Americans reported holding a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association. A Gallup survey conducted in December 2012 found that 54% of Americans held a favorable opinion of the NRA, with Republicans responding significantly more positively about the organization than Democrats.^[91] A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in April 2012 found that 82% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats see the NRA “in a positive light.”^[5]^[92]^[93]

Criticism

The NRA is criticized by groups advocating for gun control such as Americans for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Million Mom March. Some newspaper editorial boards like the New York Times,^[94] Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette^[95] have also criticized the NRA’s positions.

Members of the U.S. Democratic Party and liberal commentators have frequently criticized the National Rifle Association’s policies. However, on occasion, politicians in the U.S. Republican Party and conservative commentators have also criticized the organization.^[96]^[97]^[98] In 1969, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon resigned his “Honorary Life Membership” to the NRA. In 1995, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush also resigned his life membership to the organization after LaPierre sent him a letter that labeled agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “jack-booted government thugs”. The NRA later apologized for the letter’s language.^[99] After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called an online video created by the NRA “reprehensible” and said that it “demeans” the organization.^[100] Jim Baker, a senior lobbyist for the organization, later characterized the video as “not particularly helpful” and “ill-advised.”^[101]

The NRA has been criticized by other gun rights groups for doing too little to get existing restrictions repealed. Organizations such as Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) have at times disagreed with NRA for what they perceive as its willingness to compromise on legislation that would restrict access to firearms.^[102]

Notable members

In its history, the NRA has had numerous notable members and officers from a variety of professions. Among these people are eight Presidents of the United States, two Vice President of the United States, two Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and several U.S. Congressmen, as well as legislators and officials of state governments.^[103] Past presidents of the association include Ambrose Burnside, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant, Charlton Heston, and General Philip H. Sheridan. Other notables include Olympian Karl Frederick, actress Whoopi Goldberg, civil rights activist Roy Innis, actor James Earl Jones, President John F. Kennedy, singer Miranda Lambert, NBA player Karl Malone, screen writer John Milius, President Richard Nixon, actor Chuck Norris, musician Ted Nugent, Governor Sarah Palin, President Ronald Reagan, President Theodore Roosevelt, and actor Tom Selleck.^[104]^[105]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c “Non Profit Report for the National Rifle Association of America”. http://www.Guidestar.com. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
^ ”NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread”. Businessweek. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
^ “National Rifle Association”. NRA. December 21, 2012. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
^ “Universal Coin & Bullion Offers Matching Gift to Benefit NRA’s Voice of Freedom Programs”. NRA.
^ ^a ^b “Poll: Most Americans support NRA, right to protect self, but also a few gun limits”. Reuters. April 13, 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
^ ^a ^b ^c “FORTUNE Releases Annual Survey of Most Powerful Lobbying Organizations”. Timewarner.com. 1999-11-15. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ See NRA, “Statement From the National Rifle Association” (April 16, 2007)
^ James Q. Wilson et al. (2011). American Government: Institutions & Policies. Cengage Learning. p. 264.
^ LaPierre, Wayne. “Wayne LaPierre Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee, 01/31/2013″. http://www.nra.org. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ LaPierre, Wayne. “TESTIMONY OF WAYNE LAPIERRE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING ON “WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE?”, 216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, JANUARY 30, 2013″. http://www.senate.gov. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Craige, John Houston The Practical Book of American Guns (1950) Bramhall House pp.84–93
^ Timeline of the NRA, The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2013.
^ “WALL OF FIRE – THE RIFLE AND CIVIL WAR INFANTRY TACTICS”. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Retrieved 2012-04-29.
^ “Did You Know?”. National Rifle Association. Retrieved August 24, 2011.
^ “NRA Institute for Legislative Action News Release”. Nraila.org. 2003-03-27. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ ”The “Academy” Must Now Share Michael Moore`s Cinematic Shame”. Nra-Ila. 2003-03-27. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ “Civilian Marksmanship Sales”. Retrieved 2011-04-13.
^ Canfield, Bruce N. American Rifleman (September 2008) pp.72–75
^ “National Firearms Act of 1934″. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
^ Jill Lepor (April 23, 2012). “Battleground America; One nation, under the gun”. The New Yorker.
^ Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. pp. 298–300.
^ Joel Achenbach, Scott Higham and Sari Horwitz, “How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby,” Washington Post January 12, 2013
^ Glen H. Utter, Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2000) pp 137-8, 161-3, 166-7, 186, 219-220
^ Glen H. Utter, Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2000) pp 99-100, 162
^ Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War. pp. 314–20.
^ Glen H. Utter, Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2000) pp 62, 158, 162, 166-7
^ Robert J. Spitzer, The Politics of Gun Control (2nd ed. 1998) p 88
^ Richard Feldman (2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley. p. 209.
^ Emilie Raymond, From My Cold, Dead Hands: Charlton Heston and American Politics (2006) pp 262-68, quote p. 265
^ “NRA Victories: Eighteen Million Safer Kids”. National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. July 27, 2006. Retrieved 2010-11-06.
^ Wormley, Jr., Stanton L. (2000). The basics of personal protection in the home (1st ed. ed.). Fairfax, VA: National Rifle Association. p. 223. ISBN 0935998993.
^ Standifird, S.L. (2010-09-17). “Making his mark: El Paso sergeant member of winning national rifle team”. El Paso Times. Retrieved 9 October 2010. “The national matches are considered America’s World Series of competitive shooting and have been a tradition at Camp Perry since 1907″
^ NRAHQ.org “Education & Training”. Retrieved 2013-01-25.
^ “National: 11 facts about the NRA”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ “Why Teach the Eddie Eagle Program”. NRA. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
^ Kessler, Raymond G. Ideological and Civil Liberties Implications of the Public Health Approach to Guns, Crime and Violence. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ “Friends of NRA Reaches $400 Million Milestone” (Press release). NRA. Retrieved 2011-07-01.
^ “Charity Navigator Rating – The NRA Foundation”. Charitynavigator.org. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
^ Patrick, Brian Anse (2002). The National Rifle Association and the media: the motivating force of negative coverage 1. Peter Lang. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-8204-5122-0.
^ Sapp, Rick (2010). “Lead Ammo-The Truth is Out There Somewhere”. Gun Digest Book of Green Shooting: A Practical Guide to Non-Toxic Hunting and Recreation. Gun Digest Books. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4402-1362-5.
^ Horner, William T. (2005). Showdown in the Show-Me State: the fight over conceal-and-carry gun laws in Missouri. University of Missouri Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-8262-1587-1.
^ http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41058/
^ “Who We Are, And What We Do”. Institute for Legislative Action. Retrieved 30 August 2011.
^ Cornwell, Susan. “Exclusive: NRA senior lobbyist says attack ad was “ill-advised”". Reuters.com. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
^ History of the National Firearms Act, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms.
^ American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
^ Winkler, Adam (10/03/11). “When the NRA Promoted Gun Control”. Huffington Post.
^ http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2011/suppressors-good-for-our-hearing.aspx
^ ^a ^b Bolen, Eric (2003). Wildlife Ecology and Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. Chapter 2.
^ “Pittman–Robertson Act: Friend Of The Hunter & Hunted”. National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
^ http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Ascione1.html
^ Knox, Neal (June 1966). “The Dodd Bill Both Fact … and Fantasy”. Guns & Ammo Magazine.
^ Rosenfeld, Steven. “The NRA once supported gun control”. Salon.
^ Washingtonpost.com
^ NRA. President Bush signs Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
^ ”H.R.5441″. The Library of Congress> THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions.
^ “NRA releases statement on Conn. shooting”. December 18, 2012. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
^ ^a ^b “NRA December 21st Press Briefing”. National Rifle Association. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
^ Sullivan, Sean (December 21, 2012). “Put armed guards in every school, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre says”. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
^ Cushman Jr., John H. (December 22, 2012). “N.R.A. Calls for Armed Guards in Schools to Deter Violence”. New York Times.
^ “NRA calls for armed police officer in every school”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
^ CCN.com, CNN transcript of NRA video interviews
^ Youtube.com NRA video on YouTube of Katrina victims describing illegal confiscation of personal firearms.
^ KHOU : 100,000 evacuees in Houston^{[dead link]}
^ “Officials grab guns, holdouts”. Columbia Daily Tribune. 2005-09-09. Retrieved 2012-05-05.
^ ”Police prepare to use force”. Azcentral.com. 2005-09-09. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ Isabella Hunter (2012). You and Guns: a Conversation: The Practicalities of Responsible Gun Ownership. iUniverse. p. 40.
^ Egelko, Bob; Goodyear, Charlie (2006-06-13). “Judge invalidates Prop. H handgun ban”. SFGate. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/13/SFGUN.TMP
^ Matier, Phillip; Andrew Ross (October 27, 2008) “Newsom’s city car makes trip to his wedding.” San Francisco Chronicle. (Retrieved on 11-2-08.)
^ “NRA, D.C. Residents Take District of Columbia Back to Court Over Gun Regulations”. NRA-ILA. 2008-07-30. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ Egelko, Bob (January 14, 2009). “San Francisco Housing Authority settles gun lawsuit”. SFGate.com. Retrieved 2009-01-16.
^ “In McDonald v. Chicago another Supreme Court landmark ruling on guns?”. The Christian Science Monitor. 2010-03-01.
^ Mears, Bill (June 28, 2009). “Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban”. CNN.
^ “Freed New Jersey Man Wants Gun Conviction Overturned”. Fox News. 2010-12-23.
^ http://briandaitken.com/content/2011/01/BrianAitken-NRA.jpg
^ “NJ Gov. Chris Christie commutes Aitken’s sentence”. The Daily Caller. 2010-12-20. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
^ “Post-gazette.com”. Post-gazette.com. 2006-10-25. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
^ SCHMIDT, GINA M. “100 YEARS: REMEMBERING PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN”. http://www.nraila.org. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ Facts on File 1980 Yearbook, p.844
^ Eunice Moscoso, “NRA campaign against Obama carries $10 million price tag,” Palm Beach Post, October 21, 2008)
^ NRA Publications as of 2009.
^ American Rifleman website.
^ The National Rifle Association of America Bylaws. Article IV, S. 1a: NRA. 2012. p. 12.
^ Marion P. Hammer, NRAWinningTeam.com
^ ”National Rifle Association Announces New Officers and Board Members”. NRAILA. 2009-05-19. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Peter Robison and John Crewdson. “NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread”. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2013-01-30.
^ Greene, Jeremy. “Friends of NRA Industry Supporter directory”. http://www.friendsofnra.org. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d “Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries?”. FactCheck.org. January 15, 2013.
^ Newport, Frank. “NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S. – Republicans most positive about NRA; Democrats most negative”. Gallup. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
^ Clement, Scott. “Everything you need to know about Americans’ views on guns — in 7 easy steps”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
^ “Gun control takes a back seat to the economy, the deficit and taxes”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-02-02.
^ “The Gun Lobby’s Loss”. The New York Times. December 2, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-03.
^ ”NRA nonsense: LaPierre speaks for gun makers, not gun owners”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2013-01-03.
^ “Bloomberg Throws Punch at NRA, Obama: Bloomberg says NRA “encourages behavior that causes things like Connecticut” shooting”. ABC News. Retrieved 2013-01-25.
^ ROBILLARD, KEVIN. “Frank Luntz: NRA not listening to public”. Politico. Retrieved 2013-01-03.
^ Poor, Jeff. “Ann Coulter rails against NRA’s Wayne LaPierre”. The Daily Caller. Retrieved 2013-01-03.
^ “NRA Apologizes for ‘Jack Boot’ Letter” Seattle Times (AP) 05/18/95 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950518&slug=2121718
^ Knox, Olivier. “Christie: NRA ad with Obama daughters ‘reprehensible’”. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2013-01-19.
^ Cornwell, Susan. “Exclusive: NRA senior lobbyist says attack ad was “ill-advised”". Reuters. Retrieved 2013-01-25.
^ “A Letter From Larry Pratt To The Directors Of The NRA”. Gunowners.org. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
^ The National Rifle Association of America Bylaws. Inside front cover, organization summary: NRA. 2012.
^ Coleman, Christina. “Gun Show: Guess Which Celebrities Are NRA Members? Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/celebrity-nra-members-photos#ixzz2QbLg4YxV”. Global Grind. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
^ Shropshire, Terry. “Celebrity members of the NRA gun group”. Rollingout.com. Retrieved 16 April 2013.

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: Beyon Budget Busting, Downgrade of Federal Treasury Securities, Fiscal Insanity, Fiscal Year 2014 Federal Government Budget, OMB, Outlays, Paul Ryan, Revenues, Senate Budget Resoultion, Senate Budget Resoultuin, Senator Patty Murray, Spending, Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD, Taxes, Ticking Debt Time Bomb, United States Office of Management and Budget |

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.

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.

• 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:

$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.

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

$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.

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 A B C D E F I J M N O P R S T 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 top C 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 top D 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 top E 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 top F 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 top IImpoundment: 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 top JJoint 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 top M 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 top NNet 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 top O 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 top P 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 top R 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 top S 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 top TTax 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 top U 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 )

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos

Posted on April 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Television, Transportation, Unions, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Ceremonial funeral services with military honors, Claire Berlinsk, Collectivists, Conservative Party, economic growth, Economics, Friedrick A. Hayek, Funeral, Hayek, Labour Party, Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher Dead at 87, Politics, President Barack Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron, Ronald Reagan, socialists, Videos |

Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

“Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

Ceremonial funeral services with military honors for Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, known as Maggie to her friends and “the Iron Lady” to her opponents, will be held this Wednesday at St Paul’s Cathedral, according to Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.

Her legacy was to change her country’s dominant ideology from collectivist state socialism implemented in decades of Labour Party policies to an individualist market capitalism implemented in Conservative Party policies. In the process she returned the U.K. to eight years of economic growth and prosperity in the 1980s.

Thatcher supported President Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating communism in the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.

Thatcher had been in declining health for a number of years and died peacefully in her sleep the morning of April 8 following a stroke.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Thatcher, “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”

President Barack Obama said, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty and America has lost a true friend.” Obama said she had taught “our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”

John Boehner, speaker of the house, said, “The greatest peacetime prime minister in British history is dead. Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter, stared down elites, union bosses and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe and bring down the Iron Curtain. There was no secret to her values – hard work and personal responsibility – and no nonsense in her leadership.”

Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan said: “Ronnie and Margaret were political soul mates, committed to freedom and resolved to end Communism. As Prime Minister, Margaret had the clear vision and strong determination to stand up for her beliefs at a time when so many were afraid to ‘rock the boat.’ As a result, she helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of millions of people.”

In 1975 Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party. She was subsequently elected prime minister of the United Kingdom on May 4, 1979. Thatcher served three terms from 1979 to 1990 becoming Britain’s longest-serving prime minister in over a century as well as the most dynamic, inspirational and controversial.

When Thatcher took office, the British economy was in shambles and in recession, inflation was rising and the government faced possible bankruptcy. This was a direct result of many years of Labour Party socialistic policies of out-of-control government spending, confiscatory taxation and the nationalization or state control of many industries including coal, steel, railways, gas, electricity, water, trucking, airlines and telecommunications.

The writings of Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrick A. Hayek, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, in particular his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, inspired and guided Thatcher’s economic policies.

Thatcher turned the economy around and made Britain governable again by taking on and taming the trade unions with labor reform legislation. No longer were the unions able to dictate the nation’s economic policies. Under Thatcher the British government pursued a policy of selling state assets with privatization of industry, thus reversing the Labour Party’s nationalization of industry.

When the Argentina government under the fascist junta invaded the British protectorate of the Falkland Islands in April 1982, she led the U.K. to victory. The Argentinians soon toppled the military junta.

In October 1984 there was an assassination attempt on her life when a hotel in Brighton where she and her husband and other members of her cabinet were staying was bombed by Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists.

Thatcher supported Reagan in opposing communism and confronting the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. She was instrumental in the introduction of cruise missiles in Britain to counter the Soviet military threat. She allied the United Kingdom with the United States against the communist expansion and subversion in the West and the winning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

A concise biography of her life can be found at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation web site http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp. An excellent critical biography is Claire Berlinsky’s “There is No Alternative: Why Thatcher Matters” and related interview on YouTube video titled, “Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski.”

An excellent multi-part documentary about Thatcher produced in 2008 by the conservative paper, The Daily Telegraph, can be viewed on YouTube as well as an entertaining movie about her early political career titled, “Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk to Finchley.”

Her husband of more than 50 years, Denis Thatcher, died in June 2003. She is survived by her twin son, Mark, and daughter, Carol, born in 1953.

Thatcher remains a controversial figure in Britain. She was loved and revered by many as well as loathed and reviled by some. She will be remembered by all who value economic freedom and individual liberty.

“Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away. Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it. We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.”

~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975

David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full

Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)

MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)

Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)

Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)

Background Articles and Videos

Audio » Mark Levin – CPAC 2013 & William F. Buckley Jr. 1955 Conservatism

Charles Krauthammer Calls Chris Christie’s CPAC Snub A ‘Mistake’

Ron Meyer Analysis of CPAC Invites with Monica Mehta & Julie Roginsky on Neil Cavuto – 3-4-13

Christie Says He’s Not Bothered By Lack of Invite to Conservative Conference

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

Federally Sponsored Jailbreak of 2,228 Criminal Aliens Released By Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — Videos

Posted on March 14, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Economics, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Philosophy, Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Criminal Aliens Released, Criminals Released, Detention Centers, Economics, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Politics |

2,000 criminal illegal aliens released from prison.

Judge Jeanine Pirro reports on the Obama administrations releasing of 2,000 illegal invaders.

Goodlatte Talks ICE’s Release of Detainees on Lou Dobbs Tonight

Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on Fox Business to discuss ICE’s release of detainees. An internal U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee reveals that the agency planned to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets to reduce the agency’s costs in light of sequestration. As of February 15, 2013, the document shows that ICE had roughly 31,000 illegal immigrants and criminal aliens in detention — already below the 34,000 mandated by Congress — and planned to reduce that number to less than 26,000 by March 31, 2013. According to sources, roughly 2,000 criminal aliens may have already been released so far.

Border Battle – Startling Info On Release Of Illegal Aliens Across U.S. -

Limbaugh Rips Release Of Immigrants (Audio)

Illegal Immigrants Released from Detention Centers…

Inside Tacoma’s Northwest Detention Center

Fox News Says Sequester Will Lead To Murder By Freed Immigrants

Geraldo Calls Release Of Immigrants A ‘Spiteful Move’ By Obama: He’s Throwing A ‘Tantrum’

Operation Cross Check: 3,100 arrests

Federal spending cuts underway

Democrats: Term “Illegal Immigrants” OFFENSIVE – Use Out of Status/ New Americans/Undocumented

Rick Perry Slams McCain, Romney At CPAC, Says They Aren’t Conservative

“…”The popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals, as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. That’s what they think. That’s what say. That might be true if Republicans had actually nominated conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012,” Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) said in his address at CPAC this afternoon.

Perry also slammed President Obama for undocumented illegal immigration being released from detention centers due to sequestration cuts.

“This president’s posture, it’d be laughable if he hadn’t taken it one step too far, dangerously releasing criminals onto our streets to make a political point,” Perry told the crowd at CPAC. “When you have a federally-sponsored jailbreak, and don’t get confused, that’s exactly what that is — when you’ve had a federally-sponsored jailbreak, you’ve crossed the line from politics of spin to politics as a craven form of cynicism.” …”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/rick_perry_slams_mccain_romney_at_cpac_says_they_arent_conservative.html

“…The Obama administration reversed itself Thursday, acknowledging to Congress that it had, in fact, released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants from immigration jails due to budget constraints during three weeks in February.

The director of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, said his agency had released 2,228 illegal immigrants during that period for what he called “solely budgetary reasons.” The figure was significantly higher than the “few hundred” immigrants the Obama administration had publicly acknowledged were released under the budget-savings process. He testified during a hearing by a House appropriations subcommittee.

Morton told lawmakers Thursday that the decision to release the immigrants was not discussed in advance with political appointees, including those in the White House or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He said the pending automatic cuts known as sequestration was “driving in the background.”

“We were trying to live within the budget that Congress had provided us,” Morton told lawmakers. “This was not a White House call. I take full responsibility.”

The Associated Press, citing internal budget documents, reported exclusively on March 1 that the administration had released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants since Feb. 15 and planned to release 3,000 more in March due to looming budget cuts, but Napolitano said days later that the AP’s report was “not really accurate” and that the story had developed “its own mythology.”

“Several hundred are related to sequester, but it wasn’t thousands,” Napolitano said March 4 at a Politico-sponsored event.

On March 5, the House Judiciary Committee publicly released an internal ICE document that it said described the agency’s plans to release thousands of illegal immigrants before March 31. The document was among those reviewed by the AP for its story days earlier.

The immigrants who were released still eventually face deportation and are required to appear for upcoming court hearings. But they are no longer confined in immigration jails, where advocacy experts say they cost about $164 per day per person. Immigrants who are granted supervised release – with conditions that can include mandatory check-ins, home visits and GPS devices – cost the government from 30 cents to $14 a day, according to the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates on behalf of immigrants.

Morton said Thursday that among the immigrants released were 10 people considered the highest level of offender. Morton said that although that category of offender can include people convicted of aggravated felonies, many of the people released were facing financial crimes. Four of the most serious offenders have been put back in detention. Other people released include immigrants who had faced multiple drunken driving offenses, misdemeanor crimes and traffic offenses, Morton said.

After the administration challenged the AP’s reporting, ICE said it didn’t know how many people had been released for budget reasons but would review its records.

Texas Department of Public Safety

News Release
Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Public Safety Commission discusses Border Security report
and the Criminal Alien threat to Texas

During today’s Public Safety Commission (PSC) meeting, Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steven C. McCraw discussed the border security strategic assessment that was conducted by General Barry McCaffrey (Ret.) and Retired Major-General Robert Scales as a part of HB 4 from the 82^nd Session.

The report highlighted the efforts that Texas has put in place in order to combat the threat from the Mexican cartels and commended Texas for being “the most aggressive and creative in confronting the threat.”

The report further determined that “criminality spawned in Mexico is spilling over to the U.S. and Texas is the tactical close combat zone and frontline of this conflict.”

The Commission also discussed the impact criminal aliens were having on communities in Texas. Director McCraw stated that criminal aliens were responsible for a significant amount of crime and constituted a serious threat.

As of September 15, 2011, 6,508 illegal aliens have been identified in Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) units. These 6,508 criminal aliens are responsible for 27,880 total crimes over their criminal careers.

Furthermore, from October 2008 through August 2011, Texas has identified a total of 88,080 unique criminal alien defendants in Texas. These defendants are responsible for 344,398 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,245 homicides and 46,412 sexual assaults. Director McCraw provided a detailed breakdown of the violations committed by the 88,080 criminal aliens.

Breakdown of 15 of the 50 Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) crime categories committed by the 88,080 criminal aliens

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

Republican Paul Ryan’s House Budget Committee Budget Balances in Ten Years — It Will Never Happen — End Baseline Budgeting and Balance The Budget In Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 — Videos

Posted on March 12, 2013. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Tax Policy | Tags: Balance The Budget, Barack Obama, Baseline Budget, CATO Institute, Paul Ryan, Zero Base Budgeting |

Rep Ryan: Budget Plan Balances Budget Withing 10 Years

Paul Ryan Announces 2014 Budget Proposal and Calls for No New Taxes

Background Articles and Videos

[EXCLUSIVE] President Obama WON’T Balance Budget ‘Just for the Sake of Balance’

Obama Declares Plan to Cut Deficit in Half

Dan Mitchell Discussing Dishonest Budget Numbers with John Stossel

Dan Mitchell Exposing DC’s Fake Spending-Cut Scam with Judge Napolitano

Dr. Coburn on Charlie Rose on US Debt Crisis, Leadership Deficit in Washington

Baseline Budgeting

Paul Ryan: The GOP Plan to Balance the Budget by 2023

The goal can be reached, with no new taxes, while increasing spending 3.4% annually instead of the current 5%.

By PAUL RYAN

America’s national debt is over $16 trillion. Yet Washington can’t figure out how to cut $85 billion—or just 2% of the federal budget—without resorting to arbitrary, across-the-board cuts. Clearly, the budget process is broken. In four of the past five years, the president has missed his budget deadline. Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over 1,400 days. By refusing to tackle the drivers of the nation’s debt—or simply to write a budget—Washington lurches from crisis to crisis.

House Republicans have a plan to change course. On Tuesday, we’re introducing a budget that balances in 10 years—without raising taxes. How do we do it? We stop spending money the government doesn’t have. Historically, Americans have paid a little less than one-fifth of their income in taxes to the federal government each year. But the government has spent more.

So our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue—or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we’ll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade.

Our opponents will shout austerity, but let’s put this in perspective. On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy.

Yet the most important question isn’t how we balance the budget. It’s why. A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes, our budget will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. Most important, our budget will reignite the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it in this country.

The truth is, the nation’s debt is a sign of overreach. Government is trying to do too much, and when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal, because it returns government to its proper limits and focus. By curbing government’s overreach, our budget will give families the space they need to thrive.

The other side will warn of a relapse into recession—just as they predicted economic disaster when the budget sequester hit. But a balanced budget will help the economy. Smaller deficits will keep interest rates low, which will help small businesses to expand and hire. It’s no surprise, then, that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office believes that legislation reducing the deficit as much as our budget does would boost gross national product by 1.7% in 2023.

We must take action now. Our budget will expand opportunity in major areas like energy. It will protect and strengthen key priorities like Medicare. It will encourage social mobility by retooling welfare. It will fix the broken tax code to create jobs and increase wages.

First, energy. America has the world’s largest natural-gas, oil and coal reserves—enough natural gas to meet the country’s needs for 90 years. Yet the administration is buying up land to prevent further development. Our budget opens these lands to development, so families will have affordable energy. It approves the Keystone XL pipeline, which will create 20,000 direct jobs—and 118,000 indirect jobs. Our budget puts the country on the path to North American energy independence.

Second, health care. Our budget repeals the president’s health-care law and replaces it with patient-centered reforms. It also protects and strengthens Medicare. I want Medicare to be there for my kids—just as it’s there for my mom today. But Medicare is going broke. Under our proposal, those in or near retirement will see no changes, and future beneficiaries will inherit a program they can count on. Starting in 2024, we’ll offer eligible seniors a range of insurance plans from which they can choose—including traditional Medicare—and help them pay the premiums.

The other side will demagogue this issue. But remember: Anyone who attacks our Medicare proposal without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program’s demise.

Third, welfare reform. After the welfare reforms of 1996, child poverty fell by double digits. This budget extends those reforms to other federal aid programs. It gives states flexibility so they can tailor programs like Medicaid and food stamps to their people’s needs. It encourages states to get people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls. We shouldn’t measure success by how much we spend. We should measure it by how many people we help. Those who protect the status quo must answer to the 46 million Americans living in poverty.

Fourth, tax reform. The current tax code is a Rubik’s cube that Americans spend six billion hours—and $160 billion—each year trying to solve. The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the industrialized world. So our budget paves the way for comprehensive tax reform. It calls for Congress to simplify the code by closing loopholes and consolidating tax rates. Our goal is to have just two brackets: 10% and 25%. House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp has committed to pass a specific bill this year.

If we take these steps, the United States will once again become a haven of opportunity. The economy will grow, and the country will regain its strength. All we need is leadership. Washington owes the American people a balanced budget. It isn’t fair to take more from families so government can spend more.

A balanced budget isn’t unprecedented. President Bill Clinton worked with a Republican Congress to get it done. House Republicans’ last two budgets balanced, too—albeit at a later date. But a balanced budget is still a noteworthy achievement, considering the competition.

The recent debt-ceiling agreement forced Senate Democrats to write a budget this year, and we expect to see it this week. I hate to break the suspense, but their budget won’t balance—ever. Instead, it will raise taxes to pay for more spending. The president, meanwhile, is standing on the sidelines. He is expected to submit his budget in April—two months past his deadline.

We House Republicans have done our part. We’re offering a credible plan for all the country to see. We’re outlining how to solve the greatest problems facing America today. Now we invite the president and Senate Democrats to join in the effort.

— Mr. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin’s first congressional district and is chairman of the House Budget Committee.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578353902612840488.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Morning Bell: First Look at the 2014 Ryan Budget

Alison Acosta Fraser

At first look, the budget unveiled today by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) advances much-needed reforms and importantly accomplishes the crucial goal of balancing the budget within the decade, though this is partially on the coattails of Obama’s tax increases. Not a silver bullet, it is more of a stasis budget, rather than a bolder plan that builds on the reforms of previous years.

There are six things that each budget from the House, Senate, and President should accomplish. These are laid out in the Heritage plan, Saving the American Dream, which:

Balances the budget in less than 10 years, without raising taxes, and keeps the budget in balance thereafter;
Swiftly overhauls entitlement programs, including Social Security, to guarantee economic security to seniors while making the programs affordable;
Repeals Obamacare in its entirety;
Fully funds defense;
Rolls back discretionary spending; and
Rolls back recent tax increases with a sweeping, growth-oriented tax reform plan and caps taxes at the historical average of 18.5 percent.

Here’s how, at first blush, the Ryan plan measures up:

Gets to Balance. The Ryan budget achieves an important improvement over last year by balancing the budget within 10 years. The President’s budgets have never even attempted this, and given the Senate’s rusty skills in budget writing, it’s unlikely they would choose this course, either. The Ryan budget slows the growth of spending to about 3.4 percent per year, compared to roughly 5 percent today, with about $5 trillion less spending.

But, regrettably, Ryan’s budget also relies on Obama’s $618 billion fiscal cliff tax increase and Obamacare’s $1 trillion in tax hikes (more on this next) to get to balance. This means that tax levels rise almost immediately to 19.1 percent of GDP, well over the 18.5 percent benchmark. Balance is important, but so is the size of government. Without the tax increase, this budget would have had to have been more assertive in attacking spending and reforming entitlements to achieve and sustain balance.

And while the intent, we are told, is to stay in balance in the coming years and decades, regrettably, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not updated its long-term model yet, there is no CBO scoring to say how or whether this happens.

Repeals Obamacare Spending, But Keeps the Taxes. The vital organs of Obamacare—the insurance exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansions—are scheduled to start next year. Ryan’s budget takes the correct and necessary step of repealing them. But, as noted above, perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with Obamacare. These tax hikes are the oxygen that fuels the fire of ever bigger spending. But the entire fire needs to be put out—all of Obamacare should be repealed, including its tax hikes.

Defense Funding Levels Mixed. Like last year, the Ryan budget protects defense from the eviscerating sequestration cuts. This is sound. As North Korea’s posturing shows, the world is not a safer place today. But the national defense budget has been squeezed by Obama’s reductions just when U.S. forces need replenishment and modernization. Ryan’s budget essentially adopts the defense spending caps in the Budget Control Act without sequestration. This is better than the President’s plainly inadequate funding for current and future needs, and certainly better than the sequester, but still less than what is required.

Entitlement Reforms; More Needed. Ryan continues to be a strong leader here, tackling Medicare’s abject failures head on. His signature solution of a premium support model for Medicare is the hallmark of his budget. Moving to a patient-centered model would free retirees from relying on the unstable and unsustainable government-run Medicare program and restrain costs through the competition rather than price-fixing. The sooner this transition is made, the better.

But the transition is too slow, as it once again exempts those over 55 from these changes to Medicare. Our spending problem is so severe that all Americans should be part of the solution. While this “grandfather” clause is understandable, most Americans this age will have more than a decade remaining in their working lives. We cannot continue to keep leaving one more year of the baby boomer generation out of the solution because Washington fails to act.

Though the budget takes the first step on by turning Medicaid into a block grant, more important is to move the mainstream Medicaid population into private insurance.

And discouragingly, like last year, there is no Social Security reform at all. This is especially disappointing, given the current discussions of commonsense, simple reforms like increasing the retirement age or moving to a more accurate measure of inflation like chained CPI.

Reduces Non-Defense Discretionary Spending. By extending the Budget Control Act spending caps for two years and keeping sequestration levels, the Ryan budget makes strong reductions to this spending. It also assumes some worthy and long overdue reforms, such as consolidating the federal government’s 49 job training programs, many of which are ineffective, and first steps at reining in farm subsidies.

Growth-Oriented Tax Reform. The Ryan budget lays out important principles for tax reform and rightly rejects closing tax preferences (“loopholes”) just to raise revenue. True tax reform is revenue neutral: Any revenue raised by eliminating tax preferences should be offset by lowering tax rates. The budget sets the same, pro-growth goals for fewer, lower rates and territoriality as last year.

Bottom Line: The Ryan budget delivers on its new promise this year—to balance the budget within the decade. Unfortunately, it does use higher taxes to help achieve this. It maintains Ryan’s signature reform to Medicare, which will go far toward reining in unaffordable entitlement spending.

Though more could be done along the lines of Saving the American Dream to advance bolder entitlement reforms and to throw off the yoke of Obama’s tax hikes, this budget takes first steps toward reining in spending and reforming entitlements. And if preliminary news reports are to believed, this plan is sure to be far superior to the Senate’s version now awaiting its finishing touches replete with still more tax increases, spending and looming deficits.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/12/first-look-at-ryan-budget-2014/

Saving the American Dream: The Fiscal Cliff and Beyond

By Alison Acosta Fraser, William W. Beach and Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. December 11, 2012

Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.

Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.

As a result, the nation is facing the looming sequester, which will further undermine the defense budget, jeopardizing one of the federal government’s core constitutional responsibilities. Yet it would leave entitlement programs virtually untouched, even though they are the largest driver of spending today and in the future. Meanwhile, the prospect of a huge tax increase in January has had a deleterious effect on the economy for many months, although the effect is only a small portion of the harm the economy will incur if the tax increase ultimately takes effect. America seriously needs a true way forward.

The Heritage plan reflects the need to rein in spending immediately and to rethink major programs. Spending on the open-ended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlements must be brought under control, and the core foundations of these programs should be strengthened.

The following principles guide the policy solutions in Saving the American Dream:

Total spending must be brought under control to balance the budget without raising taxes, ultimately holding revenues at their historical share of gross domestic product (GDP).
Entitlement programs should, unlike today, actually guarantee seniors economic security in retirement and be recast as real and sustainable insurance programs focused on those who truly need them.
Other spending must be curbed, and the federal government must be restricted to its proper functions.
Defense, as a core constitutional function of the federal government, should be fully funded and efficiently delivered.
The tax system should be structurally reformed to foster growth by eliminating tax distortions of private economic decisions, especially decisions on savings and investment, and to make the system simpler and more transparent.

Priorities for Congress and the President

Fiscal year (FY) 2012 closed on September 30 with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating spending of $3.5 trillion and a deficit of $1.1 trillion.[2] Debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion (73 percent of GDP). According to the CBO, debt will explode to 199 percent of GDP by 2037, driven by growth in spending that will reach 36 percent of GDP.[3]

The main drivers of spending and debt increases are incontrovertibly the major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, the slow economy with its high unemployment rate, which remains stuck at around 8 percent, also adds to deficits and debt through two channels: mandatory spending for those workers who are most affected by the slow economy (e.g., unemployment compensation) and below-average tax revenues.

It is clear that the top priorities for Congress and the President should be controlling spending, especially entitlement reform, and setting an economic growth agenda through tax reform. After averting the fiscal cliff, Congress and the President should immediately turn their attention to these pressing issues.

As noted, entitlements are the fastest-growing programs. Even if all other spending was eliminated, these programs would still cause large and unsustainable deficits in the future. Their growth is automatic, with autopilot spending increases built in and no serious budgetary constraints. The top priority must be to restructure entitlements and put a brake on their spending levels while strengthening and preserving them for future generations.

A number of robust proposals for health care reforms already exist, both in Congress and in the policy community.[4] Congress and the President should take advantage of this policy momentum and focus on reforming Medicaid and especially Medicare. However, changes in Social Security should follow quickly, and the rules that govern these programs in general should be more consistent. For example, increases in the normal eligibility age should proceed simultaneously for both Social Security and Medicare.

Specific steps for Congress and the President include the following:

The President should submit a budget by the 2013 tax deadline deadline that outlines strong, sweeping changes in entitlement programs that will reduce spending over the 10-year budget window and significantly improve the long-term trajectory of these programs.
The President’s budget should lay out specific goals for a pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform plan.
Congress and the President should include reforms in entitlement programs and further reductions in other spending areas, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), in exchange for any increases in the debt limit. These should reflect lessons learned from the 2011 Budget Control Act, such as avoiding high-stakes mechanisms like sequestration that are designed to fail.
Congress should pass a joint budget resolution by the April 15, 2013, deadline that includes reconciliation instructions for entitlement and tax reform.
The budget resolution should also require reforms of other spending programs to bring spending below the BCA levels for 2014 and beyond.

Health Care

If only one issue is thoroughly addressed in 2013, it should be the federal role in health care, the biggest driver of spending. The flawed Obamacare law only adds to the problem. Instead of expanding the government’s role, health care should follow a true patient-centered, market-based model, including reforms in Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax treatment of health insurance.

Medicare. Medicare’s finances must be brought under control. As a first step, the age of eligibility should be raised gradually from 65 to 68 and then indexed to life expectancy. Premiums for Parts B and D should also gradually increase, thus expanding the current policy for Medicare of adjusting the level of taxpayer subsidies to income, with the most affluent seniors receiving much smaller (or in some cases no) taxpayer subsidies for their health coverage. These steps, among others,[5] should occur immediately because they are easily achieved and less controversial and should be part of new debt-limit legislation.

Within five years of these initial changes, patients should also be transitioned to a defined-contribution or premium-support model that would be adjusted for income. Expanding competition in Medicare would restrain federal spending, slow health care costs, and promote greater innovation in the delivery of care.[6]

Medicaid. Federal spending on Medicaid should be put on a budget subject to regular congressional review to bring greater fiscal certainty and stability to the process. Federal Medicaid spending would follow antipoverty spending caps by reverting to the 2007 spending levels when the economy approaches full employment (e.g., the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent) and be adjusted for medical inflation thereafter.

In lieu of traditional Medicaid, able-bodied individuals and families should receive direct federal assistance in the form of tax credits or direct assistance to enable them to buy private insurance coverage of their choice. For the disabled and frail elderly, Medicaid would remain a joint federal–state safety net program, but states would have additional flexibility to adopt more patient-centered models.

Reform of the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. As a part of tax reform (see below), the employee tax break for employer-sponsored coverage would be converted to a non-refundable tax credit that individuals and families could use to purchase the health plan of their choice.

These larger reforms are best achieved through normal legislative order. This could include the legitimate use of reconciliation as part of a comprehensive budget plan. In any case, Congress should pass a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2014.

Social Security

Social Security needs to be reformed. It is running permanent cash-flow deficits and has severe programmatic flaws.[7]

First, Social Security’s eligibility age should gradually be increased in tandem with Medicare’s eligibility age. For both, this change is straightforward and could be included in an initial, small reform package. Next, Social Security should return to its original purpose of guaranteeing that all Americans are protected from poverty in retirement. As part of this insurance protection, benefits would evolve to an understandable, predictable flat benefit that is well above the poverty level. With Social Security functioning as an insurance program, moderate-income retirees would receive a smaller check, while affluent seniors would receive no check unless their financial circumstances change.

To encourage people to stay in the workforce longer, those who work beyond full retirement age would receive a higher level of after-tax income until they do retire.

Tax reform would support Social Security reforms by significantly increasing personal savings that seniors can take into retirement, and there would be no limit on the amount of these tax-deferred savings. Thus, more retirement income would be possible than under the current system. Social Security would become a safety valve against economic reversals and a floor for income after the statutory retirement age.

Other Spending

Defense cuts are already reducing military readiness, thus endangering the security of the United States. The defense portion of the BCA cuts is dangerously flawed and must be reversed. In Saving the American Dream, the sequester for defense spending (including the 2013 cuts) is eliminated, and the higher spending is more than offset with reforms in other spending and entitlements. Defense spending is brought slowly up to and held at 4 percent of GDP. Non-defense discretionary spending is set for 2013 at the BCA sequester level and then reduced to 2 percent of GDP, after which it is indexed to inflation.

Spending in 2014 and beyond should include reforms in long-standing but growing and expensive programs such as farm subsidies and transportation. A program of privatization, including federal asset sales, could begin as early as 2015. Anti-poverty spending should be rolled back and capped when the economy approaches full employment and then consolidated into fewer programs that reflect strong incentives for work and marriage.

Revenue

Tax Reform. The economy remains plagued by the uncertainty of expiring tax policy and an unwieldy and inefficient tax code. Beyond preventing Taxmageddon by extending all current tax policy and delaying the Obamacare tax increases before January 1, 2013, Congress should pass broad substantive tax reform consistent with the New Flat Tax in Saving the American Dream. Tax reform should focus on promoting economic growth by reducing both tax rates and tax distortions while maintaining revenue and distributional neutrality. It should also simplify the tax system and improve its transparency so that taxpayers can better understand the influence of tax policy as well as the true cost of government.[8]

The broad direction for tax reform already in play, especially the bipartisan push for lower corporate income tax rates, is fully consistent with the New Flat Tax. Congress will likely find the goal of lower corporate tax rates quickly running up against the consequent need to lower tax rates for non-corporate businesses. This occurs naturally under the New Flat Tax, which taxes all businesses at a single rate on their domestic net cash flow at the entity level. Likewise, the growing support for a territorial tax system—under which U.S. businesses are taxed solely on their domestic income—is also fully consistent with the New Flat Tax, which levies tax solely on domestic income.

Under the New Flat Tax, the individual income tax and the payroll tax are rolled into one system with the same tax rate that is imposed on business income. Nearly all other federal levies are repealed, leaving a simple system for both individuals and businesses. Under the New Flat Tax as it applies to individuals, only income used for consumption is taxed, thus eliminating the existing tax bias against saving. In addition, all distorting credits, exemptions, and deductions are eliminated, leaving only two credits and three deductions.

The first credit is the above-mentioned tax credit for health insurance. This tax credit is less distortive of economic decisions than current law is, but it remains a clear subsidy for the purchase of health insurance. It is necessary because the current-law tax bias favoring health insurance is so powerful and so entrenched that simply eliminating the tax advantage is impracticable.

The second credit carried over from current law is the earned income credit (EIC). The EIC needs reform in its own right, but it is also the largest income-support component of the overall federal anti-poverty program and one of its most effective elements. Changes in the EIC should then be considered part of the proposed budget for anti-poverty programs.

The three deductions are as follows:

The deduction for charitable expense, which is retained because this tax system taxes the individual on what he or she spends. Charitable contributions benefit the receiving organization and thus should be deductible for the recipient.
A deduction for higher education, which recognizes that education expenses are a form of saving and investing simultaneously, which in every other instance is excluded from tax under the New Flat Tax.
An optional home mortgage deduction with the proviso that if the homeowner chooses a mortgage with deductible interest, then the lender must, as under current law, continue to pay tax on interest income earned. Alternatively, the home owner may choose to forgo the deduction, in which case the lender earns tax-free interest income and can thus charge a lower mortgage interest rate.

The New Flat Tax, the tax reform plan, is implemented effective January 1, 2014.

Addressing the Fiscal Cliff

Table 1 addresses each element of the fiscal cliff and the proposed steps that Congress should take on each of them.

—Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis and Lazof Family Fellow in Economics, and Stuart M. Butler, PhD, is Director of the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation.

The editors are grateful to the team leaders who worked with policy experts throughout The Heritage Foundation to develop this report: J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy; Rea S. Hederman, Jr., Assistant Director and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis; David C. John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; Nina Owcharenko, Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies; and Drew Gonshorowski, Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis.

This plan was developed as part of the Solutions Initiative and funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peterson Foundation convened organizations with a variety of perspectives to develop plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The American Action Forum, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, each received grants. All organizations had discretion and independence to develop their own goals and propose comprehensive solutions. The Peterson Foundation’s involvement with this project does not represent endorsement of any plan.

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

The Century: America’s Time — Videos

Posted on March 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Films, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: American history, history, The Century: America's Time |

The Century: America’s Time – The Beginning: Seeds of Change

The Century: America’s Time – 1914-1919: Shell Shock

The Century: America’s Time – 1920-1929 Boom to Bust

The Century: America’s Time – 1929-1936 Stormy Weather

The Century: America’s Time – 1936-1941 Over the Edge

The Century: America’s Time – 1941-1945 Civilians at War

The Century: America’s Time – 1946-1952 Best Years

The Century: America’s Time – 1953-1960 Happy Daze

The Century: America’s Time – 1960-1964 Poisoned Dreams

The Century: America’s Time – 1965-1970 Unpinned

The Century: America’s Time – 1971-1975 Approaching the Apocalypse

The Century: America’s Time – 1976-1980 Starting Over

The Century: America’s Time – 1981-1989 A New World

The Century: America’s Time – 1990-1999 – Then and Now

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

Woodrow Wilson — Videos

Posted on March 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Economics, fascism, freedom, liberty, Politics, Progressives, Progressivism, U.S. Constitution, Woodrow Wilson |

Woodrow Wilson 1 of 2

Woodrow Wilson 2 of 2

President Woodrow Wilson Biography

Judge Napolitano on How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

Background Articles and Videos

Opinion: Will Obama Poison Immigration Reform?

Reagan on immingration 2

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2

E-Verify: Employment Verification

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release January 29, 2013REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMDel Sol High School
Las Vegas, Nevada

11:40 A.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you! Thank you so much. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Las Vegas! (Applause.) And it is good to be among so many good friends.

Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us. (Applause.) Go Dragons! Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas. (Applause.)

There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few. First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here. (Applause.) Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. (Applause.) Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. (Applause.) Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus. (Applause.) Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman. (Applause.)

But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is. Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona. (Applause.) Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia. (Applause.) Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona. (Applause.) And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California. (Applause.)

And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country. And we are just so grateful. Some outstanding business leaders are here as well. And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students. (Applause.)

Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat. I don’t mind.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Mr. President!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.) And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose. It requires us to act.

I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others. Some debates will be more contentious. That’s to be expected. But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America. I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) The time is now. Now is the time. Now is the time. Now is the time.

AUDIENCE: Sí se puede! Sí se puede!

THE PRESIDENT: Now is the time.

I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long. I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity. Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.

Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!. They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens. In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants. One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.

But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here. Many of them have been here for years. And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble. They’re contributing members of the community. They’re looking out for their families. They’re looking out for their neighbors. They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay. And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy. Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer. They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules. We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law. That’s common sense. And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)

There’s another economic reason why we need reform. It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.

Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country. Think about that.

Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business. We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else? That’s not how you grow new industries in America. That’s how you give new industries to our competitors. That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)

Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants. We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000. (Applause.)

Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities. And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever. (Applause.)

And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here. We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act. We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. That’s what we need. (Applause.)

Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. (Applause.) Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.

But this time, action must follow. (Applause.) We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We’ve been debating this a very long time. So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done. As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform. And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush. You don’t get that matchup very often. (Laughter.) So we know where the consensus should be.

Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away. (Applause.)

So the principles are pretty straightforward. There are a lot of details behind it. We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about. But the principles are pretty straightforward.

First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement. That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders. It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not. So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.

Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. (Applause.)

We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That’s only fair, right? (Applause.)

So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process. And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship. (Applause.)

And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time. (Applause.) For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America. You shouldn’t have to wait years. (Applause.)

If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here. Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs. You’ll help us grow our economy. You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.

So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like: smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world. It’s pretty straightforward.

The question now is simple: Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us? I believe that we do. I believe that we do. (Applause.) I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.

But I promise you this: The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become. Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions. That’s not surprising. There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America. That’s a big deal.

When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.” And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.” We forget that. (Applause.)

It’s really important for us to remember our history. Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you. (Applause.)

Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere. (Laughter.)

The Irish who left behind a land of famine. The Germans who fled persecution. The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west. The Polish. The Russians. The Italians. The Chinese. The Japanese. The West Indians. The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other. (Applause.) All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”

And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here. They faced hardship. They faced racism. They faced ridicule. But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.

They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies. But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick. (Applause.) They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.

And that’s still true today. Just ask Alan Aleman. Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan? He’s around here — there he is right here. (Applause.) Alan was born in Mexico. (Applause.) He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child. Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one: on paper.

In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall. He knew he couldn’t do those things. But it didn’t matter that much. What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.

Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up. And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved. (Applause.) In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish. I felt accepted.”

So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada. (Applause.) Alan is studying to become a doctor. (Applause.) He hopes to join the Air Force. He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family. And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America. (Applause.)

So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams. Remember that this is not just a debate about policy. It’s about people. It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.

Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger. And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last: an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 12:05 P.M. PST

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

Obama’s SAD (Spending Addiction Disorder)–Cure–Cut Spending–Balance The Budget–Freeze Debt Ceiling–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2013. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Balance The Budget, Barack Obama, budget deficit, Congress, national debt, Spending Addiction Disorder |

U.S. National Debt

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Obama On Debt, Guns- Full Press Conference

FLASHBACK: Obama Campaigning In ’04: Deficit Is “An Enormous Problem”

Lou Dobbs on irony of Obama’s new debt ceiling stance

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

National Debt: 16 trillion visualized (with short lecture to the irresponsible)

EXPERT Peter Schiff Says Economic Collapse Is Comming And Is HERE NOW

Obama: I’ll Take Responsibility To Raise The Debt Ceiling! – Cavuto

Debt Limit Showdown Just Around The Corner | Ed Butowsky

Judge Napolitano: President Obama Absolutely Cannot Use the 14th Amendment to R

Reuters Today: Bernanke pleads for higher debt ceiling

 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:  12/12

   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
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,501                269,760                    260

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                            615,546                907,913                292,367

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

R. Christopher Whalen: Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream–Videos

Posted on December 10, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: debt, Economics, Gold Standard, Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream, inflation, monetary policy, R. Christopher Whalen, Videos |

“Whalen is smart. He’s one of the few worthy of your time. Others: Marc Faber, Hugh Hendry, Doug Dachille, David Rosenberg, Howard Davidowitz, James Grant, Peter Schiff, Niall Ferguson, Doug Casey, Jim Rogers.”

Chris Whalen Drops the F-Bomb on Wall Street while sounding the Bankruptcy Alarm

Whalen: Libor Is A Collusive Price Set By Collusive Banks

Whalen: Go Back To The Future To Fight Fraud With Equity Receivers

Value Investing Conference 2010 – Part 4

Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream | Christopher Whalen

‘Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream’

Chris Whalen: “The Fed let the real economy go to hell”

Web Extra Chris Whalen: Is JP Morgan blowing hot air with clawbacks? Plus, Natural Gas forecasts

CHRIS WHALEN: “PAPER ASSETS ARE HEADED TO ZERO” 7-6-2010

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 1/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 2/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 3/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 4/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 5/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 6/7

Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 7/7

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

Tea Party Conservatives–What We Believe–Videos

Posted on December 8, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: American Exceptionalism, Bill Whittle, conservatives, Elitiism, Gun Rights, Guns, Immigration, Natural Law, Small Government, Tea Party Conservatives, The Road To Freedom: How To Win The Fight for Free Enterprise, Videos, Wealth, What We Believe |

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise.

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism

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

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech To Congress–Videos

Posted on December 2, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Collectivism, freedom, Individualism, liberty, Peace, Policeman of the World, Private Property, Progressives, prosperity, Robert Welch, Ron Paul, Warfare, Warfare Welfare State, Welfare |

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech to Congress, November 14th, 2012

Ron’ Pauls Greatest Speech “The Last Nail”

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Thank You Dr. Ron Paul

Duncan Pays Tribute to Ron Paul

Ron Paul RNC Tribute Video

Ron Paul ‘Exit Interview’ with The Washington Post 11/29/2012

ron_paul_family

Background Articles and Videos

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Constitutional Conservatism or Die

A man of principle and integrity ahead of his time.

He will be greatly missed by the American people who love liberty.

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

Stephen Moore–Who is the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America—Videos

Posted on November 29, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Raves, Resources, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Books, Stephen Moore, Videos, Wall Street Journal |

The Truth about Tax “Fairness”

Fairest of Them All: Finding Real Economic Justice – CBN.com

An Evening with Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore delivered the keynote address at the 2012 Annual Dinner of the Kansas Policy Institute October 18, 2012. Moore is an economic writer and policy analyst who founded and served as president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004. He is currently a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, regularly writes for that paper’s opinion page and frequently appears on national broadcast media including CNBC and Fox News.

An Overdue Book

By Thomas Sowell

“…If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?”, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.

The point here is not to say, “Where was Stephen Moore when we needed him?” A more apt question might be, “Where was the whole economics profession when we needed them?” Where were the media? For that matter, where were the Republicans?

Since “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year’s election. But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.

Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged. The title “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” is an obvious response to liberals’ claim that their policies are aimed at creating “fairness” by, among other things, making sure that “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes. If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.

A couple of graphs on pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about “tax cuts for the rich.” These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.

There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.

This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in “Who’s The Fairest of Us All?”

Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today. As Stephen Moore points out, “the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored” the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.

Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.

Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a “tax cut for the rich.” President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out “tax cuts for the rich,” maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy’s answer.

A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on “the rich.”

If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.

Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how “tax cuts for the rich” have “cost” the government money that now needs to be recouped. Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama’s benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion dollar deficits. …”

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/11/28/an_overdue_book/page/full/

WSJ Economist Moore: No Grounds for Obama’s Tax on Wealthy

By Jim Meyers and John Bachman

“…Moore is a senior economics writer and editorial board member for The Wall Street Journal. He is the founder and former president of the Club for Growth and a best-selling author. He also wrote the cover story for Newsmax magazine’s October issue.

Moore’s new book is “Who’s The Fairest of Them All: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes and Wealth in America.”

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, Moore was asked if Obama and the Democrats are advocating higher taxes on the wealthy to improve the economy or to win over middle-class voters.

“I don’t think anybody thinks that raising tax rates will improve the economy. At least I certainly hope no one does because the history is so unequivocal that that’s not the case,” Moore says.

“In fact, what you want is lower tax rates, not higher tax rates, especially when we’re living in a global economy where United States companies are competing against companies in India and China and Germany and France and all over the world.

“So there’s no case on economic grounds for raising tax rates. President Obama is selling that idea on the grounds of fairness and that’s really the reason I wrote this book, to sort of define what does it really mean to be a fair society.

“What I show in this research is that the fairest system of them all is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is what creates growth, creates jobs and higher living standards for almost all Americans. So it’s hard to improve on that system. President Obama believes that the way to create a fairer system is to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. That’s never worked very well.”

Americans are an “aspirational society” and don’t believe that rich people are evil, Moore adds.

“Most of us aspire to be rich and that’s really the American Dream — to try to work hard, start a business, do the right thing so you can get rich. And America’s still the best country in the world to do that, despite all the obstacles that government tries to create.

“I think President Obama is driven much more by an ideology that says, ‘Redistribute wealth instead of creating.’ It’s almost like the wealth is just automatically there and all we have to do is just cut up that pie differently. What I show in the book is that when you try to do that, what happens is the pie shrinks and everybody is worse off.”

Vice President Joe Biden recently said the middle class has been “buried” during the last few years. But Moore argues that the demise of the middle class is a myth.

He comments: “First of all, let me say that the demise of the middle class over the last three years is very real. We have seen a very steep decline in middle income earnings over the last three and a half years. Since President Obama came into office, there’s been a $4,500 decline in income. That’s huge. That’s one month’s income.

“What I was talking about in the book is, over the last several decades, in the ‘80s, ‘90s and even the first of the 2000s, the middle class did very well. President Obama says, ‘Oh, the recent decades have been a time of decline in the middle class.’ That’s not
true. The real decline of the middle class was George Bush’s last year in office and Barack Obama’s first three and a half years in office.” Moore points out that the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans pay most of the taxes — 75 percent of income taxes and 45 percent of all taxes. Yet some argue that the richest Americans are still doing really well when compared to the other 90 percent and can afford to chip in a little more in taxes.

“Look, we do need more tax revenues if we want to balance this budget. There’s absolutely no question about it,” Moore says.

“Tax revenues as a percent of our GDP are lower than they’ve been in 40 years. My response to this argument about why not just soak the rich is that that’s never really worked very well. History proves if you want to get more revenues out of rich people, cut their tax rates, don’t raise them. That’s a lesson that John F. Kennedy taught us, Ronald Reagan taught us, even George W. Bush taught us.

“I don’t think there’s any evidence that raising tax rates way up is going to get more money out of the rich because the rich will find shelters, they will find tax carve-outs and loopholes and deductions to hide their money.”

Another argument from the left is that we should raise tax rates to where they were under President Clinton. President Obama has pointed out that those rates did not slow down economic growth during Clinton’s tenure. Moore takes issue with that point of view.

“A couple of things,” he says. “One is that President Obama doesn’t want to just raise the rates to the Clinton era, he wants them to be a lot higher. People forget that also in the Obamacare healthcare law, there’s a 3.8 percent investment surtax so rates would actually go up about four percentage points higher than they were in the Clinton administration.

“But the other thing to point out is the Clinton years were prosperous, in part because under a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton, who was a conservative in terms of his fiscal policies, government spending fell as a share of GDP from 22 percent to 18 percent. So that’s like a tax cut when you cut government spending by four percentage points of GDP.

“Barack Obama’s done just the opposite. He’s raised gross spending by almost four percentage points of GDP. We’ve been averaging about 24 percent, which is the highest it’s been any time since World War II when we were fighting the Nazis and the Japanese.

“So the point I would make is that Barack Obama’s kind of the anti-Clinton. Obama’s not a fiscal conservative. He’s driven up the debt by over $1 trillion a year. Just last week, the numbers came out that we had a $1.1 trillion deficit in 2012. That’s four straight years with trillion-dollar deficits. That isn’t fiscal conservatism. That doesn’t help anybody.”

The Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire next year at the same time that automatic cuts in government spending are scheduled to take effect, possibly leading to what some have called a “fiscal cliff.” That makes this year’s election crucial, Moore asserts.

“The most important fiscal cliff is this tax increase, and the reason this is such an important election is if Barack Obama wins, he will have a mandate from voters to raise tax rates,” he tells Newsmax.

“I agree with the Congressional Budget Office and a lot of other economists that that’s something that could cause a double dip recession. And if you think the economy’s bad now, wait until
those tax rates go up in 2013.

“One of the arguments for Mitt Romney is he’s actually going to cut the rates, not raise them. I do think we need spending cuts. There’s a lot of people who say that we can’t afford to do these spending cuts next year. Yes, we can afford to do that.

“In fact, we have to do that. We have to start really taking a blade to government spending because that’s so inefficient and every dollar the government spends is a dollar less the private sector has to spend on its own expansions.”

Mitt Romney is vowing to cut taxes by 20 percent across the board and pay for those cuts by eliminating loopholes. Romney also says he believes in a progressive tax structure.

“I like his tax plan,” Moore says. “I don’t agree with everything in it but [I agree with] the basic concept, which Ronald Reagan did with Dan Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood and Ted Kennedy and Democrats back in the
1980s.

“It’s amazing how the Democrats have moved to the left. Back then, what we did is we cut tax rates significantly, very significantly, and we closed off loopholes to make a much more efficient tax system and it worked really well. That’s what Mitt Romney, for the most part, is trying to do — get rid of the pollution and the special interest carve-outs in the tax system, lower the rates for everybody.

“It’s been proven time again, that’s a very productive way to get the economy moving again. The numbers can add up. Ronald Reagan proved the numbers can add up. When we did the 1986 tax act, that lowered the rate all the way down to 28 percent. We actually got more revenues into the treasury, not less.”

Asked to give Romney’s plan a letter grade, Moore responds: “I’ll give him a B-plus. The tax plan is strong and it will move us right in the right direction.

“Now I’d like to see a flat tax. I’m a Steve Forbes guy. One rate for everybody with no deductions, no loopholes and you get rid of the double tax on saving and investment. That would be the optimal tax system but Mitt Romney’s plan moves us in that direction.

“Interestingly, under Mitt Romney, the top tax rate would be about 28 percent. Under Barack Obama, the top tax rate goes up to 42 percent. That’s a big difference.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/moore-obama-tax-plan/2012/10/09/id/459261#ixzz2DeMBPkui

75% of Obamacare taxes will be on middle-class

Stephen Moore: We’ve Spent Over a Million Dollars For Each Green Job

Wall Street Journal Stephen Moore – Ron Paul’s IRS proposal

Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore on the 2012 Election

Ashbrook Center – Stephen Moore – Can Capitalism Make a Comeback? – April 4 2012

Stephen Moore, Senior Economics writer for the Wall Street Journal speaks at an Ashbrook Center Major Issues Lecture on April 4, 2012. Moore addresses the topic : Can Capitalism Make a Comeback?

Stephen Moore – America at a Crossroads

Dr. Mathew Manweller of Central Washington University and Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal join members of the Freedom Foundation to discuss the direction the United States going into the 2012 election.

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: deficits, Economics, national debt, Politics |

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.

About Tax Code and the IRS.

— “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. …”

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/

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) …”

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

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

We Can’t Afford Four Years of Obama With Fewer Americans Working Than Five Years Ago In November 2007 (146.6 Million) Than Today (143.4 Million)–Obama Is Not Working Out–Vote For A Change–Videos

Posted on November 4, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Resources, Video, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Can You Afford Four More Years, Economic, fiscal policy, Politics, President Obama, U-3, U-6, Unemployment Rate, We Can't Afford Four More Years |

November 2nd 2012 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (October Jobs Report)

Market Week in Review – November 2, 2012

Employment Level

143.384 Million

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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	146397(1)	146157	146108	146130	145929	145738	145530	145196	145059	144792	144078	143328
2009	142187(1)	141660	140754	140654	140294	140003	139891	139458	138775	138401	138607	137968
2010	138500(1)	138665	138836	139306	139340	139137	139139	139338	139344	139072	138937	139220
2011	139330(1)	139551	139764	139628	139808	139385	139450	139754	140107	140297	140614	140790
2012	141637(1)	142065	142034	141865	142287	142415	142220	142101	142974	143384
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

155.641 Million

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
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	154075(1)	153648	153925	153761	154325	154316	154480	154646	154559	154875	154622	154626
2009	154236(1)	154521	154143	154450	154800	154730	154538	154319	153786	153822	153833	153091
2010	153454(1)	153704	153964	154528	154216	153653	153748	154073	153918	153709	154041	153613
2011	153250(1)	153302	153392	153420	153700	153409	153358	153674	154004	154057	153937	153887
2012	154395(1)	154871	154707	154365	155007	155163	155013	154645	155063	155641
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.8%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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	65.9	66.0	65.8	65.8
2009	65.7	65.8	65.6	65.6	65.7	65.7	65.5	65.4	65.1	65.0	65.0	64.6
2010	64.8	64.9	64.9	65.1	64.9	64.6	64.6	64.7	64.6	64.4	64.5	64.3
2011	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.1	64.0	64.1	64.1	64.1	64.0	64.0
2012	63.7	63.9	63.8	63.6	63.8	63.8	63.7	63.5	63.6	63.8

Unemployment Level

12.258 Million

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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	7678	7491	7816	7631	8395	8578	8950	9450	9501	10083	10544	11299
2009	12049	12860	13389	13796	14505	14727	14646	14861	15012	15421	15227	15124
2010	14953	15039	15128	15221	14876	14517	14609	14735	14574	14636	15104	14393
2011	13919	13751	13628	13792	13892	14024	13908	13920	13897	13759	13323	13097
2012	12758	12806	12673	12500	12720	12749	12794	12544	12088	12258

Unemployment Rate U-6

7.9%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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		8.3	8.7	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.4
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.9	8.7	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.1	7.8	7.9

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

14.7%

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

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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	11.1	11.8	12.7	13.5
2009	14.2	15.1	15.7	15.8	16.4	16.5	16.5	16.7	16.8	17.2	17.1	17.1
2010	16.7	16.9	16.9	17.0	16.6	16.5	16.5	16.6	16.9	16.8	16.9	16.6
2011	16.1	15.9	15.7	15.9	15.8	16.2	16.1	16.2	16.4	16.0	15.6	15.2
2012	15.1	14.9	14.5	14.5	14.8	14.9	15.0	14.7	14.7	14.6

Background Articles and Videos

Mythical Green Shoots and the Big Government Lie on Unemployment

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed                       USDL-12-2164
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, November 2, 2012

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 -- OCTOBER 2012

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, health care,
and retail trade.

   _______________________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                               |
  |                                Hurricane Sandy                                |
  |                                                                               |
  |Hurricane Sandy had no discernable effect on the employment and unemployment   |
  |data for October. Household survey data collection was completed before the    |
  |storm, and establishment survey data collection rates were within normal ranges|
  |nationally and for the affected areas. For information on how unusually severe |
  |weather can affect the employment and hours estimates, see the Frequently Asked|
  |Questions section of this release.                                             |
  |                                                                               |
  |_______________________________________________________________________________|

Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate (7.9 percent) and the number of unemployed persons (12.3
million) were essentially unchanged in October, following declines in September.
(See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks increased to 14.3
percent in October, while the rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.2
percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.0 percent)
showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.9 percent in October
(not seasonally adjusted), down from 7.3 percent a year earlier. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)

In October, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 5.0 million. These individuals accounted for 40.6 percent of
the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force rose by 578,000 to 155.6 million in October, and the labor
force participation rate edged up to 63.8 percent. Total employment rose by 410,000
over the month. The employment-population ratio was essentially unchanged at 58.8
percent, following an increase of 0.4 percentage point in September. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 269,000 to 8.3 million in October, partially
offsetting an increase of 582,000 in September. These individuals were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a
full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In October, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little
different from a year earlier. (These 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 813,000 discouraged workers in October, a
decline of 154,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6 million persons marginally attached
to the labor force in October had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See
table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October. Employment growth
has averaged 157,000 per month thus far in 2012, about the same as the average monthly
gain of 153,000 in 2011. In October, employment rose in professional and business
services, health care, and retail trade. (See table B-1.)

Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs in October, with gains in 
services to buildings and dwellings (+13,000) and in computer systems design (+7,000).
Temporary help employment changed little in October and has shown little net change 
over the past 3 months. Employment in professional and business services has grown by
1.6 million since its most recent low point in September 2009.

Health care added 31,000 jobs in October. Job gains continued in ambulatory health
care services (+25,000) and hospitals (+6,000). Over the past year, employment in
health care has risen by 296,000.

Retail trade added 36,000 jobs in October, with gains in motor vehicles and parts dealers 
(+7,000), and in furniture and home furnishings stores (+4,000). Retail trade has added
82,000 jobs over the past 3 months, with most of the gain occurring in motor vehicles
and parts dealers, clothing and accessories stores, and miscellaneous store retailers.

Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up (+28,000) over the month.
This industry has added 811,000 jobs since a recent low point in January 2010, with
most of the gain occurring in food services.

Employment in construction edged up in October. The gain was concentrated in specialty
trade contractors (+17,000).

Manufacturing employment changed little in October. On net, manufacturing employment
has shown little change since April.

Mining lost 9,000 jobs in October, with most of the decline occurring in support
activities for mining. Since May of this year, employment in mining has decreased
by 17,000.

Employment in other major industries, including wholesale trade, transportation and 
warehousing, information, financial activities, and government, showed little change
over the month.

In October, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was
34.4 hours for the fourth consecutive month. The manufacturing workweek edged down by
0.1 hour to 40.5 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged
down by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In October, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged
down by 1 cent to $23.58. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen
by 1.6 percent. In October, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees edged down by 1 cent to $19.79. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised from +142,000 to
+192,000, and the change for September was revised from +114,000 to +148,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for November is scheduled to be released on Friday,
December 7, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

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

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

Posted on October 20, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Narcissism, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Vacations, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Arrogances, Barack Obama, Dishonesty, Economics, Liar, lies, Politics, President Obama |

65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama

Body Language of Narcissistic and Psychopathic Abuser

The truth about “pathological liars”

Background Articles and Videos

Vice Presidential Debate 2012, Paul Ryan Vs Joe Biden; ‘This Week’ Roundtable Discussion

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

2012 First Presidential Debate–Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney–Denver, Colorado, October 3, 2012–Romney Clearly Won–Videos

Posted on October 3, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth | Tags: 2012 First Presidential Debate, 3 October 2012, Barack Obama, Colorado, Denver, Mitt Romney, Obama vs. Romney, Presidential Debate 2012, Videos |

2012 First Presidential Debate – Romney vs. Obama (Full)

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.1

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.2

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.3

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.4

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.5

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.6

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.7

First Presidential Debate Of 2012 Race pt.8

Where Does Romney Go After Debate Success?

Post-Debate, Obama Under Fire for ‘Grim’ Demeanor

Romney Vs Obama Debate – MSNBC’s Priceless Reaction

“About As Devastating A Victory & Defeat As I’ve Seen In A Presidential Campaign” Rudy Giuliani

“Romney Was Spectacular” Media Bias In First Presidential Debate ??? Ann Coulter Weighs In

Frank Luntz’ Suspicious Presidential Debate Focus Group

First Presidential Debate of 2012: What did Mitt Romney Gain?

ABC World News Now: Presidential Debate 2012: Analysis by Rick Klein

Special Programming: Mitt Romney zingers at first presidential debate

We Can’t Afford Four More Years

Biden » Middle Class Buried by Barry

Ron Paul Gives His Pre-Presidential Debate Analysis @ CNBC (10-3-12)

Rand Paul “Governor Romney Didn’t Need Me Last Night… I’m Pretty Impressed With His Performance”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

President Obama Grades Fixing The Economy As Incomplete–American People Grade F for Failure–We Are Definitely Worse Off Than Four Years Ago–Videos

Posted on September 4, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Inflation, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Regulations, Video, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Absolutely Not, Are you better off than you were four years ago?, Economics, Economy, Failure, Incomplete Grade, Mitt Romney, Obama, President Obama, Ronald Reagan |

Reagan 1980 Are you better off than you were four years ago?

GOP Pushes ‘Are You Better Off Now?’: Dems on Defense

Obama admits ‘You are not better off than four years ago.’

“Defining Moment” Ad from 2008

Obama Gives Himself An Incomplete Grade On Fixing The Economy After Four Years

Government Parties While America Burns…

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: Economics, Foreign Policy, Iran, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Politics, Republican National Convention, Vision for America, War |

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 )

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: Barack Obama, economic growth, Economics, Mitt Romney, Newsweek, Niall Ferguson, Obama Gotta Go, Paul Ryan, Politics, unemployment, Videos |

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.

Paul Krugman’s Rebuttal—and Ferguson’s Response

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.

Obama Economic Recovery Ends: Shortest and Weakest Recovery After 10 Post War Recessions–Obama Recession Starts–Videos

Posted on August 15, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Uncategorized, Unemployment, Video, War, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: Economic Expansions, Economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, NBER, Obama Recession, Obama Recovery, Politics |

U-6 Unemployment Rate

Debacle: How Obama Incentivized Sloth & Created the Weakest Recovery In Modern History

Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) speaks about July’s Employment Numbers on CNBC

The President’s Policies Aren’t Working

Economic recovery is weakest since World War II

“…recession that ended three years ago this summer has been followed by the feeblest economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest.

The ugliness goes well beyond unemployment, which at 8.3 percent is the highest this long after a recession ended.

Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar recovery. Consumer spending has never been so slack. Only once has job growth been slower.

More than in any other post-World War II recovery, people who have jobs are hurting: Their paychecks have fallen behind inflation.

Many economists say the agonizing recovery from the Great Recession, which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, is the predictable consequence of a housing bust and a grave financial crisis.

Credit, the fuel that powers economies, evaporated after Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. And a 30 percent drop in housing prices erased trillions in home equity and brought construction to a near-standstill.

So any recovery was destined to be a slog.

“A housing collapse is very different from a stock market bubble and crash,” says Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It affects so many people. It only corrects very slowly.”

The U.S. economy has other problems, too. Europe’s troubles have undermined consumer and business confidence on both sides of the Atlantic. And the deeply divided U.S. political system has delivered growth-chilling uncertainty.

The AP compared nine economic recoveries since the end of World War II that lasted at least three years. A 10th recovery that ran from 1945 to 1948 was not included because the statistics from that period aren’t comprehensive, although the available data show that hiring was robust. There were two short-lived recoveries — 24 months and 12 months — after the recessions of 1957-58 and 1980.

Here is a closer look at how the comeback from the Great Recession stacks up with the others:

—FEEBLE GROWTH

America’s gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery. GDP grew an average of 15.5 percent in the first three years of the eight other comebacks analyzed.

The engines that usually drive recoveries aren’t firing this time.

Investment in housing, which grew an average of nearly 34 percent this far into previous postwar recoveries, is up just 8 percent since the April-June quarter of 2009.

That’s because the overbuilding of the mid-2000s left a glut of houses. Prices fell and remain depressed. The housing market has yet to return to anything close to full health even as mortgage rates have plunged to record lows.

Government spending and investment at the federal, state and local levels was 4.5 percent lower in the second quarter than three years earlier.

Three years into previous postwar recoveries, government spending had risen an average 12.5 percent. In the first three years after the 1981-82 recession, during President Ronald Reagan’s first term, the economy got a jolt from a 15 percent increase in government spending and investment.

This time, state and local governments have been slashing spending — and jobs. And since passing President Barack Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package in 2009, a divided Congress has been reluctant to try to help the economy with federal spending programs. Trying to contain the $11.1 trillion federal debt has been a higher priority.

Since June 2009, governments at all levels have slashed 642,000 jobs, the only time government employment has fallen in the three years after a recession. This long after the 1973-74 recession, by contrast, governments had added more than 1 million jobs.

—EXHAUSTED CONSUMERS

Consumer spending has grown just 6.5 percent since the recession ended, feeblest in a postwar recovery. In the first three years of previous recoveries, spending rose an average of nearly 14 percent.

It’s no mystery why consumers are being frugal. Many have lost access to credit, which fueled their spending in the 2000s. Home equity has evaporated and credit cards have been canceled. Falling home prices have slashed home equity 49 percent, from $13.2 trillion in 2005 to $6.7 trillion early this year.

Others are spending less because they’re paying down debt or saving more. Household debt peaked at 126 percent of after-tax income in mid-2007 and has fallen to 107 percent, according to Haver Analytics. The savings rate has risen from 1.1 percent of after-tax income in 2005 to 4.4 percent in June. Consumers have cut credit card debt by 14 percent — to $865 billion — since it peaked at over $1 trillion in December 2007.

“We were in a period in which we borrowed too much,” says Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics. “We are now deleveraging. That’s a process that slows us down.”

—THE JOBS HOLE

The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II. In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average.

During the 1981-82 recession, the U.S. lost 2.8 million jobs. In the three years and one month after that recession ended, the economy added 9.8 million — replacing the 2.8 million and adding 7 million more.

Never before have so many Americans been unemployed for so long three years into a recovery. Nearly 5.2 million have been out of work for six months or more. The long-term unemployed account for 41 percent of the jobless; the highest mark in the other recoveries was 22 percent.

Gregory Mann, 58, lost his job as a real estate appraiser three years ago. “Basically, I am looking for anything,” he says. He has applied to McDonald’s, Target and Nordstrom’s.

“Nothing, not even a rejection letter,” he says.

His wife, a registered nurse, has lost two jobs in the interim — and just received an offer to work reviewing medical records near Atlanta.

“We are broke and nearly homeless,” he says. “If this job for my wife hadn’t come through, we would be out on the street come Sept. 1 or would have had to move in with relatives.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called long-term unemployment a “national crisis.” The longer people remain unemployed, the harder it is to find work, Bernanke has said. Skills erode, and people lose contact with former colleagues who could help with the job search.

—SHRINKING PAYCHECKS

Usually, workers’ pay rises as the economy picks up momentum after a recession. Not this time. Employers don’t have to be generous in a weak job market because most workers don’t have anywhere to go.

As a result, pay raises haven’t kept up with even modest levels of inflation. Earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers — a category that covers about 80 percent of the private, nonfarm workforce — have risen just over 6.2 percent since June 2009. Consumer prices have risen nearly 7.2 percent. Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen 0.8 percent. In the previous five recoveries —the records go back only to 1964 — real wages had gone up an average 1.5 percent at this point.

Falling wages haven’t hurt everyone. Lower labor costs helped push corporate profits to a record 10.6 percent of U.S. GDP in the first three months of 2012, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. And those surging profits helped lift the Dow Jones industrials 54 percent from the end of June 2009 to the end of last month. Only after the recessions of 1948-49 and 1953-54 did stocks rise more.

Stock investments may be coming back, but savings are still getting squeezed by the rock-bottom interest rates the Fed has engineered to boost the economy. The money Americans earn from interest payments fell from nearly $1.4 trillion in 2008 to barely $1 trillion last year — a drop of more than $370 billion, or 27 percent. That amounts to shrinking income for many retirees.

Washington isn’t doing much to help the economy. An impasse between Obama and congressional Republicans brought the U.S. to the brink of default on the federal debt last year —a confrontation that rattled financial markets and sapped consumer and business confidence.

Given the political divide, businesses and consumers don’t know what’s going to happen to taxes, government spending or regulation. Sharp tax increases and spending cuts are scheduled to kick in at year’s end unless Congress and the White House reach a budget deal.

In the meantime, it’s difficult for consumers to summon the confidence to spend and businesses the confidence to hire and expand. Never in the postwar period has there been so much uncertainty about what policymakers will do, says Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business: “No one is sure what will actually happen.”

As weak as this recovery is, it’s nothing like what the U.S. went through in the 1930s. The period known as the Great Depression actually included two severe recessions separated by a recovery that lasted from March 1933 until May 1937.

It’s tough to compare the current recovery with the 1933-37 version. Economic figures comparable to today’s go back only to the late 1940s. But calculations by economist Robert Coen, professor emeritus at Northwestern University, suggest that things were far bleaker during the recovery three-quarters of a century ago: Coen found that unemployment remained well above 10 percent — and usually above 15 percent — throughout the 1930s.

Only the approach and outbreak of World War II — the ultimate government stimulus program — restored the economy and the job market to full health.

Comparison of U.S. Recoveries from Recession

1949-2007

Real Gross Domest Product (GDP) Growth Rates

Background Articles and Videos

Did Mitt Romney Call President Obama A Liar?

Romney Aid: Obama’s Ad Is a Lie

Current Population Survey

August 3, 2012

Employment from the BLS household and payroll surveys:

summary of recent trends

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-1531
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, August 3, 2012

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JULY 2012

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the unemployment rate
was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking
places, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons (12.8 million) and the unemployment rate (8.3
percent) were essentially unchanged in July. Both measures have shown little movement
thus far in 2012. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Hispanics (10.3 percent) edged
down in July, while the rates for adult men (7.7 percent), adult women (7.5 percent),
teenagers (23.8 percent), whites (7.4 percent), and blacks (14.1 percent) showed little
or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in July (not seasonally
adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In July, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was
little changed at 5.2 million. These individuals accounted for 40.7 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.7 percent, and the employment-
population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little in July. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In July, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down from 2.8
million a year earlier. (These 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 852,000 discouraged workers in July, a decline
of 267,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in July had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons
such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July. Since the beginning of this
year, employment growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the average
monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In July, employment rose in professional and business
services, food services and drinking places, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 49,000 in July. Computer
systems design added 7,000 jobs, and employment in temporary help services continued
to trend up (+14,000).

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places rose by
29,000 over the month and by 292,000 over the past 12 months.

Manufacturing employment rose in July (+25,000), with nearly all of the increase in durable
goods manufacturing. Within durable goods, the motor vehicles and parts industry had fewer
seasonal layoffs than is typical for July, contributing to a seasonally adjusted employment
increase of 13,000. Employment continued to trend up in fabricated metal products (+5,000).

Employment continued to trend up in health care in July (+12,000), with over-the-month
gains in outpatient care centers (+4,000) and in hospitals (+5,000). Employment also
continued to trend up in wholesale trade.

Utilities employment declined in July (-8,000). The decrease reflects 8,500 utility workers
who were off payrolls due to a labor-management dispute.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction, retail
trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities, and government, showed little
or no change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.5 hours in July. Both the manufacturing workweek, at 40.7 hours, and factory overtime,
at 3.2 hours, were unchanged over the month. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)

In July, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up
by 2 cents to $23.52. Over the year, average hourly earnings rose by 1.7 percent. In July,
average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased
by 2 cents to $19.77. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised from +77,000 to +87,000,
and the change for June was revised from +80,000 to +64,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for August is scheduled to be released on Friday, September 7, 2012,
at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Glenn Hubbard: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery

Tax cuts, spending restraint and repeal of Obama’s regulatory excesses would mean 12 million new jobs in his first term alone

By Glenn Hubbard

“…We are currently in the most anemic economic recovery in the memory of most Americans. Declining consumer sentiment and business concerns over policy uncertainty weigh on the minds of all of us. We must fix our economy’s growth and jobs machine.

We can do this. The U.S. economy has the talent, ideas, energy and capital for the robust economic growth that has characterized much of America’s experience in our lifetimes. Our standard of living and the nation’s standing as a world power depend on restoring that growth.

But to do so we must have vastly different policies aimed at stopping runaway federal spending and debt, reforming our tax code and entitlement programs, and scaling back costly regulations. Those policies cannot be found in the president’s proposals. They are, however, the core of Gov. Mitt Romney’s plan for economic recovery and renewal.

In response to the recession, the Obama administration chose to emphasize costly, short-term fixes—ineffective stimulus programs, myriad housing programs that went nowhere, and a rush to invest in “green” companies.

As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone, and that returning to pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add about 2.3 million jobs in just 18 months.

The Obama administration’s attempted short-term fixes, even with unprecedented monetary easing by the Federal Reserve, produced average GDP growth of just 2.2% over the past three years, and the consensus outlook appears no better for the year ahead.

Moreover, the Obama administration’s large and sustained increases in debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax increases, further chilling business investment and job creation. A recent study by Ernst & Young finds that the administration’s proposal to increase marginal tax rates on the wage, dividend and capital-gain income of upper-income Americans would reduce GDP by 1.3% (or $200 billion per year), kill 710,000 jobs, depress investment by 2.4%, and reduce wages and living standards by 1.8%. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the large deficits codified in the president’s budget would reduce GDP during 2018-2022 by between 0.5% and 2.2% compared to what would occur under current law.

President Obama has ignored or dismissed proposals that would address our anti-competitive tax code and unsustainable trajectory of federal debt—including his own bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—and submitted no plan for entitlement reform. In February, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously told congressional Republicans that this administration was putting forth no plan, but “we know we don’t like yours.”

Other needed reforms would emphasize opening global markets for U.S. goods and services—but the president has made no contribution to the global trade agenda, while being dragged to the support of individual trade agreements only recently.

The president’s choices cannot be ascribed to a political tug of war with Republicans in Congress. He and Democratic congressional majorities had two years to tackle any priority they chose. They chose not growth and jobs but regulatory expansion. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raised taxes, unleashed significant new spending, and raised hiring costs for workers. The Dodd-Frank Act missed the mark on housing and “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions but raised financing costs for households and small and mid-size businesses.

These economic errors and policy choices have consequences—record high long-term unemployment and growing ranks of discouraged workers. Sadly, at the present rate of job creation and projected labor-force growth, the nation will never return to full employment.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor’s plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:

• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor’s plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.

• Reform the nation’s tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.

• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor’s plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.

In contrast to the sclerosis and joblessness of the past three years, the Romney plan offers an economic U-turn in ideas and choices. When bolstered by sound trade, education, energy and monetary policy, the Romney reform program is expected by the governor’s economic advisers to increase GDP growth by between 0.5% and 1% per year over the next decade. It should also speed up the current recovery, enabling the private sector to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, or about 12 million new jobs in a Romney first term, and millions more after that due to the plan’s long-run growth effects.

But these gains aren’t just about numbers, as important as those numbers are. The Romney approach will restore confidence in America’s economic future and make America once again a place to invest and grow.

Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. He is an economic adviser to Gov. Romney. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577562842656362660.html

U.S. Debt Clocks

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Marc Faber China a Bubble about to burst

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: Going Off the Fiscal Cliff Is Irresponsible

Senator Pat Toomey on Fiscal Cliff: A Strong Recovery Is within Reach

Senator Pat Toomey on Fiscal Policy: We’ve Created a Chilling Environment

Dr. Coburn on Charlie Rose on US Debt Crisis, Leadership Deficit in Washington

The Fuse is Lit: European Perils

Marc Faber the Great Depression all over again

Jim Rogers – A Holocaust is Coming

Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 after rising 3.0 percent in the

fourth quarter, according to estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The first-quarter growth rate was unchanged from the second estimate released in May.

Revisions to GDP

For the third estimate of first-quarter real GDP growth, upward revisions to net exports and business investment in structures were offset by downward revisions to consumer spending, inventory investment, and state and local government spending.

Disposable income and saving Real disposable personal income—which adjusts personal income for taxes and inflation—rose 0.7 percent in the first quarter, compared with 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter. The personal saving rate—saving as a percentage of disposable personal income—was 3.7 percent, compared with 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter.

The personal saving rate has declined for six quarters in a row.

GDP highlights

Net exports increased (after decreasing in the fourth quarter), consumer spending accelerated, and residential housing investment picked up in the first quarter. These positive economic contributions, however, were more than offset by a slowdown in inventory investment.

The slowdown in inventory investment reflected a sharp downturn in the manufacturing and wholesale industries. In contrast,

retail inventory investment turned up, especially by motor vehicles dealers.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdphighlights.pdf

Congressman Forbes on Lou Dobbs Tonight discusses DHS circumventing immigration laws

IT’S OFFICIAL: Obama Recovery Now Ranks Dead Last in Modern Times

7/6/12

Obama now ranks 10th of 10 recoveries in both jobs & economic growth

“…With the new June jobs report in hand, President Barack Obama’s economic recovery now ranks as the worst in modern times in terms of both job creation and economic growth, says the GOP leader of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.

Texas Congressman Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, observed that the June Employment Report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics along with the gross domestic product report released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on June 28th has marked a milestone: President Obama’s economic recovery ranks as dead last in the post-World War II era.

“Since 1945, the United States has had ten economic recoveries that lasted more than one year. In terms of both how fast the U.S. economy has recovered and how many private sector jobs have been created since the recession’s low point, President Obama now ranks tenth of ten – that’s dead last”, said Brady.

“Three years after the recession officially ended in June 2009, we still have more than four million fewer private sector jobs than we did when the recession started,” he continued. “And for the 41st consecutive month, the unemployment rate has soared above a discouraging 8%.”

Brady says that while President Obama boosts about the 4.4 million private sector jobs he claims have been created during the latest 28 months, put in perspective “President Obama’s recovery has been weaker than every one of his predecessors in the past seven decades. He can try to spin it any way he wants but when measured by jobs or by economic growth he’s at the bottom of the list.”

Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that real GDP grew expanded by 6.7% over eleven quarters since the recession ended. Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the number of private sector jobs had grown by a mere 4.1% since the cyclical low point.

In contrast, real GDP expanded by 17.6%, and private sector jobs ballooned by 10.7% during comparable periods of the Reagan recovery. “Obama’s economic record, frankly, is embarrassing,” Brady said.

“Think about it – despite President Obama’s stimulus, financial bailout, housing bailout, auto bailout, cash-for-clunkers, cash-for-caulkers and an unprecedented five trillion dollars in deficit spending, the Obama recovery is officially dead last in results. Can unemployed Americans really afford four more years of this failed economic leadership?” …”

http://kevinbrady.house.gov/brady-news-releases/its-official-obama-recovery-now-ranks-dead-last-in-modern-times/

Krauthammer’s Epic Takedown of Obama’s Anti-Business Speech

Congressman Kevin Brady Questions Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke 6-7-12

‘Unintended Consequences’ Author Ed Conard on Bain Capital, Economics and Obama’s Record

‘Don’t Vote For Obama’ – President’s Harvard Professor

Robert Mangabeira Unger – “Beyond Obama”

Background Articles and Videos

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (1 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (2 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (3 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (4 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (5 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (6 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (7 of 8)

U.S. debt crisis explained: IOUSA (8 of 8)

Economic Cycles Before the Fed | Thomas E Woods, Jr.

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)

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

« Previous Entries

Immigration

The Century: America’s Time – 1929-1936 Stormy Weather

The Century: America’s Time – 1936-1941 Over the Edge

The Century: America’s Time – 1941-1945 Civilians at War

The Century: America’s Time – 1946-1952 Best Years

The Century: America’s Time – 1953-1960 Happy Daze

The Century: America’s Time – 1960-1964 Poisoned Dreams

The Century: America’s Time – 1965-1970 Unpinned

The Century: America’s Time – 1971-1975 Approaching the Apocalypse

The Century: America’s Time – 1976-1980 Starting Over

The Century: America’s Time – 1981-1989 A New World

The Century: America’s Time – 1990-1999 – Then and Now

Stephen Moore–Who is the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America—Videos

The Truth about Tax “Fairness”

Fairest of Them All: Finding Real Economic Justice – CBN.com

WSJ Economist Moore: No Grounds for Obama’s Tax on Wealthy

75% of Obamacare taxes will be on middle-class

Related

Paul Krugman’s Rebuttal—and Ferguson’s Response

Related Stories

Michael Tomasky: Romney’s Wimp Factor

Howard Kurtz: Why Campaigns Don’t Need the Media

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Pages

Email Subscription

Search

Blogroll

Follow “Pronk Palisades”

Immigration

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern

Most Important Problem

Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts

Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke

Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco

US Debt A Threat To National Security

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

Funding Government by the Minute

Why Not Print More Money?

Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?

US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained

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

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

Revenues

Outlays

Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

The Economic Outlook for 2013

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Steven Coughlin Remarks on the Benghazi Embassy Cover Up

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers

JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′

Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!

ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING

Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013

Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014

Background Articles and Videos

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

Bret Baier – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Bob Trent – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.24

The Glenn Beck Program Saudi Suspect/Boston Bombing Air Date: 4-24-13.

Multiple Confirmations of Immediate Deportation of Saudi National in Boston Bombing

Saudi National and Boston Student Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Is Being Deported

Janet Napolitano Speaks About Saudi National – TheBlazeTV – Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Janet Napolitano refuses to answer questions about the deportation of Saudi national 04/18/13

Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection

Saudi Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Boston Bombing Suspect Deported–why????

Related Articles and Videos

Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cuomo, Cars, and Culture: How Gun Violence is More Than Mental

NRA Rep. Feldman to Piers Morgan: If we didn’t have Guns Who would you have turned to

Soledad O’Brien Takes On Gun Advocate Over Assault Weapons Ban

Richard Feldman on NRA and Gun Lobbying

Richard Feldman from “Gun Fight” – directed by Barbara Kopple

Richard Feldman appearing on D.L. Hughley’s show

The Guns And Weed Lobbyist, Richard Feldman, Esq. – Anarchy Gumbo Podcast

Background Articles and Videos

Rand Paul Discusses Gun Control, Immigration Reform, and Boston Bombing – Glenn Beck 4/18/2013

Piers Morgan BULLIES Gun Right Advocate John Lott Live on TV: ‘I Suggest You Keep Quiet’

Politics of Gun Control, Part 1: NRA, Congress and America’s Social Capital

Politics of Gun Control, Part 2: NRA, Congress and America’s Social Capital

Second Amendment Activist Nikki Goeser and Author John Lott

History

Origins