Psychology
James Grant Interviewed by James Turk–Federal Reserve, National Debt, Money, Gold — Videos
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
Radical Islamic Jihadist Terrorists — Democrats in Denial — Americans Buying Ammunitions and Guns — Videos
Are there radical Islamic terror camps in North America? Apparently there are dozens author says
Radical Jihadists Training On U.S. Soil – Behind Enemy Lines – Wake Up America!!!
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 1
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 2
The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America
Beslan: 5 years on
Dispatches – Beslan (2006)
The school siege at Beslan was the bloodiest act of terrorism ever to take place on Russian soil. Yet beyond this horrible truth remain many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on who the terrorists were. How many they numbered? Where they came from? How they got to Beslan? What they wanted? Whether they were all killed or captured? And just how the siege which began on September 1 2004, ended so catastrophically?
This Dispatches special uses testimony from eyewitnesses, survivors and security services. This is combined with video and audio archive footage presents the fullest account of what happened at Beslan.
The film examines the background to the events of Beslan. It also looks at the Russian state’s reaction to the atrocity and the motivation of the hostage-takers. Beslan School Siege also documents how a small town is coming to terms with the loss of its children.
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 1
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 2
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 3
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 4
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 5
Glenn Beck U.S. Denial of Islamic Jihad Threat, Beslan School Massacre 4-26-13
Glenn Beck The Story of Beslan
Glenn Beck Beslan, Terror, and Chechnya
Glenn Beck Experts on Beslan
Background Articles and Videos
Terrorism & Jihad: An Islamic Perspective – Dr. Zakir Naik
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
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos
Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos
Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos
Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos
Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos
Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos
Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos
Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos
An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man
Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!
Understanding Jihad–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin — A Financial Reckoning Day Fallout: Surviving Today’s Global Depression — Videos
An Empire of Debt Leading to a “Crack-up” in the Global Monetary System w/Bill Bonner!
Bill Bonner ZURICH.MINDS INTERVIEW
Bill Bonner: Uncharted Territory -
Emerging Market Real Estate, The Most Promising Asset Class: An Interview with Bill Bonner
Bill Bonner at The Equitymaster Investment Summit 2010
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 1 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 2 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 3 – July 24
Addison Wiggin / Financial Reckoning Day Fallout on FOX Business News
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 1)
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 2)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Dr. Lacy Hunt–Roadblocks To Recovery — The Economic Consequences of Debt — Heading Towards The Bang Point — “This is how the world ends not with a bang but a whimper.” — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Terrorists Bomb Boston Marathon Finish Line — 3 Dead, 180 Injured With Two Bombs — April 15, 2013 — Updated — Photos and Videos
Second Bomb Goes Off With Fire Ball in Background
Marathon Runner Brought Down By First Bomb
Martin Richard, 8-year-old killed in bombing, one of three
Martin Richard, right, killed, his mother, Denise, injured required brain surgery, sister Jane, lost leg, father, Bill ran in marathon
My dear son Martin has died from injuries sustained in the attack on Boston. My wife and daughter are both recovering from serious injuries.
‘We thank our family and friends, those we know and those we have never met, for their thoughts and prayers. I ask that you continue to pray for my family as we remember Martin. We also ask for your patience and for privacy as we work to simultaneously grieve and recover. Thank you.’
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Krystal Campbell killed in bombing, one of three
‘My daughter was the most lovable girl,’ her father, William Campbell Jr. said. ‘She helped everybody, and I’m just so shocked right now. We’re just devastated. She was a wonderful, wonderful girl. Always willing to lend a hand.’
Another, unnamed victim was also killed in the blasts.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Explosions at the Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon Moment Of Bomb Explosion Raw Footage (AMAZING FOOTAGE) NEW!
Moment Of Boston Marathon Blast
Boston Marathon Explosions Video: Two Bombs Near Finish Line
Bombs Explode At Boston Marathon “Raw Footage”
Boston Marathon explosion caught on camera
Finish Line Boston Marathon after explosion (second explosion seen in background)
Runner captures Boston Marathon explosion
BREAKING NEWS: Two Bombs explode at Boston Marathon 2013
Aftermath to explosion at Boston Marathon
BREAKING NEWS Terrorist Attack, BOMB BLASTS Boston Marathon.
Boston Marathon Bombs Explode 2013
Terrorist attack the Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon explosion: Moment of second blast caught on video
Boston Marathon explosion caught on tape
BOSTON BOMBING Anti-Government, Patriot_ Bomber? Fox News Makes Case For _Right-Wing
RAW FOOTAGE: Terrorism Strikes Boston Marathon As Bombs Explode 2013
Deadly Boston Marathon explosions a terror attack – FBI
2013 Boston Marathon Terrorist Attacks Over 100 Injured And 2 Dead Including 8yo Child
Boston Marathon Explosions: Several Injuries Reported After Bombings Near Race’s Finish Line
Explosions at Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon Explosion – Runners recount bomb explosion
Boston Marathon explosions: witnesses describe chaos and fear on streets
Obama Speaks On Bombing At Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon Explosions: Police Detail Three Blasts in City
Boston Marathon Attact – An Al Qaeda Publication Last Month Describe Scenario Like Boston!
Boston Marathon Explosion 2013 – MA Authorities Statements (Immediately after Explosion)
Third victim was a B.U. grad student
FBI recovers black nylon, nails from blast site
8-year-old boy dies after greeting father at finish
Mother of marathon attack victim speaks
A Horrific Day in Boston
Boston Marathon Bomb Maybe Packed in Pressure Cooker
Boston bombs put inside pressure cookers
Boston Bombs Were In PRESSURE COOKERS – Hidden In Black Duffel Bags
Listen to initial police radio traffic from Boston explosions. Raw video of blasts at Marathon. 2 dead & more than 50 hurt.
Boston marathon bombs were pressure cooker IEDs packed with ball-bearings: Devices that killed three, including eight-year-old boy waiting for his runner dad are used by terrorists in Afghanistan
- Pressure-cooker bombs were packed with shards of metal, nails and ball bearings
- Devices are frequently used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to Homeland Security
- An al-Qaeda magazine last year listed U.S. sporting events as one of ‘the most important enemy targets’
- An eight-year-old boy and a 29-year-old woman were among the three killed in the attack
- 176 people injured, at least 17 of them in critical condition and ‘a lot’ of amputations have been performed
- Surgeons describe numerous severe injuries from ‘pellets, shrapnel or nails from inside the bombs’
- Investigators do not know of motive for the bombs or who is behind them but are questioning ‘many people’
- Obama vows to bring bombers to justice: ‘The American people will not be terrorized’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309545/Boston-bombings-2013-Devices-killed-including-Martin-Richard-Krystle-Campbell-used-terrorists-Afghanistan.html#ixzz2Qfc73HKd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Latest from AP:
Two bombs exploded near the crowded finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing two people and injuring more than 50 others in a terrifying scene of broken glass, smoke and severed limbs, authorities said.
A third blast rocked the John F. Kennedy Library a few miles away and more than an hour later, but no injuries were reported, the police commissioner said. A senior U.S. intelligence official said two other explosive devices were found near the marathon finish line.
There was no word on the motive or who may have launched the attack, and authorities in Washington said there was no immediate claim of responsibility.
The twin blasts at the race took place almost simultaneously and about 100 yards apart, tearing limbs off numerous people, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending smoke rising over the street.
As people wailed in agony, bloody spectators were carried to a medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners.
“They just started bringing people in in with no limbs,” said Tim Davey, of Richmond, Va. He said he and his wife, Lisa, tried to keep their children’s eyes shielded from the gruesome scene.
“They just kept filling up with more and more casualties,” Lisa Davey said. “Most everybody was conscious. They were very dazed.”
Some 27,000 runners took part in the 26.2-mile race, one of the world’s premier marathons and one of Boston’s biggest annual events.
After the explosions, cellphone service was shut down in the area to prevent any possible remote explosive detonations, a law enforcement official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis asked people to stay indoors or go back to their hotel rooms and avoid crowds as bomb squads checked parcels and bags left along the race route.
The Federal Aviation Administration barred low-flying aircraft from within 3.5 miles of the site.
President Barack Obama was briefed on the explosions by Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco. Obama also told Mayor Tom Menino and Gov. Deval Patrick that his administration would provide whatever support was needed, the White House said.
“There are people who are really, really bloody,” said Laura McLean, a runner from Toronto, who was in the medical tent being treated for dehydration when she was pulled out to make room for victims.
About two hours after the winners crossed the line, there was a loud explosion on the north side of Boylston Street, just before the photo bridge that marks the finish line. Another explosion could be heard a few seconds later.
The Boston Police Department said two people were killed. Hospitals reported at least 57 injured, at least eight of them critically.
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the two other explosive devices found nearby were being dismantled. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the findings publicly.
Competitors and race volunteers were crying as they fled the chaos. Authorities went onto the course to carry away the injured while race stragglers were rerouted away from the smoking site.
Roupen Bastajian, a 35-year-old state trooper from Smithfield, R.I., had just finished the race when they put the heat blanket wrap on him and he heard the blasts.
“I started running toward the blast. And there were people all over the floor,” he said. “We started grabbing tourniquets and started tying legs. A lot of people amputated. … At least 25 to 30 people have at least one leg missing, or an ankle missing, or two legs missing.”
Smoke rose from the blasts, fluttering through the national flags lining the route of the world’s oldest and most prestigious marathon. TV helicopter footage showed blood staining the pavement in the popular shopping and tourist area known as the Back Bay.
Cherie Falgoust was waiting for her husband, who was running the race.
“I was expecting my husband any minute,” she said. “I don’t know what this building is … it just blew. Just a big bomb, a loud boom, and then glass everywhere. Something hit my head. I don’t know what it was. I just ducked.”
Runners who had not finished the race were diverted straight down Commonwealth Avenue and into a family meeting area, according to an emergency plan that had been in place.
The Boston Marathon honored the victims of the Newtown, Conn., shooting with a special mile marker in Monday’s race.
Boston Athletic Association president Joanne Flaminio previously said there was “special significance” to the fact that the race is 26.2 miles long and 26 people died at Sandy Hook Elementary school.
___
Associated Press writers Jay Lindsay, Steve LeBlanc and Meghan Barr in Boston and Lara Jakes and Eileen Sullivan in Washington contributed to this report.
Two bombs rock Boston Marathon, at least two killed, dozens hurt
By Scott Malone and Svea Herbst-Bayliss
Two bombs ripped through the crowd at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing two people and injuring dozens in what a White House official said would be handled as an “act of terror.”
President Barack Obama promised to hunt down whoever was responsible for the attack on a day when tens of thousands of spectators pack the streets to watch the world-famous race.
Many runners were heading for the finish when a fireball and smoke rose from behind cheering spectators and a row of flags representing the countries of participants, video from the scene showed.
The cheers turned to screams and panic.
“It sounded like a sonic boom. I haven’t stopped shaking yet,” said Melissa Stanley, who watched her daughter cross the finish line four minutes before the explosions.
Ambulances, fire trucks and dozens of police vehicles converged at the scene, and spectators could be seen crying and consoling each other.
The dead included an 8-year-old boy, the Globe reported, citing two law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation.
“I saw people who looked like they had their legs blown off. There was a lot of blood over their legs. Then people were being pushed in wheelchairs,” said Joe Anderson, 33, a fisherman from Pembroke, Massachusetts, who had just run the race holding a large U.S. flag.
The blasts put police on alert in major cities across the United States, including in Washington, D.C. and New York City, sites of the September 11, 2001 hijacked plane attacks.
Four Boston area-hospitals contacted by Reuters reported a total of at least 67 hurt. Some of those may have been hospitalized for treatment from running the marathon. The Boston Globe newspaper reported that more than 100 people were hurt.
Two high-level U.S. law enforcement officials, who declined to be identified, said one or more bombs caused the explosions at the scene of the marathon, which is run annually on the state holiday Patriots’ Day.
“These were powerful devices that resulted in serious injury,” Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told reporters.
About an hour after the 2:50 p.m. EDT (1850 GMT) blasts in Boston’s Copley Square marred the usually joyous end to the marathon, a fire erupted at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library three miles away, but no one was injured, police said. Authorities were uncertain whether the fire was related, Davis said.
In Washington, Obama told reporters, “Make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this and we will find out who did this.”
He said “any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.”
No suspect was in custody. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice Department, Homeland Security Department and other agencies were all investigating, authorities said.
“EVIL, EVIL, EVIL”
Runners from the marathon and others went to the Massachusetts General Hospital offering to donate blood.
“This was evil, evil, evil,” said Kevin Garboit, 46, from the hospital lobby, asking staff if he could donate blood. He was told to come back Tuesday morning.
Without knowing who perpetrated the attack, the White House said it was handling the incident as “an act of terror.”
“Any event with multiple explosive devices – as this appears to be – is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror,” a White House official said.
The two explosions were about 50 to 100 yards (meters) apart as runners crossed the finish line with a timer showing 4 hours and 9 minutes, some 9 minutes faster than the average finish time, as reported by Runner’s World magazine.
Of the 23,326 runners who started the race on Monday, 17,584 finished before the blast, marathon officials said. Runners were diverted before officials brought the marathon to a halt.
Spectators typically line the 26.2 mile race course, with the heaviest crowds near the finish line.
Mike Mitchell of Vancouver, Canada, a runner who had finished the race, said he was looking back at the finish line and saw a “massive explosion.”
Smoke rose 50 feet in the air, Mitchell said. People began running and screaming after hearing the noise, Mitchell said.
“Everybody freaked out,” Mitchell said.
The Boston Marathon has been held on Patriots’ Day, the third Monday of April, since 1897. The event, which starts in Hopkinton, Massachusetts and ends in Boston’s Copley Square, attracts an estimated half-million spectators and some 20,000 participants every year.
The Boston Symphony Orchestra cancelled Monday night’s concert and the National Hockey League’s Boston Bruins canceled their home game against the Ottawa Senators. The Boston Red Sox had completed their Major League Baseball game at Fenway Park before the explosions.
Earlier on Monday, Ethiopia’s Lelisa Desisa and Kenya’s Rita Jeptoo won the men’s and women’s events, continuing African runners’ dominance in the sport.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-athletics-marathon-boston-blast-idUSBRE93E0ZF20130415
2 killed, dozens injured in blasts near Boston Marathon finish line
Emergency crews responding to Boylston Street incident
Two people were killed and more than 100 people were injured Monday when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
We’ve had a horrific attack here in Boston this afternoon,” Gov. Deval Patrick said.
The blasts happened about 15 seconds apart at 2:50 p.m. near the intersection of Boylston and Exeter streets. Officials described the bombs as “small, portable devices.”
Dozens of people were injured, including a 2-year-old boy, who was being treated at Boston Children’s Hosptial for a head injury.
AFT agents with automatic weapons were seen entering Brigham and Women’s Hospital several hours after the blasts.
ABC News reported officials were questioning a person at the hospital in connection with the bombs, however Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said there were no suspects in custody.
“All Americans stand with the people of Boston,” President Barack Obama said. “We still do not know who did this or why. Make no mistake — we will get to the bottom of this. We will find out who did this. We will find out why they did this.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of Intelligence Committee, told ABC News “It is a terrorist incident.”
“It could be foreign, it could be home grown,” Feinstein said. She said the incident has all the “hallmarks” of a terrorist attack.
Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/2-killed-dozens-injured-in-blasts-near-Boston-Marathon-finish-line/-/11971628/19757044/-/13xg6eaz/-/index.html#ixzz2QZo5YNZi
TERROR BOMBING at Boston Marathon — 2 Dead, 60-Plus Wounded
UPDATE 6:54 p.m. — The Red Cross has announced it does not need more blood donations.
UPDATE 6:50 p.m. — The JFK Library fire is extinguished.
UPDATE 6:35 p.m. — AP is reporting two dead, 80 wounded.
UPDATE 6:34 p.m. — One of the deceased is an 8-year-old boy.
UPDATE 6:17 p.m. — Speaking live on Fox news: House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul says he’s hearing ball bearings were used in the two explosive devices that detonated almost simultaneously at the Boston Marathon finish line.
UPDATE 6:13 p.m. — Obama is addressing the nation. “We still do not know who did this or why; but make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this.” …. “We will find out who did this, and we will hold them accountable.”
UPDATE 5:59 p.m. — Via Boston and Massachusetts officials speaking in live press conference on WBZ: Ed Davis, Boston police commissioner, says it’s unclear whether the incident at Umass’ JFK Library was just a fire or was an incendiary device. It’s unknown if it’s tied to the two explosions at the marathon finish line. There is “no suspect” in the bombings.
UPDATE 5:50 p.m. — President Obama is scheduled to address the nation at 6:10 p.m. EST.
UPDATE 5:31 p.m. — Via Talking Points Memo: Boston PD says NY Post is wrong about the death toll and the Saudi “suspect” in the hospital. No suspects in custody.
UPDATE 5:21 p.m. — Via scanner: Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital on Francis Street reports a military-style duffle bag in the ER. The National Guard bomb squad is on the way.
UPDATE 5:02 p.m. — Via NY Times: All cell phone in Boston will be disabled to prevent remote detonations.
UPDATE 5:01 p.m. — Via scanner: A black male in a black hoodie with a backpack was spotted trying to enter a gated area. He was turned away and was operating an iPad. This was 5 minutes before the bombing.
UPDATE 4:51 p.m. New York Post reports suspect is a Saudi national.
UPDATE 4:49 p.m. — Via scanner: FBI is searching for a yellow Penske truck.
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/04/boston-marathon-bomb-explosion/
Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans
The following timeline lists terrorist attacks against the United States and Americans living either in the U.S. or abroad.
- 1920
- Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of
- Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.
- 1975
- Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.
- 1979
- Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration.
- 1982–1991
- Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
- 1983
- April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
- Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
- Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
- 1984
- Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
- Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
- 1985
- April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
- June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
- Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
- Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
- 1986
- April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
- April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
- 1988
- Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
- 1993
- Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
- 1995
- April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
- Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
- 1996
- June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
- 1998
- Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
- 2000
- Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
- 2001
- Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
- 2002
- June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
- 20031
- May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
- 2004
- May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
- June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
- Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
- 2005
- Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
- 2006
- Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.
- 2007
- Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
- Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria’s Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
- 2008
- May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
- June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
- June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
- July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It’s the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
- Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
- Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
- Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai’s landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
- 2009
- Feb. 9, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills four American soldiers and their Iraqi translator near a police checkpoint.
- April 10, Iraq: a suicide attack kills five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen.
- June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack “to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”
- Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government’s watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son’s increased extremism.
- Dec. 30, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills eight Americans civilians, seven of them CIA agents, at a base in Afghanistan. It’s the deadliest attack on the agency since 9/11. The attacker is reportedly a double agent from Jordan who was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.
- 2010
- May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.
- May 10, Jacksonville, Florida: a pipe bomb explodes while approximately 60 Muslims are praying in the mosque. The attack causes no injuries.
- Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia’s security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
- 2011
- Jan. 17, Spokane, Washington: a pipe bomb is discovered along the route of the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial march. The bomb, a “viable device” set up to spray marchers with shrapnel and to cause multiple casualties, is defused without any injuries.
2012Sept. 11, Benghazi, Libya: militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades fire upon the American consulate, killing U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other embassy officials. U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton said the U.S. believed that Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a group closely linked to Al Qaeda, orchestrated the attack.2013Feb. 1, Ankara, Turkey: Ecevit Sanli detonates a bomb near a gate at the U.S. Embassy. Sanli dies after detonating the bomb. One Turkish guard is also killed. Didem Tuncay, a respected television journalist, is injured in the blast. Unlike the bombing at the embassy in Benghazi last September, the U.S. government immediately calls the bombing a terrorist attack. According to Turkish officials, the attack is from the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party, which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and other nations.
See also U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations; Suspected al-Qaeda Terrorist Acts.
Read more: Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html#ixzz2QaN1nfWc
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Democratic Controlled U.S. Senate Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for the Federal Government — Videos
Paul Ryan Questions OMB Director – President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request
Sessions: Obama’s Persistent Budget Misrepresentations Make Compromise More Difficult
‘When Do We Hold People Accountable?’ Sessions Slams Dems For Falsely Claiming ‘Balance’ To Nation
WASHINGTON, March 22—Throughout the course of the budget debate, Democratic Senators have repeatedly suggested their budget contains a “balanced approach,” a rhetorical description that has no accounting value. (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went even further last night and repeatedly said his party’s plan called for “balancing the budget.”)
But as Sen. Sessions pointed out this morning, “They know they don’t have a balanced budget. They won’t tell the American people they don’t have one. They just use the word. But it’s not in their document. Where and when do we hold people accountable in this United States Senate for an accurate [description] of legislation? It’s wrong.”
To view for yourself the budget tables with the Democrats’ own numbers (in other words, before one even begins to strip out all the gimmicks and accounting tricks), please click here: http://1.usa.gov/YwdsbM. Note that cumulative deficits will amount to $5.198 trillion, and the nation’s gross debt will climb to $24.365 trillion by 2023.
Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget
Hatch on Senate Democrats’ Budget: ‘A Cynical Political Document’
Senator King Discusses 2014 Fiscal Year Budget Blueprint
Sessions: Dem Budget Would Trap Millions In Poverty By Shielding Failed Government Programs
Senate Budget Committee Hearing | 4.10.13 | Chairman Murray Opening Remarks
Chairman Murray Kicks Off Senate Budget Resolution Debate with Speech on Senate Floor
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
U.S. Senate Budget Committee
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray unveils her vision for the Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget resolution.
For more information: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic
Portman Remarks at Senate Budget Committee Markup
Hatch: Entitlement Reform Not an Option, a Necessity
Background Articles and Videos
Making the Federal Budget
How do you spend four trillion dollars? Turns out, you don’t; it takes the President and the Congress to allocate, authorize, appropriate, resolve, outlay, sequester, impound, and just plain spend that much in 2011. Such a process is baffling at times. It’s so complex that you may marvel that Washington can get any action accomplished and paid for at all. So how does the federal budget happen?
Join the Mercatus Center’s Capitol Hill Campus and Senior Research Fellow Jason J. Fichtner for a walk through the process of making the federal budget. He explains the process from its beginnings in the halls of the White House, highlight the many roles Congress takes to authorize and enforce the budget, and navigate the twisting, puzzling conglomeration of bureaucratic steps, political goals, and accountancy rules that go into making our government function.
Changing the Budget Process to Promote Fiscal Responsibility
A Sustainable Approach to Entitlement Reform
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/senatebudget
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent.
The highest priority of the Senate Budget is to create the conditions for job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down.
The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy and that true national prosperity comes from the middle out, not the top down. We believe that deficit reduction at the expense of economic growth is doomed to failure, and policies that promote a strong middle class are essential to tackling our long-term deficit and debt challenges.
The policies President Barack Obama and Congress put in place in response to the Great Recession pulled our economy back from the brink and helped to add back jobs. But with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. Therefore, the Senate Budget:
• Fully replaces the harmful cuts from sequestration with smart, balanced, and responsible deficit reduction, which would save hundreds of thousands of jobs while protecting families, communities, and the fragile economic recovery.
• Invests in long-term economic growth and national competitiveness by tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation to create jobs now and lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth.
2
• Includes a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21
st century jobs. This jobs investment package is fully paid for by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Protects and continues tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.
The Senate Budget builds on the work we have done over the last two years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
At the end of 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission report laid out a responsible goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. Since that time, Congress and the administration have implemented $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion coming from new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. The Senate Budget:
• Surpasses the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction and puts our deficit and debt on a downward, sustainable, and responsible path.
• Builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.
• Includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction through responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget:
o
$493 billion saved on the domestic spending side, including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families.
o
$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations.
o
$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Includes reconciliation instructions, a fast-track process that makes sure that the new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
3
The Senate Budget keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities.
The Senate Budget takes the position that the promises we made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities ought to be fulfilled. This budget:
• Preserves and protects Medicare so that it is strong for seniors today and will be there for our children and grandchildren.
• Rejects calls to dismantle, privatize, or voucherize Medicare.
• Builds on the responsible changes made in the Affordable Care Act to continue reducing health care costs while protecting patients.
• Protects the expansion of health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans and ensures the federal-state partnership on Medicaid is preserved.
• Rejects efforts to simply shift health care costs to states or make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families.
• Maintains the key principle that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable families and communities.
• Continues to make the investments we need in national defense, homeland security, and law enforcement to keep our country and our communities strong and secure.
• Keeps the promise we have made to our veterans that their country will be there for them and provide the resources and support they need when they come home.
The House Republican approach would hurt middle class families and the economy and break the promises we have made to our seniors.
The Senate Budget offers a very different vision than the approach taken by House Republicans.
Their proposals would cut the legs out from under our fragile economic recovery and threaten millions of jobs. They would slash the investments in infrastructure, education, and innovation that we need to lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth and that would position us to compete and win in the 21
st century global economy.
House Republicans would dismantle Medicare and cut off programs that support the middle class and most vulnerable families. And they would do all that while refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to contribute their fair share.
We believe that the American people strongly support the pro-growth, pro-middle class approach taken in the Senate Budget. And we look forward to engaging with families and seniors across the country as we work to pass the responsible, fair, and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve.
-
4/11/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/1/13 -
-
3/23/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/21/13 -
-
3/20/13 -
The following timetable is used to guide the federal budget process each year (see 2. U.S.C. 631)
| Date | Action |
| 1st Monday in February | President’s budget submission (includes OMB sequester preview report and adjustments to spending caps). |
| February 15 | CBO budget and economic outlook report |
| Within 6 weeks of President’s budget | Committees submit views and estimates to the Budget Committees |
| April 1 | Senate Budget Committee reports resolution |
| April 15 | Congress completes budget resolution. If not, Chairman of House Budget Committee files 302(a) allocations; Ways and Means is free to proceed with pay-as-you-go measures |
| May 15 | Appropriations bills may be considered in the House |
| June 10 | House Appropriations reports last bill |
| June 15 | Congress completes action on reconciliation reconciliation (if applicable) |
| June 30 | House completes action on annual appropriation bills |
| July 15 | President submits mid-session review |
| October 1 |
Fiscal year begins Home / Committee Resources / Glossary Appropriations Act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, that generally provides authority for Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Currently, there are 13 regular appropriations acts for each fiscal year. From time to time, Congress also enacts supplemental appropriations acts. (See Appropriations under Budget Authority; Continuing Resolution; Supplemental Appropriation.) Authorizing Committee: A committee of the House or Senate with legislative jurisdiction over laws that set up or continue the operations of Federal programs and provide the legal basis for making appropriations for those programs. Authorizing committees also have direct control over spending for mandatory programs since the Government’s obligation to make payments for such program is contained in the authorizing legislation (See Entitlement.) Authorizing Legislation: Legislation enacted by Congress that sets up or continues the operation of a Federal program or agency indefinitely or for a specific period of time. Authorizing legislation may limit the amount of budget authority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appropriation of “such sums as are necessary.” (See Budget Authority; Entitlement.) Backdoor Spending: (See Direct Spending or Mandatory Spending.) Budget Authority: The authority Congress gives to Government agencies, permitting them to enter into obligations which will result in immediate or future outlays. Budget authority may be classified in several ways. It may be classified by the form it takes: appropriations, borrowing authority, or contract authority. Budget authority may also be classified by the determination of amount: definite authority or indefinite authority. Finally budget authority may be classified by the period of availability: 1-year authority, multi-year authority, or no-year authority (available until used). Forms of Budget Authority Appropriations.–An act of Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Borrowing Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to incur obligations and to make payments for specified purposes out of money borrowed from the Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank, or the public. The Budget Act in most cases requires that new authority to borrow must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Contract Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to enter into contracts in advance of appropriations. Under the Budget Act, most new authority to contract must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Offsetting collections and receipts.–Income from the public which is displayed in the budget as negative budget authority. (See Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts. Budget Baseline: Projected Federal spending, revenue and deficit levels based on the assumption that current policies will continue unchanged for the upcoming fiscal year. In determining the budget baseline under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Directors of OMB and CBO estimate revenue levels and spending levels for entitlement programs based on continuation of current laws. For estimating discretionary spending amounts (both defense and non- defense), the Directors assume an adjustment for inflation (GNP deflator) added to the previous year’s discretionary spending levels. The baseline also includes sufficient appropriations to cover a Federal pay comparability raise (without absorption). Budget Deficit: The amount by which the Government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues for a given fiscal year. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Budget Resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress setting forth, reaffirming, or revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for a fiscal year. A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution of Congress. Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature because they are not laws. Budget resolutions do not need to be laws because they are a legislative device for the Congress to regulate itself as it works on spending and revenue bills. (Unified) Budget Surplus: The amount by which the Government’s revenues exceed its outlays for a given fiscal year. The “on-budget surplus” excludes spending and revenues of the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Postal Service. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Capital Budget: A budget that segregates capital spending from all other spending, what is usually considered the “operating budget.” In a capital budget, spending and receipts in the capital budget are excluded from the operating budget and are not included in the operating budget’s deficit or surplus calculations. A capital budget would include spending only for capital assets. Capital assets are usually defined to be limited to land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property that are owned and used by the Federal government and have a useful life of more than 2 years. However, some proponents of capital budgeting have suggested that capital should be defined to include Federal “investment” spending that yields long-term benefits. President Clinton established a Commission to Study Capital Budgeting by issuing Executive Order 13037 on March 3, 1997. The Commission is required to issue its report by December 17, 1998. Congressional Budget: (See Budget Resolution.) Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill. A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However, there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills. A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused with the budget resolution. Credit Authority: Authority to incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guarantee commitments. Under the Budget Act, new credit authority must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Crosswalk: Also known as “committee allocation” or “section 302 allocation.” The means by which budget resolution spending totals are translated into binding guidelines with respect to budget authority and outlays for committee action on spending bills. The Budget Committees allocate the budget resolution totals among the committees by jurisdiction, Crosswalk allocations of budget authority and outlays to the committee appear in the joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution. Current Services Budget: A section of the President’s budget, required by the Budget Act, that sets forth the level of spending or taxes that would occur if existing programs and policies were continued unchanged through the fiscal year and beyond, with all programs adjusted for inflation so that existing levels of activity are maintained. (See Baseline.) Deferral of Budget Authority: An action by the executive branch that delays the obligation of budget authority beyond the point it would normally occur. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President must provide advanced notice to the Congress of any proposed deferrals. A deferral may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President’s message proposing the deferral is made. Congress may overturn a deferral by passing a law disapproving the deferral. Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. Direct Spending: A term defined in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to include entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and budget authority provided in law other than appropriations acts. From the perspective of the appropriations process, all direct spending is classified as mandatory as opposed to discretionary spending. New direct spending is subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. Direct spending is synonymous with mandatory spending. (See Mandatory Spending and Entitlement.) Discretionary Spending: A category of spending (budget authority and outlays) subject to the annual appropriations process. (See Appropriations Acts.) Entitlement: Programs that are governed by legislation in a way that legally obligates the Federal government to make specific payments to qualified recipients. Payments to persons under the Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ pensions programs are considered to be entitlements. (See Direct Spending and Mandatory Spending.) Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order. There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget–as required by Pub. L. No. 102-55 for the determination of whether to designate spending as an emergency spending: Necessary expenditure.–an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is merely useful or beneficial; Sudden.–quickly coming into being, not building up over time; Urgent.–pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action; Unforseen.–not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, would not be “unforseen”); and Not permanent.–the need is temporary in nature. Expenditures: (See Outlays.) Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public. Debt held by the government.–Represents the holdings of debt by federal trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires that this surplus be invested in government securities. Debt held by the public.–Represents the holdings of debt by individuals, institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely tracks the unified budget deficit for that year. Fiscal Policy: Federal government policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management intended to promote the nations’ macroeconomic goals, particularly with respect to employment, gross national product, price level stability, and equilibrium in balance of payments. The budget process is a major vehicle for determining and implementing Federal fiscal policy. The other major component of Federal macroeconomic policy is monetary policy. (See Monetary Policy.) Fiscal Year: A fiscal year is a 12-month accounting period. The fiscal for the Federal Government begins October 1 and ends September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example fiscal year 1997 is the year beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1997. Functional Classification: A system of classifying budget resources by major purpose so that budget authority, outlays, and credit activities can be related in terms of the national needs being addressed (for example, national defense, health) regardless of the agency administrating the program. There are currently 20 functions. A function may be divided into two or more subfunctions depending upon the complexity of the national need addressed by that function. (See Budget Authority; Outlays.) return to topIImpoundment: A generic term referring to any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority in the manner intended by Congress. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Rescission of Budget Authority.) return to topJJoint Committee on Taxation (JCT): Section 8001 of the Internal Revenue Code authorized the creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation. By statute, it is composed of five members from the Committee on Finance (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee and five members from the Committee on Ways and Means (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee. In practice, the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Taxation has rotated between the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means with each new Congress. Among other things, the JCT’s duties are to investigate the operation and effects of the federal tax system. return to topM Mandatory Spending: Refers to spending for programs the level of which is governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by appropriations. Examples of mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, rehabilitation services, Members’ pay, judges pay and the payment of interest of the public debt. Many of these programs are considered entitlement. (See Direct Spending.) Mark-Up: Meetings where congressional committees work on language of bills or resolutions. At Budget Committee mark-ups, the House and Senate Budget Committees work on the language and numbers contained in budget resolutions and legislation affecting the congressional budget process. Monetary Policy: Management of the money supply, under the direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, with the aim of achieving price stability and full employment. Government actions in guiding monetary policy, include currency revaluation, credit contradiction or expansion, rediscount policy, regulation of bank reserves and the purchase and sale of Government securities. (See Fiscal Policy.) return to topNNet Deficit Reduction: Savings below the defined budget baseline achieved for the upcoming fiscal year because of laws enacted or final regulations promulgated since January 1. CBO and OMB independently estimate these savings in their initial and final sequester reports. return to topO Offsetting Collections: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public, such as the sale of products or the rendering of a service. Examples include proceeds funds derived from the sale of postage stamps. Offsetting collections are credited against the level of budget authority or outlays associated with a specific program or account. (See Offsetting receipts.) Offsetting Receipts: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public such as the sale of products or the rendering of services. Examples include proceeds from the sale of timber from Federal lands or entrance fees paid at national parks. Rather than being credited against the spending of a particular program or account, (as in the case with offsetting collections) offsetting receipts are deducted from total budget authority and outlays rather than added to Federal revenues even though they are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Generally offsetting receipts are associated with mandatory spending. (See Offsetting collections.) Off-budget Federal Entity: Any Federal fund or trust fund whose transactions are required by law to be excluded from the totals of President’s budget submission and Congress’ budget resolution, despite the fact that these are part of the government’s total transactions. Current law requires that the Social Security trust funds (the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability trust fund) and the Postal Service be off-budget. However, these entities are reflected in the budget in that they are included in calculating the deficit in order to derive the total government deficit that must be financed by borrowing from the public or by other means. All other federal funds and trust funds are on budget. (See Unified Budget.) Outlays: Outlays are disbursements by the Federal Treasury in the form of checks or cash. Outlays flow in part from budget authority granted in prior years and in part from budget authority provided for the year in which the disbursements occur. Outlay Rates: The ratio of outlays (actual government disbursements) in a fiscal year relative to new budgetary resources in that fiscal year. In estimating the budget baseline and baseline deficit for their sequestration reports, CBO and OMB use outlay rates for projecting levels of spending resulting from available budget authority. Pay-as-you-go: Arises in two separate contexts: a point of order in the Senate and a sequester order from OMB. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.–Since fiscal year 1994, the budget resolution has included a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. The rule provides a 3/5ths vote point of order in the Senate against consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in the deficit over a ten year period. It applies to all legislation except appropriations legislation. To determine a violation, CBO measures the budget impact of a direct spending or revenue bill combined with the budget impact of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the latest budget resolution’s adoption to see if the legislation would result in a net deficit increase for any one of three time periods (the first year, the sum of years 1 through 5, and the sum of years 6 through 10.) The pay-go rule sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2002. Pay-as-you-go and sequestration under the BEA.–The Budget Enforcement Act requires OMB to also enforce a “pay-as-you-go” requirement which has a similar effect as the Senate’s point of order: Congress is required to “pay for” any changes to programs which result in an increase in direct spending, or in this case risk a sequester. If OMB estimates that the sum of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since 1990 will result in a net increase in the deficit for the fiscal year, then the President is required to issue a sequester order reducing all non-exempt direct spending accounts by a uniform percentage in order to eliminate the net deficit increase. Most direct spending is either exempt from a sequester order or operates under special rules that minimize the reduction that can be made in direct spending. Social Security is exempt from a pay-as-you-go sequester and Medicare cannot be reduced by more than 4 percent. President’s Budget: The document sent to Congress by the President in January or February of each year, requesting new budget authority for Federal programs and estimating Federal revenues and outlays for the upcoming fiscal year. Revenues: Collections from the public arising from the Government’s sovereign power to tax. Revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes (such as social security payroll taxes), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and the like. Reconciliation Process: A process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution “reconciliation instructions” to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single “reconciliation bill under expedited procedures.” Reserve Fund: A provision in a budget resolution that grants the Chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to make changes in budget aggregates and committee allocations once some condition or conditions have been met. Since a budget resolution establishes a binding ceiling on aggregate budget authority and outlay levels and a binding floor on revenues, budget resolutions frequently include reserve funds for deficit-neutral legislation that would otherwise violate the budget resolution and be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. For example, the FY 1997 budget resolution included a tax reduction reserve fund that allowed the Chairman to reduce the revenue floor and the relevant spending allocations to accommodate legislation that reduced taxes if that legislation also contained offsetting spending reductions. Rescission of Budget Authority: Cancellation of budget authority before the time when the authority would otherwise cease to be available for obligation. The rescission process begins when the President proposes a rescission to the Congress for fiscal or policy reasons. Unlike the deferral of budget authority which occurs unless Congress acts to disapprove the deferral, rescission off budget authority occurs only if Congress enacts the rescission. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Impoundment.) Scoring or Scorekeeping: The process for estimating budget authority, outlay, revenue and deficit levels which result from congressional budgetary actions. Scorekeeping data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office include status reports on the effect of congressional actions and comparisons of these actions to targets and ceilings set by Congress in budget resolutions. These reports are published in the Congressional Record on a regular basis. OMB is responsible for scoring legislation to determine if a sequester is necessary. Sequester: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a presidential spending reduction order that occurs by reducing spending by uniform percentages. Sequestrable Resource: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings federal funding authority (budgetary resources) subject to reductions under a presidential sequester order for achieving required outlay reductions (in non-exempt programs). Supplemental Appropriation: An act appropriating funds in addition to those in the 13 regular annual appropriations acts. Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority beyond the original estimates for programs or activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriation act) in cases where the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until enactment of the next regular appropriation bill. (See Appropriations Act.) return to topTTax Expenditures: Revenue losses attributable to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or to a special credit, preferential rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. return to topU Unfunded Mandates: A Federal Intergovernmental Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal government, except as conditions of assistance or duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Exceptions to this rule are: enforcing constitutional rights; statutory prohibitions against discrimination; emergency assistance requested by states; accounting/auditing for federal assistance; national security; Presidential designated emergencies; and Social Security. Provisions that increase stringency of conditions of assistance or decrease federal funding for large state entitlement programs (greater than $500 million) if states lack authority to decrease their responsibilities are considered mandates as well. A Federal Private Sector Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector. The exceptions are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Unified Budget: A comprehensive display of the Federal budget. This display includes all revenues and all spending for all regular Federal programs and trust funds. The 1967 President’s Commission on Budget Concepts recommended the unified budget and it has been the basis for budgeting since 1968. The unified budget replaced a system of the budgets that existed before 1968 (an administrative budget, a consolidated cash budget, and a national income accounts budget). |
Budget Control Act
The Budget Control Act Serves as the Budget for 2012 and 2013
The Budget Control Act states: “For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 … the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.” In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. Number one, it has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a Congressional document; the Budget Control Act is a law. Number two, it sets discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. Number three, it provides enforcement mechanisms, including two years of “deeming resolutions,” which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And fourth, it creates a reconciliation-like “Super Committee” process to address both entitlements and tax reform. And it backs that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.
Budget Control Act Legislative Text
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )American Economc Collapse — The Road to World War 3 — After America Collapses — What Comes Next? — Videos
American Economic Collapse, martial law
U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse (and Not in a Nice Way)
Total Collapse – The Build up to World War III
The Road to World War 3
After America Collapses, What Comes Next?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Stop Obama’s Common Core Curriculum Standards — Progressive Indoctrination, Standardization and Tracking of American Children Into Collectivists — Little Boxes — Videos
Little Boxes – Walk off the Earth
Obama On The Common Core Standards
President Obama, Secretary Duncan Announce Race to the Top
The Bottom Line :Education Database
Why We Need Common Core: “I choose C.”
Common Core Lesson Plans – Rated very funny!
Common Core Standards & Forming a Professional Learning Network (PLN)
Vision of the Common Core
Common Core State Standards: Principles of Development
General Session: Common Core State Standards
Moderator: Governor Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida from 1999-2007 and Chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Panelists: David Coleman, President and CEO of the College Board Bob Corcoran, President and Chairman of the GE Foundation Dr. William Schmidt, University Distinguished Professor and Co-Director of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, Minnesota State Representative
The Common Core State Standards and What’s Next for Higher Education | College Board Forum 2012
P20 Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Indoctrination And The Progressive Future – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.03.27
Data Mining In Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program
Urgent Message On Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.03.28
Part 1 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 2 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 3 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 4 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 5 of 5 Stop the Common Core
The Government will Control Your Childs Every Move? Common Core Disaster?
The Glenn Beck Program – Air Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Rick Hess: Common Core as one more Obama initiative
Teacher Talk episode: Common Core State Standards
Learn the Common Core Standards in 10 Minutes
Common Core Curriculum Standards
Common Core Standards Overview | LiteracyTA
Common Core Standards- Mathematics by David Foster
Two Moms Against Common Core
Neal McCluskey: The Folly of Common Core Curricula
Pete Seeger – What Did You Learn In School?
School-Standards Pushback
Conservative Groups Oppose National ‘Common Core’ as an Intrusion on States
By STEPHANIE BANCHERO
The Common Core national math and reading standards, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia two years ago, are coming under attack from some quarters as a federal intrusion into state education matters.
The voluntary academic standards, which specify what students should know in each grade, were heavily promoted by the Obama administration through its $4.35 billion Race to the Top education-grant competition. States that instituted changes such as common learning goals received bonus points in their applications.
Supporters say the Common Core standards better prepare students for college or the workforce, and are important as the U.S. falls behind other nations in areas such as math proficiency.
A 2010 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning educational-research group, said the Common Core standards “are clearly superior to those currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the Common Core is superior in both math and reading.”
But conservative lawmakers and governors in at least five states, including Utah and Alabama, recently have been pushing to back out, or slow down implementation, of Common Core. They worry that adoption of the standards has created a de facto national curriculum that could at some point be extended into more controversial areas such as science.
Critics argue that the standards are weak and could, for example, de-emphasize literature in favor of informational texts, such as technical manuals. They also dislike that the standards postpone teaching algebra until ninth grade from the current eighth grade in many schools.
A study released this year by a researcher at the Brookings Institution think tank projected Common Core will have no effect on student achievement. The study said states with high standards improved their national math and reading scores at the same rate as states with low standards from 2003 to 2009.
But mainly, critics of Common Core object to what they see as the federal government’s involvement in local-school matters.
“The Common Core takes education out of the hands of South Carolina and parents, so we have no control over what happens in the classroom,” said Michael Fair, a Republican state senator who plans to introduce a measure that would bar his state from spending money on activities related to the standards, such as training teachers and purchasing textbooks.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who took office after the state adopted Common Core, wrote in a letter to Mr. Fair that the state should not “relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states.”
Common Core could take another hit Friday when the 23-member board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of more than 2,000 state lawmakers and business members who back limited government and free markets, among other conservative goals, is set to vote on a resolution to formally oppose the standards. The resolution was passed by the ALEC education task force in December.Model legislation often is drafted from the group’s resolutions and taken by ALEC members to their state legislatures.
Common Core evolved from a drive by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to delineate world-class skills students should possess. The standards, created with funding from, among others, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set detailed goals, such as first graders should understand place values in math and eighth graders should know the Pythagorean Theorem.
“We brought the best minds in the country together to create international benchmarks that, once mastered, would make our students more competitive, globally,” said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. He said his group has no plans to create national science standards.
As the standards were being developed, the Obama administration launched Race to the Top in July 2009, which awarded points to states that adopted “a common set of K-12 standards” that are “substantially identical across all states in a consortium,” according to the grant’s policies. The department didn’t specifically mention Common Core, but it was the only common set of standards being developed.
As a result, most state’s legislatures or state boards of education adopted Common Core.
The standards have yet to show up in many classrooms as states are just beginning to implement them. But in Kentucky, where Common Core rolled out this school year, teachers are altering instruction and searching for new classroom reading materials.
Jahn Owens, a teacher in Owensboro, Ky., said the more rigorous standards require her to teach her fifth-graders how to multiply and divide fractions. Previously, that was taught in sixth grade. First-grade teacher Heidi Dees has added more nonfiction books to her classroom.
“These standards take students much deeper into the subjects and force them to do more critical thinking,” Ms. Owens said. “It’s been hard work for the teachers because the implementation was so quick, but we are now more purposeful about student learning.”
The Obama administration has awarded more than $360 million to two groups to create student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Wireless Generation, an education-technology company owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal, recently purchased Intel-Assess, a company that creates student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Department. of Education, called Common Core a “game changer” but said the administration didn’t force states to adopt it. “A bipartisan group of governors created these standards and states collectively adopted them,” he said.
But Emmett McGroarty, executive director of American Principles in Action, a conservative lobbying group that wrote the ALEC resolution, said states were “herded” into adopting the standards with no time to deliberate on their worth. He called the standards “mediocre” and costly to implement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303630404577390431072241906.html
The Common Core Curriculum
National education standards that even conservatives can love.
By Chester E. Finn, Jr. & Michael J. Petrilli
After votes yesterday in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, 28 states have now embraced the new “Common Core” standards for primary and secondary education. Already, a majority — including red states such as South Carolina, Utah, and Oklahoma — have declared that they will use Common Core English and math standards in their public schools. Yet this profound, and we think positive, shift in American education is occurring with little outcry from the right, save for a half-dozen libertarians who don’t much care for government to start with. How come?
It certainly helps that the new standards were created by a voluntary partnership of 48 states, not by the federal government. But it’s also true that the Common Core standards are remarkably strong, vastly better than the standards most states have developed independently over the past 15 years. Yesterday, our institute released a 370-page study that finds the Common Core standards to be clearly superior to the existing English standards of 37 states and the existing math standards of 39.
One reason the Common Core fared so well is that its authors eschewed the vague and politically correct nonsense that infected so many state standards (and earlier attempts at national standards). They expect students to master arithmetic and memorize their times tables; they promote the teaching of phonics in the early grades; they even expect all students to read and understand the country’s founding documents. The new standards aren’t perfect. Our reviewers found three jurisdictions that did better in English (California, Indiana, and — believe it or not — the District of Columbia), mostly because they better distinguish among different “genres” of literature and other writing. Another dozen states (including Massachusetts) are “too close to call,” meaning that their standards are about equal in content and rigor to the Common Core. But anybody worried that this national effort will dumb down what we expect young Americans to learn in school can relax, at least for now.
Anxiety will surely rise when school kids across the land begin (three or four years hence) to take tests linked to these standards, and even more when those test results start to determine promotion from fifth to sixth grade or graduation from high school. (The development of those tests will soon start, aided by $350 million of federal stimulus funds.) But without tests and results-based accountability, along with solid curricula, quality textbooks, and competent teaching, standards alone have no traction in real classrooms. Adopting good standards is like having a goal for your cholesterol; it doesn’t mean you will actually eat a healthy diet or live longer.
When high expectations for schools and students are combined with smart implementation in thousands of classrooms, policymakers can move mountains. That’s the lesson we take from Massachusetts, which has established high standards, well-designed assessments, a tough-minded (yet humane) accountability system, rigorous certification requirements for teachers, and a high bar that students must clear to earn their diplomas. The Bay State has been making steady achievement gains in reading and math in both fourth and eighth grades. That, of course, is why Massachusetts politicians and policymakers sparred over the proposal by state education commissioner Mitchell Chester to replace the state’s standards and tests with the new national versions.
Until now, however, the vast majority of states have failed to adopt rigorous standards, much less to take actions geared to boosting pupil achievement. In 2007, we published a comparison of states’ “proficiency” expectations under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The results were dismaying: In some places, students could score below the tenth percentile nationally and still be considered “proficient.” In other locales, they had to reach the 77th percentile to wear the same label. And it wasn’t just that expectations varied, but that they varied almost randomly from place to place, grade to grade, and year to year.
Most Americans understand that this is not the way a big, modernized country on a competitive planet should operate its education system. Three years ago, an Education Next poll asked whether people favored “a single national standard and a single national test for all students in the United States? Or do you think that there should be different standards and tests in different states?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243517/common-core-curriculum-chester-e-finn-jr
Who’s Behind the Common Core Curriculum?
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Like so many education reform initiatives that seem to arise out of nowhere, the Common Core State Standards is another of these sweeping phantom movements that have gotten their impetus from a cadre of invisible human beings endowed with inordinate power to impose their ideas on everybody.
For example, the idea of collecting intimate personal data on public school students and teachers seems to have arisen spontaneously in the bowels of the National Center for Education Statistics in Washington. It required a small army of education psychologists to put together the data handbooks, which are periodically expanded to include more personal information.
Nobody knows who exactly authorized the creation of such a dossier on every student and teacher in American public schools, but the program exists and is being paid for by the taxpayer. And strange as it may seem, it arose seemingly out of nowhere, like a vampire, to suck the freedom out of the American people. Unlike Santa’s elves who work behind the scenes to bring happiness to children, these subterranean phantoms work overtime to find ways of making American children miserable.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is another such vampire calculated not only to suck the freedom out of the American people, but also to suck out the brains of their children. And all of this is planned in the dark, away from the prying eyes of parents and writers like me. Ask any educator: “Who is the author of the Common Core Standards?” and they will not be able to tell you.
So I decided to look into the origin of the CCSS. It is said that it originated with the National Governors Association (NGA). When and where? At what meeting? At whose behest? The NGA’s Mission Statement says on its website:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.
Sounds wonderful. But why do we need it? Why are we re-inventing the wheel? Didn’t our public schools provide a decent education for the “greatest generation” when they were in school? That generation not only learned enough to win World War II but also enough to create the scientific foundation of our high-tech society. The only reason why we need the CCSS is because all of these graduate educationists need something to do to justify their degrees and the salaries that go with them. And of course the new curriculum will cost billions of dollars which will enable these vampires to live in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. By the way, if you object to my referring to these people as vampires, feel free to use your own designations.
The CCSS adds nothing to what we know about how to teach reading. It adds nothing to how we teach arithmetic and mathematics. It adds nothing to how we teach history, geography, and the “social studies.” In short, it is a fraud to get the American taxpayer to shell out big bucks for something that we already know how to do. Yes, science has greatly expanded, but it also expanded from 1850 to 1950 and didn’t require a different methodology from the scientific method developed by the great scientists of the past. We may have better equipment which students of science must learn to operate, but the scientific method has not changed.
And of course, the CCSS were made to be as complicated as possible so that no parent or normal human being could understand them. For example, there is something called “Common Core State Standards Official Identifiers and XML Representation.” It states:
As states, territories, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education Activity move from widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to implementation, there is a need to appropriately identify and link assets using a shared system of identifiers and a common XML representation. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), working closely with the standards authors, have released an official, viable approach for publishing identifiers and XML designation to represent the standards, consistent with their adopted format, as outlined below.
So now we know that there is such a body as “the standards authors,” who work closely with such bureaucratic organizations as the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. And to make sure that the Standards are being correctly implemented, we read the following in typical vampire language:
De-referenceable Uniform Resource Identifier (URIs) at the corestandards.org domain, e.g. http://corestandards.org/2010/math/content/6/EE/1 or http://corestandards.org/2010/math/practice/MP7. Matching the published identifiers, these dereferenceable URIs allow individuals and technology systems to validate the content of a standard by viewing the web page at the identifier’s uniform resource locator (URL). The NGA Center and CCSSO strongly recommend that http://www.corestandards.org remain the address of record for referring to standards.
What kind of human beings not only write such gobbledegook but also know what it means? And these educationists are among the well-paid elite who know how to make everything so complicated that only they are capable of understanding their own complexity. Here’s more:
Globally unique identifiers (GUIDs), e.g. A7D3275BC52147618D6CFEE43FB1A47E. These allow, when needed, to refer to standards in both disciplines in a common format without removing the differences in the published identifiers. GUIDs are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness, an important characteristic for databases, and are intended for use by computer systems. There is no need for educators to decode GUIDs.
Did you read that line, “GUIDS are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness”? These people are masters at creating complexity for its own sake. The more complex, the more difficult it is for normal human beings to know what in blazes they are talking about.
What is the National Governors Association for Best Practices? Here is what their website says:
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) develops innovative solutions to today’s most pressing public policy challenges and is the only research and development firm that directly serves the nation’s governors….
The mission of NGA Office of Federal Relations is to ensure governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy. Policy positions, reflecting governors’ principles on priority issues, guide the association’s work to influence federal laws and regulations.
The initiative for the Common Core State Standards seems to have arisen from a speech NGA Chairman Governor Paul Patton, Democrat, of Kentucky gave at the NGA meeting on June 12, 2002, in which he said:
Governors are constantly searching for solutions that will help all schools succeed, but some schools require more help than others. The long-term goal for states is to improve overall system performance while closing persistent gaps in achievement between minority and non-minority students. Fortunately, there are places to look for guidance. Although some schools continue to struggle, some have responded successfully to state reform efforts and others have gone far in improving student performance and closing the achievement gap. Current research also suggests there are ways state policies can effectively stimulate and support school improvement.
How that was translated into the need for Common Core State Standards, is not very clear. The Executive Director of the NGA is Dan Crippen, a Washington policy bureaucrat who was director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1999 to 2002. The Director of the NGA Center for Best Practices is David Moore, formerly of the Congressional Budget Office. The Director of the Education Division is Richard Laine. His profile states:
Laine directs research, policy analysis, technical assistance and resource development for the Education Division in the areas of early childhood, K-12, and postsecondary education. The Education Division is working on a number of key policy issues relevant to governors’ efforts to develop and support the implementation of policy, including: birth to 3rd grade access, readiness and quality; the Common Core State Standards, STEM and related assessments; teacher and leader effectiveness; turning around low-performing schools; high school redesign; competency-based learning; charter schools; and postsecondary (higher education & workforce training) access, success & affordability. The Division is also working on policy issues related to bridging the system divides between the early childhood, K-12 and postsecondary systems.
Well now we know who’s in charge of the Common Core State Standards. What is Mr. Laine’s background?
Previous Positions: Director of Education, The Wallace Foundation; Director of Education Policy and Initiatives, Illinois Business Roundtable; Associate Superintendent for Policy, Planning and Resource Management, Illinois State Board of Education; Executive Director, Coalition for Educational Rights; Executive Secretary, Committee for Educational Rights; School Finance Analyst, Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance; Associate Director, California Democratic Congressional Delegation.
Education: M.P.P., M.B.A. and Certificate of Advanced Study in Education Administration and Public Policy, University of Chicago; B.A., University of California — Santa Barbara.
Obviously, Mr. Laine is one of those invisible bureaucrats who create policies for the governors, few of whom ever read them. He was Associate Director of California’s Democratic Congressional Delegation, which includes some of the worst left-wing members of Congress. He’s also in charge of “birth to 3rd grade access,” which the National Education Association strongly favors. Among Mr. Laine’s staff is Albert Wat, whose expertise is Early Childhood Education. His profile states:
Wat provides state policymakers with analyses and information on promising practices and the latest research in early childhood education policy, from birth through third grade. His work focuses on preschool education systems and alignment of early childhood and early elementary practices and policies, including standards, assessments and data systems.
Previous Positions: Research Manager, Senior Research Associate and State Policy Analyst, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Center on the States, Pre-K Now.
Education: Master of Arts in Education Policy Studies, The George Washington University; Nonprofit Management Executive Certificate, Georgetown University; Master of Arts in Education, with focus in Social Sciences in Education and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, with Distinction, Stanford University.
Like so many Washington policy wonks, Mr. Wat has to justify his bureaucratic position by thinking up new ways to create costly education reform that no freedom- loving citizen wants. Note his and Mr. Laine’s interest in “birth to 3rd grade” education, an area traditionally left up to parents. But then the totalitarian mind wants control over everything and everybody.
In other words, the Common Core State Standards have no more legitimacy than the plans of your local village idiot to reform education. They are the thought emanations of those who have nothing better to do. Yet, they will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and make American public education more confusing than ever.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/13412-whos-behind-the-common-core-curriculum
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a U.S. education initiative that seeks to bring diverse state curricula into alignment with each other by following the principles of standards-based education reform. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Development
The past twenty years in the U.S. have also been termed the “Accountability Movement,” as states are being held to mandatory tests of student achievement, which are expected to demonstrate a common core of knowledge that all citizens should have to be successful in this country.[1] As part of this overarching education reform movement, the nation’s governors and corporate leaders founded Achieve, Inc. in 1996 as a bi-partisan organization to raise academic standards, graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability in all 50 states.[2] The initial motivation for the development of the Common Core State Standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP).[3]
A report titled, “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts,” from 2004 found that both employers and colleges are demanding more of high school graduates than in the past.[4] According to Achieve, Inc., “current high-school exit expectations fall well short of [employer and college] demands.”[5] The report explains that the major problem currently facing the American school system is that high school graduates were not provided with the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed.[5] “While students and their parents may still believe that the diploma reflects adequate preparation for the intellectual demands of adult life, in reality it falls far short of this common-sense goal.” (page 1). The report continues that the diploma itself lost its value because graduates could not compete successfully beyond high school,[5] and that the solution to this problem is a common set of rigorous standards.
In 2009 the National Governors Association hired David Coleman and Student Achievement to write curriculum standards in the areas of literacy and mathematics instruction. Announced on June 1, 2009,[6] the initiative’s stated purpose is to “provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them.”[7] Additionally, “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers,” which will place American students in a position in which they can compete in a global economy.[7] Forty-five of the fifty states in the United States are members of the initiative, with the states of Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska not adopting the initiative at a state level.[8] Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards.[9]
Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. (See below for current status.) States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform.[10] To be eligible, states had to adopt “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place.”[11] This meant that in order for a state to be eligible for these grants, the states had to adopt the Common Core State Standards or a similar career and college readiness curriculum. The competition for these grants provided a major push for states to adopt the standards.[12] The adoption dates for those states that chose to adopt the Common Core State Standards Initiative are all within the two years following this announcement.[13] The common standards are funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.[14] States are planning to implement this initiative by 2015[15] by basing at least 85% of their state curricula on the Standards.
Standards
In 2010, Standards were released for English language arts and mathematics. Standards have not yet been developed for science or social studies.
English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
The stated goal of the English & Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects standards[16] is to ensure that students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school (page 3). There are five key components to the standards for English and Language Arts: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language, and Media and Technology.[17] The essential components and breakdown of each of these key points within the standards are as follows:
Reading
- As students advance through each grade, there is an increased level of complexity to what students are expected to read and there is also a progressive development of reading comprehension so that students can gain more from what they read.[17]
- There is no reading list to accompany the reading standards. Instead, students are simply expected to read a range of classic and contemporary literature as well as challenging informative texts from an array of subjects. This is so that students can acquire new knowledge, insights, and consider varying perspectives as they read. Teachers, school districts, and states are expected to decide on the appropriate curriculum, but sample texts are included to help teachers, students, and parents prepare for the year ahead.[17]
- There is some critical content for all students — classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare — but the rest is left up to the states and the districts.[17]
Writing
- The driving force of the writing standards is logical arguments based on claims, solid reasoning, and relevant evidence. The writing also includes opinion writing even within the K–5 standards.[17]
- Short, focused research projects, similar to the kind of projects students will face in their careers as well as long-term, in-depth research is another important piece of the writing standards. This is because written analysis and the presentation of significant findings is critical to career and college readiness.[17]
- The standards also include annotated samples of student writing to help determine performance levels in writing arguments, explanatory texts, and narratives across the grades.[17]
Speaking and Listening
- Although reading and writing are the expected components of an ELA curriculum, standards are written so that students gain, evaluate, and present complex information, ideas, and evidence specifically through listening and speaking.[17]
- There is also an emphasis on academic discussion in one-on-one, small-group, and whole-class settings, which can take place as formal presentations as well as informal discussions during student collaboration.[17]
Language
- Vocabulary instruction in the standards takes place through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and reading so that students can determine word meanings and can expand their use of words and phrases.[17]
- The standards expect students to use formal English in their writing and speaking, but also recognize that colleges and 21st century careers will require students to make wise, skilled decisions about how to express themselves through language in a variety of contexts.[17]
- Vocabulary and conventions are their own strand because these skills extend across reading, writing, speaking, and listening.[17]
Media and Technology
- Since media and technology are intertwined with every student’s life and in school in the 21st century, skills related to media use, which includes the analysis and production of various forms of media, are also included in these standards.[17]
Preliminary “example” works to be studied by students include works by Ovid, Atul Gawande, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Turgenev, Poe, Robert Frost, Yeats, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Amy Tan, and Julia Alvarez.[15]
Cursive and keyboarding
The standards do not mandate the teaching of cursive handwriting, although states are free either to add a cursive requirement or to permit individual school districts to require it. The standards include instruction in keyboarding.[18]
Mathematics
The stated goal of the mathematics Standards[19] is to achieve greater focus and coherence in the curriculum (page 3). This is largely in response to the criticism that American mathematics curricula are “a mile wide and an inch deep”.
The mathematics Standards include Standards for Mathematical Practice and Standards for Mathematical Content.
Mathematical practice
The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:
- Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
- Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
- Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
- Model with mathematics.
- Use appropriate tools strategically.
- Attend to precision.
- Look for and make use of structure.
- Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
The practices are adapted from the five process standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of proficiency in the National Research Council’s Adding It Up report.[20] These practices are to be taught in every grade from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Details of how these practices are to be connected to each grade level’s mathematics content are left to local implementation of the Standards.
As an example of mathematical practice, here is the full description of the sixth practice:
6 Attend to precision.
Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions.
Mathematical content
The Standards lay out the mathematics content that should be learned at each grade level from kindergarten to Grade 8 (age 13-14), as well as the mathematics to be learned in high school. The Standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level. Mathematical content is organized in a number of domains. At each grade level there are several standards for each domain, organized into clusters of related standards. (See examples below.)
Four domains are included in each of the grades from kindergarten (age 5-6) to fifth grade (age 10-11):
- Operations and Algebraic Thinking;
- Number and Operations in Base 10;
- Measurement and Data;
- Geometry.
Kindergarten also includes the domain Counting and Cardinality. Grades 3 to 5 also include the domain Number and Operations–Fractions.
Four domains are included in each of the Grades 6 through 8:
- The Number System;
- Expressions and Equations;
- Geometry;
- Statistics and Probability.
Grades 6 and 7 also include the domain Ratios and Proportional Relationships. Grade 8 includes the domain Functions.
In addition to detailed standards (of which there are 21 to 28 for each grade from kindergarten to eighth grade), the Standards present an overview of “critical areas” for each grade. (See examples below.)
In high school (Grades 9 to 12), the Standards do not specify which content is to be taught at each grade level. Up to Grade 8, the curriculum is integrated; students study four or five different mathematical domains every year. The Standards do not dictate whether the curriculum should continue to be integrated in high school with study of several domains each year (as is done in other countries, as well as New York and Georgia), or whether the curriculum should be separated out into separate year-long algebra and geometry courses (as has been the tradition in most U.S. states). An appendix[21] to the Standards describes four possible pathways for covering high school content (two traditional and two integrated), but states are free to organize the content any way they want.
There are six conceptual categories of content to be covered at the high school level:
- Number and quantity;
- Algebra;
- Functions;
- Modeling;
- Geometry;
- Statistics and probability.
Some topics in each category are indicated only for students intending to take more advanced, optional courses such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics. Even if the traditional sequence is adopted, functions and modeling are to be integrated across the curriculum, not taught as separate courses. In fact, modeling is also a Mathematical Practice (see above), and is meant to be integrated across the entire curriculum beginning in kindergarten. The modeling category does not have its own standards; instead, high school standards in other categories which are intended to be considered part of the modeling category are indicated in the Standards with a star symbol.
Each of the six high school categories includes a number of domains. For example, the “number and quantity” category contains four domains: the real number system; quantities; the complex number system; and vector and matrix quantities. The “vector and matrix quantities” domain is reserved for advanced students, as are some of the standards in “the complex number system”.
Examples of mathematical content
Second grade example: In the second grade there are 26 standards in four domains. The four critical areas of focus for second grade are (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes. Below are the second grade standards for the domain of “operations and algebraic thinking” (Domain 2.OA). This second grade domain contains four standards, organized into three clusters:
- Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
- 1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
- Add and subtract within 20.
- 2. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.
- Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
- 3. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing objects or counting them by 2s; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal addends.
- 4. Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to 5 rows and up to 5 columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.
Domain example: As an example of the development of a domain across several grades, here are the clusters for learning fractions (Domain NF, which stands for “Number and Operations—Fractions”) in Grades 3 through 6. Each cluster contains several standards (not listed here):
- Grade 3:
- Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.
Grade 4:
- Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.
- Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.
- Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.
Grade 5:
- Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
- Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.
In Grade 6, there is no longer a “number and operations—fractions” domain, but students learn to divide fractions by fractions in the number system domain.
High school example: As an example of a high school category, here are the domains and clusters for algebra. There are four algebra domains (in bold below), each of which is broken down into as many as four clusters (bullet points below). Each cluster contains one to five detailed standards (not listed here). Starred standards, such as the Creating Equations domain (A-CED), are also intended to be part of the modeling category.
- Seeing Structure in Expressions (A-SSE)
- Interpret the structure of expressions
- Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve problems
- Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Functions (A-APR)
- Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
- Understand the relationship between zeros and factors of polynomials
- Use polynomial identities to solve problems
- Rewrite rational expressions
- Creating Equations.★ (A-CED)
- Create equations that describe numbers or relationships
- Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI)
- Understand solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain the reasoning
- Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
- Solve systems of equations
- Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically
As an example of detailed high school standards, the first cluster above is broken down into two standards as follows:
- Interpret the structure of expressions
- 1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.★
- a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.
- b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpret P(1+r)n as the product of P and a factor not depending on P.
- 2. Use the structure of an expression to identify ways to rewrite it. For example, see x4 – y4 as (x2)2 – (y2)2, thus recognizing it as a difference of squares that can be factored as (x2 – y2)(x2 + y2).
Different standards, by state
States have individual variations on implementing the standards.
Vermont
- Emphasize basic arithmetic, fractions in elementary school. Focus on memorization instead of reliance on calculators.
- An Algebra I capability is perceived for elementary school graduates; Algebra II for high school graduates.
- Improve difficulty level of books being read. Less emphasis on how students “feel” about a book and more on analyzing content.
- Testing by computer is planned with results available almost “instantly.”[15]
Criticism
Critics question forcing a rigid template on schools already coping with other initiatives like No Child Left Behind. For some states, this will be the third (or more) major change over the past 16 years.[15]
Some critics also question whether there is a demand for creating state standards to begin with. According to the NGA and the CCSSO one motivating factor is the U.S.’s ranking on international test results; however, there does not seem to be a relationship between the US’s low score on these tests and the US’s economic ranking.[22] The United States has ranked 1st or 2nd on the World Economic Forum since 1998 despite scoring near the bottom on the International Mathematics and Science Studies for the past 50 years.[22]
In June 2011, the Voice of America Special English reported on the common core standards on its weekly Education Report for people learning American English. Some commentators criticized the idea that “one size fits all.”[23][24]
In a Huffington Post piece, “Do We Need a Common Core?”, Nicholas Tampio raised two objections to the Common Core. First, he suggests the importance of “America’s historical commitment to local control over school districts,” and the second is his anecdotal discussion of the Common Core claims that the program provide appropriate benchmarks to all students everywhere. He recounts the changes in his son’s kindergarten as the teacher began spending more time teaching from the Common Core curriculum, and says an “inspired kindergarten curriculum has been replaced with a banal one.”
Adoption of Common Core Standards by states
The chart below contains the adoption status of the Common Core Standards as of January 15, 2013.[25] Texas and Alaska are the only states that are not members of the initiative. Nebraska and Virginia are members but have decided not to adopt the standards. Minnesota rejected the Common Core Standards for mathematics, but accepted the English/Language Arts standards.[9] The District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the American Samoa Islands have also adopted the standards. Puerto Rico has not adopted the standards.
| State | Adoption stance |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Formally adopted; repeal legislation introduced in upper and lower houses, February, 2013[26] |
| Alaska | Non-member |
| Arizona | Formally adopted |
| Arkansas | Formally adopted |
| California | Formally adopted |
| Colorado | Formally adopted |
| Connecticut | Formally adopted |
| Delaware | Formally adopted |
| District of Columbia | Formally adopted |
| Florida | Formally adopted |
| Georgia | Formally adopted |
| Hawaii | Formally adopted |
| Idaho | Formally adopted |
| Illinois | Formally adopted |
| Indiana | Formally adopted; repealed in State Senate on February 21, 2013 |
| Iowa | Formally adopted |
| Kansas | Formally adopted |
| Kentucky | Formally adopted |
| Louisiana | Formally adopted |
| Maine | Formally adopted |
| Maryland | Formally endorsed |
| Massachusetts | Formally adopted |
| Michigan | Formally adopted |
| Minnesota | Adopted (English standards only, math standards rejected) |
| Mississippi | Formally adopted |
| Missouri | Formally adopted |
| Montana | Formally adopted |
| Nebraska | Initiative member (will not adopt)[27] |
| Nevada | Formally adopted |
| New Hampshire | Formally adopted |
| New Jersey | Formally adopted |
| New Mexico | Formally adopted |
| New York | Formally adopted |
| North Carolina | Formally adopted |
| North Dakota | Formally adopted |
| Ohio | Formally adopted |
| Oklahoma | Formally adopted |
| Oregon | Formally adopted |
| Pennsylvania | Formally adopted |
| Rhode Island | Formally adopted |
| South Carolina | Formally adopted |
| South Dakota | Formally adopted |
| Tennessee | Formally adopted |
| Texas | Non-member |
| Utah | Formally adopted |
| Vermont | Formally adopted |
| Virginia | Initiative member (will not adopt)[28] |
| Washington | Formally adopted |
| West Virginia | Formally adopted |
| Wisconsin | Formally adopted |
| Wyoming | Formally adopted |
Assessment
With the implementation of new standards, states are also required to adopt new assessment benchmarks to measure student achievement. According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014–2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states.[13] The assessment has yet to be created, but two consortiums were generated with two different approaches as to how to assess the standards.[29] “26 states formed the PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium. Their approach focused on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade combined with streamlined end of year tests, including performance tasks.”[30] The second consortium, “the SMARTER Balance Consortium, brought together 31 states proposing to create adaptive online exams.”[30] The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies. The Common Core State Standards website explained that some states plan to work together to create a common, universal assessment system based on the common core state standards while other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment.[31] Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, which moves away from what we typically think of as the Standardized Test most students are currently taking. This kind of assessment would be better aligned to college and career readiness, but does pose some interesting challenges considering the limited computer and technology resources available to some schools.
References
- ^ Gibbs, T. H. and Howley, A. (2000). “”World-Class Standards” and Local Pedagogies: Can We Do Both?” Thresholds in Education. ERIC Publications. 51 – 55.
- ^ “About Achieve.” (2011) Achieve, Inc. http://www.achieve.org/about-achieve
- ^ “Closing the Expectations Gap 2011: Sixth Annual 50-State Progress Report.” (2011). Achieve, Inc. <http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2011>
- ^ “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts.” (2004) Achieve, Inc. <http://www.achieve.org/ReadyorNot>
- ^ a b c “Ready or Not”
- ^ NGA Press Release announcing the Common State Standards Initiative
- ^ a b http://www.corestandards.org
- ^ http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states States adopting the Core Standards
- ^ a b http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/12/daily-circuit-minnesota-adopting-common-core
- ^ Department of Education. President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announce National Competition to Advance School Reform. Ed.gov. 24 July 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/07/07242009.html>
- ^ “U.S Department of Education”
- ^ Fletcher, G. H. (2010). “Race to the Top: No District Left Behind.” T. H. E Journal 37 (10): 17 – 18.
- ^ a b http://www.corestandards.org
- ^ Anderson, Nick (March 10, 2010). “Common set of school standards to be proposed”. Washington Post. p. A1.
- ^ a b c d Walsh, Molly (14 September 2010). “Vermont joins 30 otherws in Common Core”. Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. pp. 1B.
- ^ http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m “Key Points in English Language Arts. (2011). <http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-english-language-arts>
- ^ ”Hawaii No Longer Requires Teaching Cursive In Schools”. Huffpost Education. 1 August 2011.
- ^ mathematics Standards
- ^ Garfunkel, S. A. (2010). “The National Standards Train: You Need to Buy Your Ticket.” UMAP J 31 (4): 277 – 280.
- ^ appendix
- ^ a b Tienken, C. H. (2010). “Common Core State Standards: I Wonder?” Kappa Delta Pi Rec 47 (1): 14 – 17.
- ^ Transcript and MP3 of part one:Should All US Students Learn the Same Thing?
- ^ Part two: No National Standards: Strength or Weakness for Schools in US?
- ^ In the States (Common Core Standards Initiative website)
- ^ “Legislation would block Alabama from implementing national curriculum standards (updated)” Alabama Media Group, http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/02/legislation_would_block_alabam.html
- ^ “Nebraska one of few states not adopting standards”. The Grand Island Independent. 2013-01-05.
- ^ “Virginia’s stance against national standards is a blow for students”. The Washington Post. 2010-06-05.
- ^ “Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions.” Education Insider. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/research/education-insider- common-core-standards-and-assessment-coalitions>
- ^ a b “Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions”
- ^ “Common Core State Standards: In the States”
External links
- Parent Help For Common Core
- Common Core Sample Test Questions
- Common Core State Standards Initiative
- National Governors Association
- Council of Chief State School Officers
- Common Core Standards
- CoreStand
- Common Core Unpacked News & Wiki
- Should All US Students Learn the Same Thing?
- No National Standards: Strength or Weakness for Schools in US?
- To view specific dates of adoption and projected implementation years for each state visit this Google Map of the Common Core State Standards Initiative and click on each state’s place holder. (Note that whereas the Google Map claims Montana has not yet adopted the Standards, the official Common Core website claims Montana accepted the Standards on November 4, 2011.)
- Map of Common Core Resources in Each State[dead link]
For resources to use in the classroom visit http://www.commoncoreconversation.com/
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Big Brother Bill Gates Funds k-12 Tracking of Students With InBloom Database — Invasion of Privacy — Opt Out — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Progressive End Game — Gun Grabbers — Drugs — Wealth Confiscation — Ending The Second Amendment — Videos
Glenn Beck » The Progressive End Game
Beck: “System X” Is Upon Us!
Glenn Beck interviews law abiding citizens who had their guns confiscated, 2013-03
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Department of Homeland Security Mobilizes For War Against American People? — Buys 2,717 Mine Resistent Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles and 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammunition — Videos
Obama Civilian Security
Department Of Homeland Security Set To Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition
Is Obama Looking to Create a Civilian National Security Force?
Militarization of Police: Peace Officers to Storm Troopers | Big Brother Watch
Pentagon provides military grade weapons to local police
‘A militarization of US police’
DHS Doles Out Fed Cash to Deploy Military LRADs in U.S. Cities
DHS Gets Mine Resistant Tanks to Go with Billions of Bullets
DHS-HSI Homeland Security Investigations El Paso SRT MRAP Armored Vehicle
SRT (Special Response Team) on WGN TV
BREAKING: DHS 2013 Buys Armored Vehicles & Tanks ..2700 of them
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY buys 2700 armored vehicles? Some say it’s a USMC contract. DHS buys BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition in the last 8yrs?. D.H.S. buying U.S. Military vehicles and equipment for use on Americans; there is no other excuse. D.H.S. is not for defense of America, we the people, and/or Constitution ..that is what the Armed Forces are supposed to be for. Billions of rounds of ammunition and all that military equipment is staged across America in about every neighborhood. NORTHCOM has stated that part of it’s mission is to prepare for “Martial Law” ..and has staged equipment from tanks to riot gear throughout America; according to the Commander of NORTHCOM that is being replaced shortly.
America : DHS purchasing Drones, Tanks, Rifles and Ammo for War inside the U.S.
2700 Armored Vehicles Purchased for Police Departments by DHS
Michael Savage – Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks
Forbes: Time For A National Conversation On DHS Massive Ammo Buy
Fox News Confirms Alex Jones DHS Ammo Purchases Story
NJ Congressman: DHS must explain ammunition and armored vehicle purchases
Homeland Security Buys 1.6 BILLION Rounds of Ammunition…
DHS Refuses to Answer Congress on 1.6 Billion Bullet Purchase
Levin Wants Answers On DHS Ammo Purchase But Not Obama Identity Document Fraud
War on US Citizens Planned – Part 1 of 2
War on US Citizens Planned – Part 2 of 2
Homeland Security buys 450 Million Rounds of Ammo
Breaking News USA police department Surveillance Drones Spying on civilians end times news 3-24-13
DHS Preparing For Civil War In The US?
Background Articles and Videos
Once again DHS orders hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo
Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program (Part 1 of 2)
![]()
Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program (Part 2 of 2)
DHS Won’t Answer Congress On Billion Bullet Purchase
Bullet Buys: Fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition. We’d like to know too.
Freshman California Republican Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues, who signed on to his March 5 letter, are asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain why it is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition of various calibers. They aren’t happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk “unfounded” concerns.
As we have noted, DHS has been buying lots of ammo, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraqi War.
Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., told the Associated Press that the training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.
The massive purchases are said to be spread out over five years and due simply to the best practice of saving money by buying in bulk what comes down to five rounds of ammo for every man, woman and child on the U.S. That’s a lot of practice and training.
A good portion of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition are being purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second-largest criminal investigative agency. Yes that’s the same ICE that is releasing detained criminal illegal aliens onto our streets because of sequestration cuts.
Jonathan Lasher, the Social Security Administration’s assistant inspector general for external relations, explained the purchase of 174,000 hollow-point bullets by saying they were for the Social Security inspector general’s office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.
When they say they’re cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse, they apparently mean it.
However, as former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania recently, hollow-point bullets (which make up the majority of the DHS purchases) are not used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds .
“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire 4-1/2 years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.
LaMalfa offers one theory that’s less sinister than some: The federal government is simply trying to corner the market on ammo and restrict what’s available to the American people as part of its gun control efforts.
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation
Ralph Benko, Contributor
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:
[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”
These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”
Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”
…
“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?
Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”
Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?
Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.
Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”
At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century. To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.
Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.
Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,
“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’
I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’
’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.
I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.
He simply grimaced and turned away. …
Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”
Mr. Obama? Where’s the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”
- The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
- It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
- It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
- It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.
If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means. Discuss.
Responses to Senator Coburn’s November 13, 2012 Letter
DHS Explains Plans To Buy 1.6B Rounds Of Ammo: We’re Buying in Bulk to ‘Significantly Lower Costs’
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded to a letter dated November 13, 2012 from Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) regarding the agency’s ammunition purchases.
Sen. Coburn published the response on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs website yesterday, April 1, 2013.
The response, dated February 4, 2013, says that DHS buys ammunition in bulk to “significantly lower costs.”
The letter states:
“DHS routinely establishes strategic sourcing contracts that combine the requirements of all its Components for commonly purchased goods and services such as ammunition, computer equipment and information technology services. These strategic sourcing contracts help leverage the purchasing power of DHS to efficiently procure equipment and supplies at significantly lower costs.”
While it has been previously reported that DHS has solicited the purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the next four to five years, the government agency shows only 263,733,362 rounds in its current inventory.
But, DHS estimates it will spend $37,263,698 on ammunition in FY 2013.
Last year, DHS spent $36,535,910, a decrease from 2011′s ammunition expense of $38,237,305.
Also, over the last three years the number of rounds purchased by DHS has declined.
In 2010, the agency purchased 148,314,825 rounds. In 2011, 108,664,054 rounds were purchased; and in 2012, 103,178,200 rounds.
In response to how the ammunition will be used by DHS, the various component agencies answered specific to their usage:
- CBP (Customs & Border Protection) said that “70 percent of CBP ammunition is used for quarterly qualifications.”
- ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) says it “allocates 1,000 rounds of ammunition per firearm per year for quarterly qualifications and training.”
- TSA (Transportation Security Administration) says “35 percent of TSA ammunition is allocated for operational use (qualifications and duty carry).”
For Full DHS Response, Click Here.
Economic Consequences of the Minimum Wage — Videos
Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?
Dan Mitchell Explains Why Boosting the Minimum Wage Is Bad for Low-Skilled Workers
John Stossel – The Minimum Wage and Consequences
John Stossel – The State Against Blacks
Good Intentions 2of3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams
John Stossel – Real World Effects Of Minimum Wage
Increasing Minimum Wage Good or Bad for Small Business?
The Truth about the Minimum Wage
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
[yourtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk]
Power of the Market – Minimum Wage
The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws
Both Sides of The Minimum Wage Debate
Walter E Williams – Davis Bacon Sellout
Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage
Walter E Williams – Minimum Wage as a Racist Tool
Walter Williams: Up From the Projects
State Against Blacks – Conservative Dr. Walter Williams
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2011 data.
- Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)
- About 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 4 percent of men. (See table 1.)
- About 5 percent of White hourly-paid workers earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 6 percent of Blacks and about 3 percent of Asians. Among hourly-paid workers of Hispanic ethnicity, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 1.)
- Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, about 11 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)
- Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 8.)
- Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than full-time workers to be paid the Federal minimum wage or less (about 13 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)
- By major occupational group, the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at 13 percent. About 6 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2011 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4.)
- The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (22 percent). About one-half of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)
- The states with the highest proportions of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas (all between 8 and 10 percent). The states with the lowest percentage of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Oregon, California, Washington, and Alaska (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the Federal minimum wage. (See table 2 and table 3.)
- The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less declined from 6.0 percent in 2010 to 5.2 percent in 2011. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data on minimum wage earners are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly nationwide survey of households. Data in this summary are 2011 annual averages.
1 Data are for wage and salary workers age 16 and over and refer to earnings on a person’s sole or principal job. Hourly earnings for hourly-paid workers do not include overtime pay, commissions, or tips received. All self-employed persons are excluded whether or not their businesses are incorporated.
2 The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the Federal minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011, Tables 1 – 10
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011 (PDF)
| Characteristic | Number of workers (in thousands) |
Percent distribution | Percent of workers paid hourly rates | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total paid hourly rates | At or below minimum wage | Total paid hourly rates | At or below minimum wage | At or below minimum wage | |||||||
| Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | |||
| AGE AND SEX | |||||||||||
| Total, 16 years and over | 73,926 | 3,829 | 1,677 | 2,152 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 2.9 |
| 16 to 24 years | 14,436 | 1,896 | 893 | 1,003 | 19.5 | 49.5 | 53.2 | 46.6 | 13.1 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
| 16 to 19 years | 3,936 | 899 | 491 | 408 | 5.3 | 23.5 | 29.3 | 19.0 | 22.8 | 12.5 | 10.4 |
| 25 years and over | 59,490 | 1,933 | 784 | 1,149 | 80.5 | 50.5 | 46.8 | 53.4 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Men, 16 years and over | 36,457 | 1,433 | 648 | 785 | 49.3 | 37.4 | 38.6 | 36.5 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
| 16 to 24 years | 7,290 | 787 | 388 | 399 | 9.9 | 20.6 | 23.1 | 18.5 | 10.8 | 5.3 | 5.5 |
| 16 to 19 years | 1,872 | 373 | 212 | 161 | 2.5 | 9.7 | 12.6 | 7.5 | 19.9 | 11.3 | 8.6 |
| 25 years and over | 29,167 | 647 | 260 | 387 | 39.5 | 16.9 | 15.5 | 18.0 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
| Women, 16 years and over | 37,469 | 2,395 | 1,029 | 1,366 | 50.7 | 62.5 | 61.4 | 63.5 | 6.4 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| 16 to 24 years | 7,147 | 1,109 | 505 | 604 | 9.7 | 29.0 | 30.1 | 28.1 | 15.5 | 7.1 | 8.5 |
| 16 to 19 years | 2,064 | 526 | 279 | 247 | 2.8 | 13.7 | 16.6 | 11.5 | 25.5 | 13.5 | 12.0 |
| 25 years and over | 30,323 | 1,286 | 524 | 762 | 41.0 | 33.6 | 31.2 | 35.4 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 2.5 |
| RACE, SEX, AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ETHNICITY | |||||||||||
| White (1) | 59,314 | 3,006 | 1,258 | 1,748 | 80.2 | 78.5 | 75.0 | 81.2 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
| Men | 29,743 | 1,108 | 484 | 624 | 40.2 | 28.9 | 28.9 | 29.0 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 |
| Women | 29,571 | 1,898 | 774 | 1,124 | 40.0 | 49.6 | 46.2 | 52.2 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 |
| Black or African American (1) | 9,523 | 577 | 324 | 253 | 12.9 | 15.1 | 19.3 | 11.8 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 2.7 |
| Men | 4,252 | 222 | 117 | 105 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 7.0 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 2.8 | 2.5 |
| Women | 5,271 | 356 | 208 | 148 | 7.1 | 9.3 | 12.4 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 3.9 | 2.8 |
| Asian (1) | 3,037 | 99 | 36 | 63 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Men | 1,425 | 41 | 13 | 28 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| Women | 1,612 | 58 | 23 | 35 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| Hispanic or Latino (1) | 13,264 | 720 | 340 | 380 | 17.9 | 18.8 | 20.3 | 17.7 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
| Men | 7,703 | 326 | 154 | 172 | 10.4 | 8.5 | 9.2 | 8.0 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Women | 5,561 | 394 | 186 | 208 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 11.1 | 9.7 | 7.1 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| FULL- AND PART-TIME STATUS AND SEX | |||||||||||
| Full-time workers (2) | 53,594 | 1,274 | 522 | 752 | 72.5 | 33.3 | 31.1 | 34.9 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
| Men | 29,292 | 501 | 205 | 296 | 39.6 | 13.1 | 12.2 | 13.8 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| Women | 24,302 | 773 | 317 | 456 | 32.9 | 20.2 | 18.9 | 21.2 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Part-time workers (2) | 20,199 | 2,545 | 1,153 | 1,392 | 27.3 | 66.5 | 68.8 | 64.7 | 12.6 | 5.7 | 6.9 |
| Men | 7,103 | 932 | 443 | 489 | 9.6 | 24.3 | 26.4 | 22.7 | 13.1 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
| Women | 13,096 | 1,615 | 711 | 904 | 17.7 | 42.2 | 42.4 | 42.0 | 12.3 | 5.4 | 6.9 |
| Footnotes: (1) Estimates for the above race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. (2) The distinction between full- and part-time workers is based on hours usually worked. These data will not sum to totals because full- or part-time status on the principal job is not identifiable for a small number of multiple jobholders. Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is less than 35 hours. |
|||||||||||
NOTE: Data exclude all self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#1
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1948 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 9.1 | 8.5 | |
| 1949 | 10.0 | 10.6 | 11.9 | 13.2 | 13.4 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 15.0 | 14.6 | 15.8 | 14.0 | 15.4 | |
| 1950 | 15.2 | 15.2 | 14.3 | 12.0 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 11.2 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 11.1 | |
| 1951 | 8.5 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 7.9 | 6.7 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 7.7 | 9.5 | 7.6 | |
| 1952 | 9.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 7.6 | |
| 1953 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 9.7 | 8.6 | 11.8 | |
| 1954 | 12.1 | 13.5 | 13.0 | 13.6 | 13.4 | 10.5 | 12.9 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 12.2 | 11.4 | 12.6 | |
| 1955 | 11.7 | 11.3 | 11.0 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 11.5 | 11.3 | 11.0 | 11.7 | 11.0 | |
| 1956 | 10.6 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 10.9 | 11.9 | 12.2 | 11.2 | 10.1 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 12.6 | 9.7 | |
| 1957 | 11.6 | 10.5 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 11.4 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 13.4 | 13.1 | |
| 1958 | 14.4 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 17.2 | 16.3 | 15.4 | 17.9 | 16.0 | 17.9 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 14.9 | |
| 1959 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 13.6 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 16.1 | 14.9 | 15.8 | 15.1 | 15.3 | |
| 1960 | 14.6 | 13.1 | 15.6 | 14.2 | 13.9 | 14.6 | 13.9 | 15.3 | 14.5 | 16.1 | 14.7 | 16.4 | |
| 1961 | 17.1 | 17.4 | 17.1 | 16.4 | 15.8 | 16.6 | 17.3 | 17.1 | 18.0 | 16.9 | 16.0 | 15.3 | |
| 1962 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 14.2 | 13.6 | 13.9 | 14.1 | 14.5 | 14.3 | 16.3 | 14.4 | |
| 1963 | 15.8 | 17.7 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 18.7 | 17.2 | 18.1 | 16.1 | 17.4 | 17.1 | 17.7 | 16.3 | |
| 1964 | 16.7 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 17.0 | 16.4 | 16.8 | 14.7 | 16.7 | 15.7 | 15.8 | 15.6 | 17.1 | |
| 1965 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 15.8 | 16.2 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 14.5 | 13.9 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 13.0 | 13.3 | |
| 1966 | 13.0 | 12.4 | 13.1 | 13.0 | 13.6 | 13.0 | 12.9 | 12.4 | 12.8 | 12.6 | 11.8 | 12.1 | |
| 1967 | 11.9 | 12.9 | 11.6 | 12.1 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 13.0 | 13.4 | 12.9 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.0 | |
| 1968 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 12.7 | 11.8 | 12.5 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 11.8 | 12.2 | 12.7 | |
| 1969 | 12.0 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 12.4 | 12.2 | 12.8 | 12.2 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 11.6 | 11.8 | |
| 1970 | 13.5 | 13.3 | 13.4 | 14.7 | 14.2 | 16.3 | 14.7 | 15.7 | 16.2 | 16.7 | 17.4 | 17.1 | |
| 1971 | 16.8 | 16.3 | 16.9 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 17.7 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 16.9 | |
| 1972 | 16.9 | 18.0 | 17.2 | 16.5 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.6 | 16.5 | 16.3 | 15.8 | 15.7 | 15.6 | |
| 1973 | 13.7 | 15.3 | 14.3 | 15.5 | 14.9 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 14.0 | 14.7 | 14.4 | 15.0 | 14.6 | |
| 1974 | 14.6 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 14.3 | 15.4 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 14.9 | 17.0 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 18.2 | |
| 1975 | 19.5 | 19.4 | 19.9 | 19.9 | 20.4 | 20.9 | 20.7 | 20.7 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 19.0 | 19.8 | |
| 1976 | 19.6 | 19.0 | 18.9 | 19.5 | 18.6 | 18.5 | 18.3 | 19.6 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 19.1 | |
| 1977 | 18.9 | 18.4 | 18.6 | 18.0 | 17.8 | 18.8 | 17.5 | 17.4 | 18.0 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 15.5 | |
| 1978 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 17.3 | 16.6 | 16.0 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 15.7 | 16.4 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.7 | |
| 1979 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 15.7 | 15.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 15.9 | 16.2 | |
| 1980 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 18.6 | 18.9 | 19.1 | 18.9 | 18.0 | 18.4 | 18.5 | 17.6 | |
| 1981 | 19.1 | 19.3 | 19.2 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.8 | 18.6 | 18.8 | 19.7 | 20.3 | 21.3 | 21.1 | |
| 1982 | 22.0 | 22.6 | 21.8 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 22.9 | 24.0 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.7 | 24.1 | 24.1 | |
| 1983 | 23.1 | 22.8 | 23.5 | 23.4 | 22.8 | 24.0 | 22.8 | 22.9 | 21.7 | 21.4 | 20.2 | 19.9 | |
| 1984 | 19.5 | 19.4 | 19.8 | 19.2 | 18.7 | 18.2 | 18.8 | 18.7 | 19.2 | 18.6 | 17.7 | 18.8 | |
| 1985 | 18.8 | 18.3 | 18.2 | 17.5 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 20.2 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 20.0 | 18.3 | 19.1 | |
| 1986 | 18.1 | 18.8 | 18.2 | 19.2 | 18.6 | 19.2 | 18.4 | 18.0 | 18.4 | 17.7 | 18.1 | 17.5 | |
| 1987 | 17.7 | 18.0 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 17.4 | 16.5 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.2 | 17.3 | 16.6 | 16.0 | |
| 1988 | 16.1 | 15.6 | 16.6 | 16.0 | 15.3 | 14.2 | 14.8 | 15.4 | 15.5 | 15.1 | 13.9 | 14.8 | |
| 1989 | 16.4 | 15.0 | 13.9 | 14.6 | 14.8 | 15.7 | 14.2 | 14.6 | 15.2 | 15.0 | 15.5 | 15.3 | |
| 1990 | 14.8 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 15.0 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 17.1 | 17.4 | |
| 1991 | 18.6 | 17.4 | 18.3 | 17.8 | 18.8 | 18.5 | 19.4 | 18.9 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.0 | 20.3 | |
| 1992 | 19.2 | 20.1 | 20.3 | 18.5 | 20.1 | 23.0 | 20.8 | 19.9 | 21.0 | 18.3 | 20.5 | 19.8 | |
| 1993 | 19.9 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 19.9 | 18.4 | 18.4 | 18.2 | 18.7 | 18.5 | 17.9 | |
| 1994 | 18.3 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 19.1 | 18.0 | 17.6 | 17.6 | 17.3 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 15.6 | 17.0 | |
| 1995 | 16.5 | 17.4 | 16.1 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 18.2 | 17.3 | 17.6 | 17.4 | 17.5 | 18.0 | |
| 1996 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 16.2 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 15.6 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 16.6 | |
| 1997 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 16.4 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.1 | 14.8 | 14.0 | |
| 1998 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 13.5 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.7 | 14.7 | 13.5 | |
| 1999 | 15.2 | 13.9 | 14.2 | 14.2 | 13.3 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 13.3 | 14.8 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | |
| 2000 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.2 | |
| 2001 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 17.0 | |
| 2002 | 16.5 | 16.0 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 15.1 | 17.1 | 16.9 | |
| 2003 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.6 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 16.2 | |
| 2004 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 16.4 | 17.6 | |
| 2005 | 16.2 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.5 | 16.1 | 17.0 | 14.9 | |
| 2006 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 15.2 | 14.8 | 14.6 | |
| 2007 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 16.8 | |
| 2008 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 20.5 | |
| 2009 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 23.4 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 25.9 | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.6 | |
| 2010 | 26.0 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 25.1 | |
| 2011 | 25.5 | 24.0 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 24.7 | 24.9 | 25.2 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 22.9 | |
| 2012 | 23.4 | 23.7 | 25.0 | 24.9 | 24.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.5 | |
| 2013 | 23.4 | 25.1 |
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955–2012
| Value of the minimum wage |
Value of the minimum wage |
Value of the minimum wage |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
| 1955 | $0.75 | $4.39 | 1983 | 3.35 | 5.28 | 2011 | 7.25 | 5.06 |
| 1956 | 1.00 | 5.77 | 1984 | 3.35 | 5.06 | 2012 | 7.25 | 4.97 |
| 1957 | 1.00 | 5.58 | 1985 | 3.35 | 4.88 | |||
| 1958 | 1.00 | 5.43 | 1986 | 3.35 | 4.80 | |||
| 1959 | 1.00 | 5.39 | 1987 | 3.35 | 4.63 | |||
| 1960 | 1.00 | 5.30 | 1988 | 3.35 | 4.44 | |||
| 1961 | 1.15 | 6.03 | 1989 | 3.35 | 4.24 | |||
| 1962 | 1.15 | 5.97 | 1990 | 3.80 | 4.56 | |||
| 1963 | 1.25 | 6.41 | 1991 | 4.25 | 4.90 | |||
| 1964 | 1.25 | 6.33 | 1992 | 4.25 | 4.75 | |||
| 1965 | 1.25 | 6.23 | 1993 | 4.25 | 4.61 | |||
| 1966 | 1.25 | 6.05 | 1994 | 4.25 | 4.50 | |||
| 1967 | 1.40 | 6.58 | 1995 | 4.25 | 4.38 | |||
| 1968 | 1.60 | 7.21 | 1996 | 4.75 | 4.75 | |||
| 1969 | 1.60 | 6.84 | 1997 | 5.15 | 5.03 | |||
| 1970 | 1.60 | 6.47 | 1998 | 5.15 | 4.96 | |||
| 1971 | 1.60 | 6.20 | 1999 | 5.15 | 4.85 | |||
| 1972 | 1.60 | 6.01 | 2000 | 5.15 | 4.69 | |||
| 1973 | 1.60 | 5.65 | 2001 | 5.15 | 4.56 | |||
| 1974 | 2.00 | 6.37 | 2002 | 5.15 | 4.49 | |||
| 1975 | 2.10 | 6.12 | 2003 | 5.15 | 4.39 | |||
| 1976 | 2.30 | 6.34 | 2004 | 5.15 | 4.28 | |||
| 1977 | 2.30 | 5.95 | 2005 | 5.15 | 4.14 | |||
| 1978 | 2.65 | 6.38 | 2006 | 5.15 | 4.04 | |||
| 1979 | 2.90 | 6.27 | 2007 | 5.85 | 4.41 | |||
| 1980 | 3.10 | 5.90 | 2008 | 6.55 | 4.77 | |||
| 1981 | 3.35 | 5.78 | 2009 | 7.25 | 5.30 | |||
| 1982 | 3.35 | 5.78 | 2010 | 7.25 | 5.22 | |||
Information Please® Database, © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009
The table of federal minimum wage rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009 is also available in a PDF Version. In order to view and/or print PDF documents you must have a PDF viewer (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader v5 or later) available on your workstation.
| Effective Date | 1938 Act 1 | 1961 Amendments 2 | 1966 and Subsequent Amendments3 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonfarm | Farm | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1938 | $0.25 | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1939 | $0.30 | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1945 | $0.40 | |||||||
| Jan 25, 1950 | $0.75 | |||||||
| Mar 1, 1956 | $1.00 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1961 | $1.15 | $1.00 | ||||||
| Sep 3, 1963 | $1.25 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1964 | $1.15 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1965 | $1.25 | |||||||
| Feb 1, 1967 | $1.40 | $1.40 | $1.00 | $1.00 | ||||
| Feb 1, 1968 | $1.60 | $1.60 | $1.15 | $1.15 | ||||
| Feb 1, 1969 | $1.30 | $1.30 | ||||||
| Feb 1, 1970 | $1.45 | |||||||
| Feb 1, 1971 | $1.60 | |||||||
| May 1, 1974 | $2.00 | $2.00 | $1.90 | $1.60 | ||||
| Jan. 1, 1975 | $2.10 | $2.10 | $2.00 | $1.80 | ||||
| Jan 1, 1976 | $2.30 | $2.30 | $2.20 | $2.00 | ||||
| Jan 1, 1977 | $2.30 | $2.20 | ||||||
| Jan 1, 1978 | $2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1979 | $2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1980 | $3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1981 | $3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Apr 1, 19904 | $3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Apr 1, 1991 | $4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Oct 1, 1996 | $4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Sep 1, 19975 | $5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2007 | $5.85 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2008 | $6.55 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2009 | $7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
Where to Obtain Additional Information
This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.
For additional information, visit our Wage-Hour website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our Wage-Hour toll-free information and helpline, available 8am to 5pm in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Century: America’s Time — Videos
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
Unemployment Rate Falls To 7.7% As Labor Participation Rate Falls To 63.5%–Lowest in Three Decades–296,000 of Discouraged Americans Leave Labor Force In February –Videos
Jobless Rate Hits Four-Year Low: Sequester Lurks
US recovery too slow to create jobs, say analysts
Huge Jobs Numbers, US Unemployment Lowest in 4 Years
Unemployment rate falls to 7.7 percent
America Live | New Concerns Over High Jobless Rate for Young Veterans, 8 MAR 2013
US Adds 236K Jobs, Unemployment Falls to 7.7 Pct
The Jobs Report: Bad News Amid Good
8 March 2013 Breaking News Mass economic protests Portugal & Spain – End Times News Update – 3-8-13
Employment Level
143,492,000
Data extracted on: March 8, 2013 (2:50:17 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS12000000 Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over 
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 136559(1) | 136598 | 136701 | 137270 | 136630 | 136940 | 136531 | 136662 | 136893 | 137088 | 137322 | 137614 | |
| 2001 | 137778 | 137612 | 137783 | 137299 | 137092 | 136873 | 137071 | 136241 | 136846 | 136392 | 136238 | 136047 | |
| 2002 | 135701 | 136438 | 136177 | 136126 | 136539 | 136415 | 136413 | 136705 | 137302 | 137008 | 136521 | 136426 | |
| 2003 | 137417(1) | 137482 | 137434 | 137633 | 137544 | 137790 | 137474 | 137549 | 137609 | 137984 | 138424 | 138411 | |
| 2004 | 138472(1) | 138542 | 138453 | 138680 | 138852 | 139174 | 139556 | 139573 | 139487 | 139732 | 140231 | 140125 | |
| 2005 | 140245(1) | 140385 | 140654 | 141254 | 141609 | 141714 | 142026 | 142434 | 142401 | 142548 | 142499 | 142752 | |
| 2006 | 143150(1) | 143457 | 143741 | 143761 | 144089 | 144353 | 144202 | 144625 | 144815 | 145314 | 145534 | 145970 | |
| 2007 | 146028(1) | 146057 | 146320 | 145586 | 145903 | 146063 | 145905 | 145682 | 146244 | 145946 | 146595 | 146273 | |
| 2008 | 146378(1) | 146156 | 146086 | 146132 | 145908 | 145737 | 145532 | 145203 | 145076 | 144802 | 144100 | 143369 | |
| 2009 | 142153(1) | 141644 | 140721 | 140652 | 140250 | 140005 | 139898 | 139481 | 138810 | 138421 | 138665 | 138025 | |
| 2010 | 138439(1) | 138624 | 138767 | 139296 | 139255 | 139148 | 139167 | 139405 | 139388 | 139097 | 139046 | 139295 | |
| 2011 | 139253(1) | 139471 | 139643 | 139606 | 139681 | 139405 | 139509 | 139870 | 140164 | 140314 | 140771 | 140896 | |
| 2012 | 141608(1) | 142019 | 142020 | 141934 | 142302 | 142448 | 142250 | 142164 | 142974 | 143328 | 143277 | 143305 | |
| 2013 | 143322(1) | 143492 | |||||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Level
155,524,000
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| ear | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 142267(1) | 142456 | 142434 | 142751 | 142388 | 142591 | 142278 | 142514 | 142518 | 142622 | 142962 | 143248 | |
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153144(1) | 152983 | 153051 | 152435 | 152670 | 153041 | 153054 | 152749 | 153414 | 153183 | 153835 | 153918 | |
| 2008 | 154063(1) | 153653 | 153908 | 153769 | 154303 | 154313 | 154469 | 154641 | 154570 | 154876 | 154639 | 154655 | |
| 2009 | 154232(1) | 154526 | 154142 | 154479 | 154742 | 154710 | 154505 | 154300 | 153815 | 153804 | 153887 | 153120 | |
| 2010 | 153455(1) | 153702 | 153960 | 154577 | 154110 | 153623 | 153709 | 154078 | 153966 | 153681 | 154140 | 153649 | |
| 2011 | 153244(1) | 153269 | 153358 | 153478 | 153552 | 153369 | 153325 | 153707 | 154074 | 154010 | 154096 | 153945 | |
| 2012 | 154356(1) | 154825 | 154707 | 154451 | 154998 | 155149 | 154995 | 154647 | 155056 | 155576 | 155319 | 155511 | |
| 2013 | 155654(1) | 155524 | |||||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate
63.5%
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 67.0 | |
| 2001 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 2002 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.3 | |
| 2003 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 65.9 | |
| 2004 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.9 | |
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.6 | |
| 2013 | 63.6 | 63.5 |
Unemployment Level
12,032,000
12,
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 5708 | 5858 | 5733 | 5481 | 5758 | 5651 | 5747 | 5853 | 5625 | 5534 | 5639 | 5634 | |
| 2001 | 6023 | 6089 | 6141 | 6271 | 6226 | 6484 | 6583 | 7042 | 7142 | 7694 | 8003 | 8258 | |
| 2002 | 8182 | 8215 | 8304 | 8599 | 8399 | 8393 | 8390 | 8304 | 8251 | 8307 | 8520 | 8640 | |
| 2003 | 8520 | 8618 | 8588 | 8842 | 8957 | 9266 | 9011 | 8896 | 8921 | 8732 | 8576 | 8317 | |
| 2004 | 8370 | 8167 | 8491 | 8170 | 8212 | 8286 | 8136 | 7990 | 7927 | 8061 | 7932 | 7934 | |
| 2005 | 7784 | 7980 | 7737 | 7672 | 7651 | 7524 | 7406 | 7345 | 7553 | 7453 | 7566 | 7279 | |
| 2006 | 7064 | 7184 | 7072 | 7120 | 6980 | 7001 | 7175 | 7091 | 6847 | 6727 | 6872 | 6762 | |
| 2007 | 7116 | 6927 | 6731 | 6850 | 6766 | 6979 | 7149 | 7067 | 7170 | 7237 | 7240 | 7645 | |
| 2008 | 7685 | 7497 | 7822 | 7637 | 8395 | 8575 | 8937 | 9438 | 9494 | 10074 | 10538 | 11286 | |
| 2009 | 12079 | 12881 | 13421 | 13826 | 14492 | 14705 | 14607 | 14819 | 15005 | 15382 | 15223 | 15095 | |
| 2010 | 15016 | 15078 | 15192 | 15281 | 14856 | 14475 | 14542 | 14673 | 14577 | 14584 | 15094 | 14354 | |
| 2011 | 13992 | 13798 | 13716 | 13872 | 13871 | 13964 | 13817 | 13837 | 13910 | 13696 | 13325 | 13049 | |
| 2012 | 12748 | 12806 | 12686 | 12518 | 12695 | 12701 | 12745 | 12483 | 12082 | 12248 | 12042 | 12206 | |
| 2013 | 12332 | 12032 |
Unemployment Rate U-3
7.7%
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| 2003 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
| 2004 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 2005 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| 2006 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| 2007 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
| 2008 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.3 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| 2013 | 7.9 | 7.7 |
Teenage Unemployment Rate
25.1%
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.2 | |
| 2001 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 17.0 | |
| 2002 | 16.5 | 16.0 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 15.1 | 17.1 | 16.9 | |
| 2003 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.6 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 16.2 | |
| 2004 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 16.4 | 17.6 | |
| 2005 | 16.2 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.5 | 16.1 | 17.0 | 14.9 | |
| 2006 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 15.2 | 14.8 | 14.6 | |
| 2007 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 16.8 | |
| 2008 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 20.5 | |
| 2009 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 23.4 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 25.9 | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.6 | |
| 2010 | 26.0 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 25.1 | |
| 2011 | 25.5 | 24.0 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 24.7 | 24.9 | 25.2 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 22.9 | |
| 2012 | 23.4 | 23.7 | 25.0 | 24.9 | 24.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.5 | |
| 2013 | 23.4 | 25.1 |
Total Unemployment Rate U-6
14.3
Series Id: LNS13327709 Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 6.9 | |
| 2001 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| 2002 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | |
| 2003 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 9.8 | |
| 2004 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.2 | |
| 2005 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 8.6 | |
| 2006 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.9 | |
| 2007 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.8 | |
| 2008 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 12.6 | 13.6 | |
| 2009 | 14.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | |
| 2010 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.6 | |
| 2011 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.0 | 15.5 | 15.2 | |
| 2012 | 15.1 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.4 | |
| 2013 | 14.4 | 14.3 |
mployment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-13-0389
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 8, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — FEBRUARY 2013
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 236,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business
services, construction, and health care.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown
little movement, on net, since September 2012. The number of unemployed
persons, at 12.0 million, also edged lower in February. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for whites (6.8 percent)
declined in February while the rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women
(7.0 percent), teenagers (25.1 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics
(9.6 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.1
percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See
tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In February, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks
or more) was about unchanged at 4.8 million. These individuals accounted for
40.2 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The employment-population ratio held at 58.6 percent in February. The civilian
labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.0 million,
was essentially unchanged in February. 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 February, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
the same as a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work,
and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not
counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 885,000 discouraged workers in
February, down slightly 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 February 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 236,000 in February, with
job gains in professional and business services, construction, and health
care. In the prior 3 months, employment had risen by an average of 195,000
per month. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 73,000 jobs in February; employment
in the industry had changed little (+16,000) in January. In February,
employment in administrative and support services, which includes employment
services and services to buildings, rose by 44,000. Accounting and
bookkeeping services added 11,000 jobs, and growth continued in computer
systems design and in management and technical consulting services.
In February, employment in construction increased by 48,000. Since September,
construction employment has risen by 151,000. In February, job growth
occurred in specialty trade contractors, with this gain about equally split
between residential (+17,000) and nonresidential specialty trade contractors
(+15,000). Nonresidential building construction also added jobs (+6,000).
The health care industry continued to add jobs in February (+32,000). Within
health care, there was a job gain of 14,000 in ambulatory health care services,
which includes doctors’ offices and outpatient care centers. Employment also
increased over the month in nursing and residential care facilities (+9,000)
and hospitals (+9,000).
Employment in the information industry increased over the month (+20,000),
lifted by a large job gain in the motion picture and sound recording industry.
Employment continued to trend up in retail trade in February (+24,000). Retail
trade has added 252,000 jobs over the past 12 months. Employment also
continued to trend up over the month in food services and drinking places and
in wholesale trade. Employment in other major industries showed little change
over the month.
In February, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2
hour to 40.9 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour to 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $23.82. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.1
percent. In February, average hourly earnings of private-sector production
and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents to $20.04. (See tables B-3
and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from
+196,000 to +219,000, and the change for January was revised from +157,000 to
+119,000.
____________
The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on Friday,
April 5, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
| Category | Feb. 2012 | Dec. 2012 | Jan. 2013 | Feb. 2013 | Change from: Jan. 2013- Feb. 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment status | |||||
| Civilian noninstitutional population | 242,435 | 244,350 | 244,663 | 244,828 | 165 |
| Civilian labor force | 154,825 | 155,511 | 155,654 | 155,524 | -130 |
| Participation rate | 63.9 | 63.6 | 63.6 | 63.5 | -0.1 |
| Employed | 142,019 | 143,305 | 143,322 | 143,492 | 170 |
| Employment-population ratio | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 58.6 | 0.0 |
| Unemployed | 12,806 | 12,206 | 12,332 | 12,032 | -300 |
| Unemployment rate | 8.3 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.7 | -0.2 |
| Not in labor force | 87,611 | 88,839 | 89,008 | 89,304 | 296 |
| Unemployment rates | |||||
| Total, 16 years and over | 8.3 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.7 | -0.2 |
| Adult men (20 years and over) | 7.7 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.1 | -0.2 |
| Adult women (20 years and over) | 7.6 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 7.0 | -0.3 |
| Teenagers (16 to 19 years) | 23.7 | 23.5 | 23.4 | 25.1 | 1.7 |
| White | 7.4 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.8 | -0.2 |
| Black or African American | 14.1 | 14.0 | 13.8 | 13.8 | 0.0 |
| Asian (not seasonally adjusted) | 6.3 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.1 | - |
| Hispanic or Latino ethnicity | 10.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.6 | -0.1 |
| Total, 25 years and over | 6.9 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.3 | -0.2 |
| Less than a high school diploma | 12.9 | 11.7 | 12.0 | 11.2 | -0.8 |
| High school graduates, no college | 8.3 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 7.9 | -0.2 |
| Some college or associate degree | 7.3 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 6.7 | -0.3 |
| Bachelor’s degree and higher | 4.2 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 0.1 |
| Reason for unemployment | |||||
| Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs | 7,187 | 6,408 | 6,637 | 6,522 | -115 |
| Job leavers | 1,035 | 983 | 981 | 956 | -25 |
| Reentrants | 3,341 | 3,587 | 3,515 | 3,340 | -175 |
| New entrants | 1,382 | 1,291 | 1,287 | 1,279 | -8 |
| Duration of unemployment | |||||
| Less than 5 weeks | 2,563 | 2,676 | 2,766 | 2,667 | -99 |
| 5 to 14 weeks | 2,817 | 2,838 | 3,028 | 2,782 | -246 |
| 15 to 26 weeks | 1,974 | 1,895 | 1,858 | 1,695 | -163 |
| 27 weeks and over | 5,392 | 4,766 | 4,708 | 4,797 | 89 |
| Employed persons at work part time | |||||
| Part time for economic reasons | 8,127 | 7,918 | 7,973 | 7,988 | 15 |
| Slack work or business conditions | 5,440 | 4,928 | 5,126 | 5,136 | 10 |
| Could only find part-time work | 2,397 | 2,616 | 2,630 | 2,578 | -52 |
| Part time for noneconomic reasons | 18,868 | 18,763 | 18,464 | 18,908 | 444 |
| Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) | |||||
| Marginally attached to the labor force | 2,608 | 2,614 | 2,443 | 2,588 | - |
| Discouraged workers | 1,006 | 1,068 | 804 | 885 | - |
| - Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. | |||||
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
| Category | Feb. 2012 | Dec. 2012 | Jan. 2013(p) | Feb. 2013(p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands) | ||||
| Total nonfarm | 271 | 219 | 119 | 236 |
| Total private | 265 | 224 | 140 | 246 |
| Goods-producing | 51 | 58 | 41 | 67 |
| Mining and logging | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| Construction | 15 | 38 | 25 | 48 |
| Manufacturing | 29 | 13 | 12 | 14 |
| Durable goods(1) | 26 | 11 | 6 | 6 |
| Motor vehicles and parts | 5.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| Nondurable goods | 3 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Private service-providing(1) | 214 | 166 | 99 | 179 |
| Wholesale trade | 11.9 | 6.5 | 15.5 | 5.9 |
| Retail trade | -24.3 | 6.2 | 29.0 | 23.7 |
| Transportation and warehousing | 17.9 | 34.8 | -20.4 | -1.3 |
| Information | 11 | -9 | 1 | 20 |
| Financial activities | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 |
| Professional and business services(1) | 76 | 35 | 16 | 73 |
| Temporary help services | 47.3 | 12.3 | -3.0 | 16.0 |
| Education and health services(1) | 69 | 36 | 9 | 24 |
| Health care and social assistance | 46.2 | 42.9 | 19.3 | 39.1 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 47 | 40 | 30 | 24 |
| Other services | -4 | 6 | 11 | 1 |
| Government | 6 | -5 | -21 | -10 |
| WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES | ||||
| Total nonfarm women employees | 49.4 | 49.3 | 49.3 | 49.3 |
| Total private women employees | 47.8 | 47.9 | 47.9 | 47.8 |
| Total private production and nonsupervisory employees | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES | ||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 34.6 | 34.5 | 34.4 | 34.5 |
| Average hourly earnings | $23.33 | $23.75 | $23.78 | $23.82 |
| Average weekly earnings | $807.22 | $819.38 | $818.03 | $821.79 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) | 96.3 | 97.5 | 97.3 | 97.8 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.5 | 0.5 | -0.2 | 0.5 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) | 107.2 | 110.4 | 110.4 | 111.1 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES | ||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 33.8 | 33.7 | 33.6 | 33.8 |
| Average hourly earnings | $19.64 | $19.93 | $19.99 | $20.04 |
| Average weekly earnings | $663.83 | $671.64 | $671.66 | $677.35 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) | 103.6 | 104.9 | 104.6 | 105.5 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.3 | 0.2 | -0.3 | 0.9 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) | 135.9 | 139.6 | 139.7 | 141.2 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span) | ||||
| Total private (266 industries) | 62.2 | 65.2 | 64.7 | 63.3 |
| Manufacturing (81 industries) | 57.4 | 58.0 | 57.4 | 60.5 |
| Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. | ||||
Related Posts On Pronk Pops
Pronk Pops Show 101, March 8, 2013: Segment 0: A Profile in Courage–Stand With Rand Filibuster: Defend and Protect The Constitution and Your 5th Amendment Rights Against Use Of Drones To Target Kill Noncombatant American Citizens — Videos
Pronk Pops Show 101, March 8, 2013: Segment 1: Petulant President With Narcissist Personality Disorder Closes White House Tours — Olympus (White House) Has Fallen — Narcissist Controls White House — Americans Do Not Negotiate With Narcissists — Obama Is No Lincoln — The Great Pretender — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Too Big To Fail–Financiang The Federal Government–Videos
Elizabeth Warren Grills Ben Bernanke on ‘Too Big to Fail’
Judge Napolitano Praises Elizabeth Warren for Taking on Ben Bernanke Over ‘Too big To Fail”
Bachmann Questions Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Glenn Beck Out-of-The Closet Tea Party Libertarian–When Will Glenn Tell Us He Has Joined Dallas Chapter of The John Birch Society? — Videos
Glenn Beck Apologizes to Libertarians, Begs them to Welcome New People into
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy
What Is the John Birch Society?
History Lesson: Eisenhower Agriculture Sect. Sounds the Alarm Over Take Over of America 1 of 2
History Lesson: Eisenhower Agriculture Sect. Sounds the Alarm Over Take Over of America 2 of 2
Karl Rove vs. The Tea Party: Conservative Civil War
The John Birch Society
John Birch Society documentary from the 1960′s
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
G. Edward Griffin The Dangerous Servant A Discourse on Government
G. Edward Griffin in Toronto (November 16th 2012)
The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
G. Edward Griffin on Glenn Beck
“The Federal Reserve Is a Cartel” – G. Edward Griffin
Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda.flv
JBS (John Birch Society) Overview of America Part 1 (HQ)
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 1/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 2/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 3/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 4/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 5/5
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full (Order it at Infowars.com)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Everybody Hurts–Videos
R.E.M. – Everybody Hurts (Video)
REM – Everybody hurts (with lyrics)
“everybody hurts”-house video
The Corrs – Everybody Hurts (Unplugged)
Joe Cocker Everybody hurts
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
All Governments Lie–The Coming Collapse of United States Economy — Videos
Jim Rogers Fed’s Money Printing – Coming Economic Collapse
Food Crisis – The Total Collapse Of The U.S. Economy Is 100%
Financial Collapse this Spring – Survive the Food Crisis
Prepare Yourself – America Will Collapse
Countdown to Economic Collapse (2-18-2013)
After America Collapses, What Comes Next?
Economic Collapse Is Imminent
The Economic Collapse and The End Of Our Liberty [HQ movie]
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’–Videos
Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’
America is a FREAKING MESS…
Barack Obama is AMERICA’S DAD….
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Dr. Benjamin Carson’s Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast — Gifted Hands — Who Gives Children A Second Chance –Videos
Dr. Benjamin Carson on Fox News Sunday - February 24, 2013
Dr. Benjamin Carson’s Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with
Dr. Benjamin Carson On Sean Hannity Explains Why He Felt The Need To Lecture
Dr Carson: Straight-Talking Speech Brings Rave Reviews
The Five Panel Celebrates Conservative Doctor Who Criticized Obama To His Face
Sleepy Obama Sits Through Prayer Breakfast Where Dr. Benjamin Carson Blasts
Doctor’s Amazing Grace, Life and Speech
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
Ever hear a speaker that got your attention and kept it for an entire speech?
Dr. Benjamin Carson, world-renowned neurosurgeon, told the National Prayer Breakfast audience in Washington that his mother, who had a third-grade education and worked three jobs as a domestic, knew he and his brother were smart, made them turn off the television and read two books a week from the public library and write reports about them.
“You know, after a while, I actually began to enjoy reading those books because we were very poor, but between the covers of those books I could go anywhere, I could be anybody, I could do anything. I began to read about people of great accomplishment; and as I read those stories, I began to see a connecting thread. I began to see that the person who has the most to do with you and what happens to you in life is you. You make decisions. You decide how much energy you want to put behind that decision. And I came to understand that I had control of my own destiny. And, at that point, I didn’t hate poverty anymore, because I knew it was only temporary. I knew I could change that. It was incredibly liberating for me, made all the difference.”
Carson commented upon education, fiscal irresponsibility, taxes and health care.
“Why is it so important that we educate our people? Because we don’t want to go down the pathway as so many pinnacle nations that have preceded us. I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful. Nobody could even challenge them militarily, but what happened to them? They destroyed themselves from within. Moral decay, fiscal irresponsibility,” he said.
Carson would replace the existing federal income tax system with a flat and fair tax modeled after the tithe. He said, “What about our taxation system? So complex there is no one who can possibly comply with every jot and tittle of our tax system. If I wanted to get you, I could get you on a tax issue. That doesn’t make any sense. What we need to do is come up with something that is simple.”
He continued, “When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the Universe, God, and he’s given us a system. It’s called tithe. Now we don’t necessarily have to do it 10 percent but it’s principle. He didn’t say, if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes. He didn’t say, if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality.”
A practicing physician, Carson briefly outlined his alternative solution to the health care crisis: “When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you’re born ’til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there’s nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they’re going to learn how to be responsible.”
Carson said the response to his speech has been “overwhelmingly” positive.
Carson’s life is one of achievement and success through hard work and persistence. Carson graduated from Yale University, majoring in psychology and the University of Michigan, school of medicine. He completed his internship in general surgery and his residency in neurological surgery at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institution.
When he was 33, Carson became the youngest director of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.
Medical history was made in 1987 by Carson and his surgical team, when they operated for 22 hours and separated the back of the heads of conjoined twins (the Binder twins). The twins survived and live independently today.
Carson’s medical practice focuses on traumatic brain injuries, brain and spinal cord tumors, achondroplasia, neurological and congenital disorders, craniosynostosis, epilepsy and trigeminal neuralgia.
In 1994 Carson and his wife, Candy, created the Carson Scholars Fund which awards each year a “$1,000 college scholarship for students in grades 4-11 who excel academically and are dedicated to serving their community.” More than 5,200 scholarships and medals have been awarded across the nation.
Dr. Carson with some of the Carson Scholars with their Olympic-size metals.
Credit: http://carsonscholars.org/scholarships/about-our-scholarships
He has written more than 100 neurosurgical publications and several bestselling books including “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” “Think Big,” “The Big Picture,” “Take The Risk,” and his most recent, “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great.”
“Gifted Hands,” a made-for TV movie about Carson’s life starring Academy Award winner Cuba Gooding Jr. as Carson and Kimberly Elise as his mother Sonja was broadcast in 2007.
In 2008 Carson received the nation’s highest civilian award, the Medal of Freedom, from President George W. Bush in the White House.
Celebrate black history month by listening to Carson’s speech and viewing his compelling life story, both of which are readily available on YouTube.
Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/
Gifted Hands Dr Ben Carson
Excerpts from Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story
Hopkins Doctor Honored At White House
Gifted Hands
Gifted Hands- the Ben Carson Story
gifted hands . the ben carson story
Ben Carson – Liberty University Convocation
Dr Benjamin Carson : In His Image
Background Information and Videos
Ben Carson biography
http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422
Dr. Ben Carson- Achieving Total HEALTH
Ben Carson: An Extraordinary Life – Conversations from Penn State
Dr Benjamin Carson
Great Risks Bring Greater Success – Dr. Ben Carson
Newsmakers — Dr. Ben Carson
New York Times Best-Selling Author Dr. Ben Carson on Health Disparities
Dr. Ben Carson Q&A Session
Benjamin Carson
Benjamin Solomon “Ben” Carson, Sr. (born September 18, 1951) is an African American neurosurgeon and the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President George W. Bush in 2008.
Early life
Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan and was raised by his single mother, Sonya Carson.[1] He struggled academically throughout elementary school, but started to excel in middle school and throughout high school. After graduating with honors from Southwestern High School, he attended Yale University, where he earned a degree in Psychology. He chose to go to Yale because in College Bowl, an old knowledge competition TV program, he saw Yale compete against and defeat many other colleges, including Harvard. Carson wanted to participate in College Bowl, but the program was discontinued. From Yale, he attended University of Michigan Medical School.
Career
Carson’s hand-eye coordination and three-dimensional reasoning skills made him a gifted surgeon.[2] After medical school, he became a neurosurgery resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Starting off as an adult neurosurgeon, Carson became more interested in pediatrics. He believed that with children, “what you see is what you get,[2] … when they’re in pain they clearly show it with a frown on their face or when they are happy they show it by smiling brightly.”
At age 33, he became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins history, as Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery. Carson’s other surgical innovations have included the first intrauterine procedure to relieve pressure on the brain of a hydrocephalic fetal twin, and a hemispherectomy, in which a young girl suffering from uncontrollable seizures had one half of her brain removed.
In 1987, Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins (the Binder twins) who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently. Carson recalls:
I looked at that situation. I said, ‘Why is it that this is such a disaster?’ and it was because they would always exsanguinate. They would bleed to death, and I said, ‘There’s got to be a way around that. These are modern times.’ This was back in 1987. I was talking to a friend of mine, who was a cardiothoracic surgeon, who was the chief of the division, and I said, ‘You guys operate on the heart in babies, how do you keep them from exsanguinating’ and he says, ‘Well, we put them in hypothermic arrest.’ I said, ‘Is there any reason that – if we were doing a set of Siamese twins that were joined at the head – that we couldn’t put them into hypothermic arrest, at the appropriate time, when we’re likely to lose a lot of blood?’ and he said, ‘No way .’ I said, ‘Wow, this is great.’ Then I said, ‘Why am I putting my time into this? I’m not going to see any Siamese twins.’ So I kind of forgot about it, and lo and behold, two months later, along came these doctors from Germany, presenting this case of Siamese twins. And, I was asked for my opinion, and I then began to explain the techniques that should be used, and how we would incorporate hypothermic arrest, and everybody said ‘Wow! That sounds like it might work.’ And, my colleagues and I, a few of us went over to Germany. We looked at the twins. We actually put in scalp expanders, and five months later we brought them over and did the operation, and lo and behold, it worked.[3]
Awards and honors
Carson has received numerous honors and many awards over the years, including over 60 honorary doctorate degrees. He was also a member of the American Academy of Achievement, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, the [[Alpha Omega Alpha|Alpha
Publications and appearances
Carson has written four bestselling books published by Zondervan, an international Christian media and publishing company: Gifted Hands, The Big Picture, Take the Risk, and Think Big. The first book is an autobiography and two are about his personal philosophies of success that incorporate hard work and a faith in God; Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. In a debate with Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, and Daniel Dennett, Carson stated he doesn't believe in evolution: "I don't believe in evolution...evolution says that because there are these similarities, even though we can't specifically connect them, it proves that this is what happened."[4]
A video documentary about Carson’s life titled Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story was released by Zondervan in 1992. Subsequently in 2009, a separate television movie with the same title premiered on TNT on February 7, 2009, with Academy Award winner Cuba Gooding Jr. in the lead role and Kimberly Elise portraying his mother.[5]
On February 7, 2013, Dr. Carson was a key speaker at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.[6]
Personal life
In June 2002 Carson was forced to cut back on his public appearances when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but the cancer was caught in time. He still operates on more than 300 children a year, but has been trying to shorten his days: prior to his cancer he used to work from 7:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night.[7]
Carson and his wife Lacena “Candy” Rustin met at Yale in 1971 when he was a junior and she was a freshman; they married in 1975. Candy holds an M.B.A. degree and is an accomplished musician, and both are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Carson’s life and work was so admired in 2007 that a feature film was made about the doctor, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story”.[8][9]
Publications
- (2011) America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great, Zondervan Publishing. ISBN 978-0310330714
- (2009) Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, Zondervan Publishing. ISBN 0-310-21469-6
- (2008) Take The Risk, Zondervan Publishing. ISBN 0-310-25973-8
- (2000) The Big Picture, Zondervan Publishing. ISBN 978-0310225836
- (1996) Think Big, Zondervan Publishing. ISBN 0-310-21459-9
- (1990) Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, Review & Herald Pub., ISBN 0-8280-0669-5
References
- ^ Ben Carson Biography – Facts, Birthday, Life Story – Biography.com
- ^ a b Conversation from Penn State: Ben Carson Interview.
- ^ Biography and Video Interview of Benjamin Carson at Academy of Achievement.
- ^ Richard Dawkins & Daniel Dennett vs. Francis Collins & Benjamin Carson : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
- ^ Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story (2009) at the Internet Movie Database
- ^ ”Zondervan Author Ben Carson Gives Keynote at 2013 National Prayer Breakfast”. prnewswire.com. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
- ^ Encyclopedia of World Biography: Biography of Benjamin S. Carson.
- ^ ”7 FASCINATING FACTS ABOUT DR. CARSON — THE PRAYER BREAKFAST SPEAKER WHOSE SPEECH IN FRONT OF OBAMA WENT VIRAL”. TheBlaze. 8 February 2013.
- ^ ”Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story”. IMBd. 7 February 2009.
External links
- Ben Carson interviewed on Conversations from Penn State
- Everyday Matters Magazine Interview with Dr. Ben Carson
- Home Page of the Carson Scholars Fund
- Dr. Ben Carson M.D.
- Benjamin Carson receives a Presidential Medal
- Dr. Benjamin Carson – Pediatric Neurosurgery
- There Is No Job More Important Than Parenting: NPR Interview With Dr. Benjamin Carson
- Dr. Ben Carson: The Gifted Hands Interview with Kam Williams
- America the Beautiful: Dr. Ben Carson at Blackburn Institute, University of Alabama C-Span Video Library from 24 February 2012
- Dr. Benjamin Carson’s Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast from February 7, 2013
- Carson Scholars Fund – Discovering Promise … Rewarding Excellence!
The Coming Collapse and Fall of the United States of America–Doug Casey, Gerald Celente, Marc Faber, Michael Maloney, Jim Rickards, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff — Videos
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
Doug Casey on the Problem with Glenn Beck’s Galt’s Gulch (and much more)
BEST DOUG CASEY SPEECH EVER! An Anarchist, Economic Collapse & 7 billion Chi
Doug Casey talks to James Turk
Doug Casey interviews Peter Schiff
RAGING CURRENCY WARFARE!
Gerald Celente Economic Collapse IMMINENT Gerald Celente Today
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ – Economic Collapse
How does the Global Financial Crisis End – Michael Maloney explains
Jim Rickards: the Fed is Racing to Create Inflation Before the US Economy Implodes
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
The Dollar Collapse Revisited and a Bull Market in US Treasuries w/Peter Schiff!
Press Conference with FOMC Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Conversations with Casey
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc
U.S. Dollar Collapse: Where is Germany’s Gold?
By Peter Schiff
The financial world was shocked this month by a demand from Germany’s Bundesbank to repatriate a large portion of its gold reserves held abroad. By 2020, Germany wants 50% of its total gold reserves back in Frankfurt – including 300 tons from the Federal Reserve. The Bundesbank’s announcement comes just three months after the Fed refused to submit to an audit of its holdings on Germany’s behalf. One cannot help but wonder if the refusal triggered the demand.
Either way, Germany appears to be waking up to a reality for which central banks around the world have been preparing: the dollar is no longer the world’s safe-haven asset and the US government is no longer a trustworthy banker for foreign nations. It looks like their fears are well-grounded, given the Fed’s seeming inability to return what is legally Germany’s gold in a timely manner. Germany is a developed and powerful nation with the second largest gold reserves in the world. If they can’t rely on Washington to keep its promises, who can?
Where is Germany’s Gold?
The impact of Germany’s repatriation on the dollar revolves around an unanswered question: why will it take seven years to complete the transfer?
The popular explanation is that the Fed has already rehypothecated all of its gold holdings in the name of other countries. That is, the same mound of bullion is earmarked as collateral for a host of different lenders. Since the Fed depends on a fractional-reserve banking system for its very existence, it would not come as a surprise that it has become a fractional-reserve bank itself. If so, then perhaps Germany politely asked for a seven-year timeline in order to allow the Fed to save face, and to prevent other depositors from clamoring for their own gold back – a ‘run’ on the Fed.
Now, the Fed can always print more dollars and buy gold on the open market to make up for any shortfall, but such a move could substantially increase the price of gold. The last thing the Fed needs is another gold price spike reminding the world of the dollar’s decline.
Speculation Aside
None of these theories are substantiated, but no matter how you slice it, Germany’s request for its gold does not bode well for the future of the dollar. In fact, the Bundesbank’s official statements are all you need to confirm the Germans’ waning faith in the US.
Last October, after the Bundesbank had requested an audit of its Fed holdings, Executive Board Member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was asked in an interview why the bank kept so much of Germany’s gold overseas. His response emphasized the importance of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency:
Thiele’s statement can lead us to only one conclusion: by keeping fewer reserves in the US, Germany foresees less future need for “US dollar-denominated liquidity.””Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity.”
History Repeats
The whole situation mirrors the late 1960s, during a period that led up to the “Nixon Shock.” Back then, the world was on the Bretton Woods System – an attempt on the part of Western central bankers to pin the dollar to gold at a fixed rate, while still allowing the metal to trade privately as a commodity. This led to a gap between the market price of gold as a commodity and the official price available from the Treasury.
As the true value of gold separated further and further from its official rate, the world began to realize the system was unsustainable, and many suspected the US was not serious about maintaining a strong dollar. West Germany moved first on these fears by redeeming its dollar reserves for gold, followed by France, Switzerland, and others. This eventually culminated in Nixon “closing the gold window” in 1971 by ending any link between the dollar and gold. This “Nixon Shock” spurred chronic inflation throughout the ’70s and a concurrent rally in gold.
Perhaps the entire international community is thinking back to the ’60s, because Germany isn’t the only country maneuvering away from the dollar today. The Netherlands and Azerbaijan are also discussing repatriating their foreign gold holdings. And every month, we hear about central banks increasing gold reserves. The latest are Russia and Kazakhstan, but in the last year, countries from Brazil to Turkey have been adding to their gold holdings in order to diversify away from fiat currency reserves.
And don’t forget China. Once the biggest purchaser of US bonds, it is now a net seller of Treasuries, while simultaneously gobbling up gold. Some sources even claim that China has unofficially surpassed Germany as the second largest holder of gold in the world.
Unlike the ’60s, today there is no official gold window to close. There will be no reported “shock” indicator of a dollar flight. This demand by Germany may be the closest indicator we’re going to get. Placing blame where it’s due, let’s call it the “Bernanke Shock.”
It Takes One to Know One
In last month’s Gold Letter, I wrote about the three pillars supporting the US Treasury’s persistently low interest rates: the Fed, domestic investors, and foreign central banks – led by Japan. I examined how Japan’s plans to radically devalue the yen may undermine that country’s ability to continue buying Treasuries, which could cause the other pillars to become unstable as well.
<
























































































































































