Resources
Who Controls America — George Carlin — Videos
The Owners of the Country
Entropy fan
The Genius George Carlin
George Carlin: Brain Droppings
George Carlin Interview
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Coming U.S. Stock and Bond Market Crash of 2013-2014 — The Stock and Bond Big Bubble Burst — Central Banks Buying Gold! — Videos
BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff
Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis
David Stockman: We’re in a Monetary Fantasy Land
Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
US BOND BUBBLE’S READY TO BURST!
Max Keiser: Propped Up Bond Market Set To Burst In April
U.S. Government Bond Bubble to Burst, Faber Says
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
USA Will Die – Economic Collapse 2013 – Jim Rogers
JIM ROGERS – 2013 to Be Bad, ‘God Knows What Will Happen in 2014′
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
Peter Schiff on Max Keiser – Stopping the Global Financial Crisis
Keiser Report: Psyops & Debt Diets
Max Keiser: Will the next crash be on Bonds?
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
MAX KEISER: Colossal Collapse Coming! Keiser Report
ALEX JONES & Max Keiser 2013, Year of The GREAT CRASH!
Peter Schiff – Dollar Could Collapse This Fall 2013
Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013
Fed Will Keep Printing Until The Dollar Collapses~ Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards Gold is Money ($7,000 Gold Price)
James Rickards Predicts US Inflation in 2013 due to the Devaluation of the US dollar
Currency Wars: Jim Rickards
Financial Pearl Harbor’ is a Real Threat Warns a Pentagon Adviser
CNBC Global Recession Is Coming – Marc Faber
Dr. Marc Faber – US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ Part 1
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game Part 2
Marc Faber – We Could See a 1987-Like Market Crash – Be Prepared and Get OUT!
Marc Faber-No Government Complies With Anything
Total Economic Collapse, Death of the Dollar, Impovershment, WWIII, Marc Faber Interview
Gerald Celente Deal Or No Debt Deal, The Debt Still Exists
Bill Gross: Economy Faces Structural Headwinds, “I Think We Are Facing Bubbles Almost Everywhere”
ECONOMIC CRASH WORLDWIDE STARTING
Harry Dent predicts global economic crash in 2013
Planned Economic Collapse 2013-2014
Background Articles and Videos
Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010
Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010
Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)
The Fall of Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1
The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.
So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?
After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.
It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.
One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.
Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.
Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.
In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.
The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.
A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”
The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”
And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”
In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.
Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.
It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.
“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.
“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Police State In Boston–What’s Next? Martial Law: Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order To Declare Martial Law In Time of Peace — Videos
Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes
On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams
This is what martial law in the US looks like
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 22, 2013
Shocking footage has emerged from Friday’s lockdown in Boston, where police, federal agents, national guard troops and SWAT teams enforced door to door searches of everyone’s home within twenty blocks as the entire city was placed under orders to stay off the streets.
The video, shot by a resident from their own house across the street, shows police barking orders at men and women as they order them at gunpoint to identify themselves, put their hands on their heads, and get out of their own home. They are then ordered to run down the street to be further frisked by police as scores of armed militarized cops look on.
The scenes look like something out of a disaster movie, with the backdrop of suburban America juxtaposed with what is essentially martial law playing out in full daylight.
The story floated in the mainstream media that the door to door searches were conducted with the voluntary consent of the residents of Watertown is clearly false. 9000+ Police locked down an entire city and went in with full force, with armored vehicles and combat gear, all to search for an injured 19 year old kid who turned out to be cowering in someone’s back yard.
While armies of police roamed around people’s homes and private property, Public transportation was shut down, businesses were forced to close, and a no-fly zone was enacted over Boston in an unprecedented show of force.
At this point, as military helicopters buzzed over neighborhoods, the Fourth Amendment had ceased to exist in Boston, which quickly resembled a war zone.
The compliant mainstream media reported on the activity without alarm or question. Katy Waldman of Slate wrote an article claiming that under dire circumstances police can suspend 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches:
In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant.
This activity, once again, sets a shocking precedent. Police and military are training in these circumstances every single day of the year. They are fully acclimatized to the process, as if it is completely normal. They do not hesitate in carrying out such orders, which are now being implemented whenever the authorities deem a situation to be an emergency.
This is what fully fledged martial law in America looks like.
http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/
Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The ‘New Normal’?
April 25, 2013
By Bob Parks
The whole notion of the police “manhunt” is not a new American phenomenon. Cops chase bad guys, cops corner bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys give up quietly, sometimes they go down in a blaze of glory. But we’ve always had rules of engagement when it came to law enforcement interaction with the general public.
It appears all that got thrown out the window in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror bombing and the subsequent police chase in Cambridge, Massachusetts that came to a screeching halt in Watertown.
Seemingly, for the first time in the United States, we witnessed paramilitary-garbed law enforcement personnel forcing residents out of their homes at gunpoint. In some cases, the language used by law enforcement was menacing.
Because of the hysteria that comes after any terror event, the American people wanted the perpetrators caught and, in doing so, appeared to have allowed their rights against unlawful search and seizure to not be suspended, but removed.
How many times have we watched cop dramas on television where the police had a pretty good idea of where the bad guys were, but as they weren’t sure, came to the door and asked permission to come inside to “have a look around”? The only time they ever bashed a door in is when they absolutely knew the bad guys were there. If there was ever any doubt, they’d have to wait… for a court order from a judge.
That did not happen here.
The police came to people’s homes, ordered them to leave immediately at the point of a gun in some cases, and then entered their place of residence. It’s never “consensual” when the person asking you for something has a gun in his hand. “Probable cause” is convenient, but in this case, very arbitrary.
Again, I understand this was the culmination of a horrific event, but let’s say instead of the Thursday evening car chase racing through the streets and winding up in Watertown, it went up Route 9 and ended in very upscale Newton?
Do you think armed police would, under the authority of the governor of Massachusetts and the federal government, put an assault rifle nozzle in the face of a potential wealthy political donor? Would those policemen force the family of the elite into the streets while they entered a home that is worth 20 of their salaries combined?
If it weren’t a middle class area like Watertown, would you really see a politician ordering law enforcement to forcibly enter and search homes on the upper west side of Manhattan or Georgetown or Beverly Hills? Would this happen to a celebrity in his home or, heaven forbid, a congressman?
When citizens are searched by pat-down, rousted out of their homes, and we end up thanking the police with blind understanding, the government has essentially found an acceptable means to take more of our rights away without even one politician having to cast a vote.
These past events in Watertown have set a precedent.
The police can now enter our homes anytime they want. It just requires a verbal massaging of the circumstance. After all, who ever heard of “shelter-in-place” before Friday, April 19, 2013?
If the government can order us to stay in our homes, it looks like it can throw us out of them any time it wants… at the point of a gun.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/bob-parks/has-watertown-made-warrantless-searches-new-normal
Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts
Police and FBI Comb Watertown for Bombing Suspect
Boston Bombing: Watertown Operation: SWAT team secures houses searching for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Boston Door To Door Searches – Raw Video
Raid on Boston bombing suspect captured on film
Obama signs Executive Order NDRP Martial Law – Hannity Full News Clip Fox News (Mar 19, 2012)
Alex Jones – Obama’s New America with Martial Law
President Obama recently signed an Executive Order giving him the power to implement martial law in the US. The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order will give Obama the power to seize the countries resources in a time of crisis or peace. This includes resources ranging from livestock to sources of energy and water.
Many critics of the Obama Administration believe this is another effort at power grab, but others argue that EO update is irrelevant. Alex Jones, host of The Alex Jones Show, joins RT with his take on the EO.
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law in America 2012
Obama Signs NDAA Martial Law ∞ Justifying why U have no Rights ? Ron Paul Rohbs new channel
The Final Loss of Freedom in America NDAA.
Scary New NDAA Bill Passed
Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART I – PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III – EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.
(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.
Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.
(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.
Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.
Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.
Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.
Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.
Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.
Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.
Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).
PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).
PART V - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.
(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.
(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
PART VI - LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and
(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.
PART VII - DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE
Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):
(1) The Secretary of State;
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;
(3) The Secretary of Defense;
(4) The Attorney General;
(5) The Secretary of the Interior;
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;
(7) The Secretary of Commerce;
(8) The Secretary of Labor;
(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(10) The Secretary of Transportation;
(11) The Secretary of Energy;
(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;
(13) The Director of National Intelligence;
(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(17) The Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.
Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.
PART VIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.
(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.
(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.
(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).
(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.
(h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.
(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.
(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.
(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.
(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.
(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.
(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.
(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:
(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and
(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.
(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.
Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.
(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.
Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 16, 2012.
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 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
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 )
Amity Shlaes–Coolidge–Videos
President Coolidge, 1st Presidential Film (1924)
President Coolidge’s Inauguration (1925)
Calvin Coolidge: The Best President You’ve Never Heard Of – Amity Shlaes
Calvin Coolidge book by Amity Shlaes on w/ Glenn Beck on The Blaze TV
Amity Shlaes, Author, “Coolidge”
Digital Age-Why is Coolidge the Forgotten President?-Amity Shlaes
“How They Did It” – Part 1 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 2 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 3 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 4 of 4
Background Articles and Videos
Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Calvin Coolidge–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Dereliction of Duty By President and Commander-In-Chief Obama–Sleeping While Americans Died–The Big Coverup and Scandal–The President Lied–Videos
Former National Security Adiviser Bud McFarlane: For Obama to Do Nothing is Dereliction of Duty
Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’
Obama Confronted on Benghazi – Stutters Through Response!
Mark Levin – Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty”
Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack
BREAKING OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN
Father Of Murdered Navy Seal in Benghazi, Recounts Days After Attack – Judge Jeanine
Graham Questions Military Leaders on Response to Benghazi Attack
Part II: Graham Questions Military Leaders on Benghazi
Sen. Chambliss at Benghazi SASC Hearing
Panetta: Benghazi was a ‘problem of distance and time’.
No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton
Panetta Defends Pentagon’s Benghazi Response
Senator Blunt Questions Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey About Benghazi Attacks
Rand Paul’s Reaction To Defense Secretary Panetta’s Benghazi Testimony – Fox News
Obama vs Panetta on Attacks in Benghazi – Obama Could have saved American Lives
Senators challenge military leaders on Benghazi attack response
“…The top two Defense Department officials were sharply challenged by lawmakers Thursday on their insistent claims that nothing more could have been done to save the four Americans who were killed in the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi.
Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were peppered with questions from Republican senators during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The officials claimed military aircraft and other assets were too far away to get to the scene in time, and suggested armed aircraft like F16s could have done more harm than good in a chaotic situation. The senators, though, pressed the officials for a fuller explanation on why military assets were not deployed to rescue Americans under attack that night – in what will likely be their last chance to question the outgoing Defense secretary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., disputed testimony that the difficulty in dispatching assets to the scene was “a problem of distance and time.” He suggested the “light footprint” in the region and a failure to respond to threats left the military ill-prepared.
“For you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response — our posture was not there because we didn’t take into account the threats to that consulate, and that’s why four Americans died,” he said. “We could have placed forces there. We could have had aircraft and other capacity a short distance away.”
He continued: “No forces arrived there until well after these murders took place.”
Dempsey acknowledged having gotten word of a warning from the U.S. consulate about being unable to withstand a sustained attack, but said the military never got a request for support from the State Department.
“So it’s the State Department’s fault?” McCain asked, curtly.
“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey said.
McCain responded: “Who would you blame?”
Dempsey went on to claim that several U.S. posts were facing significant threats, though McCain said none so much as Benghazi.
Shortly afterward, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed Panetta again on why no forces were deployed until after the attack was over. Dempsey and Panetta said they talked to President Obama one time that night, but Graham questioned why there weren’t subsequent follow-up conversations.
“It lasted almost eight hours … did the president show any curiosity?” Graham asked.
Panetta said there was “no question” Obama “was concerned about American lives.”
“With all due respect,” Graham responded, “I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, ‘are we helping these people?’”
The secretary’s testimony on Benghazi was long-sought by Republican lawmakers. After then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified last month, Graham had demanded that Panetta be brought before the Senate — threatening to hold up the nomination of his prospective replacement Chuck Hagel over the issue.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced last week that Panetta would testify.
Responding to long-running questions about whether more military assets could have been dispatched to protect those under fire in Libya on Sept. 11, Panetta in his opening statement claimed there simply wasn’t enough time to do more.
“There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
Still, he said the Pentagon “spared no effort … to save American lives.”
Panetta was testifying in what may be his final public appearance on Capitol Hill as he prepares to leave the department.
Panetta, in his testimony, detailed the military response on the day and night of the attack.
As Fox News has previously reported, he said an unarmed, unmanned drone was positioned overhead the Benghazi compound.
But he said armed aircraft like AC-130 gunships would have taken too long to get there — “at least nine to 12 hours if not more to deploy.”
“This was, pure and simple … a problem of distance and time,” he said.
Panetta said he also directed that a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team stationed in Spain prepare to deploy in addition to a second FAST platoon; a special operations force in Central Europe prepare to deploy to a staging base in Southern Europe; and a special ops force in the U.S. similarly prepare to deploy to Southern Europe.
As for what was happening in Libya, he claimed the “quickest response” was the Tripoli-based team of six people which was sent to Benghazi.
“Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi,” he said.
Since the September assault, some have questioned whether enough was done to protect those at the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night.
There have been questions about the perceived delays CIA officials – stationed in Benghazi — encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi, but it wasn’t. …”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Coming Obama Recession — Real Recession — Real Recovery Needed –Videos
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/02/january-employment-report-157000-jobs.html
Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Last Revised on: January 30, 2013 – Next Release Date February 28, 2013
| Line | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | I | II | III | IV | I | II | III | IV | ||
| 1 | Gross domestic product | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 3.1 | -0.1 |
| 2 | Personal consumption expenditures | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| 3 | Goods | 5.2 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 7.9 | 5.4 | -1.0 | 1.4 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| 4 | Durable goods | 5.5 | 10.5 | 7.2 | 15.2 | 7.3 | -2.3 | 5.4 | 13.9 | 11.5 | -0.2 | 8.9 | 13.9 |
| 5 | Nondurable goods | 5.1 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 4.5 | 4.6 | -0.3 | -0.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| 6 | Services | 1.2 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| 7 | Gross private domestic investment | 19.8 | 14.6 | 16.4 | -5.9 | -5.3 | 12.5 | 5.9 | 33.9 | 6.1 | 0.7 | 6.6 | -0.6 |
| 8 | Fixed investment | -0.9 | 14.5 | -1.0 | 7.6 | -1.3 | 12.4 | 15.5 | 10.0 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 0.9 | 9.7 |
| 9 | Nonresidential | 2.1 | 12.3 | 7.7 | 9.2 | -1.3 | 14.5 | 19.0 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 3.6 | -1.8 | 8.4 |
| 10 | Structures | -23.0 | 13.1 | -2.2 | 9.3 | -28.2 | 35.2 | 20.7 | 11.5 | 12.9 | 0.6 | 0.0 | -1.1 |
| 11 | Equipment and software | 14.7 | 12.0 | 11.9 | 9.2 | 11.1 | 7.8 | 18.3 | 8.8 | 5.4 | 4.8 | -2.6 | 12.4 |
| 12 | Residential | -11.4 | 23.1 | -28.6 | 1.5 | -1.4 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 12.1 | 20.5 | 8.5 | 13.5 | 15.3 |
| 13 | Change in private inventories | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 14 | Net exports of goods and services | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | Exports | 5.9 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 5.7 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 4.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | -5.7 |
| 16 | Goods | 9.9 | 11.9 | 9.0 | 11.2 | 5.7 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 1.1 | -7.9 |
| 17 | Services | -2.2 | 4.5 | 11.1 | 7.4 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 6.1 | -8.8 | 5.2 | 1.1 | 4.0 | -0.1 |
| 18 | Imports | 10.4 | 20.2 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 2.8 | -0.6 | -3.2 |
| 19 | Goods | 12.2 | 24.7 | 14.1 | 1.1 | 5.2 | -0.7 | 2.9 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 2.9 | -1.2 | -2.7 |
| 20 | Services | 2.4 | 1.2 | 12.9 | -5.0 | -0.6 | 4.2 | 13.8 | -1.7 | 9.0 | 2.3 | 2.6 | -5.4 |
| 21 | Government consumption expenditures and gross investment | -3.1 | 2.8 | -0.3 | -4.4 | -7.0 | -0.8 | -2.9 | -2.2 | -3.0 | -0.7 | 3.9 | -6.6 |
| 22 | Federal | 0.6 | 9.7 | 3.7 | -4.1 | -10.3 | 2.8 | -4.3 | -4.4 | -4.2 | -0.2 | 9.5 | -15.0 |
| 23 | National defense | -3.7 | 7.3 | 7.2 | -6.1 | -14.3 | 8.3 | 2.6 | -10.6 | -7.1 | -0.2 | 12.9 | -22.2 |
| 24 | Nondefense | 10.1 | 14.6 | -3.1 | 0.0 | -1.7 | -7.5 | -17.4 | 10.2 | 1.8 | -0.4 | 3.0 | 1.4 |
| 25 | State and local | -5.5 | -1.4 | -2.9 | -4.6 | -4.7 | -3.2 | -2.0 | -0.7 | -2.2 | -1.0 | 0.3 | -0.7 |
| Addendum: | |||||||||||||
| 26 | Gross domestic product, current dollars | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 5.9 | 0.5 |
Peter Schiff on Negative 4th QTR GDP “The Temporary Euphoria Of The Stimulus
Marc Faber ‘Correction is Overdue’
GDP Drops -0.1% In 4th Quarter – State Of The Economy – America In Crisis!
Surprise Q4 fall in US GDP
Rick Santelli Reacts To Negative Fourth Quarter GDP Growth: ‘We Have Become
The Economy Shrank 0.1% Last Quarter – That’s Not Good IMO – John D. Villarreal
Carney: GDP report not “good news”
US GDP drop dents FTSE’s good form– IG’s Afternoon Market Headlines 30.01.13
US economy shrinks for first time since 2009.
John Williams: We’re Going to be in a New Recession in 2013
Marc Faber. – US Economy 100% Chance of Another Recession
Recession Risks: UK heads for triple-dip as GDP shrinks
Background Articles and Videos
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables, contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
<!—-><!—-><!—->
| Lisa S. Mataloni: | (202) 606-5304 | (GDP) | gdpniwd@bea.gov |
| Andrew Hodge: | (202) 606-5564 | (Profits) | cpniwd@bea.gov |
| Recorded message: | (202) 606-5306 | ||
| Brent Moulton: | (202) 606-9606 | (Annual Revision) | |
| Bob Kornfeld: | (202) 606-9285 | ||
| Ralph Stewart: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) | |
| Jeannine Aversa: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) |
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent. The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 4 and the "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2013. The decrease in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from private inventory investment, federal government spending, and exports that were partly offset by positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased. The downturn in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in nonresidential fixed investment, a larger decrease in imports, and an acceleration in PCE. Final sales of computers added 0.15 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.11 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Motor vehicle output added 0.04 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.25 percentage point from the third-quarter change. _____________ FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures. This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Notes and Highlights related to this release. _____________ The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 1.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the third. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the third. Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 13.9 percent, compared with an increase of 8.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent. Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent. Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.1 percent; it was unchanged in the third quarter. Equipment and software increased 12.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 2.6 percent in the third. Real residential fixed investment increased 15.3 percent, compared with an increase of 13.5 percent. Real exports of goods and services decreased 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 1.9 percent in the third. Real imports of goods and services decreased 3.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent. Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent. The change in real private inventories subtracted 1.27 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.73 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Private businesses increased inventories $20.0 billion in the fourth quarter, following increases of $60.3 billion in the third and $41.4 billion in the second. Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the third. Gross domestic purchases Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever produced -- increased 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.6 percent in the third. Disposition of personal income Current-dollar personal income increased $256.2 billion (7.9 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $72.7 billion (2.2 percent) in the third. The acceleration in personal income primarily reflected a sharp acceleration in personal dividend income, an upturn in personal interest income, and an acceleration in wage and salary disbursements. The sharp acceleration in personal dividend income reflected accelerated and special dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter in anticipation of changes in individual income tax rates. The upturn in personal interest income primarily reflected an upturn in interest rates for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. The acceleration in wages and salaries reflected the pattern of monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics employment, hours, and earnings data for the fourth quarter, as well as a judgmental estimate of accelerated compensation in the form of bonus payments and other irregular pay in the fourth quarter. Personal current taxes increased $21.0 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $10.0 billion in the third. Disposable personal income increased $235.2 billion (8.1 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $62.7 billion (2.1 percent) in the third. Real disposable personal income increased 6.8 percent, compared with an increase of 0.5 percent. Personal outlays increased $95.0 billion (3.3 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $88.6 billion (3.1 percent) in the third. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less personal outlays -- was $570.0 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $429.8 billion in the third. The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 3.6 percent in the third. For a comparison of personal saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp. Current-dollar GDP Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 0.5 percent, or $18.0 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $15,829.0 billion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 5.9 percent, or $225.4 billion. 2012 GDP Real GDP increased 2.2 percent in 2012 (that is, from the 2011 annual level to the 2012 annual level), compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in 2011. The increase in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending and from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. The acceleration in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, upturns in residential fixed investment and in private inventory investment, and smaller decreases in state and local government spending and in federal government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in PCE, exports, and nonresidential fixed investment. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in 2012, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in 2011. Current-dollar GDP increased 4.0 percent, or $600.3 billion, in 2012, compared with an increase of 4.0 percent, or $576.8 billion, in 2011. During 2012 (that is, measured from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012) real GDP increased 1.5 percent. Real GDP increased 2.0 percent during 2011. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent during 2012, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2011. ______________ BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components." ______________ BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business; and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements. * * * Next release -- February 28, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for: Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012 (Second Estimate) Release Dates in 2013 2012: IV and 2012 annual 2013: I 2013: II 2013: III Gross Domestic Product Advance.......... January 30 April 26 July 31 October 30 Second........... February 28 May 30 August 29 November 26 Third............ March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20 Corporate Profits Preliminary...... ........ May 30 August 29 November 26 Revised.......... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20 Comparisons of Revisions to GDP Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available, the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively. The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions. Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark) revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S. economy. The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision (with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend growth more than four-fifths of the time. Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons [Annual rates] Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of compared regard to sign revisions without regard to sign ____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________ Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4 Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4 Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2 Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0 ________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________ Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4 Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5 Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2 Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0 NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Recovery Shows a Soft Spot
GDP Shrinks 0.1% on Government Cuts, but Consumer, Business Spending Offer Hope
By JOSH MITCHELL
“…The U.S. economy shrank for the first time in more than three years in the fourth quarter, underscoring the halting nature of the recovery. But the strength of consumer spending and business investment suggested that the economy will grow, albeit slowly, this year.
Gross domestic product—the broadest measure of goods and services churned out by the economy—fell at a 0.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2012, according to the government’s initial estimate out Wednesday.
The details weren’t as discouraging as the headline. The drop, a surprise, was driven by a sharp fall in government spending and by businesses putting fewer goods on warehouse shelves, as well as by a decline in exports. The mainstays of the domestic private economy—housing, consumer spending and business investment in equipment and software—were stronger.
to the economy, even though it expected a return to moderate growth in the months ahead.
The U.S. joined other advanced economies in reporting contractions in the final months of last year. The U.K., Germany, Spain and Belgium have said their economies shrank in the fourth quarter, and several more euro-zone members in coming weeks are expected to report their own declines. Budget cuts appear to be a leading factor driving the contractions in many of those nations.
Deficit cutting in advanced economies is an important reason why global growth is expected to barely improve this year. The International Monetary Fund last week projected global growth of just 3.5% this year, a slight pickup from the estimated 3.2% growth in 2012, due partly to budget tightening in the U.S. and Europe. The International Monetary Fund expects advanced economies to expand just 1.4% this year, compared with 5.5% growth among developing economies.
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BK111_ECONOM_NS_20130130175403.jpg)
Wednesday’s GDP report portrayed an economy stuck in low gear. For 2012, the economy grew 2.2%, up from the 1.8% growth of 2011, but still below the roughly 3% pace notched during healthier times.
For now, the economy is riding largely on the backs of consumers. Consumer spending, adjusted for inflation, increased at a 2.2% rate in the fourth quarter, up from 1.6% in the third. That included a jump in spending on durable goods, which are big-ticket items such as cars and refrigerators.
One thing that is helping consumers: They are starting to see substantial income gains after years of stagnation. The GDP report showed after-tax income rose at a rate of 6.8%, adjusted for inflation, the fastest pace since the recession.
One company benefiting from stronger consumer spending is Nando’s Peri-Peri USA, a closely held chain of chicken restaurants in the Washington, D.C., area. Same-store sales rose roughly 5% in the final months of 2012 compared with a year ago, said Chief Executive Burton Heiss.
Mr. Heiss said he believes consumers are feeling more secure as housing and other parts of the economy improve. Higher home prices, for example, might be giving consumers the confidence to spend more freely on going out. Mr. Heiss added that the strength seems to be continuing: Sales have picked up slightly since the start of the year.
U.S. companies stepped up investment in equipment and software during the quarter, with business investment rising at a rate of 8.4%, the strongest pace in a year. That defied expectations that companies would pull back due to worries over the “fiscal cliff” budget dispute in Washington.
Still, those factors weren’t strong enough to overcome declines in federal spending and exports and slower inventory growth.
The slower inventory investment was the biggest factor behind the contraction. Businesses essentially sold items from warehouse shelves, rather than placing new orders with manufacturers.
That may have been due to inventory accumulating too quickly last summer and some businesses becoming extra cautious about restocking. The upside is that with inventory levels now depleted, many businesses will be forced to replenish, possibly boosting growth in the current quarter.
Meanwhile, government spending, which has been a drag on growth for more than two years, declined for the ninth time in 10 quarters. The biggest cuts came in military spending, which tumbled at a rate of 22.2%, the largest drop since 1972. But state and local spending also fell, dashing hopes of stabilization after a rare increase in the third quarter.
Military analysts said the decline likely was a result of pressure on the Pentagon from a number of areas.
Among them: reductions in spending on the war in Afghanistan as it winds down, a downturn in planned military spending, a constraint placed on the Pentagon budget because the federal government is operating on short-term resolutions that limit spending growth, as well as concern that further cuts may be in the pipeline.
Pentagon officials already have imposed tighter controls on military spending to deal with the challenges.
David Berteau, a former Defense Department official who now heads the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said he was surprised by the sharp drop and predicted that persistent uncertainty about the defense budget would continue to be a drag on the national economy.
“Is this a blip in the data or is it a trend?” he said. “I think you’re seeing a trend.”
The effect of defense cuts on the economy in the fourth quarter likely raises the stakes of looming budget fights between the White House and congressional Republicans. The White House said the GDP report showed the need for Congress to avoid “self-inflicted wounds” and reach a deal.
Companies tied to the defense industry already are bracing for cuts.
Noel McCormick, president of McCormick Stevenson, a small engineering firm in Clearwater, Fla., that designs weapons for major defense contractors, said big clients have told him they may resort to layoffs and cut spending if cuts happen.
That would have a “tremendous” impact on McCormick’s 12-person company, he said, likely causing it to cut back as well.
“There is a great deal of angst associated in the coming months,” Mr. McCormick said.
—Sudeep Reddy, Jon Hilsenrath, Ben Casselman and Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )America’s Dilemma: Citizenship or Deportation?—President Barack Obama’s Speech On Illegal Immigration in Las Vegas–January 29, 2013–Videos
President Obama Las Vegas speech on comprehensive immigration reform on Jan. 29
Credit: http://www.upi.com
FULL SPEECH – US President Obama Immigration Reform from LAS VEGAS 1/29/2013
1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty
Sessions Warns Washington Elites Against Rush To Amnesty
Amnesty – Not the Solution: Talk Border
Immigration: The real Third Rail of politics on TalkBorder
Talk Border: Safe Borders, Not Racism
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
David Meir-Levi on Talk Border
Martin Sieff on TalkBorder.com
Lou Barletta on Talk Border
Michael Cutler, INS Special Agent
Charles Faddis, CIA (Ret), speaks with Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) on National Security and more in one part of a three-part interview for The United States of Common Sense, hosted by Charles Faddis..
Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advisor to the 911 Families for a Secure America, and a consultant, retired in 2002 after a distinguished career with the INS of over 30 years, including 26 as a Special Agent. In 1991, he was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and worked with members of other federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries. The task force’s investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets and prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.
Mr. Cutler has testified as an expert witness at nine Congressional hearings on issues relating to the enforcement of immigration laws having been called by members of both political parties. Mr. Cutler also furnished testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of September 11. Mr. Cutler has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the OReilly Radio Factor, OReillys No Spin Zone, Fox News and the Lou Dobbs Tonight Program on CNN to discuss the enforcement of immigration laws and has participated in various public debates and panel discussions on issues involving the enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Among the areas of concern that he is able to speak about authoritatively are the nexus between immigration and national security, the impact of immigration on the criminal justice system, strategies to combat illegal immigration, and why amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong.
Roy talks about ICE lawsuit with FNC’s Neil Cavuto
The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration
Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty
Path to illegal citizenship: The high cost of Illegal and legal lImmigration for U.S. Citizens
Why Oppose the DREAM Act?
The E-Verify Solution for Illegal Hiring
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
America’s dilemma: citizenship or deportation?
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
President Barack Obama flew to Las Vegas last week to give a speech at a local school outlining his views and principles for comprehensive immigration reform. “Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here,” Obama said.
Why are there more than 11 million illegal aliens in the United States? Simply, the federal government under both Democratic and Republican progressive presidents has refused to vigorously enforce existing immigration law as set forth in federal statutes and regulations and failed to control and secure U.S. borders against a massive invasion of illegal aliens. These presidents betrayed their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.
In a debate with Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1984, President Ronald Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”
On Nov. 6, 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, to reform immigration law and control the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Reagan signed the bill.
Under this law approximately three million illegal aliens who had continuously resided in the U.S. before Jan.1, 1982 were granted legal status and eventually citizenship — amnesty for illegal aliens.
Since then the federal government has failed to control and secure the borders and by so doing, the 1986 law by granting amnesty created a strong magnet or incentive for future illegal aliens. Both Reagan and the American people were double-crossed by progressive Democrats and Republicans in Congress who really wanted open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.
The American people are asking for immigration law enforcement and secure borders and not Obama’s comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Americans favor limited controlled legal immigration but oppose open borders with unlimited illegal immigration. So-called “undocumented workers” or more accurately illegal aliens should, as required by federal law, be removed from their place of work and deported to their country of origin.
Why? First, aliens broke into the country illegally when they entered the U.S. without a valid visa or over stayed their visas and did not return to the country of origin. Second, aliens broke the law when they either stole identities of U.S. citizens or purchased fraudulent documents such as driver’s licenses and Social Security cards in order to obtain employment in the U.S. Third, aliens broke the law when they worked in the U.S. without having the legal status to do so. Fourth, many employers broke the law when they knowingly hired illegal aliens. You do not reward criminal behavior by granting a pathway to citizenship. The rule of law requires federal government enforcement of immigration law by deporting illegal aliens.
When you multiple these crimes by millions, you are dealing with a crime wave and mass invasion that has been sanctioned by the progressive ruling elites in Washington D.C. from both the Democratic and Republican parties who favor open borders and token enforcement of existing federal immigration law.
Why did these ruling elites ignore the will of the American people? The Democratic Party favors open borders and a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens because they believe the overwhelming majority of these illegal aliens will, when they become citizens, vote for Democratic candidates.
Progressive Republicans likewise favored open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens because many of the businesses that employ illegal aliens also contribute to the campaigns of Republican candidates.
Both political parties could care less that millions of American citizens are unemployed as a direct result of policies that encouraged massive illegal immigration. Staying in power, not the welfare of the American people, was and is the top priority of these politicians.
The 11 million illegal aliens and their dependents should be given the choice to either voluntarily return to their country of origin by a certain date or face deportation under existing federal immigration law. With over 25 million American citizens seeking permanent full time jobs, this would immediately reduce the number of unemployed citizens by millions.
Most Americans would agree with two of Obama’s principles of comprehensive immigration reform namely “to stay focused on enforcement” and “to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century.” However, most Americans would not agree with Obama to first give the 11 million plus illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens before first controlling and securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration law.
There is a saying in Texas, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln
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/
Background Articles and Videos
Opinion: Will Obama Poison Immigration Reform?
Reagan on immingration 2
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2
E-Verify: Employment Verification
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release January 29, 2013REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMDel Sol High School
Las Vegas, Nevada
11:40 A.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you! Thank you so much. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Las Vegas! (Applause.) And it is good to be among so many good friends.
Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us. (Applause.) Go Dragons! Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas. (Applause.)
There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few. First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here. (Applause.) Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. (Applause.) Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. (Applause.) Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus. (Applause.) Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman. (Applause.)
But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is. Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona. (Applause.) Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia. (Applause.) Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona. (Applause.) And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California. (Applause.)
And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country. And we are just so grateful. Some outstanding business leaders are here as well. And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students. (Applause.)
Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat. I don’t mind.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Mr. President!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)
Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.) And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose. It requires us to act.
I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others. Some debates will be more contentious. That’s to be expected. But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America. I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) The time is now. Now is the time. Now is the time. Now is the time.
AUDIENCE: Sí se puede! Sí se puede!
THE PRESIDENT: Now is the time.
I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long. I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity. Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.
Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.
After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!. They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens. In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants. One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.
But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.
Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here. Many of them have been here for years. And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble. They’re contributing members of the community. They’re looking out for their families. They’re looking out for their neighbors. They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.
Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay. And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy. Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer. They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.
So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.
We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules. We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law. That’s common sense. And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)
There’s another economic reason why we need reform. It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.
Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country. Think about that.
Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business. We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else? That’s not how you grow new industries in America. That’s how you give new industries to our competitors. That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)
Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.
First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants. We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000. (Applause.)
Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities. And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever. (Applause.)
And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here. We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.
But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act. We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. That’s what we need. (Applause.)
Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. (Applause.) Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.
But this time, action must follow. (Applause.) We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We’ve been debating this a very long time. So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done. As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform. And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush. You don’t get that matchup very often. (Laughter.) So we know where the consensus should be.
Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away. (Applause.)
So the principles are pretty straightforward. There are a lot of details behind it. We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about. But the principles are pretty straightforward.
First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement. That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders. It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not. So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.
Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. (Applause.)
We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That’s only fair, right? (Applause.)
So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process. And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship. (Applause.)
And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time. (Applause.) For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America. You shouldn’t have to wait years. (Applause.)
If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here. Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs. You’ll help us grow our economy. You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.
So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like: smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world. It’s pretty straightforward.
The question now is simple: Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us? I believe that we do. I believe that we do. (Applause.) I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.
But I promise you this: The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become. Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions. That’s not surprising. There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America. That’s a big deal.
When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.” And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.” We forget that. (Applause.)
It’s really important for us to remember our history. Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you. (Applause.)
Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere. (Laughter.)
The Irish who left behind a land of famine. The Germans who fled persecution. The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west. The Polish. The Russians. The Italians. The Chinese. The Japanese. The West Indians. The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other. (Applause.) All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”
And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here. They faced hardship. They faced racism. They faced ridicule. But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.
They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies. But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick. (Applause.) They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.
And that’s still true today. Just ask Alan Aleman. Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan? He’s around here — there he is right here. (Applause.) Alan was born in Mexico. (Applause.) He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child. Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one: on paper.
In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall. He knew he couldn’t do those things. But it didn’t matter that much. What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.
Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up. And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved. (Applause.) In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish. I felt accepted.”
So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada. (Applause.) Alan is studying to become a doctor. (Applause.) He hopes to join the Air Force. He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family. And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America. (Applause.)
So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams. Remember that this is not just a debate about policy. It’s about people. It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.
Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger. And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last: an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 12:05 P.M. PST
Inverted Yield Curves As Predictor of Coming Recession When Fed Compressed Short Term Fed Funds Rate To Near Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) Since December 16, 2008–Videos
Inverted Yield Curve
What is a Yield Curve?
What is a yield curve? – MoneyWeek Investment Tutorials
Yield Curve analysis
Treasury Bond Prices and Yields
The basics of bonds – MoneyWeek Investment Tutorials
Bonds basics part two – MoneyWeek Investment Tutorials
Jim Grant: Honey, I Shrunk the Yield Curve!!
Yield Curve and Predicted GDP Growth, December 2012
December 28, 2012
Covering November 24–December 14, 2012
Highlights
|
December |
November |
October |
|
| 3-month Treasury bill rate (percent) |
0.07 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
| 10-year Treasury bond rate (percent) |
1.69 |
1.67 |
1.79 |
| Yield curve slope (basis points) |
162 |
158 |
169 |
| Prediction for GDP growth (percent) |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
| Probability of recession in 1 year (percent) |
8.6 |
9.2 |
8.2 |
Overview of the Latest Yield Curve Figures
Over the past month, the yield curve has gotten slightly steeper, with long rates edging up and short rates edging down. The three-month Treasury bill fell to 0.07 percent (for the week ending December 14) down from November’s 0.09 percent, itself just down from October’s 0.10 percent. The ten-year rate, at 1.69 percent, is up a scant two basis points from November’s 1.67 percent, but still remains a full ten points below October’s 1.79 percent. The slope increased to 162 basis points, up four basis points from November’s 158, but still down from the 169 basis points seen in October.
The steeper slope was not enough to have an appreciable change in projected future growth, however. Projecting forward using past values of the spread and GDP growth suggests that real GDP will grow at about a 0.6 percent rate over the next year, even with both October and November. The strong influence of the recent recession is still leading towards relatively low growth rates. Although the time horizons do not match exactly, the forecast comes in on the more pessimistic side of other predictions but like them, it does show moderate growth for the year.
The slope change had a bit more impact on the probability of a recession. Using the yield curve to predict whether or not the economy will be in recession in the future, we estimate that the expected chance of the economy being in a recession next December is 8.6 percent, down from November’s 9.2 percent, and up a bit from October’s 8.2 percent. So although our approach is somewhat pessimistic with regard to the level of growth over the next year, it is quite optimistic about the recovery continuing. We’re not sure if that lower chance of a recession counts as a gift from Santa, but we’ll take it.
The Yield Curve as a Predictor of Economic Growth
The slope of the yield curve—the difference between the yields on short- and long-term maturity bonds—has achieved some notoriety as a simple forecaster of economic growth. The rule of thumb is that an inverted yield curve (short rates above long rates) indicates a recession in about a year, and yield curve inversions have preceded each of the last seven recessions (as defined by the NBER). One of the recessions predicted by the yield curve was the most recent one. The yield curve inverted in August 2006, a bit more than a year before the current recession started in December 2007. There have been two notable false positives: an inversion in late 1966 and a very flat curve in late 1998.
More generally, a flat curve indicates weak growth, and conversely, a steep curve indicates strong growth. One measure of slope, the spread between ten-year Treasury bonds and three-month Treasury bills, bears out this relation, particularly when real GDP growth is lagged a year to line up growth with the spread that predicts it.
Predicting GDP Growth
We use past values of the yield spread and GDP growth to project what real GDP will be in the future. We typically calculate and post the prediction for real GDP growth one year forward.
Predicting the Probability of Recession
While we can use the yield curve to predict whether future GDP growth will be above or below average, it does not do so well in predicting an actual number, especially in the case of recessions. Alternatively, we can employ features of the yield curve to predict whether or not the economy will be in a recession at a given point in the future. Typically, we calculate and post the probability of recession one year forward.
Of course, it might not be advisable to take these numbers quite so literally, for two reasons. First, this probability is itself subject to error, as is the case with all statistical estimates. Second, other researchers have postulated that the underlying determinants of the yield spread today are materially different from the determinants that generated yield spreads during prior decades. Differences could arise from changes in international capital flows and inflation expectations, for example. The bottom line is that yield curves contain important information for business cycle analysis, but, like other indicators, should be interpreted with caution. For more detail on these and other issues related to using the yield curve to predict recessions, see the Commentary “Does the Yield Curve Signal Recession?” Our friends at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York also maintain a website with much useful information on the topic, including their own estimate of recession probabilities.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/data/yield_curve/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Faber and Schiff on Investments in 2013–Bullish On Gold–Bearish On Bonds–Prices Rising–Inflation–Videos
Peter Schiff Interviews Marc Faber On What Will Happen in 2013 – CNBC 1_10_2013
Peter Schiff 2013 – The CPI is nothing but Government Propaganda!
Inflation Propaganda Exposed
he CPI is no longer a tool to accurately measure inflation, but an instrument of propaganda the government uses to hide accelerating inflation from the public and financial markets. Modest CPI increases over the past several years do not reflect an absence of inflation, but a design flaw in the index that fails to fully capture the magnitude of price increases. Central bankers drawing economic conclusions regarding inflation and monetary policy based on this highly flawed data point are making a major policy error.
Note: Prices for the twenty items in our basket rose 44.3% during a ten-year period despite an official rise in the CPI of just 27.5% during the same time frame. But that is using official government numbers to evidence those price increases. However, judging by the inaccuracy of government numbers on other items, such as newspapers and health insurance, the actual rate of increase of the prices of the goods in our basket was likely much higher than what the government claimed!
Peter Schiff 2013 – Big Government is very expensive, if you want it you have to pay for it
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Schiff on Cliff–Debt Downgrade–$1.5 Trillion Deficit Coming Soon–Videos
Congress Sells America Down the River to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Excessive Speculation, Intercontinental Exchange and Government Regulation
Gas Prices Explained
Mike Masters on Regulating Commodities Speculation
Michael W. Masters (Better Markets & Masters Capital Management)
Court Strikes Down CFTC Regulation to Limit Excessive Speculation
Michael Greenberger on Crude Oil Speculation
5th OPEC International Seminar – Michael Masters
Michael Masters Chairman, Better Markets Inc Michael W Masters is the founder and Managing Member of Masters Capital Management, an investment management firm. He is also a Partner in Masters Capital Nanotechnology, a venture capital fund. Mr Masters, an expert on the topic of commodities speculation and financial reform, has testified before many Congressional committees and government agencies, including the House Energy Subcommittee, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Recently, he participated in joint SEC-CFTC roundtable discussions on a variety of security-based swaps issues. Speaking out about the far-reaching harmful effects of unregulated commodities speculation and the need for financial reform, Mr Masters has made numerous appearances in media outlets around the world. He has also addressed consumer and corporate groups, and has served as an expert panellist before international and investor groups. He is the founder of Better Markets, a Washington, DC-based non-profit, non-partisan organization established to promote transparency and accountability in the financial markets for the public interest. He was the 2004 winner of the “Open Your Heart” award from Hedge Funds Care and is a 1989 graduate of the University of Tennessee.
The OPEC International Seminar is now regarded as one of the premier events on the world energy calendar, bringing together Ministers from OPEC Member Countries and other oil-producing countries, heads of intergovernmental organizations, chief executives of national and international oil companies, other industry leaders, renowned academics, analysts and media.
The 5th OPEC International Seminar, held in Vienna’s historic Hofburg Palace on 13–14 June 2012, focussing on the theme ‘Petroleum: Fuelling Prosperity, Supporting Sustainability’. The latest in the series of Seminars, which began in 2001, provided fresh impetus to key industry issues and developed existing and new avenues of dialogue and cooperation.
Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets
FACTBOX: NYSE enters the ICE Age
Intercontinental Exchange to buy NYSE
IntercontinentalExchange (ICE): Delivering same-day response to regulatory requests
Derivatives still a ticking time bomb! Sept 2011
Jeff Sprecher, Chairman & CEO, IntercontinentalExchange
**MUST SEE** The Real Reason Gas Prices Are High – Best Explanation!
Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?
Gas Prices & Oil Speculation
Oil Market Manipulation, Gas Prices, Energy Exploration, Securities Exchange Commission
How Wall St Speculation Drives Up Gas Prices
Find Out How Gasoline Gets to Your Tank
IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.,
“…IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., known as ICE, is an American financial company that operates Internet-based marketplaces which trade futures and over-the-counter (OTC) energy and commodity contracts as well as derivative financial products. While the company’s original focus was energy products (crude and refined oil, natural gas, power, and emissions), recent acquisitions have expanded its activity into the “soft” commodities (sugar, cotton and coffee), foreign exchange and equity index futures.
In 2011, ICE and NASDAQ OMX Group joined forces to bid against Deutsche Börse after the latter announced a $9.5 billion deal to merge with NYSE Euronext. The two U.S. bidders and then the German exchange ultimately withdrew after their bids encountered regulatory antitrust resistance. In December 2012 NYSE Euronext agreed to be acquired by ICE pending regulator approval.
ICE is organized into three business lines:
- ICE Markets — futures, options, and OTC markets. Energy futures are traded via ICE Futures Europe; soft commodity futures/options are handled by ICE Futures U.S.
- ICE Services — electronic trade confirmations and education.
- ICE Data — electronic delivery of market data, including real-time trades, historical prices and daily indices.
Contracts sold through ICE Futures U.S. are processed through a subsidiary, ICE Clear U.S. (ICEUS). In May 2008, ICE launched its own Clearing House, ICE Clear, with divisions for Europe, US, Canada & Trust (ICEU).[2]
Headquartered in Atlanta, ICE also has offices in Calgary, Chicago, Houston, London, New York and Singapore, with regional telecommunications hubs in Chicago, New York, London and Singapore.
History
In the late 1990s, Jeffrey Sprecher, ICE’s founder, chairman, and Chief Executive Officer, acquired Continental Power Exchange, Inc. with the objective of developing an Internet-based platform to provide a more transparent and efficient market structure for OTC energy commodity trading. In May 2000, IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) was established, with its founding shareholders representing some of the world’s largest energy traders. The company’s stated mission was to transform OTC trading by providing an open, accessible, multi-dealer, around-the-clock electronic energy exchange. The new exchange offered the trading community better price transparency, more efficiency, greater liquidity and lower costs than manual trading.
In June 2001, ICE expanded its business into futures trading by acquiring the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), now ICE Futures Europe, which operated Europe’s leading open-outcry energy futures exchange. Since 2003, ICE has partnered with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to host its electronic marketplaces. In April 2005, the entire ICE portfolio of energy futures became fully electronic. In April 2010 ICE bought CCX’s owner Climate Exchange PLC for 395 million pounds ($622 million). Climate Exchange PLC also owns the European Climate Exchange (ECX).[3]
ICE became a publicly traded company on November 16, 2005, and was added to the Russell 1000 Index on June 30, 2006. The company expanded rapidly in 2007, acquiring the New York Board of Trade (NYBOT),[4] ChemConnect (a chemical commodity market), and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. In March 2007 ICE made an unsuccessful $9.9 billion bid for the Chicago Board of Trade, which was instead acquired by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.[5]
In January 2008, ICE partnered with TSX Group’s Natural Gas Exchange, expanding their offering to clearing and settlement services for physical OTC natural gas contracts.[6]
NYSE Euronext
In February 2011, in the wake of an announced merger of NYSE Euronext with Deutsche Borse, speculation developed that ICE and Nasdaq could mount a counter-bid of their own for NYSE Euronext. ICE was thought to be looking to acquire the American exchange’s derivatives business, Nasdaq its cash equities business. As of the time of the speculation, “NYSE Euronext’s market value was $9.75 billion. Nasdaq was valued at $5.78 billion, while ICE was valued at $9.45 billion.”[7] Late in the month, Nasdaq was reported to be considering asking either ICE or the Chicago Merc (CME) to join in what would be probably be an $11-12 billion counterbid for NYSE.[8] On April 1, ICE and Nasdaq made an $11.3 billion offer which was rejected April 10 by NYSE. Another week later, ICE and Nasdaq sweetened their offer, including a $.17 increase per share to $42.67 and a $350 million breakup fee if the deal were to encounter regulatory trouble. The two said the offer was a $2 billion (21%) premium over the Deutsche offer and that they had fully committed financing of $3.8 billion from lenders to finance the deal.[9] The Justice Department, also in April, “initiated an antitrust review of the proposal, which would have brought nearly all U.S. stock listings under a merged Nasdaq-NYSE.” In May, saying it “became clear that we would not be successful in securing regulatory approval,” the Nasdaq and ICE withdrew their bid.[10] The European Commission then blocked the Deutsche merger on 1 February 2012, citing the fact that the merged company would have a near monopoly.[11][12]
In December 2012, ICE announced it would buy NYSE Euronext for $8 billion, pending regulatory approval. Jeffrey Sprecher will retain his position as Chairman and CEO.[13] The boards of directors of both ICE and NYSE Euronext approved the acquisition.[14]
Key subsidiaries subject to regulation
ICE Clear Credit LLC
- see main article ICE Clear Credit LLC
- Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
- Regulated by
- CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
- SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency
ICE Clear Europe Limited
- Clearing entity for credit default swaps (CDS)
- CFTC – Derivatives Clearing Organization
- Regulated by
- SEC – Registered Securities Clearing Agency
- U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Recognised Clearing House
- U.K Financial Services Authority (FSA) – Settlement Finality Designation (SFD) under the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1999
- Bank of England (U.K.s central bank) – regulated as an Inter-Bank Payment System (Banking Act 2009)
ICE Futures U.S., Inc.
- Trades futures and options in three main areas
- Agricultural – e.g. Sugar No. 11, Cotton No. 2
- Currency – e.g. U.S. Dollar Index, more than 50 currency pairs
- Equity index – e.g. Russell Indexes
- Regulated by
- CFTC – Exchange
ICE Clear U.S., Inc.
- Clears products traded on ICE Futures U.S., Inc.
- Regulated by
- CFTC – Exchange
Commodities traded on the exchange
- Coal
- Crude and Refined products
- Emissions
- Natural Gas
- Power
- Cocoa
- Coffee C
- Cotton No. 2
- FCOJ A
- Orange juice concentrate
- Sugar No. 11
- Russell Indices
- US Dollar Index
- Iron Ore Swaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntercontinentalExchange
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )R. Christopher Whalen: Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream–Videos
“Whalen is smart. He’s one of the few worthy of your time. Others: Marc Faber, Hugh Hendry, Doug Dachille, David Rosenberg, Howard Davidowitz, James Grant, Peter Schiff, Niall Ferguson, Doug Casey, Jim Rogers.”
Chris Whalen Drops the F-Bomb on Wall Street while sounding the Bankruptcy Alarm
Whalen: Libor Is A Collusive Price Set By Collusive Banks
Whalen: Go Back To The Future To Fight Fraud With Equity Receivers
Value Investing Conference 2010 – Part 4
Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream | Christopher Whalen
‘Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream’
Chris Whalen: “The Fed let the real economy go to hell”
Web Extra Chris Whalen: Is JP Morgan blowing hot air with clawbacks? Plus, Natural Gas forecasts
CHRIS WHALEN: “PAPER ASSETS ARE HEADED TO ZERO” 7-6-2010
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 1/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 2/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 3/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 4/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 5/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 6/7
Christopher Whalen, A New Deal For The American Economy 7/7
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Tea Party Conservatives–What We Believe–Videos
What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise.
What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism
What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation
What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration
What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
How Did U-3 Official Unemployment Rate Decline from 7.9% to 7.7% In November When 600,000 New Jobs Are Needed To Reduce Unemployment Rate By .2% and Only 146,000 Jobs Were Created–542,000 Americans Left The Labor Force In November!–Videos
CNBC Squawk Box: Unemployment Rate Slides to 7.7%
Fmr. Obama Economist Jared Bernstein: Unemployment Drop Due To Labor Force
U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%
Rick Santelli Epic Rant on November Jobs Report & Soak The Rich: They Love to Fib About Statistics
The Unemployment Game Show: Are You *Really* Unemployed? from Mint.com
U.S. Unadjusted Unemployment Shoots Back Up
Unemployment situation best for college grads, whites, men, and older workers
U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 7.8% for the month of November, up significantly from 7.0% for October. Gallup’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 8.3%, nearly a one-point increase over October’s rate.
Although the increase in the unadjusted rate in November is a sharp contrast to the 0.9-point decline seen in October, November’s 7.8% rate is still tied for the second-best unadjusted unemployment monthly reading of 2012. However, on an adjusted basis, November’s rate is the highest reading in six months. Looking at year-to-year comparisons, seasonally adjusted unemployment is down from 8.9% in November 2011.
Underemployment, as measured without seasonal adjustment, was 17.2% in November, a 1.3-point increase since the end of October. The uptick in November also puts an end to the six-month trend of improvements or no change. Still, underemployment has improved 0.9 points since November 2011.
Gallup’s U.S. underemployment measure combines the percentage who are unemployed with the percentage of those working part time but looking for full-time work. Gallup does not apply a seasonal adjustment to underemployment.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159104/unadjusted-unemployment-shoots-back.aspx
US Unemployment Rate Dropped in December 2012 – What’s the Good and the
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Household Data Summary Table A. Household Data, Seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
| Category | Nov. 2011 | Sept. 2012 | Oct. 2012 | Nov. 2012 | Change from: Oct. 2012- Nov. 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment status | |||||
| Civilian noninstitutional population | 240,441 | 243,772 | 243,983 | 244,174 | 191 |
| Civilian labor force | 153,937 | 155,063 | 155,641 | 155,291 | -350 |
| Participation rate | 64.0 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | -0.2 |
| Employed | 140,614 | 142,974 | 143,384 | 143,262 | -122 |
| Employment-population ratio | 58.5 | 58.7 | 58.8 | 58.7 | -0.1 |
| Unemployed | 13,323 | 12,088 | 12,258 | 12,029 | -229 |
| Unemployment rate | 8.7 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.7 | -0.2 |
| Not in labor force | 86,503 | 88,710 | 88,341 | 88,883 | 542 |
http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
| Category | Nov. 2011 | Sept. 2012 | Oct. 2012(p) | Nov. 2012(p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands) | ||||
| Total nonfarm | 157 | 132 | 138 | 146 |
| Total private | 178 | 122 | 189 | 147 |
| Goods-producing | 8 | -17 | 18 | -22 |
| Mining and logging | 4 | 0 | -7 | 5 |
| Construction | 1 | -1 | 15 | -20 |
| Manufacturing | 3 | -16 | 10 | -7 |
| Durable goods(1) | 14 | -14 | 7 | 11 |
| Motor vehicles and parts | 1.4 | -1.4 | -2.5 | 9.7 |
| Nondurable goods | -11 | -2 | 3 | -18 |
| Private service-providing(1) | 170 | 139 | 171 | 169 |
| Wholesale trade | 6.9 | -0.5 | 8.0 | 13.1 |
| Retail trade | 33.8 | 36.6 | 50.9 | 52.6 |
| Transportation and warehousing | 9.9 | 3.7 | 9.2 | 3.5 |
| Information | -2 | -8 | -5 | 12 |
| Financial activities | 11 | 14 | 5 | 1 |
| Professional and business services(1) | 39 | 8 | 55 | 43 |
| Temporary help services | 19.7 | -10.0 | 13.9 | 18.0 |
| Education and health services(1) | 20 | 45 | 24 | 18 |
| Health care and social assistance | 6.2 | 37.3 | 38.2 | 22.0 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 42 | 28 | 20 | 23 |
| Other services | 8 | 11 | 5 | 3 |
| Government | -21 | 10 | -51 | -1 |
Employment Level
143,262,000
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| 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 | 146397(1) | 146157 | 146108 | 146130 | 145929 | 145738 | 145530 | 145196 | 145059 | 144792 | 144078 | 143328 | |
| 2009 | 142187(1) | 141660 | 140754 | 140654 | 140294 | 140003 | 139891 | 139458 | 138775 | 138401 | 138607 | 137968 | |
| 2010 | 138500(1) | 138665 | 138836 | 139306 | 139340 | 139137 | 139139 | 139338 | 139344 | 139072 | 138937 | 139220 | |
| 2011 | 139330(1) | 139551 | 139764 | 139628 | 139808 | 139385 | 139450 | 139754 | 140107 | 140297 | 140614 | 140790 | |
| 2012 | 141637(1) | 142065 | 142034 | 141865 | 142287 | 142415 | 142220 | 142101 | 142974 | 143384 | 143262 | ||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Level
155,291,000
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
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 142267(1) | 142456 | 142434 | 142751 | 142388 | 142591 | 142278 | 142514 | 142518 | 142622 | 142962 | 143248 | |
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153144(1) | 152983 | 153051 | 152435 | 152670 | 153041 | 153054 | 152749 | 153414 | 153183 | 153835 | 153918 | |
| 2008 | 154075(1) | 153648 | 153925 | 153761 | 154325 | 154316 | 154480 | 154646 | 154559 | 154875 | 154622 | 154626 | |
| 2009 | 154236(1) | 154521 | 154143 | 154450 | 154800 | 154730 | 154538 | 154319 | 153786 | 153822 | 153833 | 153091 | |
| 2010 | 153454(1) | 153704 | 153964 | 154528 | 154216 | 153653 | 153748 | 154073 | 153918 | 153709 | 154041 | 153613 | |
| 2011 | 153250(1) | 153302 | 153392 | 153420 | 153700 | 153409 | 153358 | 153674 | 154004 | 154057 | 153937 | 153887 | |
| 2012 | 154395(1) | 154871 | 154707 | 154365 | 155007 | 155163 | 155013 | 154645 | 155063 | 155641 | 155291 | ||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.6 %
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 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.5 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 |
Unemployment Level
12,029,000
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| 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 | 7678 | 7491 | 7816 | 7631 | 8395 | 8578 | 8950 | 9450 | 9501 | 10083 | 10544 | 11299 | |
| 2009 | 12049 | 12860 | 13389 | 13796 | 14505 | 14727 | 14646 | 14861 | 15012 | 15421 | 15227 | 15124 | |
| 2010 | 14953 | 15039 | 15128 | 15221 | 14876 | 14517 | 14609 | 14735 | 14574 | 14636 | 15104 | 14393 | |
| 2011 | 13919 | 13751 | 13628 | 13792 | 13892 | 14024 | 13908 | 13920 | 13897 | 13759 | 13323 | 13097 | |
| 2012 | 12758 | 12806 | 12673 | 12500 | 12720 | 12749 | 12794 | 12544 | 12088 | 12258 | 12029 |
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 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.4 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.7 |
Unemployment Rate U-6
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 | 11.1 | 11.8 | 12.7 | 13.5 | |
| 2009 | 14.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 15.8 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 17.1 | 17.1 | |
| 2010 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 17.0 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 16.8 | 16.9 | 16.6 | |
| 2011 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 15.8 | 16.2 | 16.1 | 16.2 | 16.4 | 16.0 | 15.6 | 15.2 | |
| 2012 | 15.1 | 14.9 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 15.0 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.6 | 14.4 |
U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
“…Shaking off the effects of Hurricane Sandy and the looming fiscal impasse in Washington, the economy created 146,000 jobs in November, well above the level economists had been expecting.
The report released Friday by the Labor Department also showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest level in four years. But the drop came largely from a decline in the number of people seeking work and counted as officially unemployed.
Among specific industries, the retail sector was especially healthy, adding 53,000 jobs as the holiday shopping season approached. In the last three months, retail employment has increased by 140,000.
One notable point of weakness was the manufacturing sector, which lost 7,000 jobs in the month. Demand from Europe and other overseas markets has weakened recently, while some manufacturing companies have held off on spending as political leaders square off in Washington over how to cut the deficit.
Highlighting just how vulnerable to shocks the economy remains, one widely followed index of consumer sentiment showed a marked drop in early December. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan’s index of consumer confidence, released Friday, fell to 74.5, down from 82.7 in November.
That was the lowest it has been since August – a decline that Bricklin Dwyer, an economist with BNP Paribas, attributed to the showdown in Washington over the budget.
“The deterioration in consumers’ future expectations was probably related to increased concerns relating to the political theater surrounding the ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations,” he wrote in a report Friday.
The Labor Department revised job growth in previous months downward somewhat. October growth fell to 138,000 from an initial estimate 171,000, and September’s declined to 132,000 from 148,000. Average hourly earnings in November rose 0.2 percent, the report showed.
By the widest measure of joblessness, unemployment also eased slightly: after factoring in people looking for work as well as those forced to take part-time positions because full-time work wasn’t available, the total unemployed fell to 14.4 percent in November from 14.6 percent in October.
The report for November was relatively strong, economists said, and showed fewer effects from Hurricane Sandy that had been expected. In Friday’s announcement, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the storm did “not substantively impact the national employment and unemployment estimates for November.”
Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America of Merrill Lynch, said, “It’s a pretty solid report. It’s consistent with a slow recovery in the job market.”
“It’s encouraging that with the fiscal cliff looming, the corporate sector seems willing to hire even with the worries about what’s going in Washington,” Mr. Harris said.
If the budget impasse can’t be resolved this month, however, it’s likely that jobs growth will weaken early next year, he added. “The fiscal cliff is a very dangerous game,” he said.
Indeed, other economists remained cautious about the jobs outlook.
“It’s not something to get too excited about,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight. “The number is 146,000 and the average so far this year is 151,000. We’re pretty much in line with what we’ve been doing.”
Mr. Gault said Hurricane Sandy’s impact may have been seen in construction, where the number of jobs fell by 20,000, as well as in manufacturing.
The labor participation rate, which represents the proportion of the adult population that is either employed or actively looking for work, remains very low by historical standards.
At 63.6 percent in November, Mr. Gault said, it was just 0.1 percent above the low point for the current economic cycle, which was reached in August 2012.
“We’re not at the point in which the jobs market is strong enough to pull discouraged workers back into the labor market,” he said. …”
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-2366
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, December 7, 2012
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2012
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 146,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment increased in retail trade, professional and business services, and health
care.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Hurricane Sandy |
| |
|Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the Northeast coast on October 29th, causing severe |
|damage in some states. Nevertheless, our survey response rates in the affected |
|states were within normal ranges. Our analysis suggests that Hurricane Sandy did not |
|substantively impact the national employment and unemployment estimates for November.|
|BLS will release the regional and state estimates on December 21st. For additional |
|information on how severe weather affects employment and unemployment data, see |
|Question 8 in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this release. |
| |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in November. The number of unemployed
persons, at 12.0 million, changed little. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.2 percent), adult
women (7.0 percent), teenagers (23.5 percent), whites (6.8 percent), and Hispanics (10.0
percent) showed little or no change in November. The unemployment rate for blacks (13.2
percent) declined over the month. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.4 percent (not
seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 4.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 40.1 percent of
the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 63.6 percent
in November, offsetting an increase of the same amount in October. Total employment was
about unchanged in November, following a combined increase of 1.3 million over the prior
2 months. The employment-population ratio, at 58.7 percent, changed little
in November. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers), at 8.2 million in November, was little changed over the
month. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or
because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In November, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially
unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 979,000 discouraged workers in November, little
changed 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 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in November
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 146,000 in November. Since the beginning
of this year, employment growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the
average monthly job gain of 153,000 in 2011. In November, employment rose in retail
trade, professional and business services, and health care. (See table B-1.)
Retail trade employment rose by 53,000 in November and has increased by 140,000 over the
past 3 months. Over the month, job gains occurred in clothing and clothing accessory stores
(+33,000), in general merchandise stores (+10,000), and in electronics and appliance stores
(+9,000). Employment in miscellaneous store retailers decreased by 13,000.
In November, employment in professional and business services rose by 43,000. Employment
continued to increase in computer systems design and related services.
Health care employment continued to increase in November (+20,000), with gains in hospitals
(+8,000) and in nursing care facilities (+5,000). Health care has added an average of 26,000
jobs per month this year.
Employment in wholesale trade edged up over the month (+13,000). Since reaching an employment
trough in May 2010, the industry has added 228,000 jobs.
Information employment also edged up in November (+12,000), with the increase concentrated
in motion picture and sound recording (+15,000). On net, information employment has changed
little over the past 12 months.
In November, leisure and hospitality employment continued to trend up (+23,000). Over the
past 12 months, the industry has added 305,000 jobs.
Employment in construction declined by 20,000 in November, with much of the loss occurring
in construction of buildings (-11,000). Since early 2010, employment in construction has
shown no clear trend.
Manufacturing employment changed little over the month. Within the industry, job losses
in food manufacturing (-12,000) and chemicals (-9,000) more than offset gains in motor
vehicles and parts (+10,000) and wood products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing employment
has changed little since this past spring.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, transportation and
warehousing, financial activities, and government, showed little change in November.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained at 34.4
hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and
factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours.
(See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $23.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by
1.7 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees edged up by 3 cents to $19.84. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +148,000
to +132,000, and the change for October was revised from +171,000 to +138,000.
_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 4, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data |
| |
|In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2012, |
|scheduled for January 4, 2013, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted |
|unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
|data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision. |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Household Survey Reference Period |
| |
|In the household survey, the reference period for November 2012 was the calendar week |
|that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household |
|survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. In accordance with our|
|usual practice for November, the reference and survey periods were a week earlier this |
|year so that household survey interviews would not be conducted during the Thanksgiving|
|holiday. |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History Repeats Itself on The Fiscal Cliff–House of Representatives Should Extend Bush Tax Rates Another Year–Let Obama Jump Off The Fiscal Cliff–Focus On Growing The Economy By Lowering Tax Rates and Balancing The Budget–Videos
Balancing the Budget Without Cutting Spending Would Cause Taxes to Skyrocket
America is running massive deficits, and a balanced budget requirement is often considered a way to rein in red ink.
Without serious entitlement and spending reforms, the level of taxes required to balance the budget would reach economically stagnating levels.
Entitlement Spending Will Nearly Double by 2050
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Obamacare subsidies will soar as 78 million baby boomers retire and health care costs climb.
Total spending on federal health care programs will more than double.
Future generations will be left with an untenable debt burden.
Tax Revenues Devoured By Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in 2045
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the Obamacare subsidies, and Social Security will devour all revenues by 2045.
Entitlement spending is already crowding out vital constitutional functions, such as defense.\
Robert Welch Accurately Predicted Fall Off Fiscal Cliff in 1974
Peter Schiff 2012 – Stop spending and consuming, start saving and producing!
What is the Fiscal Cliff? Everything You Need To Know
Pat Buchanan: Republicans Should Stand Their Ground on Tax Hikes
Speaker Boehner: “I’m Determined to Solve Our Debt Problem. We Have a Serious Spending Problem”
Ouch! Geithner Is Busted Lying About Non-Existent War Savings
Timothy Geithner ‘This Week’ Interview: Fiscal Cliff is in the GOP’s Court
Fiscal Cliff Explained – How Do We Land? Mike Maloney Gold & Silver Inc
When Will the Real Fiscal Cliff Negotiations Begin?: ‘This Week’ Roundtable Discussion
Ron Paul on Secession, Romney, Fiscal Cliff, the GOP’s Future and
Constitutional Conservatism or Die
Fiscal Cliff history lesson
Hear a history lesson about the fiscal cliff of 1990 known as the 1990 Budget summit agreement. It resulted in budget surpluses and balanced budgets for our federal government from 1994 until just after the attack of 9/11 of 2001. Elizabeth B. Letchworth is the only women in the United States Senate history to be elected by the Senate to serve as the U.S. Senate Secretary for the Majority for the Republicans. She is now a principal @ Congressional Global Strategy, LLC and owner of GradeGov.com
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Forward Off The Fiscal Cliff…Falling…Falling…Splat!–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Stephen Moore–Who is the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America—Videos
The Truth about Tax “Fairness”
Fairest of Them All: Finding Real Economic Justice – CBN.com
An Evening with Stephen Moore
Stephen Moore delivered the keynote address at the 2012 Annual Dinner of the Kansas Policy Institute October 18, 2012. Moore is an economic writer and policy analyst who founded and served as president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004. He is currently a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, regularly writes for that paper’s opinion page and frequently appears on national broadcast media including CNBC and Fox News.
An Overdue Book
By Thomas Sowell
“…If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?”, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.
The point here is not to say, “Where was Stephen Moore when we needed him?” A more apt question might be, “Where was the whole economics profession when we needed them?” Where were the media? For that matter, where were the Republicans?
Since “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year’s election. But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.
Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged. The title “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” is an obvious response to liberals’ claim that their policies are aimed at creating “fairness” by, among other things, making sure that “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes. If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.
A couple of graphs on pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about “tax cuts for the rich.” These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.
There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.
This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in “Who’s The Fairest of Us All?”
Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today. As Stephen Moore points out, “the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored” the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.
Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.
Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a “tax cut for the rich.” President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out “tax cuts for the rich,” maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy’s answer.
A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on “the rich.”
If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.
Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how “tax cuts for the rich” have “cost” the government money that now needs to be recouped. Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama’s benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion dollar deficits. …”
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/11/28/an_overdue_book/page/full/
WSJ Economist Moore: No Grounds for Obama’s Tax on Wealthy
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman
“…Moore is a senior economics writer and editorial board member for The Wall Street Journal. He is the founder and former president of the Club for Growth and a best-selling author. He also wrote the cover story for Newsmax magazine’s October issue.
Moore’s new book is “Who’s The Fairest of Them All: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes and Wealth in America.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, Moore was asked if Obama and the Democrats are advocating higher taxes on the wealthy to improve the economy or to win over middle-class voters.
“I don’t think anybody thinks that raising tax rates will improve the economy. At least I certainly hope no one does because the history is so unequivocal that that’s not the case,” Moore says.
“In fact, what you want is lower tax rates, not higher tax rates, especially when we’re living in a global economy where United States companies are competing against companies in India and China and Germany and France and all over the world.
“So there’s no case on economic grounds for raising tax rates. President Obama is selling that idea on the grounds of fairness and that’s really the reason I wrote this book, to sort of define what does it really mean to be a fair society.
“What I show in this research is that the fairest system of them all is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is what creates growth, creates jobs and higher living standards for almost all Americans. So it’s hard to improve on that system. President Obama believes that the way to create a fairer system is to redistribute income from the rich to the poor. That’s never worked very well.”
Americans are an “aspirational society” and don’t believe that rich people are evil, Moore adds.
“Most of us aspire to be rich and that’s really the American Dream — to try to work hard, start a business, do the right thing so you can get rich. And America’s still the best country in the world to do that, despite all the obstacles that government tries to create.
“I think President Obama is driven much more by an ideology that says, ‘Redistribute wealth instead of creating.’ It’s almost like the wealth is just automatically there and all we have to do is just cut up that pie differently. What I show in the book is that when you try to do that, what happens is the pie shrinks and everybody is worse off.”
Vice President Joe Biden recently said the middle class has been “buried” during the last few years. But Moore argues that the demise of the middle class is a myth.
He comments: “First of all, let me say that the demise of the middle class over the last three years is very real. We have seen a very steep decline in middle income earnings over the last three and a half years. Since President Obama came into office, there’s been a $4,500 decline in income. That’s huge. That’s one month’s income.
“What I was talking about in the book is, over the last several decades, in the ‘80s, ‘90s and even the first of the 2000s, the middle class did very well. President Obama says, ‘Oh, the recent decades have been a time of decline in the middle class.’ That’s not
true. The real decline of the middle class was George Bush’s last year in office and Barack Obama’s first three and a half years in office.” Moore points out that the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans pay most of the taxes — 75 percent of income taxes and 45 percent of all taxes. Yet some argue that the richest Americans are still doing really well when compared to the other 90 percent and can afford to chip in a little more in taxes.
“Look, we do need more tax revenues if we want to balance this budget. There’s absolutely no question about it,” Moore says.
“Tax revenues as a percent of our GDP are lower than they’ve been in 40 years. My response to this argument about why not just soak the rich is that that’s never really worked very well. History proves if you want to get more revenues out of rich people, cut their tax rates, don’t raise them. That’s a lesson that John F. Kennedy taught us, Ronald Reagan taught us, even George W. Bush taught us.
“I don’t think there’s any evidence that raising tax rates way up is going to get more money out of the rich because the rich will find shelters, they will find tax carve-outs and loopholes and deductions to hide their money.”
Another argument from the left is that we should raise tax rates to where they were under President Clinton. President Obama has pointed out that those rates did not slow down economic growth during Clinton’s tenure. Moore takes issue with that point of view.
“A couple of things,” he says. “One is that President Obama doesn’t want to just raise the rates to the Clinton era, he wants them to be a lot higher. People forget that also in the Obamacare healthcare law, there’s a 3.8 percent investment surtax so rates would actually go up about four percentage points higher than they were in the Clinton administration.
“But the other thing to point out is the Clinton years were prosperous, in part because under a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton, who was a conservative in terms of his fiscal policies, government spending fell as a share of GDP from 22 percent to 18 percent. So that’s like a tax cut when you cut government spending by four percentage points of GDP.
“Barack Obama’s done just the opposite. He’s raised gross spending by almost four percentage points of GDP. We’ve been averaging about 24 percent, which is the highest it’s been any time since World War II when we were fighting the Nazis and the Japanese.
“So the point I would make is that Barack Obama’s kind of the anti-Clinton. Obama’s not a fiscal conservative. He’s driven up the debt by over $1 trillion a year. Just last week, the numbers came out that we had a $1.1 trillion deficit in 2012. That’s four straight years with trillion-dollar deficits. That isn’t fiscal conservatism. That doesn’t help anybody.”
The Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire next year at the same time that automatic cuts in government spending are scheduled to take effect, possibly leading to what some have called a “fiscal cliff.” That makes this year’s election crucial, Moore asserts.
“The most important fiscal cliff is this tax increase, and the reason this is such an important election is if Barack Obama wins, he will have a mandate from voters to raise tax rates,” he tells Newsmax.
“I agree with the Congressional Budget Office and a lot of other economists that that’s something that could cause a double dip recession. And if you think the economy’s bad now, wait until
those tax rates go up in 2013.
“One of the arguments for Mitt Romney is he’s actually going to cut the rates, not raise them. I do think we need spending cuts. There’s a lot of people who say that we can’t afford to do these spending cuts next year. Yes, we can afford to do that.
“In fact, we have to do that. We have to start really taking a blade to government spending because that’s so inefficient and every dollar the government spends is a dollar less the private sector has to spend on its own expansions.”
Mitt Romney is vowing to cut taxes by 20 percent across the board and pay for those cuts by eliminating loopholes. Romney also says he believes in a progressive tax structure.
“I like his tax plan,” Moore says. “I don’t agree with everything in it but [I agree with] the basic concept, which Ronald Reagan did with Dan Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood and Ted Kennedy and Democrats back in the
1980s.
“It’s amazing how the Democrats have moved to the left. Back then, what we did is we cut tax rates significantly, very significantly, and we closed off loopholes to make a much more efficient tax system and it worked really well. That’s what Mitt Romney, for the most part, is trying to do — get rid of the pollution and the special interest carve-outs in the tax system, lower the rates for everybody.
“It’s been proven time again, that’s a very productive way to get the economy moving again. The numbers can add up. Ronald Reagan proved the numbers can add up. When we did the 1986 tax act, that lowered the rate all the way down to 28 percent. We actually got more revenues into the treasury, not less.”
Asked to give Romney’s plan a letter grade, Moore responds: “I’ll give him a B-plus. The tax plan is strong and it will move us right in the right direction.
“Now I’d like to see a flat tax. I’m a Steve Forbes guy. One rate for everybody with no deductions, no loopholes and you get rid of the double tax on saving and investment. That would be the optimal tax system but Mitt Romney’s plan moves us in that direction.
“Interestingly, under Mitt Romney, the top tax rate would be about 28 percent. Under Barack Obama, the top tax rate goes up to 42 percent. That’s a big difference.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/moore-obama-tax-plan/2012/10/09/id/459261#ixzz2DeMBPkui
75% of Obamacare taxes will be on middle-class
Stephen Moore: We’ve Spent Over a Million Dollars For Each Green Job
Wall Street Journal Stephen Moore – Ron Paul’s IRS proposal
Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore on the 2012 Election
Ashbrook Center – Stephen Moore – Can Capitalism Make a Comeback? – April 4 2012
Stephen Moore, Senior Economics writer for the Wall Street Journal speaks at an Ashbrook Center Major Issues Lecture on April 4, 2012. Moore addresses the topic : Can Capitalism Make a Comeback?
Stephen Moore – America at a Crossroads
Dr. Mathew Manweller of Central Washington University and Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal join members of the Freedom Foundation to discuss the direction the United States going into the 2012 election.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Grew in 3rd Quarter at 2% Annual Rate–Videos
US growth up, but not enough to help Obama
The Politics Behind the Latest Government Economic Report
US GDP grows 2% ahead of presidential election
GDP Rises 2% in 3rd Quarter, Consumer Spending Increases
3XSQ: U.S. GDP expands 2%
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.
The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source
data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see box below). The
"second" estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29,
2012.
The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, and residential fixed
investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, and private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of
GDP, decreased.
The acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected an upturn in federal
government spending, a downturn in imports, an acceleration in PCE, a smaller decrease in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in residential fixed investment, and a smaller decrease in state and
local government spending that were partly offset by downturns in exports and in nonresidential fixed
investment.
____________
FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted
annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes
are differences between these published estimates. Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in
chained (2005) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.
This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related to this release.
____________
Final sales of computers added 0.17 percentage point to the third-quarter change in real GDP
after subtracting 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change. Motor vehicle output subtracted
0.47 percentage point from the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.20 percentage point to
the second-quarter change.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.7 percent in the second.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.3 percent in
the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the second.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.0 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.5 percent in the second. Durable goods increased 8.5 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 0.2 percent. Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6
percent. Services increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment decreased 1.3 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to an
increase of 3.6 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures decreased 4.4 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 0.6 percent. Equipment and software decreased less than 0.1 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 4.8 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 14.4 percent, compared with an
increase of 8.5 percent.
Real exports of goods and services decreased 1.6 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to an
increase of 5.3 percent in the second. Real imports of goods and services decreased 0.2 percent, in
contrast to an increase of 2.8 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6 percent
in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent in the second. National defense increased
13.0 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent. Nondefense increased 3.0 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 0.4 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 0.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.0 percent.
The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.12 percentage point from the third-quarter
change in real GDP after subtracting 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter change. Farm
inventories subtracted 0.42 percentage point from the third-quarter change after subtracting 0.17
percentage point from the second-quarter change. Nonfarm inventories added 0.30 percentage point to
the third-quarter change after subtracting 0.29 percentage point from the second-quarter change.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 2.1
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.7 percent in the second.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.1 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.0 percent in the
second.
Disposition of personal income
Current-dollar personal income increased $89.3 billion (2.7 percent) in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of $130.3 billion (4.0 percent) in the second.
Personal current taxes increased $13.2 billion in the third quarter, compared with an increase of
$20.2 billion in the second.
Disposable personal income increased $76.1 billion (2.6 percent) in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $110.0 billion (3.8 percent) in the second. Real disposable personal income
increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.1 percent.
Personal outlays increased $111.4 billion (4.0 percent) in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $57.4 billion (2.0 percent) in the second. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $445.0 billion in the third quarter, compared with $480.3 billion in the second.
The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was 3.7
percent in the third quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the second. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.
Current-dollar GDP
Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.0 percent, or $190.1 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $15,775.7 billion. In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $107.3 billion.
______________
BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that
is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key
Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis of
the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey
of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and
Their Major Components."
______________
BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.
* * *
Next release -- November 29, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2012 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Third Quarter (Preliminary Estimate)
* * *
Release Dates in 2013
2012: IV and 2012 annual 2013: I 2013: II 2013: III
Gross Domestic Product
Advance... January 30 April 26 July 31 October 30
Second... February 28 May 30 August 29 November 26
Third... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20
Corporate Profits
Preliminary... ........ May 30 August 29 November 26
Revised... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20
Comparisons of Revisions to GDP
Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.
Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.
The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.
Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]
Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign
____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2
Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0
________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________
Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5
Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2
Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0
NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bill Gates–Microsoft–New Wave of Products–Surface–Videos
Bill Gates – Introducing Microsoft Windows 8 and Microsoft Surface – HD
Microsoft Windows Surface RT Review # 1: An Introduction
Microsoft Surface is the best productivity tablet yet
CNET Update: Digging deep into Microsoft’s Surface
Microsoft Surface Pricing
Microsoft Surface Tablet Windows 8 Touch Screen – Hand on Review
Background Articles and Videos
Microsoft Surface – Keynote (Microsoft first Window 8 Tablet)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Microsoft’s No Compromises–Surface–Doing More With Less Than $500?–Real Cool–iPad Killer?–Video
Microsoft and Nokia Partnership On Smart Phones–Videos
Windows Phone Series 7–Videos
Bill Gates–Videos
Bill Gates Goes Nuclear with The TerraPower Traveling Wave Reactor–The Next Big Thing–Innovation and Technology Making A Difference
Bill Gates Wants More Best, Bright, and Cheap Foreign Labor–More Jobs and Competition In Amercan Labor Market Is Needed–Not More Visas and Subsidies!
The History of Microsoft–Videos
A Kinder Gentler Wiser Microsoft Gives Away Valuable Software Developer Tools to Students Around The World!
Bill Gates–Hope, Change and Rapid Affluence Development–Creative Capitalism!
Wealth, Income and Job Creation: Let A 1000 Microsofts Bloom
Microsoft’s Channel 9 Coffeehouse Community Killer–spam
Microsoft Expression Studio–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )« Previous Entries



























































































