Taxes
Sarah Hall Ingram Deputy Commissioner of the Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division (TE/GE) Targeted Tea Party — Now In Charge of IRS Health Care Office — Mission Accomplished Got $100,000 bonuses between 2009 and 2012 — Got Obama Elected President! — Videos
NAACP’s Leader Calls The Tea Party The Taliban Wing Of American Politics
Rand Paul Discusses IRS Scandal & Enemies List on Hannity – 5/13/13
The I.R.S. Takes Aim at the Tea Party (David Keating)
The I.R.S. Abusing Americans Is Nothing New
The I.R.S. targeting of tea party groups in the United States is par for the course. It’s not the first time the agency has been used for partisan political ends. Whether or not the targeting was undertaken as a directive from the White House, the agency’s broad latitude in determining what constitutes partisan political activity is very problematic. The solutions offered by campaign finance reformers would unfortunately only give the agency more power.
Scarborough, Willie Geist Tear Into Obama Admin Over IRS Scandal ‘This Is Tyranny…’
Jon Stewart Destroys Obama Over IRS Scandal & Lack Of ‘Managerial Competence’
IRS chief: Disclosure of targeting was intentional
Lois Lerner, IRS Official: I’m Not Good At Math
IRS Scandal: Lois Lerner In her own words
Who knew what and when at the IRS?
Obama’s Enemies List 2.0
PAUL RYAN Destroys IRS Commissioner Steven Miller at House Hearing
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office
By John Parkinson and Steven Portnoy
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.
Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.
As the House voted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, House Speaker John Boehner expressed “serious concerns” that the IRS is empowered as the law’s chief enforcer.
“Fully repealing ObamaCare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower health care costs and protect jobs,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
“Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public’s trust by secretly targeting conservative groups,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “Even by Washington’s standards, that’s unacceptable.”
Sen. John Cornyn even introduced a bill, the “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013,” which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate, including the IRS, from enforcing the Affordable Care Act.
“Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care,” Cornyn, R-Texas, stated. “I do not support Obamacare, and after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also reacted to the revelation late Thursday, stating the news was “stunning, just stunning.”
ABC News’ Abby D. Phillip contributed to this report.
Who Is Sarah Hall Ingram?
June, 2009 –Sarah Hall Ingram, the new commissioner of the IRS TE/GE (Tax-exempt and Government Entities) division of the IRS, spoke on June 23 at Georgetown’s Continuing Legal Education program about the IRS role in nonprofit governance. In the speech, Ingram identified four general principles that she believes are essential to good nonprofit governance:
A foundational principle is that the organization should clearly understand and publicly express its mission. This helps assure that the organization provides a public benefit and does not drift away from a charitable purpose. It helps an organization avoid practices that are inconsistent with tax-exempt status.
Equally important is the principle that the organization’s board should be engaged, informed and independent. The board should have real responsibility and authority. It must, for example, be able to implement, in the life of the organization, the rules against inurement and self-dealing.
Another set of key good governance principles are those relating to the proper use and safeguarding of assets. These principles are supported by policies and practices that address executive compensation, that protect against conflicts of interest, and that support independent financial reviews.
Transparency is another key principle. I believe that board decisions should be reflected in minutes, that records supporting decisions should be retained for reasonable periods, that whistleblowers should be protected, and that each year’s Form 990 should be complete, accurate and prepared in good faith.
Ingram insisted that the IRS would not create a “one size fits all” definition of governance, but strongly reaffirmed the IRS’s role in governance issues: “Another principle I will follow is that the IRS has a clear, unambiguous role to play in governance.” While I have some doubts about the extent to which the IRS should be active in governance matters, it is hard to argue with Ingram’s view that certain core exemption issues (executive pay, other private inurement, political activity, etc.) do involve governance processes. It will be interesting to see how the IRS’s role in governance evolves under Ingram’s leadership.
To read Commissioner Ingram’s full address go to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/ingram__gtown__governance_062309.pdf
http://www.mapfornonprofits.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={136E71A8-5197-4841-B935-541944239E23}
IRS Announces Appointment of Sarah Hall Ingram as Chief, Appeals
IR-2006-59, April 11, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that Sarah Hall Ingram has been appointed to the position of Chief, Appeals. Ingram will replace David Robison, effective May 7.
As the head of the agency’s Appeals division, Ingram will be responsible for overseeing the operations of an administrative forum for taxpayers contesting an IRS compliance action. The Appeals mission is to resolve tax disputes without litigation; it provides an independent administrative appeal process for all taxpayers.
“I’m pleased Sarah Hall Ingram will be stepping into the position of Chief, Appeals,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “Her broad legal and technical experience will serve the IRS well as she assumes this important post.”
Since July 2004, Ingram has been serving as Deputy Commissioner of the Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division (TE/GE). Ingram began her career with the IRS in the former Tax Litigation Division in 1982. She became Employee Plans Litigation Counsel in 1987, providing litigation coordination nationwide for employee benefit cases. In 1992, Ingram became Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations (EBEO), where she served until her 1994 appointment as Associate Chief Counsel, EBEO. As part of the IRS Modernization program, Ingram was appointed in 1999 to the new position of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel, TE/GE, where she was responsible for providing legal services to the TE/GE Division and its customers as well as other parts of the IRS.
Ingram received her Bachelor of Arts from Yale University in 1979 and her J.D. in 1982 from Georgetown University Law School. She is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
Everson also expressed his thanks to Robison, who will retire May 6, after serving 35 years with the IRS.
“David’s service as the Chief, Appeals, for the past four years has been exemplary,” Everson said. “We wish him well in his future endeavors.”
Previously, Robison served in numerous positions involving corporate and international taxation. Last year Robison was selected by Everson to coordinate IRS support for President Bush’s Tax Reform Panel.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Announces-Appointment-of-Sarah-Hall-Ingram-as-Chief,-Appeals
IRS targets conservative groups
By Dan Keating and Darla Cameron, Published: May 15, 2013
The IRS grants tax-exempt status to 40,000 nonprofit groups per year. When the IRS began targeting conservative groups’ applications in 2011, nonprofit approvals for groups with tea party or 9-12 in their name stopped entirely. Five groups with those names had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but zero were approved in 2011. After policy reconsideration in 2012, the backlog was broken and 27 groups were approved, mostly in the second half of the year.
The slowdown was evident with other conservative-sounding groups, as well. Thirty-seven groups with the words patriot or constitution had been approved in 2009 and 2010, but only 10 were approved in 2011. Once again, the backlog was relieved in 2012 with 29 approvals.
On the other hand, groups with the word progressive in their names suffered no similar slowdown pattern. The number of approvals increased each year from 17 in 2009 to 20 in 2012. Read related article.
Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House
Congressional Republicans, not resting with the Internal Revenue Service scandal, are moving to broaden the matter to an array of tax malfeasances and “intimidation tactics” they hope will ensnare the White House.
Republican charges range from clearly questionable actions to seemingly specious allegations, and they grow by the day. On Friday, lawmakers sought to tie the I.R.S. matter to the carrying out of President Obama’s health care law, which will rely heavily on the agency. Whether they succeed holds significant ramifications for Mr. Obama, who will soon know if he is dealing with a late spring thunderstorm that may soon blow over or a consuming squall that will leave lasting damage.
Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan, the usually mild-mannered chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, set the tone Friday at Congress’s first hearing on the targeting of conservative groups by the I.R.S., laying out details, from the alleged threatening of donors to conservative nonprofit groups to the leaking of confidential I.R.S. documents.
In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”
“It seems like the truth is hidden from the American people just long enough to make it through an election,” Mr. Camp said.
Taken aback, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, modified his prepared remarks to warn, “If this hearing becomes essentially a bootstrap to continue the campaign of 2012 and to prepare for 2014, we will be making a very, very serious mistake.”
Republicans raised a long list of issues. Mr. Camp contended, for instance, that a White House official’s divulging of a private company’s tax status constituted “a clear intimidation tactic.” The 2010 incident involved an offhand comment by the White House economist Austan Goolsbee that Koch Industries had not paid corporate income taxes because it pays taxes through the personal income tax code. As it turned out, that was not true, but the assertion was made in a discussion of tax reform ideas, not politics.
The Republicans also criticized the publication of donors to the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage. That donors list surfaced mysteriously in March 2012 from a whistle-blower whose identity is still unknown. The whistle-blower apparently obtained it by simply requesting it from the I.R.S.
Linkage to the health care law came through Sarah Hall Ingram, a longtime I.R.S. official who has headed the agency’s program to carry out the Affordable Care Act since December 2010. Before that, she led the I.R.S.’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, which contained the political targeting effort.
“This is an audit, and it’s helpful,” Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas, said of the investigation of I.R.S. targeting by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, “but it’s the tip of the iceberg.”
But the inspector general made clear that effort did not reach the attention of high-level I.R.S. officials until 2011 at the earliest.
The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
The disclosure last summer came as part of a routine briefing of the investigations that the inspector general would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.
Treasury officials stressed they did not know the results until March 2013, when the inspector presented a draft.
“Treasury strongly supports the independent oversight of its three inspectors general, and it does not interfere in ongoing I.G. audits,” the department said in a statement Friday evening.
Still, Inspector General J. Russell George’s testimony fueled efforts by Congressional Republicans to ensnare Mr. Obama in the scandals suddenly swirling over the White House. Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who joined the national ticket as the vice-presidential nominee last year, said of the revelation, “That raises a big question.”
Republicans hit hard on the divulging of confidential tax information, hinting of intimidation not only by the I.R.S. but also by the White House.
In March 2012, the Human Rights Campaign and The Huffington Post made public confidential tax documents from the National Organization for Marriage. The Human Rights Campaign said it obtained the documents from a “whistle-blower” who mailed them to the gay rights group’s Washington headquarters.
In a similar incident, ProPublica, an investigative journalism Web site, asked the I.R.S.’s Cincinnati office for the applications of 67 nonprofits, both liberal and conservative. When the I.R.S. responded, it inadvertently included applications for nine conservative groups that had not yet been granted tax-exempt status, a violation of confidentiality law.
When ProPublica realized what it had — including the application from Crossroads GPS, the conservative group founded by Karl Rove and other Republican strategists — it alerted the I.R.S., which warned the journalists that “publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony” punishable by up to five years in prison. ProPublica ProPublica redacted certain details and published the documents anyway.
Representative Peter Roskam, Republican of Illinois, hit on a different explanation. “On the one hand, you’re arguing today that the I.R.S. is not corrupt, but the subtext of that is you’re saying, ‘Look, we’re just incompetent,’ ” Mr. Roskam said. “It is a perilous pathway to go down.”
One release that turned out to be advertent was last Friday’s disclosure of the agency’s conservative targeting. Steven Miller, the ousted acting commissioner of the I.R.S., confessed that the agency’s apology was prompted by a question planted by the agency at an American Bar Association meeting. At that meeting, Lois Lerner, the head of the I.R.S.’s division overseeing tax-exempt organizations, was asked about an inquiry into the targeting issue, eliciting an apology that quickly leaked out of the closed-door session. The I.R.S. then scrambled to issue a formal release on the issue.
Mr. Miller divulged that the exchange was not an impromptu apology but a planned exchange between Ms. Lerner and Celia Roady, a tax lawyer at the Washington office of the Morgan Lewis law firm. That revelation only underscored the ham-handed way the scandal has burst into view.
Under fire, Mr. Miller called the agency’s targeting of conservative groups “obnoxious,” but he told the House Ways and Means Committee it was not motivated by partisanship. And in testy exchanges, he said he had not misled Congress, even though he did not divulge the targeting efforts of a Cincinnati unit examining 70,000 applications for tax exemption.
He called the group’s centralization of applications from groups with names that included the words “Tea Party” or “patriots” simply “foolish mistakes” that “were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Obama Fires Acting IRS Commissioner — Obama The Liar — When Will Congress Impeach Obama? — Videos
President Obama Announces Resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner: I Am Angry About It
Obama the Liar
Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’
MUST SEE VIDEO!!! Who is the REAL Barack Obama – The Liar Deceiver Puppet Satan
ProPublica — IRS Scandal — Targeted Enemies List Includes Tea Party, Patriots, Religious and Conservative Groups — Obama’s Tyranny –Videos
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TIGTA-201310053fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf
Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’
Glenn Beck – IRS targeted conservatives
IRS Admits Targeting Conservatives – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.10
Lou Dobbs Rips ‘Nixonian’ Obama For Lying ‘Through His Teeth’ About IRS ‘President Who Has Lost His
Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story
ProPublica founder and CEO, Paul Steiger, on the creation of this foundation-funded investigative newsroom, the challenges they faced and their plans for the future. ProPublica is the first online-only organization to win a Pulitzer Prize.
Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 2
Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 3
Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 4 Q&A
Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 5 Q&A
Jon Stewart Totally DESTROYS Obama Administration Over IRS Scandal | A MUST WATCH
IRS scandal widens
Ex-commissioner on tea party scandal: IRS did “the wrong thing”
Tea Party IRS Investigations Not Politically Motivated? ‘How Stupid Do They Think We Are’
IRS in the spotlight: What’s a 501(c)(4)? By Martina Stewart, CNN
Deceptive Dollars Tied To 501(c)(4) Groups
Mark Levin Dissects Obama, The IRS & The Republican Party in Scandal – Sean Hannity – 5-13-13
Mark Levin Attacks Obama & ‘Impotent’ House GOP Over IRS Scandal ‘Absolutely Unacceptable’
Glenn Beck: Failure to Impeach Over IRS Scandal Means America ‘Already Operating Under Tyranny’
CU President David Bossie on Fox News (02/19/2013)
President Obama Calls IRS Targeting of Conservative, Tea Party Groups ‘Outrageous’
Obama Administration – The I.R.S. Targets Teaparty and Patriot Groups for Review
IRS Gave Higher Scruity to Tea Party, Conservatives According to Document Draft
Political Firestorm Erupts in IRS ‘Tea Party’ Scandal
Tea Party Patriots Jenny Beth Martin Talks ‘IRS Scandal’ with Lou Dobbs – 5-13-13
IRS Caught in the Act – Jenny Beth Martin CBS This Morning 051113
Senator Rand Paul Discusses IRS Scandal & Enemies List with Sean Hannity – 5-13-13
IRS Issues Apology For Targeting Tea Party & PATRIOT Groups! “Definitely 1st Amendment Concerns Here
IRS Targets Tea Party Groups During 2012 Election
Rep. Issa Rips Obama Over IRS Scandal: ‘How Dare The Admin Imply’ They’ll ‘Get To The Bottom Of It’
Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups’ Confidential Docs
by Wynton Hall
The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.
The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.
ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”:
The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year… In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)
The group says that “no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”
According to Media Research Center Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor, ProPublica’s financial backers include top progressive donors:
ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”–“progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.
On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.
IRS Also Leaked Info About Conservative Groups
Targeting scandal widens
More trouble for the IRS: The same office that singled out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status also leaked confidential information about conservative groups last year, ProPublica reports. How does ProPublica know? Well, because the nine pending applications were leaked to ProPublica in the first place. The investigative site had asked to see the applications for 67 nonprofits and the IRS’ Cincinnati office sent over 31, nine of which had not been approved yet, meaning they were supposed to be confidential.
ProPublica was interested in the applications because it was revealing how social-welfare nonprofits, which don’t have to identify their donors and can spend money on elections as long as social welfare is their primary goal, misled the IRS when applying for tax-exempt status. Among the applications released to ProPublica: Karl Rove’s Crossroads group, which had promised to spend only “limited” money on 2012 elections and ended up spending more than $70 million. Also included were five other groups that all claimed they would not spend any money to sway the elections and spent more than $5 million. ProPublica reported on all six (here and here). Interestingly, the New York Times reported today that Crossroads and other larger groups were not subjected to the same intense scrutiny the IRS applied to small Tea Party groups; click for more on that.
http://www.newser.com/story/167882/irs-also-leaked-info-about-conservative-groups.html
ProPublica
ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an independent non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.[2] In 2010 it became the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize, for a piece[3] written by one of its journalists[4][5] and published in The New York Times Magazine[6] as well as on ProPublica.org.[7] ProPublica’s investigations are conducted by its staff of full-time investigative reporters and the resulting stories are given away to news ‘partners’ for publication or broadcast. In some cases, reporters from both ProPublica and the news partners work together on a story. ProPublica has partnered with more than 90 different news organizations, including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader’s Digest, Salon.com, Slate, This American Life, and NPR, among many others.
History
ProPublica is the brainchild of Herbert and Marion Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, who have committed $10 million a year to the project.[8] The Sandlers hired Paul Steiger, former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, to create and run the organization as editor in chief. At the time ProPublica was set up, Steiger responded to concerns about the role of the Sandlers’ political views, saying on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer:
Coming into this, when I talked to Herb and Marion Sandler, one of my concerns was precisely this question of independence and nonpartisanship… My history has been doing ‘down the middle’ reporting. And so when I talked to Herb and Marion I said ‘are you comfortable with that?’ They said ‘absolutely’. I said ‘well suppose we did an expose of some of the left leaning organizations that you have supported or that are friendly to what you’ve supported in the past’. They said ‘no problem’. And when we set up our organizational structure, the board of directors, on which I sit and which Herb is the chairman, does not know in advance what we’re going to report on.[9]
ProPublica had an initial news staff of 28 reporters and editors, including Pulitzer Prize winners, Charles Ornstein, Tracy Weber, Jeff Gerth, and Marcus Stern, but has since grown to 34 full-time working journalists. Steiger claimed that he received as many as 850 applications upon ProPublica’s start. The organization also appointed a 12-member journalism advisory board consisting of professional journalists.
The newsgroup shares its work under the Creative Commons no-derivative, non-commercial license.
Funding
While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it has also received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and others. ProPublica and the Knight Foundation have various connections. For example, Paul Steiger, President of ProPublica, is a trustee of the Knight Foundation.[10] In like manner, Alberto Ibarguen, the President and CEO of the Knight Foundation is on the board of ProPublica.[11] In 2010, it received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from George Soros‘ Open Society Foundations.
ProPublica has attracted attention for the salaries it pays its top executives.[12][13] The head of ProPublica, Paul Steiger, was paid $571,687 in 2008, according to the company’s tax filings.[14] The managing editor, Stephen Engelberg, was paid $343,463.[15][16] The large salaries have been widely criticized by other journalists and even some in the non-profit world as excessive.[17][17][18] Steiger is the former managing editor at the Wall Street Journal. Engelberg is a former New York Times editor who co-wrote the non-fiction book Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, with Times reporter Judith Miller. He was recently elected to the Pulitzer Prize Board.
Awards
In 2010, ProPublica jointly won the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting (it was also awarded to another new organization for a different story), for “a story that chronicles the urgent life-and-death decisions made by one hospital’s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.”[19] It was written by ProPublica’s Sheri Fink and published in the New York Times Magazine[6] as well as on ProPublica.org.[7] This was the first Pulitzer awarded to an online news source.[4][5] That investigation also won a National Magazine Award for reporting.
In 2011, ProPublica won its second Pulitzer Prize.[20] Reporters Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein won the Pulitzer for National Reporting for their series, The Wall Street Money Machine. This was the first time a Pulitzer was awarded to a group of stories not published in print.
ProPublica’s reporters have also received the Selden Ring, George Polk, National Magazine, Society of Professional Journalists, James Aronson, ABA Silver Gavel, Overseas Press Club, Online Journalism, Investigative Editors and Reporters, Society of News Design, Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and Dart Center awards (among others) for their work.
Reception
Praise
ProPublica is also renowned for conducting a large-scale, circumscribed investigation on Psychiatric Solutions, a company based in Tennessee that buys failing hospitals, cuts staff, and accumulates profit.[21] The report covered patient deaths at numerous Psychiatric Solutions facilities, the failing physical plant at many of their facilities, and covered the State of Florida‘s first closure of Manatee Palms Youth Services, which has since been shut down[22] by Florida officials once again.[23] Their report was published in conjunction with The Los Angeles Times.
Criticism
Dave Kopel, a policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute and a former columnist for the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News, criticized a ProPublica report on hydraulic fracturing as a “one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view”. He argued that a common theme in ProPublica’s work is that “the government is not doing a good enough job in controlling things, particularly things involving big business”.[24] ProPublica later responded to his article, countering those claims and saying quote, “using carefully culled quotations and selected statistics, Kopel asserts ‘indisputably false facts’ in ProPublica’s reporting.” [25]
After fallout from the IRS publicly admitting to targeting conservative tax exempt groups for added scrutiny, ProPublica broke the news that it had requested and received confidential pending applications for groups requesting tax exempt status.
Board members
Investigations
- Lost in Translation: Alhurra—America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds by Dafna Linzer with reporting by Robert Lewis of ProPublica. Partnered with 60 Minutes (video).
- New York’s Gas Rush Poses Environmental Threat by Abrahm Lustgarten with reporting by Jonathan Sidhu and Allison Battey of ProPublica. Partnered with WNYC (transcript | audio) and Albany Times-Union.
- Fractured Relations — New York City Sees Drilling as Threat to Its Water Supply by Abrahm Lustgarten with WNYC, Albany Times-Union, and New York Sun.
- In the Eye of the Storm by Sheri Fink with Salon.com.
- U.S. Targets Overseas Bribery; KBR Exec’s Plea Widens Probe by T. Christian Miller with reporting by Marlena Telvick, Oriana Zill de Granados, Lowell Bergman, and Jake Bernstein. Partnered with MSN Money and Frontline.
- Acting Tough: When Cameras Leave, OSHA Penalties Wither by Robert Lewis with Salon.com.
- Palin Administration Oversaw $26 million ROAD to ‘Nowhere’ by Paul Kiel with research by Lisa Schwartz. Partnered with Newsweek.
- Palin Defended ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to ‘Spinmeisters’ by Marcus Stern with reporting by Paul Kiel and Lisa Schwartz. Partnered with Politico.
- Anatomy of a Bank Failure by Jake Bernstein with MSN Money.
- Criminal Past Is No Bar to Nursing in California by Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber with Los Angeles Times
- California Takes Steps to Probe Nurses’ Criminal Backgrounds by Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber with Los Angeles Times
- Why CDC Responded with ‘Lack of Urgency’ to Formaldehyde Warnings by Joaquin Sapien with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- Government Study on Children Living in Katrina Trailers Muddled By Delays, Confusion by Joaquin Sapien with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud by Chisun Lee with reporting by Kristin Jones. Partnered with Politico.
- As Rape Victims Wait, Money for DNA Testing Goes Unused by Ben Protess with Joel Rubin of the Los Angeles Times
- Goldman Sachs urged bets against California bonds it helped sell by Sharona Coutts with Marc Lifsher and Michael A. Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times.
- Crimes by Air Marshals Raise Questions About Hiring by Michael Grabell with Jamie Wilson. Published in USA Today.
References
 |
This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (December 2011) |
- ^ “ProPublicaSite Info”. Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2012-09-01.
- ^ “About Us”. Retrieved 2009-01-11. ProPublica is a Dog Latin term literally meaning “for the public woman”; cf. publica.
- ^ “a story that chronicles the urgent life-and-death decisions made by one hospital’s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.” – Pulitzer.org The 2010 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Investigative Reporting, accessed 13 April 2010
- ^ a b The Guardian, 13 April 2010, Pulitzer progress for non-profit news
- ^ a b ProPublica, Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting: Deadly Choices at Memorial
- ^ a b Sheri Fink, New York Times Magazine, 25 August 2009, THE DEADLY CHOICES AT MEMORIAL
- ^ a b ProPublica, 27 August 2009, The Deadly Choices at Memorial
- ^ Pérez-Peña, Richard (2007-10-15). “Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism”. New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
- ^ PBS Newshour, 24 June 2008, “Financing Independent Journalism”
- ^ Board of Trustees, Knight Foundation
- ^ Alberto Ibargüen, President and CEO, Knight Foundation
- ^ Turner, Zeke. “Shelling Out the Big Bucks at ProPublica | The New York Observer”. Observer.com. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
- ^ Taylor, Mike (2010-08-10). “ProPublica’s Top-Paid Employees All Made Six Figures in 2009 – FishbowlNY”. Mediabistro.com. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
- ^ Salmon, Felix Philanthrocrat of the day, ProPublica edition, Reuters Blogs, Sept. 30, 2009
- ^ Turner, Zeke. “Shelling Out the Big Bucks at ProPublica”. Observer. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
- ^ “ProPublica’s Top-Paid Employees All Made Six Figures in 2009 – FishbowlNY”. Mediabistro.com. 2010-08-10. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
- ^ a b “Philanthrocrat of the day, ProPublica edition”. Reuters. 30 September 2009.
- ^ “Diamonds in the Rough”. CJR. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
- ^ Pulitzer.org The 2010 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Investigative Reporting, accessed 13 April 2010
- ^ “A Note on ProPublica’s Second Pulitzer Prize”. ProPublica. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
- ^ LA Times – November 2008- Psychiatric care’s perils and profits
- ^ Bradenton Herald – May 2010 – Manatee Palms hospital Slammed
- ^ “MANATEE PALMS YOUTH SERVICES Facility Profile”. FloridaHealthFinder.gov. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
- ^ Kopel, Dave (2008-12-27). “Opinion pays its own way”. Rocky Mountain News. Unknown parameter
|curly=ignored (help) - ^ response
Claim: Obama Campaign Co-Chair Attacked Romney with Leaked IRS Docs
One of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).
NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.
Both the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. HRC went a step further than the Huffington Post in its criticism of Romney and accused him of using “racially divisive tactics” in a press release.
Solmonese, then still the HRC’s president, said in the release he felt Romney’s “funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable.”
“Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added.
Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair. He had announced the then-pending resignation from HRC the previous autumn.
NOM announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak. Under immense political pressure, Attorney General Eric Holder launched a criminal investigation into the IRS’s actions. Congress will conduct ts own investigation.
In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).”
NOM discovered that when HRC published its confidential financial documents, it failed to conceal the source of the documents. “After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service,” NOM asserted in its April 2012 release.
“The top of each page says, ‘THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,’” the statement continues. “On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of ‘100560209.’ Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with ‘Official Use’ information.”
NOM president Brian Brown argued in that April 2012 release that the leak was made to benefit President Obama’s re-election campaign against Romney, his GOP challenger. “The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents whose leader also happens to be co-chairing President Obama’s reelection committee,” Brown said.
“It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama’s would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service,” he declared. “We demand to know who is responsible for this criminal act and what the Administration is going to do to get to the bottom of it.”
James Grant Interviewed by James Turk–Federal Reserve, National Debt, Money, Gold — Videos
James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA
The Skyrocketing U.S. National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities For Medicare and Social Security — Videos
U.S. Debt Clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?
Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx
Most Important Problem
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx
Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts
Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke
Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco
US Debt A Threat To National Security
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5
U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6
‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’
Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?
What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?
How Big Is the U.S. Debt?
Funding Government by the Minute
Why Not Print More Money?
Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?
US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023
Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.
If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.
Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP
The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.
With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.
Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.
Revenues
Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).
As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.
Outlays
In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)
After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.
Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections
The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.
Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook
Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:
- Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
- The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
- A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.
Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.
In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.
Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years
The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.
Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.
The Economic Outlook for 2013
CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.
The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018
After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.
Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.
The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023
For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.
Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Ben Bernanke Boom Bubble Blower Busted By The Bubble Film — Videos
Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History
BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff
The Bubble film official trailer
Raw footage of Jim Rogers interview – The Bubble film
Raw Footage of Doug Casey Interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Jim Grant interview from The Bubble film
Raw footage of Peter Schiff Interview from The Bubble
The Bubble – Raw footage of Marc Faber interview
Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble
Raw Footage of Joseph Salerno Interview from The Bubble
Raw Footage of Robert Murphy interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Roger Garrison Interview from The Bubble
Raw footage of Ron Paul interview from The Bubble film
The Bubble film panel at Freedom Fest 2012
U.S. Debt Clock
Background Articles and Videos
The American Dream By The Provocateur Network
Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation
The Fed, Ben Bernanke & the Economy (4/30/13)
Coming Economic Collapse Peter Schiff RT America
Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle | Roger W. Garrison
Tom Woods Discusses his New Documentary, The Bubble
Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 1/2
Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 2/2
Fed Keeps Interest Rates Low, Continues Bond Buying Program
The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.
Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.
While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.
The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.
Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.
While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.
While stocks have soared to new highs, the economy remains in slow-growth mode as it has throughout Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term, which began just before the onset of the financial crisis.
The stock market reacted little to the 2 pm news, maintaining an earlier selloff spurred over jobs fears.
Fed officials have long bemoaned Washington fiscal policy, with Congress and the White House in a continued stalemate that has resulted in a raft of mandated tax increases and spending cuts known as the sequester.
The May FOMC statement kept up the heat.
“Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has strengthened further, but fiscal policy is restraining economic growth,” the statement said.
The Fed’s decision came the same day as a report on private payrolls fell well below expectations, indicating just 119,000 new jobs created, a seven-month low.
While critics worry about inflation, the Fed continued to conclude that “expectations have remained stable.”
The Fed has vowed to keep interest rates exceptionally low until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent from its current 7.6 percent and until inflation reaches 2.5 percent from its current 1.5 percent.
-By CNBC.com Senior Writer Jeff Cox.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100695681
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Secretary Lew Opposes Proposed Congress’ New Law That Prioritizes Payments of Treasury Securities — Videos
Rep. Yoder questions Treasury Sec. Lew
Treasury Chief Warns of New World If US Defaults on Any Bills
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
The United States might run into trouble accessing debt markets if it defaulted on any of its financial obligations, even if it were able to keep up payments on government bonds, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress.
Lew was responding to questions about a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prioritize payments on government bonds and Social Security if the United States hits its debt limit, in order to avoid a credit default.
If passed, the law would make it easier for Republicans to use a fight over the nation’s legal borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, to try to extract spending cuts from President Barack Obama.
“The thing I would urge you to consider is, you enter a world we’ve never been in once the United States is not meeting its obligations,” Lew told a House subcommittee. “We cannot assume markets will function in an orderly way if that (happens).”
The current suspension of the debt limit expires on May 19, although the Treasury can use emergency cash-management measures to push off the day of reckoning into August. The date could fall even further in the future given unexpectedly strong tax revenues and the possibility of a big payment to the Treasury from housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Lew has said it is impossible to try to pinpoint when exactly the use of these emergency maneuvers would be exhausted due to a delayed tax filing season and uncertainty about the effect of steep government spending cuts known as the sequester.
Once the United States reaches its debt limit, the government faces the prospect of defaulting on financial obligations, and potentially its debt, which could shake up markets and damage the economy.
Staff at the International Monetary Fund warned that failure to smoothly raise the U.S. debt ceiling could do serious damage to the global economy.
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Radical Islamic Jihadist Terrorists — Democrats in Denial — Americans Buying Ammunitions and Guns — Videos
Are there radical Islamic terror camps in North America? Apparently there are dozens author says
Radical Jihadists Training On U.S. Soil – Behind Enemy Lines – Wake Up America!!!
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 1
Glenn Beck – The Project Part 2
The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America
Beslan: 5 years on
Dispatches – Beslan (2006)
The school siege at Beslan was the bloodiest act of terrorism ever to take place on Russian soil. Yet beyond this horrible truth remain many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on who the terrorists were. How many they numbered? Where they came from? How they got to Beslan? What they wanted? Whether they were all killed or captured? And just how the siege which began on September 1 2004, ended so catastrophically?
This Dispatches special uses testimony from eyewitnesses, survivors and security services. This is combined with video and audio archive footage presents the fullest account of what happened at Beslan.
The film examines the background to the events of Beslan. It also looks at the Russian state’s reaction to the atrocity and the motivation of the hostage-takers. Beslan School Siege also documents how a small town is coming to terms with the loss of its children.
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 1
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 2
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 3
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 4
Jihad: Slaughter of the Innocents – Beslan (Беслан) Part 5
Glenn Beck U.S. Denial of Islamic Jihad Threat, Beslan School Massacre 4-26-13
Glenn Beck The Story of Beslan
Glenn Beck Beslan, Terror, and Chechnya
Glenn Beck Experts on Beslan
Background Articles and Videos
Terrorism & Jihad: An Islamic Perspective – Dr. Zakir Naik
Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos
Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos
Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos
Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos
Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos
Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos
Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos
Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos
An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man
Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!
Understanding Jihad–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )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!
2.5% First Quarter 2013 Real Annual Growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — Stagflation — Government GDP Calculation of Investment To Include Intangibles R&D — Videos
Ken Langone: Regulation Biggest Issue Hurting U.S. Economy
April 26 (Bloomberg) — Ken Langone, founder & CEO at Invemed Associates, talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker and Sara Eisen about first-quarter U.S. GDP, the impact of regulations and the anti-business stance of the Obama Administration. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.”
Peter Schiff We re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming
[
GDP Propaganda Exposed
Data shift to lift US economy 3%
By Robin Harding in Washington
The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.
Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.
Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.
“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.
The changes will affect everything from the measured GDP of different US states to the stability of the inflation measure targeted by the Federal Reserve. They will force economists to revisit policy debates about everything from corporate profits to the causes of economic growth.
The revision, equivalent to adding a country as big as Belgium to the estimated size of the world economy, will make the US one of the first adopters of a new international standard for GDP accounting.
“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.
At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.
GDP will soar in small states that host a lot of military R&D, but barely change in others, widening measured income gaps across the US. R&D is expected to boost the GDP of New Mexico by 10 per cent and Maryland by 6 per cent while Louisiana will see an increase of just 0.6 per cent.
Creative works are expected to add a further 0.5 per cent to the overall size of the US economy. Around one-third of that will come from movies, one-third from TV programmes, and one-third from books, music and theatre.
Deficits in defined benefit pension schemes will also be included because what companies have promised to pay out will be measured, rather than the cash they pay into plans.
“We will now show a liability for underfunded plans, which particularly has large ramifications for the government sector, where both at the state level and the federal level we have large underfunded plans,” said Mr Moulton.
The changes are in addition to a comprehensive revision of the national accounts that takes place every five years based on an economic census of nearly 4m US businesses.
Steve Landefeld, BEA director, said it was hard to predict the overall outcome given the mixture of new methodology and data updates. “What’s going to happen when you mix it with the new source data from the economic census . . . I don’t know,” he said.
But he said the revisions were unlikely to alter the picture of what has happened to the economy in recent years. “I wouldn’t be looking for large changes in trends or cycles.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Rb5G6QBg
US GDP Will Be Revised Higher By $500 Billion Following Addition Of “Intangibles” To Economy
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Those who have been following the US debt to GDP ratio now that the US officially does not have a debt ceiling indefinitely, may have had the occasional panic attack seeing how this country’s leverage ratio is rapidly approaching that of a Troika case study of a PIIG in complete failure. And at 107% debt/GDP no explanations are necessary. Luckily, the official gatekeepers of America’s economic growth (with decimal point precision), the Bureau of Economic Analysis have a plan on how to make the US economy, which is now growing at an abysmal 1.5% annualized pace, or about 5 times slower than US debt growing at 7.5% annually, catch up: magically make up a number out of thin air, and add it to the total. And it literally is out of thin air: according to the FT the addition will constitute of a one-time addition of intangibles, amounting to 3% of total US GDP, or more than the size of Belgium at $500 billion, to the US economy.
The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.
Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.
Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.
“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.
What exactly will constitute GDP growth going forward? In a word, intangibles: films, books, magazines and iTunes songs.
“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.
At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.
Nothing like adding intangibles in the fluid, ever-changing definition of what constitutes an economy.
Naturally, the only reason for this artificial “boost” to the US economy which apparently can be any old arbitrary number agreed upon by a few accountants, and which always goes up post revision, never down, is to make US debt/GDP under 100% once again, if only very briefly. Surely a few months later something else can be “added” to GDP making the US economy appear better than it is once more.
Finally, all of the above is a distraction for idiots.
As most people should know by know (this logically excludes economists), the only factor leading to economic “growth” is the expansion of liabilities of the financial system, whereby new credit (in a healthy environment, not one centrally-planned by several Princeton real-world rejects, where the central bank is forced to create all credit expansion with money that never leaves the banks and the capital markets closed loop) creates new money, creates demand for products and services, and circulates in the economy.
This can be seen in the chart below which shows the nearly perfect correlation between total bank liabilities in the US, as per the Fed’s Flow Of Funds report, and total US GDP.
Bottom line: the BEA can capitalize air consumption if it thinks it will make US GDP soar, but unless new credit and bank liabilities are created not due to forced supply but demand, and unless the private financial sector is finally willing to start lending money (which for the entire duration of QE it has not) US growth will stall and then proceed to decline.
Case in point: total US commerical bank loans are still lower than they were the day Lehman filed.
In other words, all the GDP “growth” since the Lehman failure has come on the back of money “created” by the Fed.
And there are still those who think the Fed will ever unwind…
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
| Lisa S. Mataloni: | (202) 606-5304 | (GDP) | gdpniwd@bea.gov |
| Recorded message: | (202) 606-5306 | ||
| Jeannine Aversa: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) |
Gross Domestic Product, First Quarter 2013 (advance estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.
The Bureau emphasized that the first-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 3 and
"Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the first quarter, based on
more complete data, will be released on May 30, 2013.
The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, exports, residential investment,
and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.
BOX_______________________
Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts
BEA plans to release the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 "advance" estimate
on July 31, 2013. More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions, including a link to an article in the March 2013 issue of the Survey of
Current Business that discusses the upcoming changes in definitions and presentations, including
capitalizing spending on research and development and on entertainment originals and measuring
transactions of defined benefit pension plans on an accrual accounting basis. An article in the May
Survey will describe changes in statistical methods, and an article in the September Survey will describe
the estimates in detail. Revised NIPA table stubs and news release stubs will be available in June.
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 Note and highlights related to this release.
___________________________
The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, an upturn in exports, and a smaller decrease in federal
government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in imports and a deceleration in nonresidential
fixed investment.
Motor vehicle output added 0.24 percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.18 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.01
percentage point from the first-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.10 percentage point to the
fourth-quarter change.
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the fourth.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.3 percent in
the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the fourth.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.8 percent in the fourth. Durable goods increased 8.1 percent, compared with an increase
of 13.6 percent. Nondurable goods increased 1.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent.
Services increased 3.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of 13.2 percent in the fourth. Nonresidential structures decreased 0.3 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 16.7 percent. Equipment and software increased 3.0 percent, compared with an increase of
11.8 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 12.6 percent, compared with an increase of
17.6 percent.
Real exports of goods and services increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.8 percent in the fourth. Real imports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent, in
contrast to a decrease of 4.2 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 8.4 percent
in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth. National defense decreased
11.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 22.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 2.0 percent, in contrast
to an increase of 1.7 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent.
The change in real private inventories added 1.03 percentage points to the first-quarter change in
real GDP after subtracting 1.52 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $50.3 billion in the first quarter, following increases of $13.3 billion in the fourth
quarter and $60.3 billion in the third.
Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.5
percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in the fourth.
Gross domestic purchases
Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter; it was unchanged in the fourth quarter.
Disposition of personal income
Current-dollar personal income decreased $109.1 billion (3.2 percent) in the first quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $262.3 billion (8.1 percent) in the fourth. The downturn in personal income
primarily reflected a sharp downturn in personal dividend income and a sharp acceleration in
contributions for government social insurance -- a subtraction in the calculation of personal income.
Fourth-quarter personal dividend income was boosted by the payment of accelerated and special
dividends. The acceleration in contributions for government social insurance in the first quarter resulted
from the expiration of the "payroll tax holiday."
Personal current taxes increased $27.2 billion in the first quarter, compared with an increase of
$34.3 billion in the fourth.
Disposable personal income decreased $136.3 billion (4.4 percent) in the first quarter, in contrast
to an increase of $228.0 billion (7.9 percent) in the fourth. Real disposable personal income decreased
5.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 6.2 percent.
Personal outlays increased $116.3 billion (4.1 percent) in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of $97.0 billion (3.4 percent) in the fourth. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $313.3 billion in the first quarter, compared with $566.0 billion in the fourth.
The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
2.6 percent in the first quarter, compared with 4.7 percent in the fourth. 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
3.7 percent, or $146.1 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $16,010.2 billion. In the fourth quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 1.3 percent, or $53.1 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 -- May 30, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2013 (Preliminary Estimate)
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.
Progressive President Problem — Warfare and Welfare State — Big Government Intervention In Economy At Home and Militarily Abroad — Government Dependency — Serfdom and Collectivism in The New World Order — They Have Won — The Solution — Freedom Force International– Videos
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy (Full Length)
An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full
G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 1 of 2
G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 2 of 2
Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full
George W. Bush breaks down at library dedication
Bill Clinton speaks of Carroll Quigley at 1992 Democratic National Convention
Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government
Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
Americans and Collectivism – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.26
Glenn Beck Predicts New World Order. Global Reset. U.S. Will Be A 3rd World State
Glenn Beck- ‘How Did Communism Become Cool?’
Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world – G. Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin The Dangerous Servant A Discourse on Government
The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture
“Legalized Plunder of the American People” – G. Edward Griffin
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline | James Perloff
Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full
[yotube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E]
THE CREED OF FREEDOM
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. These are The Three Commandments of Freedom:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Only individuals have rights, not groups. Therefore, do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the alleged rights of groups.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
To favor one class of citizens over others is not equality under law. Therefore, do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The proper function of the state is to protect, not to provide. Therefore, do not approve coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.
THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM
Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.
For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Issues section of his site. This 21-page document will take 10 to 45 seconds to load depending on the speed of your Internet connection.
Background Articles and Videos
Freedom Force International speaker for Liberty in Pittsburgh
Rare Carroll Quigley interview
Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
[1 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
Carroll Quigley was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Tragedy and Hope (tragedy is all the people who must suffer and die for the NWO, and the hope is the NEW WORLD ORDER )
Professor Quigley was a Globalist, he supported the idea NEW WORLD ORDER and wrote about it, he, unlike the elites, thought the people should know about it.
“I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” — Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”
“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations…”
“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” Dr. Carroll Quigley
“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.”President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, 16 July 1992
[2 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[3 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[4 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
[5 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview
The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
The Creature From Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin
Recorded: 1994
Edward Griffin – The Subversion Factor
CFR – List of Members and Organisations Involved
Jimmy Carter Administration
President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:
- Walter Mondale (Vice-President)
- Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)
- Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)
- W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)
- Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)
- Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)
- Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Ronald Reagan Administration
There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:
- Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)
- George Shultz (Secretary of State)
- Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)
- William Casey (CIA Director)
- Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)
- Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)
- Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
- William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)
George H. W. Bush Administration
During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:
- Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)
- Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)
- Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)
- William Webster (Director of the CIA)
- Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)
- Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)
- Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)
- Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)
- Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)
Bill Clinton Administration
When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.
- Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)
- Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)
- Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)
- Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
- Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)
- Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)
- Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)
- Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)
- Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
- W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)
- George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)
- Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)
- R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)
- William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
- Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)
- Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)
- Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)
- Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)
- Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)
- Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
- Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)
- Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)
- Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)
- Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)
- Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).
George W. Bush Administration
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
- Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)
- Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)
- Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
- Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)
- Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)
- Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)
- Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)
- Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)
- Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)
- Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)
- Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)
- Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
- Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)
- Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)
- I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.3
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement — Videos
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard
The Future of Austrian Economics | Murray N. Rothbard
Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods discuss Rothbard and the Koch Brothers
Lew Rockwell.com Podcast #20 – Memories of Murray
Murray Rothbard Gives a Tribute to Ludwig von Mises
Where is Gold Prices Going? Peter Schiff vs. Larry Kudlow: Gold & The Dollar — Videos
Peter Schiff vs. Larry Kudlow: Gold & The Dollar
Peter Schiff: I’ve Been Buying Gold for 13 Years
Bloomberg’s Alix Steel Analyzes Why Peter Schiff & Gold Mining Stocks Are Massive Losers
Clown Solidarity – Jim Cramer Supports Peter Schiff On Gold (You Know What This Means…)
Keiser Report: Correlation & Causation of Gold Price (E434, ft. Paul Craig Roberts)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
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.
Public Safety Exception or Enemy Combatant Designation of Boston Bomber Terrorist Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — The History of FBI Fake Terrorist Plot Planning — The One That Got Away From FBI’s Terror Factory — The Saudi Deportation of Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi By National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Event File Tagged Section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” –Videos
Glenn Beck Reveals More about Saudi National
“…Monday on radio, Glenn Beck revealed further details about the Saudi national who was the first suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. Despite denials from Janet Napolitano and officials from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs (ICE) that a Saudi national was taken into custody in connection to the Boston marathon bombing, several sources have confirmed that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was set to be deported for proven terrorist activity.
According to two FBI sources, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was taken “into custody” Monday April 15th at a Boston after he was injured in the blast.
A source within the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) told TheBlaze that on Monday night Al-Harbi’s Revere, Massachusetts apartment was searched and property was taken out.
At 4:00pm ET on Tuesday April 16th, The NCTC Field Watch Commander created an “event file” calling for Al-Harbi’s deportation using Section 212 3b, which is proven terrorist activity. According to TheBlaze’s sources, tagging someone as 3b requires solid evidence.
Fox News reporter Todd Starnes has also reported, “The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.”
Starnes report no longer appears on the Fox News website, but can be found on Townhall.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has told TheBlaze that he has detailed information on the Saudi national and confirmed that Al-Harbi was to be deported under Section 212 3b of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alongside three other Congressmen, Rep. Duncan has requested a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order. …”
Obama’s “Catch & Release” of Saudi Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect
Jeff Duncan Questions Napolitano On Deportation Of Saudi National. Boston Bombing
Terror in Boston – Saudi Being Deported For National Security Reason? – What The Hell Is This?
Was The Boston Marathon Bombing Another False Flag Attack by FBI?
Still think the FBI is telling you the truth? CHECK THIS OUT
Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, Bombing ‘Person Of Interest’ Has 6 Saudi ‘Terrorists’ In Family,5 More Are In Gitmo -
Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection
PROOF! Boston Bombing is Staged Terror Attack
Navy Seals Soldiers Bomb Boston Marathon 2013
Inside the FBI’s ‘Terror factory’
Conversations w/Great Minds – The Terror Factory – The FBI “Sting” isn’t what you think P1
Conversations w – Great Minds – FBI Informants focus on Muslims instead of Militias P2…
Reality Check Is The FBI Making Us Safer Breaking Up Terror Plots YouTube
Sen. Feinstein, Rep. King Clash Over Suspect’s Enemy Combatant Status: Battlefield Now in The U.S.
Lindsey Graham: ‘A Citizen Can Be An Enemy Combatant,’ And Tsarnaev Should Be Treated Like One
Megyn Kelly Guests Clash Over ‘Enemy Combatant’ Designation For Suspect: ‘Ultimate Act Of Terror’
Rachel Maddow No Miranda Rights For Boston Bombing Suspect
Judge Napolitano: Boston Bombing Reopens Privacy vs. Safety Debate
Reality Check: Did the FBI know about Boston bombing beforehand? – Ben Swann
Former FBI Chief ADMITS Government is Involved in Most ‘Terrorist’ Attacks!
Boston Bombing Coverup?
Saudi Arabian Students Searched and Detained By FBI about Boston Terrorist Attack!!
BREAKING Glenn Beck Gives Government Until Monday to Come Clean About Boston Bombing Cover-Up
Saudi student connected to Boston Marathon bombing – TheBlaze EXCLUSIVE – Glenn Beck Wake Up America
Hannity. Boston Bombing Saudi Being DEPORTED On National Security Grounds
Glenn Beck’s Big Story On Obama And The Bombing Released!
Glenn Beck Reveals More about Saudi National
FBI Insider: Obama Administration Likely Manufactured Dubious Iran Terror Plot
Confirmed – No Iran terror plot in FBI system: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer Reports 1/2
Confirmed – No Iran terror plot in FBI system: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer Reports 2/2
FBI Fake Terror Plot History: Judge Napolitano
FBI agents craft their own terror plots
FBI Foils Terror Plot They Created, Again
NY Times: Terrorist Plots, Hatched by The F.B.I.
BOSTON BOMBING Did you notice this?
Background Articles and Videos
Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered
Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi was originally named as a ‘person of interest’ after the Boston bombings. The Saudi National was cleared of any involvement in the bombing, but there have been a lot of strange things going on with Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi and the Obama regime. According to Breitbart, the Saudi National Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi had his deportation order records altered. This rescinded his deportation order. Michelle Obama decided to pay Al-Harbi a visit while he was in the hospital recovering from wounds in the attack. Michelle Obama never paid a visit to any of the other injured people, including those who lost limbs in the attack. Also, Obama himself met with the Saudi foreign minister two days after the attack. This was not listed on Obama’s public schedule and as usual the media didn’t report on this. Something very fishy is going on here. I wonder if this was supposed to be Glenn Beck’s big ‘bombshell’ for tomorrow? If so, Breitbart scooped him.
Now that it’s been revelaed that Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered, it probably explains why Janet Napolitano got so testy when asked about Al-Harbi last week. Why would Obama or his regime alter the deportation order? Are they hiding something? Of course they are. Without a media in this country, we’ll never know what they are hiding.
The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry’s closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on Wednesday evening. The Saudi National has been identified as Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi. There is no evidence that Al-Harbi is connected to the Boston Marathon Bombings. Steven Emerson announced on Wednesday night’s episode of Hannity that the Saudi National who was a person of interest and later cleared, was set to be deported.
Boston MANHUNT is OVER: the Second BOMBER is CAUGHT (FBI FALSE FLAG says the mother)
A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army weighs in on Boston.
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Terrorists Bomb Boston Marathon Finish Line — 3 Dead, 180 Injured With Two Bombs — April 15, 2013 — Updated — Photos and Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin — A Financial Reckoning Day Fallout: Surviving Today’s Global Depression — Videos
An Empire of Debt Leading to a “Crack-up” in the Global Monetary System w/Bill Bonner!
Bill Bonner ZURICH.MINDS INTERVIEW
Bill Bonner: Uncharted Territory -
Emerging Market Real Estate, The Most Promising Asset Class: An Interview with Bill Bonner
Bill Bonner at The Equitymaster Investment Summit 2010
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 1 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 2 – July 24
Bill Bonner: Enterprise Under Attack Part 3 – July 24
Addison Wiggin / Financial Reckoning Day Fallout on FOX Business News
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 1)
Addison Wiggin on an Empire of Debt and the Mother of all Bubbles (Part 2)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Dr. Lacy Hunt–Roadblocks To Recovery — The Economic Consequences of Debt — Heading Towards The Bang Point — “This is how the world ends not with a bang but a whimper.” — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Democratic Controlled U.S. Senate Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for the Federal Government — Videos
Paul Ryan Questions OMB Director – President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request
Sessions: Obama’s Persistent Budget Misrepresentations Make Compromise More Difficult
‘When Do We Hold People Accountable?’ Sessions Slams Dems For Falsely Claiming ‘Balance’ To Nation
WASHINGTON, March 22—Throughout the course of the budget debate, Democratic Senators have repeatedly suggested their budget contains a “balanced approach,” a rhetorical description that has no accounting value. (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went even further last night and repeatedly said his party’s plan called for “balancing the budget.”)
But as Sen. Sessions pointed out this morning, “They know they don’t have a balanced budget. They won’t tell the American people they don’t have one. They just use the word. But it’s not in their document. Where and when do we hold people accountable in this United States Senate for an accurate [description] of legislation? It’s wrong.”
To view for yourself the budget tables with the Democrats’ own numbers (in other words, before one even begins to strip out all the gimmicks and accounting tricks), please click here: http://1.usa.gov/YwdsbM. Note that cumulative deficits will amount to $5.198 trillion, and the nation’s gross debt will climb to $24.365 trillion by 2023.
Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget
Hatch on Senate Democrats’ Budget: ‘A Cynical Political Document’
Senator King Discusses 2014 Fiscal Year Budget Blueprint
Sessions: Dem Budget Would Trap Millions In Poverty By Shielding Failed Government Programs
Senate Budget Committee Hearing | 4.10.13 | Chairman Murray Opening Remarks
Chairman Murray Kicks Off Senate Budget Resolution Debate with Speech on Senate Floor
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
U.S. Senate Budget Committee
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray unveils her vision for the Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget resolution.
For more information: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic
Portman Remarks at Senate Budget Committee Markup
Hatch: Entitlement Reform Not an Option, a Necessity
Background Articles and Videos
Making the Federal Budget
How do you spend four trillion dollars? Turns out, you don’t; it takes the President and the Congress to allocate, authorize, appropriate, resolve, outlay, sequester, impound, and just plain spend that much in 2011. Such a process is baffling at times. It’s so complex that you may marvel that Washington can get any action accomplished and paid for at all. So how does the federal budget happen?
Join the Mercatus Center’s Capitol Hill Campus and Senior Research Fellow Jason J. Fichtner for a walk through the process of making the federal budget. He explains the process from its beginnings in the halls of the White House, highlight the many roles Congress takes to authorize and enforce the budget, and navigate the twisting, puzzling conglomeration of bureaucratic steps, political goals, and accountancy rules that go into making our government function.
Changing the Budget Process to Promote Fiscal Responsibility
A Sustainable Approach to Entitlement Reform
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent
http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/senatebudget
Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.
The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.
This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent.
The highest priority of the Senate Budget is to create the conditions for job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down.
The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy and that true national prosperity comes from the middle out, not the top down. We believe that deficit reduction at the expense of economic growth is doomed to failure, and policies that promote a strong middle class are essential to tackling our long-term deficit and debt challenges.
The policies President Barack Obama and Congress put in place in response to the Great Recession pulled our economy back from the brink and helped to add back jobs. But with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. Therefore, the Senate Budget:
• Fully replaces the harmful cuts from sequestration with smart, balanced, and responsible deficit reduction, which would save hundreds of thousands of jobs while protecting families, communities, and the fragile economic recovery.
• Invests in long-term economic growth and national competitiveness by tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation to create jobs now and lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth.
2
• Includes a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21
st century jobs. This jobs investment package is fully paid for by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Protects and continues tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.
The Senate Budget builds on the work we have done over the last two years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.
At the end of 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission report laid out a responsible goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. Since that time, Congress and the administration have implemented $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion coming from new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. The Senate Budget:
• Surpasses the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction and puts our deficit and debt on a downward, sustainable, and responsible path.
• Builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.
• Includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction through responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget:
o
$493 billion saved on the domestic spending side, including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families.
o
$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations.
o
$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments.
• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
• Includes reconciliation instructions, a fast-track process that makes sure that the new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
3
The Senate Budget keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities.
The Senate Budget takes the position that the promises we made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities ought to be fulfilled. This budget:
• Preserves and protects Medicare so that it is strong for seniors today and will be there for our children and grandchildren.
• Rejects calls to dismantle, privatize, or voucherize Medicare.
• Builds on the responsible changes made in the Affordable Care Act to continue reducing health care costs while protecting patients.
• Protects the expansion of health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans and ensures the federal-state partnership on Medicaid is preserved.
• Rejects efforts to simply shift health care costs to states or make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families.
• Maintains the key principle that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable families and communities.
• Continues to make the investments we need in national defense, homeland security, and law enforcement to keep our country and our communities strong and secure.
• Keeps the promise we have made to our veterans that their country will be there for them and provide the resources and support they need when they come home.
The House Republican approach would hurt middle class families and the economy and break the promises we have made to our seniors.
The Senate Budget offers a very different vision than the approach taken by House Republicans.
Their proposals would cut the legs out from under our fragile economic recovery and threaten millions of jobs. They would slash the investments in infrastructure, education, and innovation that we need to lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth and that would position us to compete and win in the 21
st century global economy.
House Republicans would dismantle Medicare and cut off programs that support the middle class and most vulnerable families. And they would do all that while refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to contribute their fair share.
We believe that the American people strongly support the pro-growth, pro-middle class approach taken in the Senate Budget. And we look forward to engaging with families and seniors across the country as we work to pass the responsible, fair, and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve.
-
4/11/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/10/13 -
-
4/1/13 -
-
3/23/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/22/13 -
-
3/21/13 -
-
3/20/13 -
The following timetable is used to guide the federal budget process each year (see 2. U.S.C. 631)
| Date | Action |
| 1st Monday in February | President’s budget submission (includes OMB sequester preview report and adjustments to spending caps). |
| February 15 | CBO budget and economic outlook report |
| Within 6 weeks of President’s budget | Committees submit views and estimates to the Budget Committees |
| April 1 | Senate Budget Committee reports resolution |
| April 15 | Congress completes budget resolution. If not, Chairman of House Budget Committee files 302(a) allocations; Ways and Means is free to proceed with pay-as-you-go measures |
| May 15 | Appropriations bills may be considered in the House |
| June 10 | House Appropriations reports last bill |
| June 15 | Congress completes action on reconciliation reconciliation (if applicable) |
| June 30 | House completes action on annual appropriation bills |
| July 15 | President submits mid-session review |
| October 1 |
Fiscal year begins Home / Committee Resources / Glossary Appropriations Act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, that generally provides authority for Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Currently, there are 13 regular appropriations acts for each fiscal year. From time to time, Congress also enacts supplemental appropriations acts. (See Appropriations under Budget Authority; Continuing Resolution; Supplemental Appropriation.) Authorizing Committee: A committee of the House or Senate with legislative jurisdiction over laws that set up or continue the operations of Federal programs and provide the legal basis for making appropriations for those programs. Authorizing committees also have direct control over spending for mandatory programs since the Government’s obligation to make payments for such program is contained in the authorizing legislation (See Entitlement.) Authorizing Legislation: Legislation enacted by Congress that sets up or continues the operation of a Federal program or agency indefinitely or for a specific period of time. Authorizing legislation may limit the amount of budget authority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appropriation of “such sums as are necessary.” (See Budget Authority; Entitlement.) Backdoor Spending: (See Direct Spending or Mandatory Spending.) Budget Authority: The authority Congress gives to Government agencies, permitting them to enter into obligations which will result in immediate or future outlays. Budget authority may be classified in several ways. It may be classified by the form it takes: appropriations, borrowing authority, or contract authority. Budget authority may also be classified by the determination of amount: definite authority or indefinite authority. Finally budget authority may be classified by the period of availability: 1-year authority, multi-year authority, or no-year authority (available until used). Forms of Budget Authority Appropriations.–An act of Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Borrowing Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to incur obligations and to make payments for specified purposes out of money borrowed from the Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank, or the public. The Budget Act in most cases requires that new authority to borrow must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Contract Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to enter into contracts in advance of appropriations. Under the Budget Act, most new authority to contract must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Offsetting collections and receipts.–Income from the public which is displayed in the budget as negative budget authority. (See Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts. Budget Baseline: Projected Federal spending, revenue and deficit levels based on the assumption that current policies will continue unchanged for the upcoming fiscal year. In determining the budget baseline under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Directors of OMB and CBO estimate revenue levels and spending levels for entitlement programs based on continuation of current laws. For estimating discretionary spending amounts (both defense and non- defense), the Directors assume an adjustment for inflation (GNP deflator) added to the previous year’s discretionary spending levels. The baseline also includes sufficient appropriations to cover a Federal pay comparability raise (without absorption). Budget Deficit: The amount by which the Government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues for a given fiscal year. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Budget Resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress setting forth, reaffirming, or revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for a fiscal year. A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution of Congress. Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature because they are not laws. Budget resolutions do not need to be laws because they are a legislative device for the Congress to regulate itself as it works on spending and revenue bills. (Unified) Budget Surplus: The amount by which the Government’s revenues exceed its outlays for a given fiscal year. The “on-budget surplus” excludes spending and revenues of the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Postal Service. (See Outlays; Revenues.) Capital Budget: A budget that segregates capital spending from all other spending, what is usually considered the “operating budget.” In a capital budget, spending and receipts in the capital budget are excluded from the operating budget and are not included in the operating budget’s deficit or surplus calculations. A capital budget would include spending only for capital assets. Capital assets are usually defined to be limited to land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property that are owned and used by the Federal government and have a useful life of more than 2 years. However, some proponents of capital budgeting have suggested that capital should be defined to include Federal “investment” spending that yields long-term benefits. President Clinton established a Commission to Study Capital Budgeting by issuing Executive Order 13037 on March 3, 1997. The Commission is required to issue its report by December 17, 1998. Congressional Budget: (See Budget Resolution.) Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill. A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However, there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills. A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused with the budget resolution. Credit Authority: Authority to incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guarantee commitments. Under the Budget Act, new credit authority must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Crosswalk: Also known as “committee allocation” or “section 302 allocation.” The means by which budget resolution spending totals are translated into binding guidelines with respect to budget authority and outlays for committee action on spending bills. The Budget Committees allocate the budget resolution totals among the committees by jurisdiction, Crosswalk allocations of budget authority and outlays to the committee appear in the joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution. Current Services Budget: A section of the President’s budget, required by the Budget Act, that sets forth the level of spending or taxes that would occur if existing programs and policies were continued unchanged through the fiscal year and beyond, with all programs adjusted for inflation so that existing levels of activity are maintained. (See Baseline.) Deferral of Budget Authority: An action by the executive branch that delays the obligation of budget authority beyond the point it would normally occur. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President must provide advanced notice to the Congress of any proposed deferrals. A deferral may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President’s message proposing the deferral is made. Congress may overturn a deferral by passing a law disapproving the deferral. Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. Direct Spending: A term defined in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to include entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and budget authority provided in law other than appropriations acts. From the perspective of the appropriations process, all direct spending is classified as mandatory as opposed to discretionary spending. New direct spending is subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. Direct spending is synonymous with mandatory spending. (See Mandatory Spending and Entitlement.) Discretionary Spending: A category of spending (budget authority and outlays) subject to the annual appropriations process. (See Appropriations Acts.) Entitlement: Programs that are governed by legislation in a way that legally obligates the Federal government to make specific payments to qualified recipients. Payments to persons under the Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ pensions programs are considered to be entitlements. (See Direct Spending and Mandatory Spending.) Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order. There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget–as required by Pub. L. No. 102-55 for the determination of whether to designate spending as an emergency spending: Necessary expenditure.–an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is merely useful or beneficial; Sudden.–quickly coming into being, not building up over time; Urgent.–pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action; Unforseen.–not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, would not be “unforseen”); and Not permanent.–the need is temporary in nature. Expenditures: (See Outlays.) Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public. Debt held by the government.–Represents the holdings of debt by federal trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires that this surplus be invested in government securities. Debt held by the public.–Represents the holdings of debt by individuals, institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely tracks the unified budget deficit for that year. Fiscal Policy: Federal government policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management intended to promote the nations’ macroeconomic goals, particularly with respect to employment, gross national product, price level stability, and equilibrium in balance of payments. The budget process is a major vehicle for determining and implementing Federal fiscal policy. The other major component of Federal macroeconomic policy is monetary policy. (See Monetary Policy.) Fiscal Year: A fiscal year is a 12-month accounting period. The fiscal for the Federal Government begins October 1 and ends September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example fiscal year 1997 is the year beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1997. Functional Classification: A system of classifying budget resources by major purpose so that budget authority, outlays, and credit activities can be related in terms of the national needs being addressed (for example, national defense, health) regardless of the agency administrating the program. There are currently 20 functions. A function may be divided into two or more subfunctions depending upon the complexity of the national need addressed by that function. (See Budget Authority; Outlays.) return to topIImpoundment: A generic term referring to any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority in the manner intended by Congress. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Rescission of Budget Authority.) return to topJJoint Committee on Taxation (JCT): Section 8001 of the Internal Revenue Code authorized the creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation. By statute, it is composed of five members from the Committee on Finance (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee and five members from the Committee on Ways and Means (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee. In practice, the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Taxation has rotated between the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means with each new Congress. Among other things, the JCT’s duties are to investigate the operation and effects of the federal tax system. return to topM Mandatory Spending: Refers to spending for programs the level of which is governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by appropriations. Examples of mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, rehabilitation services, Members’ pay, judges pay and the payment of interest of the public debt. Many of these programs are considered entitlement. (See Direct Spending.) Mark-Up: Meetings where congressional committees work on language of bills or resolutions. At Budget Committee mark-ups, the House and Senate Budget Committees work on the language and numbers contained in budget resolutions and legislation affecting the congressional budget process. Monetary Policy: Management of the money supply, under the direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, with the aim of achieving price stability and full employment. Government actions in guiding monetary policy, include currency revaluation, credit contradiction or expansion, rediscount policy, regulation of bank reserves and the purchase and sale of Government securities. (See Fiscal Policy.) return to topNNet Deficit Reduction: Savings below the defined budget baseline achieved for the upcoming fiscal year because of laws enacted or final regulations promulgated since January 1. CBO and OMB independently estimate these savings in their initial and final sequester reports. return to topO Offsetting Collections: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public, such as the sale of products or the rendering of a service. Examples include proceeds funds derived from the sale of postage stamps. Offsetting collections are credited against the level of budget authority or outlays associated with a specific program or account. (See Offsetting receipts.) Offsetting Receipts: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public such as the sale of products or the rendering of services. Examples include proceeds from the sale of timber from Federal lands or entrance fees paid at national parks. Rather than being credited against the spending of a particular program or account, (as in the case with offsetting collections) offsetting receipts are deducted from total budget authority and outlays rather than added to Federal revenues even though they are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Generally offsetting receipts are associated with mandatory spending. (See Offsetting collections.) Off-budget Federal Entity: Any Federal fund or trust fund whose transactions are required by law to be excluded from the totals of President’s budget submission and Congress’ budget resolution, despite the fact that these are part of the government’s total transactions. Current law requires that the Social Security trust funds (the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability trust fund) and the Postal Service be off-budget. However, these entities are reflected in the budget in that they are included in calculating the deficit in order to derive the total government deficit that must be financed by borrowing from the public or by other means. All other federal funds and trust funds are on budget. (See Unified Budget.) Outlays: Outlays are disbursements by the Federal Treasury in the form of checks or cash. Outlays flow in part from budget authority granted in prior years and in part from budget authority provided for the year in which the disbursements occur. Outlay Rates: The ratio of outlays (actual government disbursements) in a fiscal year relative to new budgetary resources in that fiscal year. In estimating the budget baseline and baseline deficit for their sequestration reports, CBO and OMB use outlay rates for projecting levels of spending resulting from available budget authority. Pay-as-you-go: Arises in two separate contexts: a point of order in the Senate and a sequester order from OMB. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.–Since fiscal year 1994, the budget resolution has included a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. The rule provides a 3/5ths vote point of order in the Senate against consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in the deficit over a ten year period. It applies to all legislation except appropriations legislation. To determine a violation, CBO measures the budget impact of a direct spending or revenue bill combined with the budget impact of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the latest budget resolution’s adoption to see if the legislation would result in a net deficit increase for any one of three time periods (the first year, the sum of years 1 through 5, and the sum of years 6 through 10.) The pay-go rule sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2002. Pay-as-you-go and sequestration under the BEA.–The Budget Enforcement Act requires OMB to also enforce a “pay-as-you-go” requirement which has a similar effect as the Senate’s point of order: Congress is required to “pay for” any changes to programs which result in an increase in direct spending, or in this case risk a sequester. If OMB estimates that the sum of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since 1990 will result in a net increase in the deficit for the fiscal year, then the President is required to issue a sequester order reducing all non-exempt direct spending accounts by a uniform percentage in order to eliminate the net deficit increase. Most direct spending is either exempt from a sequester order or operates under special rules that minimize the reduction that can be made in direct spending. Social Security is exempt from a pay-as-you-go sequester and Medicare cannot be reduced by more than 4 percent. President’s Budget: The document sent to Congress by the President in January or February of each year, requesting new budget authority for Federal programs and estimating Federal revenues and outlays for the upcoming fiscal year. Revenues: Collections from the public arising from the Government’s sovereign power to tax. Revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes (such as social security payroll taxes), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and the like. Reconciliation Process: A process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution “reconciliation instructions” to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single “reconciliation bill under expedited procedures.” Reserve Fund: A provision in a budget resolution that grants the Chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to make changes in budget aggregates and committee allocations once some condition or conditions have been met. Since a budget resolution establishes a binding ceiling on aggregate budget authority and outlay levels and a binding floor on revenues, budget resolutions frequently include reserve funds for deficit-neutral legislation that would otherwise violate the budget resolution and be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. For example, the FY 1997 budget resolution included a tax reduction reserve fund that allowed the Chairman to reduce the revenue floor and the relevant spending allocations to accommodate legislation that reduced taxes if that legislation also contained offsetting spending reductions. Rescission of Budget Authority: Cancellation of budget authority before the time when the authority would otherwise cease to be available for obligation. The rescission process begins when the President proposes a rescission to the Congress for fiscal or policy reasons. Unlike the deferral of budget authority which occurs unless Congress acts to disapprove the deferral, rescission off budget authority occurs only if Congress enacts the rescission. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Impoundment.) Scoring or Scorekeeping: The process for estimating budget authority, outlay, revenue and deficit levels which result from congressional budgetary actions. Scorekeeping data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office include status reports on the effect of congressional actions and comparisons of these actions to targets and ceilings set by Congress in budget resolutions. These reports are published in the Congressional Record on a regular basis. OMB is responsible for scoring legislation to determine if a sequester is necessary. Sequester: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a presidential spending reduction order that occurs by reducing spending by uniform percentages. Sequestrable Resource: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings federal funding authority (budgetary resources) subject to reductions under a presidential sequester order for achieving required outlay reductions (in non-exempt programs). Supplemental Appropriation: An act appropriating funds in addition to those in the 13 regular annual appropriations acts. Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority beyond the original estimates for programs or activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriation act) in cases where the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until enactment of the next regular appropriation bill. (See Appropriations Act.) return to topTTax Expenditures: Revenue losses attributable to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or to a special credit, preferential rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. return to topU Unfunded Mandates: A Federal Intergovernmental Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal government, except as conditions of assistance or duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Exceptions to this rule are: enforcing constitutional rights; statutory prohibitions against discrimination; emergency assistance requested by states; accounting/auditing for federal assistance; national security; Presidential designated emergencies; and Social Security. Provisions that increase stringency of conditions of assistance or decrease federal funding for large state entitlement programs (greater than $500 million) if states lack authority to decrease their responsibilities are considered mandates as well. A Federal Private Sector Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector. The exceptions are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Unified Budget: A comprehensive display of the Federal budget. This display includes all revenues and all spending for all regular Federal programs and trust funds. The 1967 President’s Commission on Budget Concepts recommended the unified budget and it has been the basis for budgeting since 1968. The unified budget replaced a system of the budgets that existed before 1968 (an administrative budget, a consolidated cash budget, and a national income accounts budget). |
Budget Control Act
The Budget Control Act Serves as the Budget for 2012 and 2013
The Budget Control Act states: “For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 … the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.” In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. Number one, it has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a Congressional document; the Budget Control Act is a law. Number two, it sets discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. Number three, it provides enforcement mechanisms, including two years of “deeming resolutions,” which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And fourth, it creates a reconciliation-like “Super Committee” process to address both entitlements and tax reform. And it backs that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.
Budget Control Act Legislative Text
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Tory! Tory! Tory! — Videos
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 1: Outsiders – BBC 2007
Series exploring the history of the people and ideas behind what became known as Thatcherism. When Thatcher became Prime Minister, the monetarist policies used to combat inflation created large-scale unemployment and weakened the unions. As riots broke out across Britain, there was growing dissent even inside the government. How would Mrs Thatcher survive her plummeting popularity?
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 2: The Road to Power – BBC 2007
Tory! Tory! Tory! – Ep 3: The Exercise of Power – BBC 2007
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Friedrich A. Hayek–Interviews–Videos
Inside the Hayek Equation: An Interview with Friedrich von Hayek–Video
An Interview with Friedrich Hayek–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
“Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.”
~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975
Ceremonial funeral services with military honors for Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, known as Maggie to her friends and “the Iron Lady” to her opponents, will be held this Wednesday at St Paul’s Cathedral, according to Prime Minister David Cameron’s office.
Her legacy was to change her country’s dominant ideology from collectivist state socialism implemented in decades of Labour Party policies to an individualist market capitalism implemented in Conservative Party policies. In the process she returned the U.K. to eight years of economic growth and prosperity in the 1980s.
Thatcher supported President Ronald Reagan and the United States in defeating communism in the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.
Thatcher had been in declining health for a number of years and died peacefully in her sleep the morning of April 8 following a stroke.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said of Thatcher, “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”
President Barack Obama said, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty and America has lost a true friend.” Obama said she had taught “our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered.”
John Boehner, speaker of the house, said, “The greatest peacetime prime minister in British history is dead. Margaret Thatcher, a grocer’s daughter, stared down elites, union bosses and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe and bring down the Iron Curtain. There was no secret to her values – hard work and personal responsibility – and no nonsense in her leadership.”
Nancy Reagan, widow of former President Ronald Reagan said: “Ronnie and Margaret were political soul mates, committed to freedom and resolved to end Communism. As Prime Minister, Margaret had the clear vision and strong determination to stand up for her beliefs at a time when so many were afraid to ‘rock the boat.’ As a result, she helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of millions of people.”
In 1975 Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservative Party. She was subsequently elected prime minister of the United Kingdom on May 4, 1979. Thatcher served three terms from 1979 to 1990 becoming Britain’s longest-serving prime minister in over a century as well as the most dynamic, inspirational and controversial.
When Thatcher took office, the British economy was in shambles and in recession, inflation was rising and the government faced possible bankruptcy. This was a direct result of many years of Labour Party socialistic policies of out-of-control government spending, confiscatory taxation and the nationalization or state control of many industries including coal, steel, railways, gas, electricity, water, trucking, airlines and telecommunications.
The writings of Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrick A. Hayek, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, in particular his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, inspired and guided Thatcher’s economic policies.
Thatcher turned the economy around and made Britain governable again by taking on and taming the trade unions with labor reform legislation. No longer were the unions able to dictate the nation’s economic policies. Under Thatcher the British government pursued a policy of selling state assets with privatization of industry, thus reversing the Labour Party’s nationalization of industry.
When the Argentina government under the fascist junta invaded the British protectorate of the Falkland Islands in April 1982, she led the U.K. to victory. The Argentinians soon toppled the military junta.
In October 1984 there was an assassination attempt on her life when a hotel in Brighton where she and her husband and other members of her cabinet were staying was bombed by Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists.
Thatcher supported Reagan in opposing communism and confronting the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. She was instrumental in the introduction of cruise missiles in Britain to counter the Soviet military threat. She allied the United Kingdom with the United States against the communist expansion and subversion in the West and the winning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
A concise biography of her life can be found at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation web site http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp. An excellent critical biography is Claire Berlinsky’s “There is No Alternative: Why Thatcher Matters” and related interview on YouTube video titled, “Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski.”
An excellent multi-part documentary about Thatcher produced in 2008 by the conservative paper, The Daily Telegraph, can be viewed on YouTube as well as an entertaining movie about her early political career titled, “Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk to Finchley.”
Her husband of more than 50 years, Denis Thatcher, died in June 2003. She is survived by her twin son, Mark, and daughter, Carol, born in 1953.
Thatcher remains a controversial figure in Britain. She was loved and revered by many as well as loathed and reviled by some. She will be remembered by all who value economic freedom and individual liberty.
“Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away. Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it. We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.”
~Margaret Thatcher, Speech to Conservative Party Conference, October 10, 1975
David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full
Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)
Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Margaret Thatcher — Rest In Peace — Videos
David Cameron’s Commons tribute to Margaret Thatcher in full
Malcolm Rifkind: Working with Margaret Thatcher was ‘never dull’
Margaret Thatcher Dead At 87 – “The Iron Lady” – Stuart Varney
‘Iron Lady’ Margaret Thatcher dies at 87 after stroke
Margaret Thatcher “The Iron Lady” Dead At 87
Obituary: Margaret Thatcher
MARGARET THATCHER DIES AT 87 (WARNING! FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY)
BBC News Announcement – Margaret Thatcher Has Died
Margaret Thatcher dies: David Cameron pays tribute to ‘patriot Prime Minister’
Margaret Thatcher: Boris Johnson pays tribute
Margaret Thatcher changed global political landscape: Tony Blair
Remembering Margaret Thatcher: Pioneering Female Politician
Margaret Thatcher on The MacNeil/Lehrer Report
Thatcher and Reagan’s special relationship
Margaret Thatcher, British Conservative Hero, Dies at 87
MARGARET THATCHER 30TH ANNIVERSARY CLIPS – ’79 RESULT & JANET BROWN SPOOF
Margaret Thatcher – Capitalism and a Free Society
Margaret Thatcher Dies: How She Ended ‘Nanny State’
What did Margaret Thatcher do for Britain’s economy?
Margaret Thatcher dead: A look at her role as MP and mother
Sunrise: Remembering Margaret Thatcher
Sunrise: Margaret Thatcher: The early years
Margaret Thatcher – Thames Television – 1971 -1979
Margaret Thatcher, U.K. Prime Minster, Dies at 87
Margaret Thatcher concerned about “U.S. decline”
The Real Legacy of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s Iron Lady
Mike Pattison | A former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher
Introducing Margaret Thatcher! 5 March 1975
MARGARET THATCHER book discussion “The Downing Street Years” 1993
Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher discussing her memoirs “The Downing Street Years” with Brian Lamb on 4 November 1993.
margaret thatcher on her path to power
mrs thatcher gives an interview on her early life
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Would Hayek Have Approved Obamacare?
Margaret Thatcher – Falklands War – YouTube
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 1 The Making of Margaret (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 2 The Falklands (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 3 World Stage (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 4 The Age of Dissent (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 5 Taking on the Unions (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 6 Public Image, Private Life. (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 7 The Fall (Telegraph Documentary)
MARGARET THATCHER – Pt 8 The Legacy (Telegraph Documentary)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (1/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (2/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (3/4 BBC)
Thatcher: The Downing Street Years (4/4 BBC)
Margaret Thatcher – The Long Walk To Finchley Full Movie
Hitchens ’10: Margaret Thatcher & the Unions
Hitchens 2010: In Love with Argument
Margaret Thatcher – The Flame of Capitalism
Speech to Conservative Party Conference
| Document type: | speeches |
|---|---|
| Document kind: | Speech |
| Venue: | Winter Gardens, Blackpool |
| Source: | Thatcher Archive: speaking text |
| Journalist: | - |
| Editorial comments: | 1045. MT spoke for 41 minute 16 seconds; the BBC Sound Archive has a complete recording. Evening Standard (10 October 1975) noted that the audience applauded every passage of the speech – not one was delivered without interruption. Parts of the text have been checked against material broadcast on ITN during the day. |
| Importance ranking: | Key |
| Word count: | 3722 |
| Themes: | Conservative Party (organisation), Autobiographical comments, Conservative Party (history), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Economy (general discussions), Employment, Public spending and borrowing, Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Foreign policy (USSR and successor states), Foreign policy (Central and Eastern Europe), Economy (general discussions), Labour Party and Socialism, Higher and further education, Industry, Science and technology, Conservatism, Social security and welfare, Labour Party and Socialism, Industry, Conservatism, Labour Party and Socialism, Agriculture, Employment, Labour Party and Socialism, Conservatism, Secondary education, Health policy, Private health care, Labour Party and Socialism, Trade unions, British constitution (general discussions), Law and order, Labour Party and Socialism, Northern Ireland |
Note by MT: “Relax. Low Speaking Voice. Not too slow”.
The first Conservative Party Conference I attended was in 1946.
I came to it as an undergraduate representing Oxford University Conservative Association (I know our Cambridge supporters will not mind.) That Conference was held in this very hall and the platform then seemed a long way away, and I had no thought of joining the lofty and distinguished people sitting up there.
But our Party is the Party of equality of opportunity—as you can see. (Laughter).[fo 1]
You will understand, I know, the humility I feel at following in the footsteps of great men like our Leader that year, Winston Churchill a man called by destiny who raised the name of Britain to supreme heights in the history of the free world. (Applause).
In the footsteps of Anthony Eden , who set us the goal of a property-owning democracy—a goal we still pursue today.(Applause).
Of Harold Macmillan whose leadership brought so many ambitions within the grasp of every citizen. (Applause).[fo 2]
Of Alec Douglas-Home whose career of selfless public service earned the affection and admiration of us all. (Applause).
And of Edward Heath who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973. (Applause).
During my lifetime, all the leaders of the Conservative Party have served as Prime Minister. I hope the habit will continue. (Laughter)
Our leaders have been different men with different qualities and different styles. But they have one thing in common. Each met the challenge-of-his-time.[fo 3]
What is the challenge of our time?
I believe there are two—to overcome the country’s economic and financial problems, and to regain our confidence in Britain and ourselves.
The Economic Challenge
The economic challenge has been debated at length in this hall.
Last week it gave rise to the usual scenes of cordial brotherly strife.[fo 4]
Day after day the comrades called one another far from comradely names, and occasionally, when they remembered, they called us names too.
Some of them, for example, suggested that I criticised Britain when I was overseas. They are wrong.
It wasn’t Britain I was criticising. It was-Socialism. (Applause).
And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing.[fo 5]
As long as I have health and strength, they never will be. (Applause).
But whatever could I say about Britain that is half as damaging as what this Labour Government have done to our country?
Let’s look at the record.
It is the Labour Government that have caused prices to rise at a record rate of 26 per cent a year.[fo 6]
They told us that the Social Contract would solve everything. But now everyone can see that the so-called contract was a fraud—a fraud for which the people of this country have had to pay a very high price.
It is the Labour Government whose policies are forcing unemployment higher than it need have been—thousands more men and women lose their jobs every day.
There are going to be men and women many of them youngsters straight out of school—who will be without a job this winter because Socialist Ministers spent last year attacking us, instead of attacking inflation.[fo 7]Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And it’s the Labour Government that have brought the level of production below that of the 3-day week in 1974. W’ve really got a 3-day week now,—only it takes five days to do it. (Applause).
It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease—they’ve run out of other people’s money. (Laughter).
And it’s the Labour Government that have pushed public spending to record levels.
And how’ve they done it? By borrowing, and borrowing and borrowing.
Never in the field of human credit has so much been owed. (Laughter).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 8]
But serious as the economic challenge is, the political and moral challenge is just as grave, perhaps more so.
POLITICAL AND MORAL CHALLENGE
Economic problems never start with economics. They have deeper roots—in human nature and in politics.
They don’t finish at economics either.
Labour’s failure to cope, to look at the nation’s problems from the point of view of the whole nation, not just one section of it, has led to loss of confidence and a sense of helplessness.[fo 9]
With it goes a feeling that Parliament, which ought to be in charge, is not in charge—that the actions and the decisions are taken elsewhere.
And it goes deeper than that. There are voices that seem anxious not to overcome our economic difficulties, but to exploit them, to destroy the free enterprise society and put a Marxist system in its place.
Today those voices form a sizeable chorus in the Parliamentary Labour Party. A chorus which, aided and abetted by many Constituency Labour Parties, seems to be growing in numbers.[fo 10]
Anyone who says this openly is promptly accused of seeing Reds Under the Bed.
But look who’s seeing them now!
On his own admission, Mr Wilson has at last discovered that his own Party is infiltrated by extreme left-wingers—or to use his own words it is infested with them.
When even Mr Wilson gets scared about their success in capturing key positions in the Labour Party, shouldn’t the rest of us be?[fo 11]
And shouldn’t the rest of us ask him “Where have you been while all this has been going on, and what are you doing about it?” (Applause). The answer is nothing.
I sometimes think the Labour Party is like a pub where the mild is running out. If someone doesn’t do something soon, all that’s left will be bitter. (Laughter). And all that’s bitter will be Left. (Laughter).
Whenever I visit Communist countries, their politicians never hesitate to boast about their achievements.[fo 12]
They know them all by heart and reel off the facts and figures, claiming that this is the rich harvest of the Communist system.
Yet they are not prosperous as we in the West are prosperous, and they are not free as we in the West are free.
Our capitalist system produces a far higher standard of prosperity and happiness because it believes in incentive and opportunity, and because it is founded on human dignity and freedom. (Applause).[fo 13]
Even the Russians have to go to a capitalist country, America to buy enough wheat to feed their people. And that aftermore than 50 years of a State controlled economy.
Yet they boast incessantly while we, who have so much more to boast about, forever criticise and decry.
Isn’t it time we spoke up for our way of life? (Applause) After all, no Western nation has to build a wall round itself to keep its people in. (Applause).[fo 14]
So let us have no truck with those who say the free enterprise system has failed. What we face today is not a crisis of capital ism, but of Socialism. No country can flourish if its economic and social life is dominated by nationalisation and state control.
The cause of our shortcomings does not therefore lie in private enterprise. Our problem is not that we have too little socialism. It is that we have too much.
If only the Labour Party in this country would act like Social Democrats in West Germany. If only they would stop trying to prove their Socialist virility by relentlessly nationalising one industry after another.[fo 15]
Of course, a halt to further State control will not on its own restore our belief in ourselves, because something else is happening to this country. We are witnessing a deliberate attack on our values, a deliberate attack on those who wish to promote merit and excellence, a deliberate attack on our heritage and great past. (Applause).Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
And there are those who gnaw away at our national self-respect, rewriting British history as centuries of unrelieved gloom, oppression and failure.
As days of hopelessness—not Days of Hope.[fo 16]
And others, under the shelter of our education system, are ruthlessly attacking the minds of the young. Everyone who believes in freedom must be appalled at the tactics employed by the far Left in the systematic destruction of the North London Polytechnic. (Applause).
Blatant tactics of intimidation, designed to undermine the fundamental beliefs and values of every student.
Tactics pursued by people who are the first to insist on their own civil rights while seeking to deny them to the rest of us. We must not be bullied and brainwashed out of our beliefs. (Applause).[fo 17]
No wonder so many of our people—some of the best and brightest—are depressed and talk of emigrating.
Even so, I think they are wrong at giving up too soon. Many of the things we hold dear are threatened as never before, but none has yet been lost.
So stay here. (Applause). Stay and help us defeat Socialism, so that the Britain you have known may be the Britain your children will know. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.[fo 18]
Those are the two great challenges of our time.
The moral and political challenge, and the economic challenge.
They have to be faced together—and we have to master them both.
POTENTIAL
What are our chances of success? It depends what kind of people we are. Well, what kind of people are we?[fo 19]
We are the people that in the past made Great Britain the Workshop of the World. The people who persuaded others to buy British not by begging them to do so, but because it was best.
We are a people who have received more Nobel prizes than any other nation except America, and head for head we have done better than America. Twice as well, in fact.
We are the people who, among other things, invented the computer, refrigerator, electric motor, stethoscope, rayon, steam turbine, stainless steel, the tank, television, penicillin, radar, jet engine, hovercraft, float glass and carbonfibres. Oh, and the best half of Concorde. (Laughter).[fo 20]
We export more of what we produce than either West Germany, France, Japan or the United States.
And well over 90%; of these exports come from private enterprise. It’s a triumph for the private sector and all who work in it. Let us say so, loud and clear. (Applause).
With achievements like that who can doubt that Britain can have a great future? What our friends abroad want to know is whether that future is going to happen.
Well, how can we Conservatives make it happen?[fo 21]
Many of the details have already been dealt with in the various debates. But policies and programmes should not be just a list of unrelated items. They are part of a total vision of the kind of life we want for our country and our children. [Beginning of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975] Let me give you my vision.
THE FREE SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY
A man’s right to work as he will to spend what he earns to own property to have the State as servant and not as master these are the British inheritance.
They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN Early Evening News, 10 October 1975.[fo 22]
But we want a free economy, not only because it guarantees our liberties, but also because it is the best way of creating wealth and prosperity for the whole country.
It is this prosperity alone which can give us the resources for better services for the community, better services for those in need. (Applause).
By their attack on private enterprise, this Labour Government have made certain that there will be next to nothing available for improvements in our social services over the next few years.[fo 23]
We must get private enterprise back on the road to recovery, not merely to give people more of their own money to spend as they choose, but to have more money to help the old and the sick and the handicapped.
The way to recovery is through profits. Good profits today, leading to high investment, well-paid jobs and a better standard of living tomorrow. (Applause).
No profits mean no investment, and a dying industry geared to yesterday’s world.
Other nations have recognised that for years now. They are going ahead faster than we are; and the gap between us will continue to increase unless we change our ways.[fo 24]
The trouble here is that for years the Labour Party have made people feel that profits are guilty-unless proved innocent.
But when I visit factories and businesses I do not find that those who actually work in them are against profits. On the contrary, they want to work for a prosperous concern. With a future—their future. (Applause).
Governments must learn to leave these companies with enough of their own profits to produce the goods and jobs for tomorrow.
If the Socialists won’t or can’t there will be no profit making industry left to support the losses caused by fresh bouts of nationalisation.[fo 25]
And if anyone says I am preaching laissez-faire, let me say this.
I am not arguing, and never have argued, that all we have to do is to let the economy run by itself.
I believe that, just as each of us has an obligation to make the best of his talents so governments have an obligation to create the framework within which we can do so. Not only individual people, but individual firms and particularly small firms. (Applause).
Some of these will stay small but others will expand and become the great companies of the future.[fo 26]
The Labour Government have pursued a disastrous vendetta against small businesses and the self-employed. We will reverse their damaging policies. (Applause).
Nowhere is this more important than in Agriculture—one of our most successful industries made up entirely of small businesses. We live in a world in which food is no longer cheap or plentiful. Everything we cannot produce here must be imported at a high price.
Yet the Government could not have destroyed the confidence of the industry more effectively if they had tried deliberately to do so, with their formula of empty promises and penal taxation.[fo 27]
So today what is the picture? Depressed profits, low investment, no incentive, and overshadowing everything government spending, spending far beyond the taxpayers means. (Applause).
To recover, to get from where we are to where we want to be, will take time.
“Economic policy” wrote Maynard Keynes “should not be a matter of tearing up by the roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.”[fo 28]
It will take time to reduce public spending, rebuild profits and incentives, to benefit from the investments which must be made. The sooner that time starts, the better for Britain’s unemployed.
One of the reasons why this Labour Government has incurred more unemployment than any Conservative Government since the War is because they have concentrated too much on distributing what we have, and too little on seeing that we have more. (Applause).[fo 29]
We Conservatives hate unemployment.
We hate the idea of men and women not being able to use their abilities. We deplore the waste of national resources, and the deep affront to peoples’ dignity from being out of work through no fault of their own. (Applause).
It is ironic that we should be accused of wanting unemployment to solve our economic problems by the very Government which has produced a record post-War unemployment, and is expecting more.[fo 30]
The record of Mr Wilson and his colleagues on this is unparallelled in the history of political hypocricy.
We are now seeing the full consequences of nearly twenty months of Labour Government.
They have done the wrong things at the wrong time in the wrong way.
They have been a disaster for this country.[fo 31]
EQUALITY
Now let me turn to something I spoke about in America.
Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals.
We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise.
We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important.[fo 32]
Engineers, miners, manual workers, shop assistants, farm workers, postmen, housewives—these are the essential foundations of our society. Without them there would be no nation. (Applause).
But their are others with special gifts who should also have their chance, because if the adventurers who strike out in new directions in science, technology, medicine, commerce and industry the arts are hobbled, there can be no advance.
The spirit of envy can destroy. It can never build.[fo 33]
Everyone must be allowed to develop the abilities he knows he has within him, and she knows she has within her, in the way they choose.
CHOICE
Freedom to choose is something we take for granted—until it is in danger of being taken away.
Socialist governments set out perpetually to restrict the area of choice, Conservative governments to increase it.
We believe that you become a responsible citizen by making decisions yourself, not by having them made for you.[fo 34]
But they are made for you under Labour all right.
Take education.
Beginning of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975:
Our education system used to serve us well. A child from an ordinary family, as I was, could use it as a ladder as an advancement.
But the Socialists are better at demolition than reconstruction, are destroying many good grammar schools.
Now this is nothing to do with private education. It’s opportunity and excellence in our State schools that are being diminished under Socialism.
And naturally enough, parents don’t like this. But in a Socialist society parents should be seen and not heard. (Laughter).[fo 35]
And another denial of choice is being applied to health.
The private sector helps to keep some of our best doctors here, and so are available part time to the National Health Service. It also helps to bring in more money for the general health of the nation.
But under Labour, private medicine is being squeezed out, and the result will be to add to the burden on the National Health Service without adding one penny to its income.[fo 36]
Let me make this absolutely clear.
When we return to power we shall reverse Mrs Castle ‘s stupid and spiteful attack on hospital pay beds. (Applause).
We Conservatives do not accept that because some people have no choice, no one should have it.
Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, not as the Government dictates.End of section checked against ITN News at Ten, 10 October 1975.
Let us extend choice, the will to choose and the chance to choose.[fo 37]
TRADE UNIONS
I want to come now to the argument which Mr Wilson is trying to put across the country: namely that the Labour Party is the natural party of Government because it is the only one that the Trade Unions will accept.
From what I saw on television last week, the Labour Party did not look like a party of Government at all, let alone a natural one.
But let’s examine the argument.Beginning of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975
If we are to be told that a Conservative Government could not govern because certain extreme leaders would not let it, then General Elections are a mockery we’ve arrived at[fo 38] the one party state, and parliamentary democracy in this country will have perished. (Applause).
The democracy for which our fathers fought and died is not to be laid to rest as lightly as that.
When the next Conservative Government comes to power many Trade Unionists will have put it there. Millions of them vote for us at every Election.
I want to say this to them, and to every one of our supporters in industry.[fo 39]
Go out and join in the work of your Union.
Go to its meetings—and stay to the end.
Learn the Union rules as well as the Far Left know them, and remember this. If Parliamentary democracy dies, free Trade Unions die with it. (Applause).End of section checked against ITN First Report, 10 October 1975.[fo 40]
RULE OF LAW
I come last to what many would put first. The Rule of Law.
The first people to uphold the law should be governments. It is tragic that the Socialist Government, to its lasting shame, should have lost its nerve and shed its principles over the People’s Republic of Clay Cross. And that a group of the Labour Party should have tried to turn the Shrewsbury pickets into martyrs.
On both occasions the law was broken. On one, violence was done.[fo 41]No decent society can live like that. No responsible party should condone it. (Applause).
The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when its inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.
There is one part of this country where tragically defiance of the law is costing life day after day.[fo 42]
In Northern Ireland our troops have the dangerous and thankless task of trying to keep the peace and hold the balance. We are proud of the way they have discharged their duty.
This Party is pledged to support the unity of the United Kingdom. To preserve that unity and to protect the people, Catholic and Protestant alike, we believe that our armed forces must remain until a genuine peace is made.
Our thoughts are with them, and our pride is with them too. (Applause).[fo 43]
I have spoken of the challenges that face us here in Britain. The challenge to recover economically. The challenge to recover our belief in ourselves.
I have shown our potential for recovery.
I have dealt with some aspects of our strength and approach.
And I have tried to tell you something of my personal vision, my belief in the standards on which this nation was greatly built, on which it greatly thrived, and from which in recent years it has greatly fallen away.[fo 44]
We are coming, I think, to yet another turning point in our long history.
We can go on as we have been going and continue down.
Or we can stop—and with a decisive act of will we can say “Enough”.
Let us, all of us, here today and others, far beyond this hall who believe in our cause make that act of will.
Let us proclaim our faith in a new and better future for our Party and our people.[fo 45]
Let us resolve to heal the wounds of a divided nation.
And let that act of healing be the prelude to a lasting victory. (Prolonged applause).
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102777
Note by MT: “It’s over!”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Conservative savior of UK’s economy, Margaret Thatcher dead at 87 — Videos
Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos
Friedrich August von Hayek: Fighting the Planners — The Road To Serfdom — A Profile in Liberty — Videos
American Economc Collapse — The Road to World War 3 — After America Collapses — What Comes Next? — Videos
American Economic Collapse, martial law
U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse (and Not in a Nice Way)
Total Collapse – The Build up to World War III
The Road to World War 3
After America Collapses, What Comes Next?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Stop Obama’s Common Core Curriculum Standards — Progressive Indoctrination, Standardization and Tracking of American Children Into Collectivists — Little Boxes — Videos
Little Boxes – Walk off the Earth
Obama On The Common Core Standards
President Obama, Secretary Duncan Announce Race to the Top
The Bottom Line :Education Database
Why We Need Common Core: “I choose C.”
Common Core Lesson Plans – Rated very funny!
Common Core Standards & Forming a Professional Learning Network (PLN)
Vision of the Common Core
Common Core State Standards: Principles of Development
General Session: Common Core State Standards
Moderator: Governor Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida from 1999-2007 and Chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Panelists: David Coleman, President and CEO of the College Board Bob Corcoran, President and Chairman of the GE Foundation Dr. William Schmidt, University Distinguished Professor and Co-Director of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, Minnesota State Representative
The Common Core State Standards and What’s Next for Higher Education | College Board Forum 2012
P20 Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Indoctrination And The Progressive Future – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.03.27
Data Mining In Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program
Urgent Message On Common Core – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.03.28
Part 1 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 2 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 3 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 4 of 5 Stop the Common Core
Part 5 of 5 Stop the Common Core
The Government will Control Your Childs Every Move? Common Core Disaster?
The Glenn Beck Program – Air Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Rick Hess: Common Core as one more Obama initiative
Teacher Talk episode: Common Core State Standards
Learn the Common Core Standards in 10 Minutes
Common Core Curriculum Standards
Common Core Standards Overview | LiteracyTA
Common Core Standards- Mathematics by David Foster
Two Moms Against Common Core
Neal McCluskey: The Folly of Common Core Curricula
Pete Seeger – What Did You Learn In School?
School-Standards Pushback
Conservative Groups Oppose National ‘Common Core’ as an Intrusion on States
By STEPHANIE BANCHERO
The Common Core national math and reading standards, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia two years ago, are coming under attack from some quarters as a federal intrusion into state education matters.
The voluntary academic standards, which specify what students should know in each grade, were heavily promoted by the Obama administration through its $4.35 billion Race to the Top education-grant competition. States that instituted changes such as common learning goals received bonus points in their applications.
Supporters say the Common Core standards better prepare students for college or the workforce, and are important as the U.S. falls behind other nations in areas such as math proficiency.
A 2010 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning educational-research group, said the Common Core standards “are clearly superior to those currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the Common Core is superior in both math and reading.”
But conservative lawmakers and governors in at least five states, including Utah and Alabama, recently have been pushing to back out, or slow down implementation, of Common Core. They worry that adoption of the standards has created a de facto national curriculum that could at some point be extended into more controversial areas such as science.
Critics argue that the standards are weak and could, for example, de-emphasize literature in favor of informational texts, such as technical manuals. They also dislike that the standards postpone teaching algebra until ninth grade from the current eighth grade in many schools.
A study released this year by a researcher at the Brookings Institution think tank projected Common Core will have no effect on student achievement. The study said states with high standards improved their national math and reading scores at the same rate as states with low standards from 2003 to 2009.
But mainly, critics of Common Core object to what they see as the federal government’s involvement in local-school matters.
“The Common Core takes education out of the hands of South Carolina and parents, so we have no control over what happens in the classroom,” said Michael Fair, a Republican state senator who plans to introduce a measure that would bar his state from spending money on activities related to the standards, such as training teachers and purchasing textbooks.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who took office after the state adopted Common Core, wrote in a letter to Mr. Fair that the state should not “relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states.”
Common Core could take another hit Friday when the 23-member board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of more than 2,000 state lawmakers and business members who back limited government and free markets, among other conservative goals, is set to vote on a resolution to formally oppose the standards. The resolution was passed by the ALEC education task force in December.Model legislation often is drafted from the group’s resolutions and taken by ALEC members to their state legislatures.
Common Core evolved from a drive by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to delineate world-class skills students should possess. The standards, created with funding from, among others, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set detailed goals, such as first graders should understand place values in math and eighth graders should know the Pythagorean Theorem.
“We brought the best minds in the country together to create international benchmarks that, once mastered, would make our students more competitive, globally,” said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. He said his group has no plans to create national science standards.
As the standards were being developed, the Obama administration launched Race to the Top in July 2009, which awarded points to states that adopted “a common set of K-12 standards” that are “substantially identical across all states in a consortium,” according to the grant’s policies. The department didn’t specifically mention Common Core, but it was the only common set of standards being developed.
As a result, most state’s legislatures or state boards of education adopted Common Core.
The standards have yet to show up in many classrooms as states are just beginning to implement them. But in Kentucky, where Common Core rolled out this school year, teachers are altering instruction and searching for new classroom reading materials.
Jahn Owens, a teacher in Owensboro, Ky., said the more rigorous standards require her to teach her fifth-graders how to multiply and divide fractions. Previously, that was taught in sixth grade. First-grade teacher Heidi Dees has added more nonfiction books to her classroom.
“These standards take students much deeper into the subjects and force them to do more critical thinking,” Ms. Owens said. “It’s been hard work for the teachers because the implementation was so quick, but we are now more purposeful about student learning.”
The Obama administration has awarded more than $360 million to two groups to create student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Wireless Generation, an education-technology company owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal, recently purchased Intel-Assess, a company that creates student assessments aligned to Common Core.
Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the U.S. Department. of Education, called Common Core a “game changer” but said the administration didn’t force states to adopt it. “A bipartisan group of governors created these standards and states collectively adopted them,” he said.
But Emmett McGroarty, executive director of American Principles in Action, a conservative lobbying group that wrote the ALEC resolution, said states were “herded” into adopting the standards with no time to deliberate on their worth. He called the standards “mediocre” and costly to implement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303630404577390431072241906.html
The Common Core Curriculum
National education standards that even conservatives can love.
By Chester E. Finn, Jr. & Michael J. Petrilli
After votes yesterday in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, 28 states have now embraced the new “Common Core” standards for primary and secondary education. Already, a majority — including red states such as South Carolina, Utah, and Oklahoma — have declared that they will use Common Core English and math standards in their public schools. Yet this profound, and we think positive, shift in American education is occurring with little outcry from the right, save for a half-dozen libertarians who don’t much care for government to start with. How come?
It certainly helps that the new standards were created by a voluntary partnership of 48 states, not by the federal government. But it’s also true that the Common Core standards are remarkably strong, vastly better than the standards most states have developed independently over the past 15 years. Yesterday, our institute released a 370-page study that finds the Common Core standards to be clearly superior to the existing English standards of 37 states and the existing math standards of 39.
One reason the Common Core fared so well is that its authors eschewed the vague and politically correct nonsense that infected so many state standards (and earlier attempts at national standards). They expect students to master arithmetic and memorize their times tables; they promote the teaching of phonics in the early grades; they even expect all students to read and understand the country’s founding documents. The new standards aren’t perfect. Our reviewers found three jurisdictions that did better in English (California, Indiana, and — believe it or not — the District of Columbia), mostly because they better distinguish among different “genres” of literature and other writing. Another dozen states (including Massachusetts) are “too close to call,” meaning that their standards are about equal in content and rigor to the Common Core. But anybody worried that this national effort will dumb down what we expect young Americans to learn in school can relax, at least for now.
Anxiety will surely rise when school kids across the land begin (three or four years hence) to take tests linked to these standards, and even more when those test results start to determine promotion from fifth to sixth grade or graduation from high school. (The development of those tests will soon start, aided by $350 million of federal stimulus funds.) But without tests and results-based accountability, along with solid curricula, quality textbooks, and competent teaching, standards alone have no traction in real classrooms. Adopting good standards is like having a goal for your cholesterol; it doesn’t mean you will actually eat a healthy diet or live longer.
When high expectations for schools and students are combined with smart implementation in thousands of classrooms, policymakers can move mountains. That’s the lesson we take from Massachusetts, which has established high standards, well-designed assessments, a tough-minded (yet humane) accountability system, rigorous certification requirements for teachers, and a high bar that students must clear to earn their diplomas. The Bay State has been making steady achievement gains in reading and math in both fourth and eighth grades. That, of course, is why Massachusetts politicians and policymakers sparred over the proposal by state education commissioner Mitchell Chester to replace the state’s standards and tests with the new national versions.
Until now, however, the vast majority of states have failed to adopt rigorous standards, much less to take actions geared to boosting pupil achievement. In 2007, we published a comparison of states’ “proficiency” expectations under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The results were dismaying: In some places, students could score below the tenth percentile nationally and still be considered “proficient.” In other locales, they had to reach the 77th percentile to wear the same label. And it wasn’t just that expectations varied, but that they varied almost randomly from place to place, grade to grade, and year to year.
Most Americans understand that this is not the way a big, modernized country on a competitive planet should operate its education system. Three years ago, an Education Next poll asked whether people favored “a single national standard and a single national test for all students in the United States? Or do you think that there should be different standards and tests in different states?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243517/common-core-curriculum-chester-e-finn-jr
Who’s Behind the Common Core Curriculum?
Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Like so many education reform initiatives that seem to arise out of nowhere, the Common Core State Standards is another of these sweeping phantom movements that have gotten their impetus from a cadre of invisible human beings endowed with inordinate power to impose their ideas on everybody.
For example, the idea of collecting intimate personal data on public school students and teachers seems to have arisen spontaneously in the bowels of the National Center for Education Statistics in Washington. It required a small army of education psychologists to put together the data handbooks, which are periodically expanded to include more personal information.
Nobody knows who exactly authorized the creation of such a dossier on every student and teacher in American public schools, but the program exists and is being paid for by the taxpayer. And strange as it may seem, it arose seemingly out of nowhere, like a vampire, to suck the freedom out of the American people. Unlike Santa’s elves who work behind the scenes to bring happiness to children, these subterranean phantoms work overtime to find ways of making American children miserable.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is another such vampire calculated not only to suck the freedom out of the American people, but also to suck out the brains of their children. And all of this is planned in the dark, away from the prying eyes of parents and writers like me. Ask any educator: “Who is the author of the Common Core Standards?” and they will not be able to tell you.
So I decided to look into the origin of the CCSS. It is said that it originated with the National Governors Association (NGA). When and where? At what meeting? At whose behest? The NGA’s Mission Statement says on its website:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.
Sounds wonderful. But why do we need it? Why are we re-inventing the wheel? Didn’t our public schools provide a decent education for the “greatest generation” when they were in school? That generation not only learned enough to win World War II but also enough to create the scientific foundation of our high-tech society. The only reason why we need the CCSS is because all of these graduate educationists need something to do to justify their degrees and the salaries that go with them. And of course the new curriculum will cost billions of dollars which will enable these vampires to live in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. By the way, if you object to my referring to these people as vampires, feel free to use your own designations.
The CCSS adds nothing to what we know about how to teach reading. It adds nothing to how we teach arithmetic and mathematics. It adds nothing to how we teach history, geography, and the “social studies.” In short, it is a fraud to get the American taxpayer to shell out big bucks for something that we already know how to do. Yes, science has greatly expanded, but it also expanded from 1850 to 1950 and didn’t require a different methodology from the scientific method developed by the great scientists of the past. We may have better equipment which students of science must learn to operate, but the scientific method has not changed.
And of course, the CCSS were made to be as complicated as possible so that no parent or normal human being could understand them. For example, there is something called “Common Core State Standards Official Identifiers and XML Representation.” It states:
As states, territories, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education Activity move from widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to implementation, there is a need to appropriately identify and link assets using a shared system of identifiers and a common XML representation. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), working closely with the standards authors, have released an official, viable approach for publishing identifiers and XML designation to represent the standards, consistent with their adopted format, as outlined below.
So now we know that there is such a body as “the standards authors,” who work closely with such bureaucratic organizations as the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. And to make sure that the Standards are being correctly implemented, we read the following in typical vampire language:
De-referenceable Uniform Resource Identifier (URIs) at the corestandards.org domain, e.g. http://corestandards.org/2010/math/content/6/EE/1 or http://corestandards.org/2010/math/practice/MP7. Matching the published identifiers, these dereferenceable URIs allow individuals and technology systems to validate the content of a standard by viewing the web page at the identifier’s uniform resource locator (URL). The NGA Center and CCSSO strongly recommend that http://www.corestandards.org remain the address of record for referring to standards.
What kind of human beings not only write such gobbledegook but also know what it means? And these educationists are among the well-paid elite who know how to make everything so complicated that only they are capable of understanding their own complexity. Here’s more:
Globally unique identifiers (GUIDs), e.g. A7D3275BC52147618D6CFEE43FB1A47E. These allow, when needed, to refer to standards in both disciplines in a common format without removing the differences in the published identifiers. GUIDs are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness, an important characteristic for databases, and are intended for use by computer systems. There is no need for educators to decode GUIDs.
Did you read that line, “GUIDS are unwieldy for human use, but they are necessarily complex to guarantee uniqueness”? These people are masters at creating complexity for its own sake. The more complex, the more difficult it is for normal human beings to know what in blazes they are talking about.
What is the National Governors Association for Best Practices? Here is what their website says:
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) develops innovative solutions to today’s most pressing public policy challenges and is the only research and development firm that directly serves the nation’s governors….
The mission of NGA Office of Federal Relations is to ensure governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy. Policy positions, reflecting governors’ principles on priority issues, guide the association’s work to influence federal laws and regulations.
The initiative for the Common Core State Standards seems to have arisen from a speech NGA Chairman Governor Paul Patton, Democrat, of Kentucky gave at the NGA meeting on June 12, 2002, in which he said:
Governors are constantly searching for solutions that will help all schools succeed, but some schools require more help than others. The long-term goal for states is to improve overall system performance while closing persistent gaps in achievement between minority and non-minority students. Fortunately, there are places to look for guidance. Although some schools continue to struggle, some have responded successfully to state reform efforts and others have gone far in improving student performance and closing the achievement gap. Current research also suggests there are ways state policies can effectively stimulate and support school improvement.
How that was translated into the need for Common Core State Standards, is not very clear. The Executive Director of the NGA is Dan Crippen, a Washington policy bureaucrat who was director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1999 to 2002. The Director of the NGA Center for Best Practices is David Moore, formerly of the Congressional Budget Office. The Director of the Education Division is Richard Laine. His profile states:
Laine directs research, policy analysis, technical assistance and resource development for the Education Division in the areas of early childhood, K-12, and postsecondary education. The Education Division is working on a number of key policy issues relevant to governors’ efforts to develop and support the implementation of policy, including: birth to 3rd grade access, readiness and quality; the Common Core State Standards, STEM and related assessments; teacher and leader effectiveness; turning around low-performing schools; high school redesign; competency-based learning; charter schools; and postsecondary (higher education & workforce training) access, success & affordability. The Division is also working on policy issues related to bridging the system divides between the early childhood, K-12 and postsecondary systems.
Well now we know who’s in charge of the Common Core State Standards. What is Mr. Laine’s background?
Previous Positions: Director of Education, The Wallace Foundation; Director of Education Policy and Initiatives, Illinois Business Roundtable; Associate Superintendent for Policy, Planning and Resource Management, Illinois State Board of Education; Executive Director, Coalition for Educational Rights; Executive Secretary, Committee for Educational Rights; School Finance Analyst, Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance; Associate Director, California Democratic Congressional Delegation.
Education: M.P.P., M.B.A. and Certificate of Advanced Study in Education Administration and Public Policy, University of Chicago; B.A., University of California — Santa Barbara.
Obviously, Mr. Laine is one of those invisible bureaucrats who create policies for the governors, few of whom ever read them. He was Associate Director of California’s Democratic Congressional Delegation, which includes some of the worst left-wing members of Congress. He’s also in charge of “birth to 3rd grade access,” which the National Education Association strongly favors. Among Mr. Laine’s staff is Albert Wat, whose expertise is Early Childhood Education. His profile states:
Wat provides state policymakers with analyses and information on promising practices and the latest research in early childhood education policy, from birth through third grade. His work focuses on preschool education systems and alignment of early childhood and early elementary practices and policies, including standards, assessments and data systems.
Previous Positions: Research Manager, Senior Research Associate and State Policy Analyst, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pew Center on the States, Pre-K Now.
Education: Master of Arts in Education Policy Studies, The George Washington University; Nonprofit Management Executive Certificate, Georgetown University; Master of Arts in Education, with focus in Social Sciences in Education and Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, with Distinction, Stanford University.
Like so many Washington policy wonks, Mr. Wat has to justify his bureaucratic position by thinking up new ways to create costly education reform that no freedom- loving citizen wants. Note his and Mr. Laine’s interest in “birth to 3rd grade” education, an area traditionally left up to parents. But then the totalitarian mind wants control over everything and everybody.
In other words, the Common Core State Standards have no more legitimacy than the plans of your local village idiot to reform education. They are the thought emanations of those who have nothing better to do. Yet, they will cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars and make American public education more confusing than ever.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/13412-whos-behind-the-common-core-curriculum
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a U.S. education initiative that seeks to bring diverse state curricula into alignment with each other by following the principles of standards-based education reform. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Development
The past twenty years in the U.S. have also been termed the “Accountability Movement,” as states are being held to mandatory tests of student achievement, which are expected to demonstrate a common core of knowledge that all citizens should have to be successful in this country.[1] As part of this overarching education reform movement, the nation’s governors and corporate leaders founded Achieve, Inc. in 1996 as a bi-partisan organization to raise academic standards, graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability in all 50 states.[2] The initial motivation for the development of the Common Core State Standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP).[3]
A report titled, “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts,” from 2004 found that both employers and colleges are demanding more of high school graduates than in the past.[4] According to Achieve, Inc., “current high-school exit expectations fall well short of [employer and college] demands.”[5] The report explains that the major problem currently facing the American school system is that high school graduates were not provided with the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed.[5] “While students and their parents may still believe that the diploma reflects adequate preparation for the intellectual demands of adult life, in reality it falls far short of this common-sense goal.” (page 1). The report continues that the diploma itself lost its value because graduates could not compete successfully beyond high school,[5] and that the solution to this problem is a common set of rigorous standards.
In 2009 the National Governors Association hired David Coleman and Student Achievement to write curriculum standards in the areas of literacy and mathematics instruction. Announced on June 1, 2009,[6] the initiative’s stated purpose is to “provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them.”[7] Additionally, “The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers,” which will place American students in a position in which they can compete in a global economy.[7] Forty-five of the fifty states in the United States are members of the initiative, with the states of Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and Nebraska not adopting the initiative at a state level.[8] Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards.[9]
Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. (See below for current status.) States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform.[10] To be eligible, states had to adopt “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place.”[11] This meant that in order for a state to be eligible for these grants, the states had to adopt the Common Core State Standards or a similar career and college readiness curriculum. The competition for these grants provided a major push for states to adopt the standards.[12] The adoption dates for those states that chose to adopt the Common Core State Standards Initiative are all within the two years following this announcement.[13] The common standards are funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.[14] States are planning to implement this initiative by 2015[15] by basing at least 85% of their state curricula on the Standards.
Standards
In 2010, Standards were released for English language arts and mathematics. Standards have not yet been developed for science or social studies.
English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
The stated goal of the English & Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects standards[16] is to ensure that students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school (page 3). There are five key components to the standards for English and Language Arts: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language, and Media and Technology.[17] The essential components and breakdown of each of these key points within the standards are as follows:
Reading
- As students advance through each grade, there is an increased level of complexity to what students are expected to read and there is also a progressive development of reading comprehension so that students can gain more from what they read.[17]
- There is no reading list to accompany the reading standards. Instead, students are simply expected to read a range of classic and contemporary literature as well as challenging informative texts from an array of subjects. This is so that students can acquire new knowledge, insights, and consider varying perspectives as they read. Teachers, school districts, and states are expected to decide on the appropriate curriculum, but sample texts are included to help teachers, students, and parents prepare for the year ahead.[17]
- There is some critical content for all students — classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare — but the rest is left up to the states and the districts.[17]
Writing
- The driving force of the writing standards is logical arguments based on claims, solid reasoning, and relevant evidence. The writing also includes opinion writing even within the K–5 standards.[17]
- Short, focused research projects, similar to the kind of projects students will face in their careers as well as long-term, in-depth research is another important piece of the writing standards. This is because written analysis and the presentation of significant findings is critical to career and college readiness.[17]
- The standards also include annotated samples of student writing to help determine performance levels in writing arguments, explanatory texts, and narratives across the grades.[17]
Speaking and Listening
- Although reading and writing are the expected components of an ELA curriculum, standards are written so that students gain, evaluate, and present complex information, ideas, and evidence specifically through listening and speaking.[17]
- There is also an emphasis on academic discussion in one-on-one, small-group, and whole-class settings, which can take place as formal presentations as well as informal discussions during student collaboration.[17]
Language
- Vocabulary instruction in the standards takes place through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and reading so that students can determine word meanings and can expand their use of words and phrases.[17]
- The standards expect students to use formal English in their writing and speaking, but also recognize that colleges and 21st century careers will require students to make wise, skilled decisions about how to express themselves through language in a variety of contexts.[17]
- Vocabulary and conventions are their own strand because these skills extend across reading, writing, speaking, and listening.[17]
Media and Technology
- Since media and technology are intertwined with every student’s life and in school in the 21st century, skills related to media use, which includes the analysis and production of various forms of media, are also included in these standards.[17]
Preliminary “example” works to be studied by students include works by Ovid, Atul Gawande, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Turgenev, Poe, Robert Frost, Yeats, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Amy Tan, and Julia Alvarez.[15]
Cursive and keyboarding
The standards do not mandate the teaching of cursive handwriting, although states are free either to add a cursive requirement or to permit individual school districts to require it. The standards include instruction in keyboarding.[18]
Mathematics
The stated goal of the mathematics Standards[19] is to achieve greater focus and coherence in the curriculum (page 3). This is largely in response to the criticism that American mathematics curricula are “a mile wide and an inch deep”.
The mathematics Standards include Standards for Mathematical Practice and Standards for Mathematical Content.
Mathematical practice
The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:
- Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
- Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
- Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
- Model with mathematics.
- Use appropriate tools strategically.
- Attend to precision.
- Look for and make use of structure.
- Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
The practices are adapted from the five process standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of proficiency in the National Research Council’s Adding It Up report.[20] These practices are to be taught in every grade from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Details of how these practices are to be connected to each grade level’s mathematics content are left to local implementation of the Standards.
As an example of mathematical practice, here is the full description of the sixth practice:
6 Attend to precision.
Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions.
Mathematical content
The Standards lay out the mathematics content that should be learned at each grade level from kindergarten to Grade 8 (age 13-14), as well as the mathematics to be learned in high school. The Standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level. Mathematical content is organized in a number of domains. At each grade level there are several standards for each domain, organized into clusters of related standards. (See examples below.)
Four domains are included in each of the grades from kindergarten (age 5-6) to fifth grade (age 10-11):
- Operations and Algebraic Thinking;
- Number and Operations in Base 10;
- Measurement and Data;
- Geometry.
Kindergarten also includes the domain Counting and Cardinality. Grades 3 to 5 also include the domain Number and Operations–Fractions.
Four domains are included in each of the Grades 6 through 8:
- The Number System;
- Expressions and Equations;
- Geometry;
- Statistics and Probability.
Grades 6 and 7 also include the domain Ratios and Proportional Relationships. Grade 8 includes the domain Functions.
In addition to detailed standards (of which there are 21 to 28 for each grade from kindergarten to eighth grade), the Standards present an overview of “critical areas” for each grade. (See examples below.)
In high school (Grades 9 to 12), the Standards do not specify which content is to be taught at each grade level. Up to Grade 8, the curriculum is integrated; students study four or five different mathematical domains every year. The Standards do not dictate whether the curriculum should continue to be integrated in high school with study of several domains each year (as is done in other countries, as well as New York and Georgia), or whether the curriculum should be separated out into separate year-long algebra and geometry courses (as has been the tradition in most U.S. states). An appendix[21] to the Standards describes four possible pathways for covering high school content (two traditional and two integrated), but states are free to organize the content any way they want.
There are six conceptual categories of content to be covered at the high school level:
- Number and quantity;
- Algebra;
- Functions;
- Modeling;
- Geometry;
- Statistics and probability.
Some topics in each category are indicated only for students intending to take more advanced, optional courses such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics. Even if the traditional sequence is adopted, functions and modeling are to be integrated across the curriculum, not taught as separate courses. In fact, modeling is also a Mathematical Practice (see above), and is meant to be integrated across the entire curriculum beginning in kindergarten. The modeling category does not have its own standards; instead, high school standards in other categories which are intended to be considered part of the modeling category are indicated in the Standards with a star symbol.
Each of the six high school categories includes a number of domains. For example, the “number and quantity” category contains four domains: the real number system; quantities; the complex number system; and vector and matrix quantities. The “vector and matrix quantities” domain is reserved for advanced students, as are some of the standards in “the complex number system”.
Examples of mathematical content
Second grade example: In the second grade there are 26 standards in four domains. The four critical areas of focus for second grade are (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes. Below are the second grade standards for the domain of “operations and algebraic thinking” (Domain 2.OA). This second grade domain contains four standards, organized into three clusters:
- Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
- 1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.
- Add and subtract within 20.
- 2. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.
- Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
- 3. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing objects or counting them by 2s; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal addends.
- 4. Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to 5 rows and up to 5 columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.
Domain example: As an example of the development of a domain across several grades, here are the clusters for learning fractions (Domain NF, which stands for “Number and Operations—Fractions”) in Grades 3 through 6. Each cluster contains several standards (not listed here):
- Grade 3:
- Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.
Grade 4:
- Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.
- Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.
- Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.
Grade 5:
- Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
- Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.
In Grade 6, there is no longer a “number and operations—fractions” domain, but students learn to divide fractions by fractions in the number system domain.
High school example: As an example of a high school category, here are the domains and clusters for algebra. There are four algebra domains (in bold below), each of which is broken down into as many as four clusters (bullet points below). Each cluster contains one to five detailed standards (not listed here). Starred standards, such as the Creating Equations domain (A-CED), are also intended to be part of the modeling category.
- Seeing Structure in Expressions (A-SSE)
- Interpret the structure of expressions
- Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve problems
- Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Functions (A-APR)
- Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
- Understand the relationship between zeros and factors of polynomials
- Use polynomial identities to solve problems
- Rewrite rational expressions
- Creating Equations.★ (A-CED)
- Create equations that describe numbers or relationships
- Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI)
- Understand solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain the reasoning
- Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
- Solve systems of equations
- Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically
As an example of detailed high school standards, the first cluster above is broken down into two standards as follows:
- Interpret the structure of expressions
- 1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.★
- a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.
- b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpret P(1+r)n as the product of P and a factor not depending on P.
- 2. Use the structure of an expression to identify ways to rewrite it. For example, see x4 – y4 as (x2)2 – (y2)2, thus recognizing it as a difference of squares that can be factored as (x2 – y2)(x2 + y2).
Different standards, by state
States have individual variations on implementing the standards.
Vermont
- Emphasize basic arithmetic, fractions in elementary school. Focus on memorization instead of reliance on calculators.
- An Algebra I capability is perceived for elementary school graduates; Algebra II for high school graduates.
- Improve difficulty level of books being read. Less emphasis on how students “feel” about a book and more on analyzing content.
- Testing by computer is planned with results available almost “instantly.”[15]
Criticism
Critics question forcing a rigid template on schools already coping with other initiatives like No Child Left Behind. For some states, this will be the third (or more) major change over the past 16 years.[15]
Some critics also question whether there is a demand for creating state standards to begin with. According to the NGA and the CCSSO one motivating factor is the U.S.’s ranking on international test results; however, there does not seem to be a relationship between the US’s low score on these tests and the US’s economic ranking.[22] The United States has ranked 1st or 2nd on the World Economic Forum since 1998 despite scoring near the bottom on the International Mathematics and Science Studies for the past 50 years.[22]
In June 2011, the Voice of America Special English reported on the common core standards on its weekly Education Report for people learning American English. Some commentators criticized the idea that “one size fits all.”[23][24]
In a Huffington Post piece, “Do We Need a Common Core?”, Nicholas Tampio raised two objections to the Common Core. First, he suggests the importance of “America’s historical commitment to local control over school districts,” and the second is his anecdotal discussion of the Common Core claims that the program provide appropriate benchmarks to all students everywhere. He recounts the changes in his son’s kindergarten as the teacher began spending more time teaching from the Common Core curriculum, and says an “inspired kindergarten curriculum has been replaced with a banal one.”
Adoption of Common Core Standards by states
The chart below contains the adoption status of the Common Core Standards as of January 15, 2013.[25] Texas and Alaska are the only states that are not members of the initiative. Nebraska and Virginia are members but have decided not to adopt the standards. Minnesota rejected the Common Core Standards for mathematics, but accepted the English/Language Arts standards.[9] The District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the American Samoa Islands have also adopted the standards. Puerto Rico has not adopted the standards.
| State | Adoption stance |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Formally adopted; repeal legislation introduced in upper and lower houses, February, 2013[26] |
| Alaska | Non-member |
| Arizona | Formally adopted |
| Arkansas | Formally adopted |
| California | Formally adopted |
| Colorado | Formally adopted |
| Connecticut | Formally adopted |
| Delaware | Formally adopted |
| District of Columbia | Formally adopted |
| Florida | Formally adopted |
| Georgia | Formally adopted |
| Hawaii | Formally adopted |
| Idaho | Formally adopted |
| Illinois | Formally adopted |
| Indiana | Formally adopted; repealed in State Senate on February 21, 2013 |
| Iowa | Formally adopted |
| Kansas | Formally adopted |
| Kentucky | Formally adopted |
| Louisiana | Formally adopted |
| Maine | Formally adopted |
| Maryland | Formally endorsed |
| Massachusetts | Formally adopted |
| Michigan | Formally adopted |
| Minnesota | Adopted (English standards only, math standards rejected) |
| Mississippi | Formally adopted |
| Missouri | Formally adopted |
| Montana | Formally adopted |
| Nebraska | Initiative member (will not adopt)[27] |
| Nevada | Formally adopted |
| New Hampshire | Formally adopted |
| New Jersey | Formally adopted |
| New Mexico | Formally adopted |
| New York | Formally adopted |
| North Carolina | Formally adopted |
| North Dakota | Formally adopted |
| Ohio | Formally adopted |
| Oklahoma | Formally adopted |
| Oregon | Formally adopted |
| Pennsylvania | Formally adopted |
| Rhode Island | Formally adopted |
| South Carolina | Formally adopted |
| South Dakota | Formally adopted |
| Tennessee | Formally adopted |
| Texas | Non-member |
| Utah | Formally adopted |
| Vermont | Formally adopted |
| Virginia | Initiative member (will not adopt)[28] |
| Washington | Formally adopted |
| West Virginia | Formally adopted |
| Wisconsin | Formally adopted |
| Wyoming | Formally adopted |
Assessment
With the implementation of new standards, states are also required to adopt new assessment benchmarks to measure student achievement. According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014–2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states.[13] The assessment has yet to be created, but two consortiums were generated with two different approaches as to how to assess the standards.[29] “26 states formed the PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium. Their approach focused on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade combined with streamlined end of year tests, including performance tasks.”[30] The second consortium, “the SMARTER Balance Consortium, brought together 31 states proposing to create adaptive online exams.”[30] The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies. The Common Core State Standards website explained that some states plan to work together to create a common, universal assessment system based on the common core state standards while other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment.[31] Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, which moves away from what we typically think of as the Standardized Test most students are currently taking. This kind of assessment would be better aligned to college and career readiness, but does pose some interesting challenges considering the limited computer and technology resources available to some schools.
References
- ^ Gibbs, T. H. and Howley, A. (2000). “”World-Class Standards” and Local Pedagogies: Can We Do Both?” Thresholds in Education. ERIC Publications. 51 – 55.
- ^ “About Achieve.” (2011) Achieve, Inc. http://www.achieve.org/about-achieve
- ^ “Closing the Expectations Gap 2011: Sixth Annual 50-State Progress Report.” (2011). Achieve, Inc. <http://www.achieve.org/ClosingtheExpectationsGap2011>
- ^ “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts.” (2004) Achieve, Inc. <http://www.achieve.org/ReadyorNot>
- ^ a b c “Ready or Not”
- ^ NGA Press Release announcing the Common State Standards Initiative
- ^ a b http://www.corestandards.org
- ^ http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states States adopting the Core Standards
- ^ a b http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/12/daily-circuit-minnesota-adopting-common-core
- ^ Department of Education. President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announce National Competition to Advance School Reform. Ed.gov. 24 July 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/07/07242009.html>
- ^ “U.S Department of Education”
- ^ Fletcher, G. H. (2010). “Race to the Top: No District Left Behind.” T. H. E Journal 37 (10): 17 – 18.
- ^ a b http://www.corestandards.org
- ^ Anderson, Nick (March 10, 2010). “Common set of school standards to be proposed”. Washington Post. p. A1.
- ^ a b c d Walsh, Molly (14 September 2010). “Vermont joins 30 otherws in Common Core”. Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Free Press. pp. 1B.
- ^ http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m “Key Points in English Language Arts. (2011). <http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-english-language-arts>
- ^ ”Hawaii No Longer Requires Teaching Cursive In Schools”. Huffpost Education. 1 August 2011.
- ^ mathematics Standards
- ^ Garfunkel, S. A. (2010). “The National Standards Train: You Need to Buy Your Ticket.” UMAP J 31 (4): 277 – 280.
- ^ appendix
- ^ a b Tienken, C. H. (2010). “Common Core State Standards: I Wonder?” Kappa Delta Pi Rec 47 (1): 14 – 17.
- ^ Transcript and MP3 of part one:Should All US Students Learn the Same Thing?
- ^ Part two: No National Standards: Strength or Weakness for Schools in US?
- ^ In the States (Common Core Standards Initiative website)
- ^ “Legislation would block Alabama from implementing national curriculum standards (updated)” Alabama Media Group, http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/02/legislation_would_block_alabam.html
- ^ “Nebraska one of few states not adopting standards”. The Grand Island Independent. 2013-01-05.
- ^ “Virginia’s stance against national standards is a blow for students”. The Washington Post. 2010-06-05.
- ^ “Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions.” Education Insider. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/research/education-insider- common-core-standards-and-assessment-coalitions>
- ^ a b “Common Core State Standards and Assessment Coalitions”
- ^ “Common Core State Standards: In the States”
External links
- Parent Help For Common Core
- Common Core Sample Test Questions
- Common Core State Standards Initiative
- National Governors Association
- Council of Chief State School Officers
- Common Core Standards
- CoreStand
- Common Core Unpacked News & Wiki
- Should All US Students Learn the Same Thing?
- No National Standards: Strength or Weakness for Schools in US?
- To view specific dates of adoption and projected implementation years for each state visit this Google Map of the Common Core State Standards Initiative and click on each state’s place holder. (Note that whereas the Google Map claims Montana has not yet adopted the Standards, the official Common Core website claims Montana accepted the Standards on November 4, 2011.)
- Map of Common Core Resources in Each State[dead link]
For resources to use in the classroom visit http://www.commoncoreconversation.com/
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Big Brother Bill Gates Funds k-12 Tracking of Students With InBloom Database — Invasion of Privacy — Opt Out — Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )John Lott — At The Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over The Edge? — Videos
Glenn Beck w/ John Lott author of “At The Brink” Book Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?
John Lott: Obama is the Most Radical President in American History
John Lott, At The Brink, Obama: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” Page 126
Book TV: John Lott,”At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?”
John Lott will discuss his book At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge
John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime
2012 NH Liberty Forum: John Lott Destroys Gun Control
Mark Levin-On Gun Control with Author John Lott
News Behind the News: John Lott on America’s Gun Laws
Guns & Crime with John R. Lott
John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”
David Stockman — The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America — Videos
Stockman: Washington can’t be rescued
Fed Is Deadly ‘Instrument of Speculation’: Stockman
Stockman, Orszag in budget battle royale
David Stockman: We’ve Been Lied To, Robbed, And Mislead
The David Stockman Controversy: Which Points Are Valid?
How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market | David Stockman
David Stockman Says The US Economy Has No Free-Market Element To It, Everything’s Manipulated
David Stockman on Outlook for US Economy, Deficit Reduction, & Wages
This Is Housing Bubble 2.0: David Stockman
David Stockman: You’re Now In The “Bernanke Bear Trap”
David Stockman on Crony Capitalism – Bill Moyers & Company
Stockman: Fed Has Declared Itself “Politburo of the U.S. Economy” 09-14-12
David Stockman told CNBC – FED is the problem – Ron Paul was Right!
In the Arena : CNN: David Stockman: Heretic or truth-teller?
David Stockman – Conversations with Casey
David Stockman on Federal Reserve Arrogance and Monetary Mission Creep!
2012-07-16 Bloomberg TV. Stockman: We’re Heading Toward Recession, Paralysis Video
The Forgotten Cause of Sound Money | David Stockman
DAVID STOCKMAN: We’ve Been Lied To, Robbed, And Misled
hen, when the Fed’s fire hoses started spraying an elephant soup of liquidity injections in every direction and its balance sheet grew by $1.3 trillion in just thirteen weeks compared to $850 billion during its first ninety-four years, I became convinced that the Fed was flying by the seat of its pants, making it up as it went along. It was evident that its aim was to stop the hissy fit on Wall Street and that the thread of a Great Depression 2.0 was just a cover story for a panicked spree of money printing that exceeded any other episode in recorded human history.
David Stockman, The Great Deformation
David Stockman, former director of the OMB under President Reagan, former US Representative, and veteran financier is an insider’s insider. Few people understand the ways in which both Washington DC and Wall Street work and intersect better than he does.
In his upcoming book, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America [37], Stockman lays out how we have devolved from a free market economy into a managed one that operates for the benefit of a privileged few. And when trouble arises, these few are bailed out at the expense of the public good.
By manipulating the price of money through sustained and historically low interest rates, Greenspan and Bernanke created an era of asset mis-pricing that inevitably would need to correct. And when market forces attempted to do so in 2008, Paulson et al hoodwinked the world into believing the repercussions would be so calamitous for all that the institutions responsible for the bad actions that instigated the problem needed to be rescued — in full — at all costs.
Of course, history shows that our markets and economy would have been better off had the system been allowed to correct. Most of the “too big to fail” institutions would have survived or been broken into smaller, more resilient, entities. For those that would have failed, smaller, more responsible banks would have stepped up to replace them – as happens as part of the natural course of a free market system:
Essentially there was a cleansing run on the wholesale funding market in the canyons of Wall Street going on. It would have worked its will, just like JP Morgan allowed it to happen in 1907 when we did not have the Fed getting in the way. Because they stopped it in its tracks after the AIG bailout and then all the alphabet soup of different lines that the Fed threw out, and then the enactment of TARP, the last two investment banks standing were rescued, Goldman and Morgan [Stanley], and they should not have been. As a result of being rescued and having the cleansing liquidation of rotten balance sheets stopped, within a few weeks and certainly months they were back to the same old games, such that Goldman Sachs got $10 billion dollars for the fiscal year that started three months later after that check went out, which was October 2008. For the fiscal 2009 year, Goldman Sachs generated what I call a $29 billion surplus – $13 billion of net income after tax, and on top of that $16 billion of salaries and bonuses, 95% of it which was bonuses.
Therefore, the idea that they were on death’s door does not stack up. Even if they had been, it would not make any difference to the health of the financial system. These firms are supposed to come and go, and if people make really bad bets, if they have a trillion dollar balance sheet with six, seven, eight hundred billion dollars worth of hot-money short-term funding, then they ought to take their just reward, because it would create lessons, it would create discipline. So all the new firms that would have been formed out of the remnants of Goldman Sachs where everybody lost their stock values – which for most of these partners is tens of millions, hundreds of millions – when they formed a new firm, I doubt whether they would have gone back to the old game. What happened was the Fed stopped everything in its tracks, kept Goldman Sachs intact, the reckless Goldman Sachs and the reckless Morgan Stanley, everyone quickly recovered their stock value and the game continues. This is one of the evils that comes from this kind of deep intervention in the capital and money markets.
Stockman’s anger at the unnecessary and unfair capital transfer from taxpayer to TBTF bank is matched only by his concern that, even with those bailouts, the banking system is still unacceptably vulnerable to a repeat of the same crime:
The banks quickly worked out their solvency issues because the Fed basically took it out of the hides of Main Street savers and depositors throughout America. When the Fed panicked, it basically destroyed the free-market interest rate – you cannot have capitalism, you cannot have healthy financial markets without an interest rate, which is the price of money, the price of capital that can freely measure and reflect risk and true economic prospects.
Well, once you basically unplug the pricing mechanism of a capital market and make it entirely an administered rate by the Fed, you are going to cause all kinds of deformations as I call them, or mal-investments as some of the Austrians used to call them, that basically pollutes and corrupts the system. Look at the deposit rate right now, it is 50 basis points, maybe 40, for six months. As a result of that, probably $400-500 billion a year is being transferred as a fiscal maneuver by the Fed from savers to the banks. They are collecting the spread, they’ve then booked the profits, they’ve rebuilt their book net worth, and they paid back the TARP basically out of what was thieved from the savers of America.
Now they go down and pound the table and whine and pout like JP Morgan and the rest of them, you have to let us do stock buy backs, you have to let us pay out dividends so we can ramp our stock and collect our stock option winnings. It is outrageous that the authorities, after the so-called “near death experience” of 2008 and this massive fiscal safety net and monetary safety net was put out there, is allowing them to pay dividends and to go into the market and buy back their stock. They should be under house arrest in a sense that every dime they are making from this artificial yield group being delivered by the Fed out of the hides of savers should be put on their balance sheet to build up retained earnings, to build up a cushion. I do not care whether it is fifteen or twenty or twenty-five percent common equity and retained earnings-to-assets or not, that is what we should be doing if we are going to protect the system from another raid by these people the next time we get a meltdown, which can happen at any time.
You can see why I talk about corruption, why crony capitalism is so bad. I mean, the Basel capital standards, they are a joke. We are just allowing the banks to go back into the same old game they were playing before. Everybody said the banks in late 2007 were the greatest thing since sliced bread. The market cap of the ten largest banks in America, including from Bear Stearns all the way to Citibank and JP Morgan and Goldman and so forth, was $1.25 trillion. That was up thirty times from where the predecessors of those institutions had been. Only in 1987, when Greenspan took over and began the era of bubble finance – slowly at first then rapidly, eventually, to have the market cap grow thirty times – and then on the eve of the great meltdown see the $1.25 trillion to market cap disappear, vanish, vaporize in panic in September 2008. Only a few months later, $1 trillion of that market cap disappeared in to the abyss and panic, and Bear Stearns is going down, and all the rest.
This tells you the system is dramatically unstable. In a healthy financial system and a free capital market, if I can put it that way, you are not going to have stuff going from nowhere to @1.2 trillion and then back to a trillion practically at the drop of a hat. That is instability; that is a case of a medicated market that is essentially very dangerous and is one of the many adverse consequences and deformations that result from the central-bank dominated, corrupt monetary system that has slowly built up ever since Nixon closed the gold window, but really as I say in my book, going back to 1933 in April when Roosevelt took all the private gold. So we are in a big dead-end trap, and they are digging deeper every time you get a new maneuver.
Reagan Adviser Stockman Warns of Crash From ‘Unsustainable’ Fed-Fueled Bubble
The U.S. economy is in a bubble inflated by “phony money” from the Federal Reserve and will burst within a few years, warned David Stockman, who was budget director for President Ronald Reagan.
In an essay published in the New York Times, Stockman wrote that the Fed’s quantitative easing policies in the aftermath of the credit crisis have flooded stock markets with cash even while the “Main Street economy” remains weak. The combination, he wrote, is “unsustainable.”
“When it bursts, there will be no new round of bailouts like the ones the banks got in 2008,” wrote Stockman, a former senior managing director at Blackstone Group LP and a former Republican congressman from Michigan.
“Instead, America will descend into an era of zero-sum austerity and virulent political conflict, extinguishing even today’s feeble remnants of economic growth.”
Stockman, 66, is the author of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America,” which will be published April 2.
The Fed, led by Ben S. Bernanke, is purchasing $85 billion in assets every month. The Fed is leaving its key interest rate near zero while it tries to reduce unemployment below 6.5 percent and hold inflation below 2.5 percent.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose to an all-time high last week, closing at 1,569.19 on March 28. That surpassed the previous record of 1,565.15 set in October 2007. U.S. stock markets were closed March 29 for the Good Friday holiday.
Gold Standard
Among the other culprits Stockman blamed for what he termed a “state-wreck” are President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for weakening the gold standard in 1933, President Richard Nixon for removing the convertibility of dollars to gold and “lapsed hero” Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman, for keeping interest rates too low for too long.
Investors will sell, Stockman wrote, at any hint that the Fed is starting to remove assets from its balance sheet.
“Notwithstanding Bernanke’s assurances about eventually, gradually making a smooth exit, the Fed is domiciled in a monetary prison of its own making,” he wrote, warning of unsustainable fiscal policies as well. “These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it can’t happen.”
Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist, responded on his blog yesterday, saying that he was “disappointed” in Stockman’s “gee-whiz, context- and model-free numbers embedded in a rant — and not even an interesting rant.”
Krugman called Stockman’s piece “cranky old man stuff,” and summarized it this way:
“We’ve been doomed, yes doomed, ever since FDR took us off the gold standard and introduced unemployment insurance. What about those 80 years of non-doom? Just a series of lucky accidents. Now we’re really doomed. I mean it!”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/reagan-stockman-fed-disaster/2013/04/01/id/497179?s=al&promo_code=12FD5-1#ixzz2PGkRF765
Department of Homeland Security Mobilizes For War Against American People? — Buys 2,717 Mine Resistent Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles and 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammunition — Videos
Obama Civilian Security
Department Of Homeland Security Set To Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition
Is Obama Looking to Create a Civilian National Security Force?
Militarization of Police: Peace Officers to Storm Troopers | Big Brother Watch
Pentagon provides military grade weapons to local police
‘A militarization of US police’
DHS Doles Out Fed Cash to Deploy Military LRADs in U.S. Cities
DHS Gets Mine Resistant Tanks to Go with Billions of Bullets
DHS-HSI Homeland Security Investigations El Paso SRT MRAP Armored Vehicle
SRT (Special Response Team) on WGN TV
BREAKING: DHS 2013 Buys Armored Vehicles & Tanks ..2700 of them
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY buys 2700 armored vehicles? Some say it’s a USMC contract. DHS buys BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition in the last 8yrs?. D.H.S. buying U.S. Military vehicles and equipment for use on Americans; there is no other excuse. D.H.S. is not for defense of America, we the people, and/or Constitution ..that is what the Armed Forces are supposed to be for. Billions of rounds of ammunition and all that military equipment is staged across America in about every neighborhood. NORTHCOM has stated that part of it’s mission is to prepare for “Martial Law” ..and has staged equipment from tanks to riot gear throughout America; according to the Commander of NORTHCOM that is being replaced shortly.
America : DHS purchasing Drones, Tanks, Rifles and Ammo for War inside the U.S.
2700 Armored Vehicles Purchased for Police Departments by DHS
Michael Savage – Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks
Forbes: Time For A National Conversation On DHS Massive Ammo Buy
Fox News Confirms Alex Jones DHS Ammo Purchases Story
NJ Congressman: DHS must explain ammunition and armored vehicle purchases
Homeland Security Buys 1.6 BILLION Rounds of Ammunition…
DHS Refuses to Answer Congress on 1.6 Billion Bullet Purchase
Levin Wants Answers On DHS Ammo Purchase But Not Obama Identity Document Fraud
War on US Citizens Planned – Part 1 of 2
War on US Citizens Planned – Part 2 of 2
Homeland Security buys 450 Million Rounds of Ammo
Breaking News USA police department Surveillance Drones Spying on civilians end times news 3-24-13
DHS Preparing For Civil War In The US?
Background Articles and Videos
Once again DHS orders hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo
Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program (Part 1 of 2)
Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program (Part 2 of 2)
DHS Won’t Answer Congress On Billion Bullet Purchase
Bullet Buys: Fifteen members of Congress have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition. We’d like to know too.
Freshman California Republican Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues, who signed on to his March 5 letter, are asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain why it is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition of various calibers. They aren’t happy with explanations provided so far in the press by lower-level officials, answers meant to debunk “unfounded” concerns.
As we have noted, DHS has been buying lots of ammo, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraqi War.
Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga., told the Associated Press that the training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.
The massive purchases are said to be spread out over five years and due simply to the best practice of saving money by buying in bulk what comes down to five rounds of ammo for every man, woman and child on the U.S. That’s a lot of practice and training.
A good portion of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition are being purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second-largest criminal investigative agency. Yes that’s the same ICE that is releasing detained criminal illegal aliens onto our streets because of sequestration cuts.
Jonathan Lasher, the Social Security Administration’s assistant inspector general for external relations, explained the purchase of 174,000 hollow-point bullets by saying they were for the Social Security inspector general’s office, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.
When they say they’re cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse, they apparently mean it.
However, as former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania recently, hollow-point bullets (which make up the majority of the DHS purchases) are not used for training because they are more expensive than standard firing range rounds .
“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire 4-1/2 years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.
LaMalfa offers one theory that’s less sinister than some: The federal government is simply trying to corner the market on ammo and restrict what’s available to the American people as part of its gun control efforts.
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation
Ralph Benko, Contributor
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:
[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”
These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”
Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”
…
“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?
Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”
Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?
Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.
Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)
Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”
At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century. To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.
Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.
Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,
“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’
I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’
’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.
I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.
He simply grimaced and turned away. …
Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”
Mr. Obama? Where’s the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”
- The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
- It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
- It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
- It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.
If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means. Discuss.
Responses to Senator Coburn’s November 13, 2012 Letter
DHS Explains Plans To Buy 1.6B Rounds Of Ammo: We’re Buying in Bulk to ‘Significantly Lower Costs’
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded to a letter dated November 13, 2012 from Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) regarding the agency’s ammunition purchases.
Sen. Coburn published the response on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs website yesterday, April 1, 2013.
The response, dated February 4, 2013, says that DHS buys ammunition in bulk to “significantly lower costs.”
The letter states:
“DHS routinely establishes strategic sourcing contracts that combine the requirements of all its Components for commonly purchased goods and services such as ammunition, computer equipment and information technology services. These strategic sourcing contracts help leverage the purchasing power of DHS to efficiently procure equipment and supplies at significantly lower costs.”
While it has been previously reported that DHS has solicited the purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the next four to five years, the government agency shows only 263,733,362 rounds in its current inventory.
But, DHS estimates it will spend $37,263,698 on ammunition in FY 2013.
Last year, DHS spent $36,535,910, a decrease from 2011′s ammunition expense of $38,237,305.
Also, over the last three years the number of rounds purchased by DHS has declined.
In 2010, the agency purchased 148,314,825 rounds. In 2011, 108,664,054 rounds were purchased; and in 2012, 103,178,200 rounds.
In response to how the ammunition will be used by DHS, the various component agencies answered specific to their usage:
- CBP (Customs & Border Protection) said that “70 percent of CBP ammunition is used for quarterly qualifications.”
- ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) says it “allocates 1,000 rounds of ammunition per firearm per year for quarterly qualifications and training.”
- TSA (Transportation Security Administration) says “35 percent of TSA ammunition is allocated for operational use (qualifications and duty carry).”
For Full DHS Response, Click Here.
No Change, No Hope, No White House Tours — Videos
House Committee Video Highlighting the White House’s Political Gamesmanship
White House Tours Come to an End
White House suspends public tours, but first family trips in full swing.
Budget Cuts Shut Down White House Tours
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Petulant President With Narcissist Personality Disorder Closes White House Tours — Olympus (White House) Has Fallen — Narcissist Controls White House — Americans Do Not Negotiate With Narcissists — Obama Is No Lincoln — The Great Pretender — Videos
Saving The American Dream — Heritage Foundation — Videos
How to Simplify Taxes and Grow our Economy — Saving the American Dream
Further Reforms to Modernize Social Security — Saving the American Dream
Real Insurance: Security When You Most Need It — Saving the American Dream
Opening up Health Care Options for All Americans — Saving the American Dream
Limiting Government …and Cutting What It Can’t Do Well — Saving the American Dream
Saving the American Dream: The Fiscal Cliff and Beyond
By Alison Acosta Fraser, William W. Beach and Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. December 11, 2012
Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.
Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.
As a result, the nation is facing the looming sequester, which will further undermine the defense budget, jeopardizing one of the federal government’s core constitutional responsibilities. Yet it would leave entitlement programs virtually untouched, even though they are the largest driver of spending today and in the future. Meanwhile, the prospect of a huge tax increase in January has had a deleterious effect on the economy for many months, although the effect is only a small portion of the harm the economy will incur if the tax increase ultimately takes effect. America seriously needs a true way forward.
The Heritage plan reflects the need to rein in spending immediately and to rethink major programs. Spending on the open-ended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlements must be brought under control, and the core foundations of these programs should be strengthened.
The following principles guide the policy solutions in Saving the American Dream:
- Total spending must be brought under control to balance the budget without raising taxes, ultimately holding revenues at their historical share of gross domestic product (GDP).
- Entitlement programs should, unlike today, actually guarantee seniors economic security in retirement and be recast as real and sustainable insurance programs focused on those who truly need them.
- Other spending must be curbed, and the federal government must be restricted to its proper functions.
- Defense, as a core constitutional function of the federal government, should be fully funded and efficiently delivered.
- The tax system should be structurally reformed to foster growth by eliminating tax distortions of private economic decisions, especially decisions on savings and investment, and to make the system simpler and more transparent.
Priorities for Congress and the President
Fiscal year (FY) 2012 closed on September 30 with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating spending of $3.5 trillion and a deficit of $1.1 trillion.[2] Debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion (73 percent of GDP). According to the CBO, debt will explode to 199 percent of GDP by 2037, driven by growth in spending that will reach 36 percent of GDP.[3]
The main drivers of spending and debt increases are incontrovertibly the major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, the slow economy with its high unemployment rate, which remains stuck at around 8 percent, also adds to deficits and debt through two channels: mandatory spending for those workers who are most affected by the slow economy (e.g., unemployment compensation) and below-average tax revenues.
It is clear that the top priorities for Congress and the President should be controlling spending, especially entitlement reform, and setting an economic growth agenda through tax reform. After averting the fiscal cliff, Congress and the President should immediately turn their attention to these pressing issues.
As noted, entitlements are the fastest-growing programs. Even if all other spending was eliminated, these programs would still cause large and unsustainable deficits in the future. Their growth is automatic, with autopilot spending increases built in and no serious budgetary constraints. The top priority must be to restructure entitlements and put a brake on their spending levels while strengthening and preserving them for future generations.
A number of robust proposals for health care reforms already exist, both in Congress and in the policy community.[4] Congress and the President should take advantage of this policy momentum and focus on reforming Medicaid and especially Medicare. However, changes in Social Security should follow quickly, and the rules that govern these programs in general should be more consistent. For example, increases in the normal eligibility age should proceed simultaneously for both Social Security and Medicare.
Specific steps for Congress and the President include the following:
- The President should submit a budget by the 2013 tax deadline deadline that outlines strong, sweeping changes in entitlement programs that will reduce spending over the 10-year budget window and significantly improve the long-term trajectory of these programs.
- The President’s budget should lay out specific goals for a pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform plan.
- Congress and the President should include reforms in entitlement programs and further reductions in other spending areas, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), in exchange for any increases in the debt limit. These should reflect lessons learned from the 2011 Budget Control Act, such as avoiding high-stakes mechanisms like sequestration that are designed to fail.
- Congress should pass a joint budget resolution by the April 15, 2013, deadline that includes reconciliation instructions for entitlement and tax reform.
- The budget resolution should also require reforms of other spending programs to bring spending below the BCA levels for 2014 and beyond.
Health Care
If only one issue is thoroughly addressed in 2013, it should be the federal role in health care, the biggest driver of spending. The flawed Obamacare law only adds to the problem. Instead of expanding the government’s role, health care should follow a true patient-centered, market-based model, including reforms in Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax treatment of health insurance.
Medicare. Medicare’s finances must be brought under control. As a first step, the age of eligibility should be raised gradually from 65 to 68 and then indexed to life expectancy. Premiums for Parts B and D should also gradually increase, thus expanding the current policy for Medicare of adjusting the level of taxpayer subsidies to income, with the most affluent seniors receiving much smaller (or in some cases no) taxpayer subsidies for their health coverage. These steps, among others,[5] should occur immediately because they are easily achieved and less controversial and should be part of new debt-limit legislation.
Within five years of these initial changes, patients should also be transitioned to a defined-contribution or premium-support model that would be adjusted for income. Expanding competition in Medicare would restrain federal spending, slow health care costs, and promote greater innovation in the delivery of care.[6]
Medicaid. Federal spending on Medicaid should be put on a budget subject to regular congressional review to bring greater fiscal certainty and stability to the process. Federal Medicaid spending would follow antipoverty spending caps by reverting to the 2007 spending levels when the economy approaches full employment (e.g., the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent) and be adjusted for medical inflation thereafter.
In lieu of traditional Medicaid, able-bodied individuals and families should receive direct federal assistance in the form of tax credits or direct assistance to enable them to buy private insurance coverage of their choice. For the disabled and frail elderly, Medicaid would remain a joint federal–state safety net program, but states would have additional flexibility to adopt more patient-centered models.
Reform of the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. As a part of tax reform (see below), the employee tax break for employer-sponsored coverage would be converted to a non-refundable tax credit that individuals and families could use to purchase the health plan of their choice.
These larger reforms are best achieved through normal legislative order. This could include the legitimate use of reconciliation as part of a comprehensive budget plan. In any case, Congress should pass a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2014.
Social Security
Social Security needs to be reformed. It is running permanent cash-flow deficits and has severe programmatic flaws.[7]
First, Social Security’s eligibility age should gradually be increased in tandem with Medicare’s eligibility age. For both, this change is straightforward and could be included in an initial, small reform package. Next, Social Security should return to its original purpose of guaranteeing that all Americans are protected from poverty in retirement. As part of this insurance protection, benefits would evolve to an understandable, predictable flat benefit that is well above the poverty level. With Social Security functioning as an insurance program, moderate-income retirees would receive a smaller check, while affluent seniors would receive no check unless their financial circumstances change.
To encourage people to stay in the workforce longer, those who work beyond full retirement age would receive a higher level of after-tax income until they do retire.
Tax reform would support Social Security reforms by significantly increasing personal savings that seniors can take into retirement, and there would be no limit on the amount of these tax-deferred savings. Thus, more retirement income would be possible than under the current system. Social Security would become a safety valve against economic reversals and a floor for income after the statutory retirement age.
Other Spending
Defense cuts are already reducing military readiness, thus endangering the security of the United States. The defense portion of the BCA cuts is dangerously flawed and must be reversed. In Saving the American Dream, the sequester for defense spending (including the 2013 cuts) is eliminated, and the higher spending is more than offset with reforms in other spending and entitlements. Defense spending is brought slowly up to and held at 4 percent of GDP. Non-defense discretionary spending is set for 2013 at the BCA sequester level and then reduced to 2 percent of GDP, after which it is indexed to inflation.
Spending in 2014 and beyond should include reforms in long-standing but growing and expensive programs such as farm subsidies and transportation. A program of privatization, including federal asset sales, could begin as early as 2015. Anti-poverty spending should be rolled back and capped when the economy approaches full employment and then consolidated into fewer programs that reflect strong incentives for work and marriage.
Revenue
Tax Reform. The economy remains plagued by the uncertainty of expiring tax policy and an unwieldy and inefficient tax code. Beyond preventing Taxmageddon by extending all current tax policy and delaying the Obamacare tax increases before January 1, 2013, Congress should pass broad substantive tax reform consistent with the New Flat Tax in Saving the American Dream. Tax reform should focus on promoting economic growth by reducing both tax rates and tax distortions while maintaining revenue and distributional neutrality. It should also simplify the tax system and improve its transparency so that taxpayers can better understand the influence of tax policy as well as the true cost of government.[8]
The broad direction for tax reform already in play, especially the bipartisan push for lower corporate income tax rates, is fully consistent with the New Flat Tax. Congress will likely find the goal of lower corporate tax rates quickly running up against the consequent need to lower tax rates for non-corporate businesses. This occurs naturally under the New Flat Tax, which taxes all businesses at a single rate on their domestic net cash flow at the entity level. Likewise, the growing support for a territorial tax system—under which U.S. businesses are taxed solely on their domestic income—is also fully consistent with the New Flat Tax, which levies tax solely on domestic income.
Under the New Flat Tax, the individual income tax and the payroll tax are rolled into one system with the same tax rate that is imposed on business income. Nearly all other federal levies are repealed, leaving a simple system for both individuals and businesses. Under the New Flat Tax as it applies to individuals, only income used for consumption is taxed, thus eliminating the existing tax bias against saving. In addition, all distorting credits, exemptions, and deductions are eliminated, leaving only two credits and three deductions.
The first credit is the above-mentioned tax credit for health insurance. This tax credit is less distortive of economic decisions than current law is, but it remains a clear subsidy for the purchase of health insurance. It is necessary because the current-law tax bias favoring health insurance is so powerful and so entrenched that simply eliminating the tax advantage is impracticable.
The second credit carried over from current law is the earned income credit (EIC). The EIC needs reform in its own right, but it is also the largest income-support component of the overall federal anti-poverty program and one of its most effective elements. Changes in the EIC should then be considered part of the proposed budget for anti-poverty programs.
The three deductions are as follows:
- The deduction for charitable expense, which is retained because this tax system taxes the individual on what he or she spends. Charitable contributions benefit the receiving organization and thus should be deductible for the recipient.
- A deduction for higher education, which recognizes that education expenses are a form of saving and investing simultaneously, which in every other instance is excluded from tax under the New Flat Tax.
- An optional home mortgage deduction with the proviso that if the homeowner chooses a mortgage with deductible interest, then the lender must, as under current law, continue to pay tax on interest income earned. Alternatively, the home owner may choose to forgo the deduction, in which case the lender earns tax-free interest income and can thus charge a lower mortgage interest rate.
The New Flat Tax, the tax reform plan, is implemented effective January 1, 2014.
Addressing the Fiscal Cliff
Table 1 addresses each element of the fiscal cliff and the proposed steps that Congress should take on each of them.
—Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis and Lazof Family Fellow in Economics, and Stuart M. Butler, PhD, is Director of the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation.
The editors are grateful to the team leaders who worked with policy experts throughout The Heritage Foundation to develop this report: J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy; Rea S. Hederman, Jr., Assistant Director and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis; David C. John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; Nina Owcharenko, Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies; and Drew Gonshorowski, Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis.
This plan was developed as part of the Solutions Initiative and funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peterson Foundation convened organizations with a variety of perspectives to develop plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The American Action Forum, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, each received grants. All organizations had discretion and independence to develop their own goals and propose comprehensive solutions. The Peterson Foundation’s involvement with this project does not represent endorsement of any plan.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )CPAC 2013 — Conservative Political Action Conference — March 14th -16th — Videos
Rush Limbaugh Details Pat Caddell’s Hammering GOP Consultant Class at CPAC
CPAC 2013 Promotional Video
March 14, 2013: The Day In 100 Seconds
cpac 2013 View from the main stage
Birds eye view CPAC 2013 from upstairs
Revolutionary CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013: Stop the Statists
Shooting Guns At CPAC
Voices of CPAC Why Stand with Rand T-Shirts
CPAC 2013 – The Guardian asks youngsters why they’re here, and what they want to hear
CPAC 2013 – The Guardian asks women if there are enough women at CPAC
Ken Cuccinelli Opens CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013 Invocation
CPAC 2013 – Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
Governors
CPAC 2013 – Former Governor Mitt Romney (Intro by Gov. Nikki Haley)
CPAC 2013 – Governor Rick Perry
CPAC 2013 – Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
CPAC 2013 – Governor Scott Walker (R-WI)
Jebby Bush Speech At CPAC 2013
Senators
CPAC 2013 – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul’s CPAC 2013 Speech – 3/14/2013
Pat Toomey’s Full Speech at CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013 – US Senator Tim Scott
CPAC 2013 – US Senator Mike Lee
CPAC 2013 – Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
CPAC 2013 – U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
CPAC 2013 – Rick Santorum
Guest Speakers
CPAC 2013 – President Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Club (feat. Dr. Ben Carson and Eric Metaxas)
CPAC 2013 – Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA)
CPAC 2013 – Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton
CPAC 2013 – ACU National Director Gregg Keller
CPAC 2013 – Mario Lopez
CPAC 2013 – ACU Chairman Al Cardenas
CPAC 2013 – ACU Award for Conservative Philanthropy dedicated to Foster Friess
Panels
CPAC 2013 – Grover Norquist Moderates Balanced Budget Amendment Panel
CPAC 2013 – “Too Many American Wars” Panel
CPAC 2013 – “Smartest Guys in the Room” Panel
CPAC 2013 – Respecting Families and the Rule of Law: A Lasting Immigration Policy
CPAC 2013 – The Fight for Religious Liberty: 40 Years After Roe v. Wade
CPAC 2013 – Benghazi and its Aftermath
Full Tom Cotton Speech at CPAC 2013
Wayne LaPierre CPAC 2013 Speech | NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre ” They Call me Crazy ?! “
CPAC 2013 David Bossie President of Citizens United
Donald Trump Speech CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013 – Fight Club (feat. Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala)
CPAC 2013 – The Right View and the Real Issues
Representatives
Congressman Labrador Addresses CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013 – U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI)
CPAC 2013 – U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
CPAC 2013 – Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Chairman Republican Study Committee
Congressman Labrador Addresses CPAC 2013
CPAC 2013 – Lt. Col. Allen West
CPAC 2013 – Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis
Greta Van Susteren on Gov. Christie’s CPAC Snub: ‘This Wasn’t An Accident’
CPAC 2013 – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich Stands With Rand at CPAC
Other
Raw Video from CPAC 2013 / iroots.org
CPAC 2013 – Tea Party Patriot’s Jenny Beth Martin
CPAC 2013 – Kristian Hawkins
CPAC 2013 – David Bossie, Citizens United
CPAC 2013 – Ronald Reagan Dinner (feat. Jeb Bush)
Raw Video CPAC 2013 The Tea Party Guy
Background Articles and Videos
Audio » Mark Levin – CPAC 2013 & William F. Buckley Jr. 1955 Conservatism
Charles Krauthammer Calls Chris Christie’s CPAC Snub A ‘Mistake’
Ron Meyer Analysis of CPAC Invites with Monica Mehta & Julie Roginsky on Neil Cavuto – 3-4-13
Christie Says He’s Not Bothered By Lack of Invite to Conservative Conference
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Neoconservative Progressive Interventionists Attack Classical Liberals — Libertarians — What is new? — So Did Progressive Republican Roosevelt and Progressive Democrat Wilson — Videos
“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.”
– Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on the Senate floor, quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial attacking Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
I supported Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 as a classical liberal or libertarian, as did Ronald Reagan.
Today I support Senator Rand Paul for President in 2016.
Senators McCain and Graham remind me of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, another progressive Republican.
Mike Huckabee: Thank you, Rand Paul
Rand Paul Fires Back At Filibuster Critics, Shocks Glenn Beck With Revelation
Shep Smith Offends John McCain W Interventionist Comment Grills Him Over Rand Paul
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist
SA@TAC – John McCain Supports Al-Qaeda
John McCain ATTACKS Rand Paul’s Filibuster
Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)
STAND WITH RAND
Rand Paul: Time To Bring Troops Home, Cut Foreign Aid, And Fix Entitlements – CNN 3/11/2013
“I Don’t Think We Should Go To War On ONE Person’s Authority” Rand Paul
What is classical liberalism?
Background Articles and Videos
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention
Barry Goldwater: On the Failed Liberal Agenda
“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Woodrow Wilson — Videos
Woodrow Wilson 1 of 2
Woodrow Wilson 2 of 2
President Woodrow Wilson Biography
Judge Napolitano on How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Woodrow Wilson–Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson–Videos
« Previous Entries
