Public Sector
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 )Employment Level Still 3 Million Jobs Less Then Peak Level in November 2007 Plus Short 9 Million Jobs For Population Growth in Last 65 Months — 12 Million Job Shortage — Stagflation — DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high — Buy Low–Sell High — Sell Your U.S. Bonds and Stocks Now — Videos
DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high
May 3rd 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (April Jobs Report)
Jobless Rate Falls to Four-Year Low, and More
Jobs Pop, Unemployment Rate Drops
Data extracted on: May 3, 2013 (11:51:32 AM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Employment Level
143,579,000
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 136559(1) | 136598 | 136701 | 137270 | 136630 | 136940 | 136531 | 136662 | 136893 | 137088 | 137322 | 137614 | |
| 2001 | 137778 | 137612 | 137783 | 137299 | 137092 | 136873 | 137071 | 136241 | 136846 | 136392 | 136238 | 136047 | |
| 2002 | 135701 | 136438 | 136177 | 136126 | 136539 | 136415 | 136413 | 136705 | 137302 | 137008 | 136521 | 136426 | |
| 2003 | 137417(1) | 137482 | 137434 | 137633 | 137544 | 137790 | 137474 | 137549 | 137609 | 137984 | 138424 | 138411 | |
| 2004 | 138472(1) | 138542 | 138453 | 138680 | 138852 | 139174 | 139556 | 139573 | 139487 | 139732 | 140231 | 140125 | |
| 2005 | 140245(1) | 140385 | 140654 | 141254 | 141609 | 141714 | 142026 | 142434 | 142401 | 142548 | 142499 | 142752 | |
| 2006 | 143150(1) | 143457 | 143741 | 143761 | 144089 | 144353 | 144202 | 144625 | 144815 | 145314 | 145534 | 145970 | |
| 2007 | 146028(1) | 146057 | 146320 | 145586 | 145903 | 146063 | 145905 | 145682 | 146244 | 145946 | 146595 | 146273 | |
| 2008 | 146378(1) | 146156 | 146086 | 146132 | 145908 | 145737 | 145532 | 145203 | 145076 | 144802 | 144100 | 143369 | |
| 2009 | 142153(1) | 141644 | 140721 | 140652 | 140250 | 140005 | 139898 | 139481 | 138810 | 138421 | 138665 | 138025 | |
| 2010 | 138439(1) | 138624 | 138767 | 139296 | 139255 | 139148 | 139167 | 139405 | 139388 | 139097 | 139046 | 139295 | |
| 2011 | 139253(1) | 139471 | 139643 | 139606 | 139681 | 139405 | 139509 | 139870 | 140164 | 140314 | 140771 | 140896 | |
| 2012 | 141608(1) | 142019 | 142020 | 141934 | 142302 | 142448 | 142250 | 142164 | 142974 | 143328 | 143277 | 143305 | |
| 2013 | 143322(1) | 143492 | 143286 | 143579 | |||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Civilian Labor Force Level
155,238,000
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 142267(1) | 142456 | 142434 | 142751 | 142388 | 142591 | 142278 | 142514 | 142518 | 142622 | 142962 | 143248 | |
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153144(1) | 152983 | 153051 | 152435 | 152670 | 153041 | 153054 | 152749 | 153414 | 153183 | 153835 | 153918 | |
| 2008 | 154063(1) | 153653 | 153908 | 153769 | 154303 | 154313 | 154469 | 154641 | 154570 | 154876 | 154639 | 154655 | |
| 2009 | 154232(1) | 154526 | 154142 | 154479 | 154742 | 154710 | 154505 | 154300 | 153815 | 153804 | 153887 | 153120 | |
| 2010 | 153455(1) | 153702 | 153960 | 154577 | 154110 | 153623 | 153709 | 154078 | 153966 | 153681 | 154140 | 153649 | |
| 2011 | 153244(1) | 153269 | 153358 | 153478 | 153552 | 153369 | 153325 | 153707 | 154074 | 154010 | 154096 | 153945 | |
| 2012 | 154356(1) | 154825 | 154707 | 154451 | 154998 | 155149 | 154995 | 154647 | 155056 | 155576 | 155319 | 155511 | |
| 2013 | 155654(1) | 155524 | 155028 | 155238 | |||||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3%
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.3 | 67.1 | 67.1 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.9 | 66.8 | 66.9 | 67.0 | |
| 2001 | 67.2 | 67.1 | 67.2 | 66.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.8 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.7 | |
| 2002 | 66.5 | 66.8 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 66.6 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.4 | 66.3 | |
| 2003 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.4 | 66.4 | 66.5 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 65.9 | |
| 2004 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 65.9 | |
| 2005 | 65.8 | 65.9 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2006 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.1 | 66.2 | 66.3 | 66.4 | |
| 2007 | 66.4 | 66.3 | 66.2 | 65.9 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 65.8 | 66.0 | 66.0 | |
| 2008 | 66.2 | 66.0 | 66.1 | 65.9 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.1 | 66.0 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.8 | |
| 2009 | 65.7 | 65.8 | 65.6 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.7 | 65.5 | 65.4 | 65.1 | 65.0 | 65.0 | 64.6 | |
| 2010 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 64.9 | 65.1 | 64.9 | 64.6 | 64.6 | 64.7 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 64.6 | 64.3 | |
| 2011 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.2 | 64.0 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 64.2 | 64.1 | 64.1 | 64.0 | |
| 2012 | 63.7 | 63.9 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.8 | 63.7 | 63.5 | 63.6 | 63.8 | 63.6 | 63.6 | |
| 2013 | 63.6 | 63.5 | 63.3 | 63.3 |
Unemployment Level
11,659,000
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 5708 | 5858 | 5733 | 5481 | 5758 | 5651 | 5747 | 5853 | 5625 | 5534 | 5639 | 5634 | |
| 2001 | 6023 | 6089 | 6141 | 6271 | 6226 | 6484 | 6583 | 7042 | 7142 | 7694 | 8003 | 8258 | |
| 2002 | 8182 | 8215 | 8304 | 8599 | 8399 | 8393 | 8390 | 8304 | 8251 | 8307 | 8520 | 8640 | |
| 2003 | 8520 | 8618 | 8588 | 8842 | 8957 | 9266 | 9011 | 8896 | 8921 | 8732 | 8576 | 8317 | |
| 2004 | 8370 | 8167 | 8491 | 8170 | 8212 | 8286 | 8136 | 7990 | 7927 | 8061 | 7932 | 7934 | |
| 2005 | 7784 | 7980 | 7737 | 7672 | 7651 | 7524 | 7406 | 7345 | 7553 | 7453 | 7566 | 7279 | |
| 2006 | 7064 | 7184 | 7072 | 7120 | 6980 | 7001 | 7175 | 7091 | 6847 | 6727 | 6872 | 6762 | |
| 2007 | 7116 | 6927 | 6731 | 6850 | 6766 | 6979 | 7149 | 7067 | 7170 | 7237 | 7240 | 7645 | |
| 2008 | 7685 | 7497 | 7822 | 7637 | 8395 | 8575 | 8937 | 9438 | 9494 | 10074 | 10538 | 11286 | |
| 2009 | 12079 | 12881 | 13421 | 13826 | 14492 | 14705 | 14607 | 14819 | 15005 | 15382 | 15223 | 15095 | |
| 2010 | 15016 | 15078 | 15192 | 15281 | 14856 | 14475 | 14542 | 14673 | 14577 | 14584 | 15094 | 14354 | |
| 2011 | 13992 | 13798 | 13716 | 13872 | 13871 | 13964 | 13817 | 13837 | 13910 | 13696 | 13325 | 13049 | |
| 2012 | 12748 | 12806 | 12686 | 12518 | 12695 | 12701 | 12745 | 12483 | 12082 | 12248 | 12042 | 12206 | |
| 2013 | 12332 | 12032 | 11742 | 11659 |
Unemployment Rate U-3
7.5%
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| 2003 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
| 2004 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 2005 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| 2006 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| 2007 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
| 2008 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.3 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| 2013 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.5 |
16-19 Years (Teenage) Unemployment Rate
24.1%
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.2 | |
| 2001 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 17.0 | |
| 2002 | 16.5 | 16.0 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 15.1 | 17.1 | 16.9 | |
| 2003 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.6 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 16.2 | |
| 2004 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 16.4 | 17.6 | |
| 2005 | 16.2 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.5 | 16.1 | 17.0 | 14.9 | |
| 2006 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 15.2 | 14.8 | 14.6 | |
| 2007 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 16.8 | |
| 2008 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 20.5 | |
| 2009 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 23.4 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 25.9 | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.6 | |
| 2010 | 26.0 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 25.1 | |
| 2011 | 25.5 | 24.0 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 24.7 | 24.9 | 25.2 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 22.9 | |
| 2012 | 23.4 | 23.7 | 25.0 | 24.9 | 24.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.5 | |
| 2013 | 23.4 | 25.1 | 24.2 | 24.1 |
Average Weeks Unemployed
36.5%
Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 13.1 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 12.6 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 12.5 | |
| 2001 | 12.7 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 12.7 | 12.9 | 13.3 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 14.3 | 14.5 | |
| 2002 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.4 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 16.5 | 17.6 | 17.8 | 17.6 | 18.5 | |
| 2003 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 18.1 | 19.4 | 19.0 | 19.9 | 19.7 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 19.9 | 19.8 | |
| 2004 | 19.9 | 20.1 | 19.8 | 19.6 | 19.8 | 20.5 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 19.4 | 19.5 | 19.7 | 19.4 | |
| 2005 | 19.5 | 19.1 | 19.5 | 19.6 | 18.6 | 17.9 | 17.6 | 18.4 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 17.5 | 17.5 | |
| 2006 | 16.9 | 17.8 | 17.1 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 16.1 | |
| 2007 | 16.3 | 16.7 | 17.8 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 17.2 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 17.0 | 17.3 | 16.6 | |
| 2008 | 17.5 | 16.9 | 16.5 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.7 | 18.6 | 19.9 | 18.9 | 19.9 | |
| 2009 | 19.8 | 20.1 | 20.9 | 21.6 | 22.4 | 23.9 | 25.1 | 25.3 | 26.7 | 27.4 | 29.0 | 29.7 | |
| 2010 | 30.4 | 29.8 | 31.6 | 33.2 | 33.9 | 34.4 | 33.8 | 33.6 | 33.4 | 34.0 | 34.1 | 34.8 | |
| 2011 | 37.3 | 37.4 | 39.2 | 38.6 | 39.5 | 39.6 | 40.4 | 40.3 | 40.4 | 38.9 | 40.7 | 40.7 | |
| 2012 | 40.2 | 39.9 | 39.5 | 39.1 | 39.6 | 39.7 | 38.8 | 39.3 | 39.6 | 39.9 | 39.7 | 38.1 | |
| 2013 | 35.3 | 36.9 | 37.1 | 36.5 |
Unemployment Level New Entrants
1,280,000
Series Id: LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status: New entrants
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 394 | 420 | 429 | 406 | 466 | 427 | 433 | 499 | 415 | 402 | 419 | 490 | |
| 2001 | 444 | 396 | 378 | 457 | 468 | 467 | 448 | 485 | 473 | 481 | 495 | 515 | |
| 2002 | 484 | 507 | 538 | 527 | 497 | 549 | 545 | 612 | 536 | 479 | 591 | 535 | |
| 2003 | 599 | 584 | 630 | 635 | 630 | 661 | 669 | 652 | 686 | 636 | 593 | 693 | |
| 2004 | 676 | 666 | 631 | 652 | 718 | 649 | 702 | 704 | 695 | 734 | 700 | 702 | |
| 2005 | 621 | 753 | 712 | 764 | 710 | 650 | 630 | 626 | 607 | 638 | 673 | 633 | |
| 2006 | 616 | 711 | 636 | 591 | 517 | 646 | 639 | 646 | 612 | 572 | 591 | 586 | |
| 2007 | 622 | 599 | 615 | 620 | 530 | 640 | 602 | 588 | 668 | 696 | 678 | 679 | |
| 2008 | 677 | 656 | 704 | 625 | 797 | 786 | 835 | 821 | 815 | 819 | 763 | 803 | |
| 2009 | 779 | 999 | 874 | 901 | 965 | 1002 | 1004 | 1085 | 1150 | 1100 | 1326 | 1240 | |
| 2010 | 1199 | 1192 | 1155 | 1188 | 1201 | 1170 | 1207 | 1279 | 1211 | 1277 | 1272 | 1308 | |
| 2011 | 1352 | 1289 | 1308 | 1301 | 1220 | 1231 | 1278 | 1260 | 1370 | 1289 | 1271 | 1286 | |
| 2012 | 1258 | 1382 | 1421 | 1362 | 1347 | 1316 | 1299 | 1268 | 1253 | 1302 | 1326 | 1291 | |
| 2013 | 1287 | 1279 | 1316 | 1280 |
Not in Labor Force, Search For Work and Available
2,347,000
Series Id: LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Available to work now
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 1207 | 1281 | 1219 | 1216 | 1113 | 1142 | 1172 | 1097 | 1166 | 1044 | 1100 | 1125 | 1157 |
| 2001 | 1295 | 1337 | 1109 | 1131 | 1157 | 1170 | 1232 | 1364 | 1335 | 1398 | 1331 | 1330 | 1266 |
| 2002 | 1532 | 1423 | 1358 | 1397 | 1467 | 1380 | 1507 | 1456 | 1501 | 1416 | 1401 | 1432 | 1439 |
| 2003 | 1598 | 1590 | 1577 | 1399 | 1428 | 1468 | 1566 | 1665 | 1544 | 1586 | 1473 | 1483 | 1531 |
| 2004 | 1670 | 1691 | 1643 | 1526 | 1533 | 1492 | 1557 | 1587 | 1561 | 1647 | 1517 | 1463 | 1574 |
| 2005 | 1804 | 1673 | 1588 | 1511 | 1428 | 1583 | 1516 | 1583 | 1438 | 1414 | 1415 | 1589 | 1545 |
| 2006 | 1644 | 1471 | 1468 | 1310 | 1388 | 1584 | 1522 | 1592 | 1299 | 1478 | 1366 | 1252 | 1448 |
| 2007 | 1577 | 1451 | 1385 | 1391 | 1406 | 1454 | 1376 | 1365 | 1268 | 1364 | 1363 | 1344 | 1395 |
| 2008 | 1729 | 1585 | 1352 | 1414 | 1416 | 1558 | 1573 | 1640 | 1604 | 1637 | 1947 | 1908 | 1614 |
| 2009 | 2130 | 2051 | 2106 | 2089 | 2210 | 2176 | 2282 | 2270 | 2219 | 2373 | 2323 | 2486 | 2226 |
| 2010 | 2539 | 2527 | 2255 | 2432 | 2223 | 2591 | 2622 | 2370 | 2548 | 2602 | 2531 | 2609 | 2487 |
| 2011 | 2800 | 2730 | 2434 | 2466 | 2206 | 2680 | 2785 | 2575 | 2511 | 2555 | 2591 | 2540 | 2573 |
| 2012 | 2809 | 2608 | 2352 | 2363 | 2423 | 2483 | 2529 | 2561 | 2517 | 2433 | 2505 | 2614 | 2516 |
| 2013 | 2443 | 2588 | 2326 | 2347 |
Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available,
Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
835,000
Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 236 | 267 | 258 | 331 | 280 | 309 | 266 | 203 | 253 | 232 | 236 | 269 | 262 |
| 2001 | 301 | 287 | 349 | 349 | 328 | 294 | 310 | 337 | 285 | 331 | 328 | 348 | 321 |
| 2002 | 328 | 375 | 330 | 320 | 414 | 342 | 405 | 378 | 392 | 359 | 385 | 403 | 369 |
| 2003 | 449 | 450 | 474 | 437 | 482 | 478 | 470 | 503 | 388 | 462 | 457 | 433 | 457 |
| 2004 | 432 | 484 | 514 | 492 | 476 | 478 | 504 | 534 | 412 | 429 | 392 | 442 | 466 |
| 2005 | 515 | 485 | 480 | 393 | 392 | 476 | 499 | 384 | 362 | 392 | 404 | 451 | 436 |
| 2006 | 396 | 386 | 451 | 381 | 323 | 481 | 428 | 448 | 325 | 331 | 349 | 274 | 381 |
| 2007 | 442 | 375 | 381 | 399 | 368 | 401 | 367 | 392 | 276 | 320 | 349 | 363 | 369 |
| 2008 | 467 | 396 | 401 | 412 | 400 | 420 | 461 | 381 | 467 | 484 | 608 | 642 | 462 |
| 2009 | 734 | 731 | 685 | 740 | 792 | 793 | 796 | 758 | 706 | 808 | 861 | 929 | 778 |
| 2010 | 1065 | 1204 | 994 | 1197 | 1083 | 1207 | 1185 | 1110 | 1209 | 1219 | 1282 | 1318 | 1173 |
| 2011 | 993 | 1020 | 921 | 989 | 822 | 982 | 1119 | 977 | 1037 | 967 | 1096 | 945 | 989 |
| 2012 | 1059 | 1006 | 865 | 968 | 830 | 821 | 852 | 844 | 802 | 813 | 979 | 1068 | 909 |
| 2013 | 804 | 885 | 803 | 835 |
Total Unemployment Rate U-6
13.9%
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
| 2000 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 6.9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| 2002 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | |
| 2003 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 9.8 | |
| 2004 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.2 | |
| 2005 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 8.6 | |
| 2006 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.9 | |
| 2007 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.8 | |
| 2008 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.0 | 11.8 | 12.6 | 13.6 | |
| 2009 | 14.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.1 | |
| 2010 | 16.7 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.6 | |
| 2011 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.1 | 16.0 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.0 | 15.5 | 15.2 | |
| 2012 | 15.1 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 14.4 | 14.4 | |
| 2013 | 14.4 | 14.3 | 13.8 | 13.9 |
Background Articles and Videos
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-13-0785
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, May 3, 2013
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services,
food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women
(6.7 percent) declined in April, while the rates for adult men (7.1
percent), teenagers (24.1 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.2
percent), and Hispanics (9.0 percent) showed little or no change. The
jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
In April, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27
weeks or more) declined by 258,000 to 4.4 million; their share of the
unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4 percent. Over the
past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by
687,000, and their share has declined by 3.1 percentage points. (See
table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April,
unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The
employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over
the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.
(See table A-1.)
In April, the number of persons employed part time for economic
reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)
increased by 278,000 to 7.9 million, largely offsetting a decrease in
March. These individuals were working part time because their hours
had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)
In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers
in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 165,000 in April, with
job gains in professional and business services, food services and
drinking places, retail trade, and health care. Over the prior 12
months, employment growth averaged 169,000 per month. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 73,000 jobs in April and has
added 587,000 jobs over the past year. In April, employment rose in
temporary help services (+31,000), professional and technical services
(+23,000), and management of companies (+7,000).
Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and
drinking places rose by 38,000 over the month. Job growth in the food
services industry averaged 25,000 per month over the prior 12 months.
Retail trade employment increased by 29,000 in April. The industry
added an average of 21,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. In
April, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+15,000) and
in health and personal care stores (+5,000).
Health care added 19,000 jobs in April. Within the industry, employment
rose in ambulatory health care services (+14,000). Over the prior 12
months, job growth in health care averaged 24,000 per month. In April,
employment also continued its upward trend in social assistance (+7,000).
Employment changed little over the month in construction, with small
offsetting movements in the residential and nonresidential components.
Construction gained an average of 27,000 jobs per month over the prior
6 months. Manufacturing employment was unchanged in April.
Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities,
and government, showed little change over the month.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
decreased by 0.2 hour in April to 34.4 hours. Within manufacturing,
the workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, and overtime declined
by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1
hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.87. Over the year, average hourly
earnings have risen by 45 cents, or 1.9 percent. In April, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees edged up by 2 cents to $20.06. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was
revised from +268,000 to +332,000, and the change for March was
revised from +88,000 to +138,000. With these revisions, employment
gains in February and March combined were 114,000 higher than
previously reported.
____________
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on
Friday, June 7, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
- Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
- Employment Situation Frequently Asked Questions
- Employment Situation Technical Note
- Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
- Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
- Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
- Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
- Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
- Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
- Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
- Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
- Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
- Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
- Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
- Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
- Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
- Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
- Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
- Access to historical data for the “A” tables of the Employment Situation Release
- Access to historical data for the “B” tables of the Employment Situation Release
- HTML version of the entire news release
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
CategoryApr.
2012Feb.
2013Mar.
2013Apr.
2013Change from:
Mar.
2013-
Apr.
2013Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population242,784244,828244,995245,175180Civilian labor force154,451155,524155,028155,238210Participation rate63.663.563.363.30.0Employed141,934143,492143,286143,579293Employment-population ratio58.558.658.558.60.1Unemployed12,51812,03211,74211,659-83Unemployment rate8.17.77.67.5-0.1Not in labor force88,33289,30489,96789,936-31 Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over8.17.77.67.5-0.1Adult men (20 years and over)7.57.16.97.10.2Adult women (20 years and over)7.47.07.06.7-0.3Teenagers (16 to 19 years)24.925.124.224.1-0.1White7.46.86.76.70.0Black or African American13.113.813.313.2-0.1Asian (not seasonally adjusted)5.26.15.05.1-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity10.39.69.29.0-0.2 Total, 25 years and over6.86.36.26.1-0.1Less than a high school diploma12.511.211.111.60.5High school graduates, no college7.97.97.67.4-0.2Some college or associate degree7.56.76.46.40.0Bachelor’s degree and higher4.03.83.83.90.1 Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs6,8806,5226,3296,41081Job leavers989956986864-122Reentrants3,3363,3403,1763,151-25New entrants1,3621,2791,3161,280-36 Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,5672,6672,4642,474105 to 14 weeks2,8412,7822,8382,8481015 to 26 weeks1,9841,6951,7371,96723027 weeks and over5,0404,7974,6114,353-258 Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,8967,9887,6387,916278Slack work or business conditions5,2105,1364,9065,129223Could only find part-time work2,3932,5782,5762,527-49Part time for noneconomic reasons18,86818,90818,74518,908163 Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,3632,5882,3262,347-Discouraged workers968885803835– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
| Category | Apr. 2012 |
Feb. 2013 |
Mar. 2013(p) |
Apr. 2013(p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands) |
||||
| Total nonfarm | 112 | 332 | 138 | 165 |
| Total private | 120 | 319 | 154 | 176 |
| Goods-producing | 6 | 75 | 15 | -9 |
| Mining and logging | 0 | 4 | 0 | -3 |
| Construction | -4 | 48 | 13 | -6 |
| Manufacturing | 10 | 23 | 2 | 0 |
| Durable goods(1) | 8 | 12 | 7 | 1 |
| Motor vehicles and parts | 1.0 | 6.4 | 4.1 | 2.4 |
| Nondurable goods | 2 | 11 | -5 | -1 |
| Private service-providing(1) | 114 | 244 | 139 | 185 |
| Wholesale trade | 13.2 | 4.7 | 2.9 | 4.1 |
| Retail trade | 30.4 | 25.8 | -3.9 | 29.3 |
| Transportation and warehousing | -15.1 | -5.3 | -6.7 | 4.2 |
| Information | 0 | 18 | 2 | -9 |
| Financial activities | 5 | 15 | 5 | 9 |
| Professional and business services(1) | 45 | 93 | 64 | 73 |
| Temporary help services | 14.7 | 27.5 | 25.5 | 30.8 |
| Education and health services(1) | 22 | 31 | 46 | 28 |
| Health care and social assistance | 20.7 | 37.0 | 26.5 | 26.1 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 14 | 63 | 38 | 43 |
| Other services | 0 | -1 | -8 | 4 |
| Government | -8 | 13 | -16 | -11 |
| WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total nonfarm women employees | 49.4 | 49.3 | 49.3 | 49.3 |
| Total private women employees | 47.8 | 47.8 | 47.8 | 47.9 |
| Total private production and nonsupervisory employees | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 | 82.6 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 34.5 | 34.5 | 34.6 | 34.4 |
| Average hourly earnings | $23.42 | $23.82 | $23.83 | $23.87 |
| Average weekly earnings | $807.99 | $821.79 | $824.52 | $821.13 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) | 96.3 | 97.9 | 98.3 | 97.9 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | -0.4 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) | 107.6 | 111.2 | 111.7 | 111.5 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | -0.2 |
| HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES |
||||
| Total private | ||||
| Average weekly hours | 33.7 | 33.8 | 33.8 | 33.7 |
| Average hourly earnings | $19.72 | $20.03 | $20.04 | $20.06 |
| Average weekly earnings | $664.56 | $677.01 | $677.35 | $676.02 |
| Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) | 103.6 | 105.6 | 105.7 | 105.5 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | -0.2 |
| Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) | 136.4 | 141.2 | 141.4 | 141.3 |
| Over-the-month percent change | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.1 | -0.1 |
| DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span) |
||||
| Total private (266 industries) | 58.3 | 61.7 | 56.2 | 53.9 |
| Manufacturing (81 industries) | 54.9 | 56.8 | 51.9 | 44.4 |
| Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary |
||||
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!
Senate Defeats Obama’s Gun Grabbing Agenda — Videos
Obama’s Emotional Speech On Gun Control Vote FAIL Senate rejects expanded gun background checks
OBAMA’S & THE MSM’S PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL LOSES STEAM
04/17/13 Ted Cruz Speaks about new gun control amendments
Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills – Hannity 3/28/2013
Obama Has Been Planning Gun Control For A Long Time
Penn & Teller Bullshit! – Gun Control -
FEAR & LOADING in US: GUN SALES sky ROCKET as fears of TOUGHER GOVT’ GUN control RISE! [GUN-WARS]
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World
Pro-gun rallies held across US
Ted Nugent Exposes Gun Trafficker General Eric Holder
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Overview
When buying a firearm, background checks are processed via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This is a great overview of the NICS process.
FBI NICS at NRA Convention
FBI: National Instant Criminal Background Check System [1998]
Gun Background Checks: How the System is Still Broken
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 )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 )
Excellence in Action — Strategies Sessions — Videos
Breakfast Keynote: Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
Strategy Session 1: Reaching More Students with Vouchers and Tax-credit Scholarships
Whether you are an advocate of education vouchers for all or believe special scholarships should be reserved for students in failing schools, the debate on school choice is one that matters. States across the country are enacting new reforms and expanding those that already exist to ensure vouchers and tax-credit scholarships reach the kids who need them the most. Join these state lawmakers as they discuss strategies to keep up with the growing demand from families for quality school choice options.
Moderator: John Kirtley, Chairman of Step Up for Students and vice chairman of the Alliance for School Choice and the American Federation for Children
Panelists: Conrad Appel, Louisiana State Senator Algie Howell, Virginia State Delegate Jason Nelson, Oklahoma State Representative Bill O’Brien, New Hampshire State Representative
Strategy Session 2: Implementing Bold Teacher-Effectiveness Reform
Over the past few years, states across the country have passed reforms linking student-learning data to teacher evaluations. Now, leaders have entered the critical phase of putting the reforms into practice at the local level. Learn how these education chiefs are developing assessments and evaluation systems in their respective states to measure hard-to-test areas and elevate educators’ professional development.
Moderator: Hanna Skandera, New Mexico Secretary-Designate of Public Education and Vice-Chair of Chiefs for Change
Panelists: Kevin Huffman, Tennessee Commissioner of Education Jill Hawley, Colorado Associate Commissioner for Achievement and Strategy Dr. Diane Ullman, Chief Talent Officer for the Connecticut State Department of Education
Strategy Session 3: Accountability-Based Flexibility for School Districts
Across the nation, crisis situations are giving birth to new, student-centered learning models. In the midst of challenging economic times and a national focus on improving the quality of education, a new kind of school district is emerging — one with both autonomy and performance-based accountability. Learn how some of our nation’s most troubled school districts are challenging a conventional structure to change the futures of their students, schools and cities.
Moderator: Dr. Paul Hill, Founder of the Center on Reinventing Public Education
Panelists: David Harris, Founder and CEO of The Mind Trust John White, Louisiana Superintendent of Education Tyrone Winfrey, Chief of Staff of the Michigan Education Achievement Authority
Strategy Session 4: How to Prepare for Common Core Assessments
The state-led transition to Common Core State Standards will change the expectation of what students need to be learning and is aligned with what they’ll need for success after high school in our changing world. The pressure is on for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium to deliver new online assessments and for schools to build the technology infrastructure they’ll need to use those assessments. The Common Core transition brings individual opportunities for states but also challenges. Meanwhile, many state leaders are preparing parents, teachers and communities for the initial results which will likely follow new standards and assessments. Join this panel to discuss specific strategies states and districts can take to ensure everyone and everything is prepared to transition to these new assessments.
Moderator: Governor Bob Wise, President of Alliance for Excellent Education
Panelists: Dr. Tony Bennett, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction and Chairman of Chiefs for Change Steve Bowen, Maine Commissioner of Education Laura McGiffert Slover, Senior Vice President of Achieve Dr. Joe Willhoft, Executive Director of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
More results
bill coleman common core standards
Strategy Session 5: Transforming Colleges of Education
Nine out of every ten teachers graduate from traditional teacher prep programs at colleges of education. Should these colleges be held accountable for the caliber of students they admit into their programs and the teachers they send into the classroom? Don’t miss this discussion on what can be done to ensure new teachers entering the profession are fully equipped to help each of their students succeed.
Moderator: Kate Walsh, President of the National Council on Teacher Quality
Panelists: Dr. John Chubb, CEO of Education Sector and member of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education Paul Pastorek, former Louisiana Superintendent of Education
Strategy Session 6: Charter Schools: Accountability and Funding
With over 40 states now authorizing charter schools, the potential for innovation continues to grow. Each state serves as a testing site for diverse approaches to approving, funding and maintaining the accountability of these unique public schools. Learn the best policies states are using to shape high-quality charter schools across the nation.
Moderator: Jeanne Allen, President of the Center for Education Reform
Panelists: Todd Huston, Indiana State Representative Peggy Lehner, Ohio State Senator Nina Rees, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education
Strategy Session 7: Thinking Outside the School-Zone Box
From coast to coast, states are proving there is more than one way to provide families with school choice options. Many are developing new strategies to empower parents with the ability to choose the public school that is best for their child. Listen to these battle-proven leaders share lessons learned and strategies to expand public school choice programs and remove barriers limiting students’ education options.
Moderator: Mike Petrilli, Executive Vice President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Panelists: Matthew Barnes, Executive Director of Families Empowered John Huppenthal, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Luther Olsen, Wisconsin State Senator
Strategy Session 8: College & Career Readiness
State leaders are facing a desperate call to action: just one-third of America’s high school students graduate with the knowledge and skills they’ll need to succeed in college. This tragic reality calls for rigorous standards and innovative policies, ones that incentivize acceleration and launch students into college or gainful employment. It’s time to give students the opportunity to advance to college or careers as soon as they are ready, even if that’s earlier that the traditional K-12 calendar allows. Get the details on what methods states are using to prepare our youngest generation to thrive in today’s competitive global economy.
Moderator: Laysha Ward, President of Community Relations and the Target Foundation
Panelists: David Abbott, Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel at the Rhode Island Department of Education Russell Armstrong, Education and Workforce Policy Advisor to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Joe Pickens, President of St. Johns River State College Kelli Stargel, Florida State Senator
Strategy Session 9: Developing and Retaining Teachers We Can’t Afford to Lose
A teacher’s influence — good or bad — can have life-long effects on the students in his or her classroom. Hear new research on the teacher-retention crisis, and join the ensuing discussion on what can be done to develop and retain the high-quality educators our states need to reverse student decline and elevate the status of the teaching profession.
Moderator: Dr. Stefanie Sanford, Director of Policy & Advocacy, United States Program, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Panelists: Tim Daly, President of the New Teacher Project Christopher Cerf, New Jersey Commissioner of Education Gary Holder-Winfield, Connecticut State Representative
Strategy Session 10: The Florida Formula for Student Achievement
More than a dozen years ago, Florida embarked on a path to reverse a generation of decline in its public schools by forcing the system to focus on the student instead of the adult. Since then, Florida’s formula of high expectations for students, accountability for schools, choices for families and rewards for progress has yielded incredible gains in student learning. In the eight-year period prior to the reforms, graduation rates had declined by nearly seven percent, but since the reforms were put in place, graduation rates have increased by 20 percent. Education in the Sunshine State is now a model for the nation, inspiring leaders to strategically and boldly transform public education. Learn how Florida’s formula can transform student achievement for any state.
Moderator: Julia Johnson, President of Net Communications and former member of Florida’s Board of Education
Panelists: Dr. Christy Hovanetz, Senior Policy Fellow at the Foundation for Excellence in Education Dr. Matthew Ladner, Senior Advisor on Policy and Research to the Foundation for Excellence in Education
Strategy Session 11: Transforming Education for the Digital Age
Last year, Digital Learning Now! released “The Roadmap for Reform: Digital Learning,” a guide providing governors, lawmakers and policymakers with the nuts-and-bolts policies to transition to student-centered education. Now, states are changing the face of education by introducing blended learning models that combine the best of face-to-face instruction with the best of online learning. Hear state and school leaders share what they are doing — and what is yet to be done — to harness the power of technology and provide students with rigorous, high-quality, customized education.
Moderator: John Bailey, Executive Director of Digital Learning Now!
Panelists: Dr. Janet Barresi, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Mark Edwards, Superintendent of Mooresville Graded School District Pam Myhra, Minnesota State Representative Governor Bev Perdue, North Carolina Chip Rogers, Majority Leader of the Georgia State Senate
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
Lunch Keynote: Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor
Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Oral Arguments — Videos
Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Oral Arguments
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
The traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman held by a majority of Americans is being challenged by a growing minority who want to expand the definition of marriage by including gay or same-sex couples.
In November 2008 California voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot initiative, which amended the state constitution and states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Subsequently, the United States District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have found Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
On March 26, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger, initially, and then Perry v. Brown) regarding the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.
Below are some of the highlights of the justices’ questions and remarks:
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
“When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?”
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
“Suppose a state said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.”
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
“There’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”
Chief Justice John Roberts
“I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say, ‘Let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals.’ The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
The oral arguments can be heard in their entirety on the YouTube video titled “Gay Marriage Supreme Court Oral Arguments.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected in June.
Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/
Audio Excerpts of High Court Gay Marriage Case
Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban
Supreme Court Hears Prop. 8 Case (Full Audio)
Gay marriage was heard before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, that defined marriage between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by California’s voters in the 2008 General Election, but struck down later by the district court.
The basic history of how the case came to the court:
Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger, initially, and then Perry v. Brown) is a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, a three judge appellate panel held that California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry, was unconstitutional. Lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were filed in state and federal courts nearly immediately after the initiative’s passage. In Strauss v. Horton (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was a valid enactment under California law. However, in August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judgment was stayed pending appeal. On February 7, 2012, a divided three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, though it did so on much narrower grounds than the District Court did. On June 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied a request for a rehearing en banc. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case by granting a writ of certiorari on December 7, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013.
The full case:
Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage
THE LATEST NEWS : Same-sex marriage ‘too new’ for court?
5 Gay Marriage Issues Before Supreme Court
Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage: “I Don’t Care”
Audio » Mark Levin – Supreme Court On California’s Proposition 8
Gay Marriage ban overturned: Judge Napolitano weighs in on Prop 8 appeal
Rush on Prop 8 ruling: This is Tyranny!
Media hypes Prop 8, ignores real issues
08/04/10 – Prop 8 Overturned – Rob Reiner, Ted Olson & David Boise Celebrate Outside Courthouse
Proposition 8 – Overturned by California Supreme Court?! – 05-23-09
Economic Consequences of the Minimum Wage — Videos
Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?
Dan Mitchell Explains Why Boosting the Minimum Wage Is Bad for Low-Skilled Workers
John Stossel – The Minimum Wage and Consequences
John Stossel – The State Against Blacks
Good Intentions 2of3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams
John Stossel – Real World Effects Of Minimum Wage
Increasing Minimum Wage Good or Bad for Small Business?
The Truth about the Minimum Wage
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
[yourtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk]
Power of the Market – Minimum Wage
The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws
Both Sides of The Minimum Wage Debate
Walter E Williams – Davis Bacon Sellout
Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage
Walter E Williams – Minimum Wage as a Racist Tool
Walter Williams: Up From the Projects
State Against Blacks – Conservative Dr. Walter Williams
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
In 2011, 73.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2011 data.
- Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)
- About 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 4 percent of men. (See table 1.)
- About 5 percent of White hourly-paid workers earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 6 percent of Blacks and about 3 percent of Asians. Among hourly-paid workers of Hispanic ethnicity, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 1.)
- Among hourly-paid workers age 16 and over, about 11 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the Federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 5 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)
- Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the Federal minimum wage or less (about 9 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 8.)
- Part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were more likely than full-time workers to be paid the Federal minimum wage or less (about 13 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 1 and table 9.)
- By major occupational group, the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at 13 percent. About 6 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2011 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4.)
- The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the Federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (22 percent). About one-half of all workers paid at or below the Federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, primarily in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)
- The states with the highest proportions of hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas (all between 8 and 10 percent). The states with the lowest percentage of workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage were Oregon, California, Washington, and Alaska (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the Federal minimum wage. (See table 2 and table 3.)
- The proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less declined from 6.0 percent in 2010 to 5.2 percent in 2011. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data on minimum wage earners are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly nationwide survey of households. Data in this summary are 2011 annual averages.
1 Data are for wage and salary workers age 16 and over and refer to earnings on a person’s sole or principal job. Hourly earnings for hourly-paid workers do not include overtime pay, commissions, or tips received. All self-employed persons are excluded whether or not their businesses are incorporated.
2 The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the Federal minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011, Tables 1 – 10
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011 (PDF)
| Characteristic | Number of workers (in thousands) |
Percent distribution | Percent of workers paid hourly rates | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total paid hourly rates | At or below minimum wage | Total paid hourly rates | At or below minimum wage | At or below minimum wage | |||||||
| Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | Total | At minimum wage | Below minimum wage | |||
| AGE AND SEX | |||||||||||
| Total, 16 years and over | 73,926 | 3,829 | 1,677 | 2,152 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 2.9 |
| 16 to 24 years | 14,436 | 1,896 | 893 | 1,003 | 19.5 | 49.5 | 53.2 | 46.6 | 13.1 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
| 16 to 19 years | 3,936 | 899 | 491 | 408 | 5.3 | 23.5 | 29.3 | 19.0 | 22.8 | 12.5 | 10.4 |
| 25 years and over | 59,490 | 1,933 | 784 | 1,149 | 80.5 | 50.5 | 46.8 | 53.4 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Men, 16 years and over | 36,457 | 1,433 | 648 | 785 | 49.3 | 37.4 | 38.6 | 36.5 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 2.2 |
| 16 to 24 years | 7,290 | 787 | 388 | 399 | 9.9 | 20.6 | 23.1 | 18.5 | 10.8 | 5.3 | 5.5 |
| 16 to 19 years | 1,872 | 373 | 212 | 161 | 2.5 | 9.7 | 12.6 | 7.5 | 19.9 | 11.3 | 8.6 |
| 25 years and over | 29,167 | 647 | 260 | 387 | 39.5 | 16.9 | 15.5 | 18.0 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
| Women, 16 years and over | 37,469 | 2,395 | 1,029 | 1,366 | 50.7 | 62.5 | 61.4 | 63.5 | 6.4 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| 16 to 24 years | 7,147 | 1,109 | 505 | 604 | 9.7 | 29.0 | 30.1 | 28.1 | 15.5 | 7.1 | 8.5 |
| 16 to 19 years | 2,064 | 526 | 279 | 247 | 2.8 | 13.7 | 16.6 | 11.5 | 25.5 | 13.5 | 12.0 |
| 25 years and over | 30,323 | 1,286 | 524 | 762 | 41.0 | 33.6 | 31.2 | 35.4 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 2.5 |
| RACE, SEX, AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ETHNICITY | |||||||||||
| White (1) | 59,314 | 3,006 | 1,258 | 1,748 | 80.2 | 78.5 | 75.0 | 81.2 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
| Men | 29,743 | 1,108 | 484 | 624 | 40.2 | 28.9 | 28.9 | 29.0 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 |
| Women | 29,571 | 1,898 | 774 | 1,124 | 40.0 | 49.6 | 46.2 | 52.2 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 |
| Black or African American (1) | 9,523 | 577 | 324 | 253 | 12.9 | 15.1 | 19.3 | 11.8 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 2.7 |
| Men | 4,252 | 222 | 117 | 105 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 7.0 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 2.8 | 2.5 |
| Women | 5,271 | 356 | 208 | 148 | 7.1 | 9.3 | 12.4 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 3.9 | 2.8 |
| Asian (1) | 3,037 | 99 | 36 | 63 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Men | 1,425 | 41 | 13 | 28 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 2.0 |
| Women | 1,612 | 58 | 23 | 35 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| Hispanic or Latino (1) | 13,264 | 720 | 340 | 380 | 17.9 | 18.8 | 20.3 | 17.7 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
| Men | 7,703 | 326 | 154 | 172 | 10.4 | 8.5 | 9.2 | 8.0 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Women | 5,561 | 394 | 186 | 208 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 11.1 | 9.7 | 7.1 | 3.3 | 3.7 |
| FULL- AND PART-TIME STATUS AND SEX | |||||||||||
| Full-time workers (2) | 53,594 | 1,274 | 522 | 752 | 72.5 | 33.3 | 31.1 | 34.9 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
| Men | 29,292 | 501 | 205 | 296 | 39.6 | 13.1 | 12.2 | 13.8 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| Women | 24,302 | 773 | 317 | 456 | 32.9 | 20.2 | 18.9 | 21.2 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Part-time workers (2) | 20,199 | 2,545 | 1,153 | 1,392 | 27.3 | 66.5 | 68.8 | 64.7 | 12.6 | 5.7 | 6.9 |
| Men | 7,103 | 932 | 443 | 489 | 9.6 | 24.3 | 26.4 | 22.7 | 13.1 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
| Women | 13,096 | 1,615 | 711 | 904 | 17.7 | 42.2 | 42.4 | 42.0 | 12.3 | 5.4 | 6.9 |
| Footnotes: (1) Estimates for the above race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. (2) The distinction between full- and part-time workers is based on hours usually worked. These data will not sum to totals because full- or part-time status on the principal job is not identifiable for a small number of multiple jobholders. Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is less than 35 hours. |
|||||||||||
NOTE: Data exclude all self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011tbls.htm#1
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1948 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 10.5 | 9.5 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 9.1 | 8.5 | |
| 1949 | 10.0 | 10.6 | 11.9 | 13.2 | 13.4 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 15.0 | 14.6 | 15.8 | 14.0 | 15.4 | |
| 1950 | 15.2 | 15.2 | 14.3 | 12.0 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 11.2 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 11.1 | |
| 1951 | 8.5 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 7.9 | 6.7 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 7.7 | 9.5 | 7.6 | |
| 1952 | 9.3 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 7.6 | |
| 1953 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 9.7 | 8.6 | 11.8 | |
| 1954 | 12.1 | 13.5 | 13.0 | 13.6 | 13.4 | 10.5 | 12.9 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 12.2 | 11.4 | 12.6 | |
| 1955 | 11.7 | 11.3 | 11.0 | 10.7 | 10.9 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 11.5 | 11.3 | 11.0 | 11.7 | 11.0 | |
| 1956 | 10.6 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 10.9 | 11.9 | 12.2 | 11.2 | 10.1 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 12.6 | 9.7 | |
| 1957 | 11.6 | 10.5 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 11.4 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 11.5 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 13.4 | 13.1 | |
| 1958 | 14.4 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 17.2 | 16.3 | 15.4 | 17.9 | 16.0 | 17.9 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 14.9 | |
| 1959 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 13.6 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 16.1 | 14.9 | 15.8 | 15.1 | 15.3 | |
| 1960 | 14.6 | 13.1 | 15.6 | 14.2 | 13.9 | 14.6 | 13.9 | 15.3 | 14.5 | 16.1 | 14.7 | 16.4 | |
| 1961 | 17.1 | 17.4 | 17.1 | 16.4 | 15.8 | 16.6 | 17.3 | 17.1 | 18.0 | 16.9 | 16.0 | 15.3 | |
| 1962 | 16.2 | 16.0 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 14.2 | 13.6 | 13.9 | 14.1 | 14.5 | 14.3 | 16.3 | 14.4 | |
| 1963 | 15.8 | 17.7 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 18.7 | 17.2 | 18.1 | 16.1 | 17.4 | 17.1 | 17.7 | 16.3 | |
| 1964 | 16.7 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 17.0 | 16.4 | 16.8 | 14.7 | 16.7 | 15.7 | 15.8 | 15.6 | 17.1 | |
| 1965 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 15.8 | 16.2 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 14.5 | 13.9 | 14.7 | 14.5 | 13.0 | 13.3 | |
| 1966 | 13.0 | 12.4 | 13.1 | 13.0 | 13.6 | 13.0 | 12.9 | 12.4 | 12.8 | 12.6 | 11.8 | 12.1 | |
| 1967 | 11.9 | 12.9 | 11.6 | 12.1 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 13.0 | 13.4 | 12.9 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.0 | |
| 1968 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 12.7 | 11.8 | 12.5 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 11.8 | 12.2 | 12.7 | |
| 1969 | 12.0 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 12.4 | 12.2 | 12.8 | 12.2 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 11.6 | 11.8 | |
| 1970 | 13.5 | 13.3 | 13.4 | 14.7 | 14.2 | 16.3 | 14.7 | 15.7 | 16.2 | 16.7 | 17.4 | 17.1 | |
| 1971 | 16.8 | 16.3 | 16.9 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 17.7 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 16.9 | 16.9 | |
| 1972 | 16.9 | 18.0 | 17.2 | 16.5 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.6 | 16.5 | 16.3 | 15.8 | 15.7 | 15.6 | |
| 1973 | 13.7 | 15.3 | 14.3 | 15.5 | 14.9 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 14.0 | 14.7 | 14.4 | 15.0 | 14.6 | |
| 1974 | 14.6 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 14.3 | 15.4 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 14.9 | 17.0 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 18.2 | |
| 1975 | 19.5 | 19.4 | 19.9 | 19.9 | 20.4 | 20.9 | 20.7 | 20.7 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 19.0 | 19.8 | |
| 1976 | 19.6 | 19.0 | 18.9 | 19.5 | 18.6 | 18.5 | 18.3 | 19.6 | 18.6 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 19.1 | |
| 1977 | 18.9 | 18.4 | 18.6 | 18.0 | 17.8 | 18.8 | 17.5 | 17.4 | 18.0 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 15.5 | |
| 1978 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 17.3 | 16.6 | 16.0 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 15.7 | 16.4 | 16.1 | 16.3 | 16.7 | |
| 1979 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 15.7 | 15.6 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 15.9 | 16.2 | |
| 1980 | 16.5 | 16.6 | 16.3 | 16.2 | 18.6 | 18.9 | 19.1 | 18.9 | 18.0 | 18.4 | 18.5 | 17.6 | |
| 1981 | 19.1 | 19.3 | 19.2 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.8 | 18.6 | 18.8 | 19.7 | 20.3 | 21.3 | 21.1 | |
| 1982 | 22.0 | 22.6 | 21.8 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 22.9 | 24.0 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.7 | 24.1 | 24.1 | |
| 1983 | 23.1 | 22.8 | 23.5 | 23.4 | 22.8 | 24.0 | 22.8 | 22.9 | 21.7 | 21.4 | 20.2 | 19.9 | |
| 1984 | 19.5 | 19.4 | 19.8 | 19.2 | 18.7 | 18.2 | 18.8 | 18.7 | 19.2 | 18.6 | 17.7 | 18.8 | |
| 1985 | 18.8 | 18.3 | 18.2 | 17.5 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 20.2 | 17.9 | 17.9 | 20.0 | 18.3 | 19.1 | |
| 1986 | 18.1 | 18.8 | 18.2 | 19.2 | 18.6 | 19.2 | 18.4 | 18.0 | 18.4 | 17.7 | 18.1 | 17.5 | |
| 1987 | 17.7 | 18.0 | 17.9 | 17.3 | 17.4 | 16.5 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.2 | 17.3 | 16.6 | 16.0 | |
| 1988 | 16.1 | 15.6 | 16.6 | 16.0 | 15.3 | 14.2 | 14.8 | 15.4 | 15.5 | 15.1 | 13.9 | 14.8 | |
| 1989 | 16.4 | 15.0 | 13.9 | 14.6 | 14.8 | 15.7 | 14.2 | 14.6 | 15.2 | 15.0 | 15.5 | 15.3 | |
| 1990 | 14.8 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 14.3 | 15.0 | 16.3 | 16.4 | 16.5 | 17.1 | 17.4 | |
| 1991 | 18.6 | 17.4 | 18.3 | 17.8 | 18.8 | 18.5 | 19.4 | 18.9 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.0 | 20.3 | |
| 1992 | 19.2 | 20.1 | 20.3 | 18.5 | 20.1 | 23.0 | 20.8 | 19.9 | 21.0 | 18.3 | 20.5 | 19.8 | |
| 1993 | 19.9 | 19.7 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.8 | 19.9 | 18.4 | 18.4 | 18.2 | 18.7 | 18.5 | 17.9 | |
| 1994 | 18.3 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 19.1 | 18.0 | 17.6 | 17.6 | 17.3 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 15.6 | 17.0 | |
| 1995 | 16.5 | 17.4 | 16.1 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 18.2 | 17.3 | 17.6 | 17.4 | 17.5 | 18.0 | |
| 1996 | 17.7 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 16.2 | 17.1 | 16.8 | 15.6 | 16.3 | 16.8 | 16.6 | |
| 1997 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 16.4 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.8 | 17.1 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.1 | 14.8 | 14.0 | |
| 1998 | 13.9 | 14.5 | 14.8 | 13.5 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 15.0 | 15.7 | 14.7 | 13.5 | |
| 1999 | 15.2 | 13.9 | 14.2 | 14.2 | 13.3 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 13.3 | 14.8 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | |
| 2000 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 12.3 | 13.4 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 12.8 | 13.0 | 13.2 | |
| 2001 | 13.8 | 13.7 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 13.4 | 14.2 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 15.2 | 16.0 | 15.9 | 17.0 | |
| 2002 | 16.5 | 16.0 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 16.7 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.3 | 15.1 | 17.1 | 16.9 | |
| 2003 | 17.2 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.6 | 17.6 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 16.2 | |
| 2004 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.6 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.8 | 16.7 | 16.6 | 17.4 | 16.4 | 17.6 | |
| 2005 | 16.2 | 17.5 | 17.1 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 16.3 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 15.5 | 16.1 | 17.0 | 14.9 | |
| 2006 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 15.8 | 15.9 | 16.0 | 16.3 | 15.2 | 14.8 | 14.6 | |
| 2007 | 14.8 | 14.9 | 14.9 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 16.8 | |
| 2008 | 17.8 | 16.6 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 20.7 | 18.6 | 19.1 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 20.5 | |
| 2009 | 20.7 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 22.2 | 23.4 | 24.7 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 25.9 | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.6 | |
| 2010 | 26.0 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.5 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 25.8 | 27.2 | 24.6 | 25.1 | |
| 2011 | 25.5 | 24.0 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.0 | 24.7 | 24.9 | 25.2 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.9 | 22.9 | |
| 2012 | 23.4 | 23.7 | 25.0 | 24.9 | 24.4 | 23.7 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 23.7 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.5 | |
| 2013 | 23.4 | 25.1 |
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955–2012
| Value of the minimum wage |
Value of the minimum wage |
Value of the minimum wage |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
Year | Current dollars |
Constant (1996) dollars1 |
| 1955 | $0.75 | $4.39 | 1983 | 3.35 | 5.28 | 2011 | 7.25 | 5.06 |
| 1956 | 1.00 | 5.77 | 1984 | 3.35 | 5.06 | 2012 | 7.25 | 4.97 |
| 1957 | 1.00 | 5.58 | 1985 | 3.35 | 4.88 | |||
| 1958 | 1.00 | 5.43 | 1986 | 3.35 | 4.80 | |||
| 1959 | 1.00 | 5.39 | 1987 | 3.35 | 4.63 | |||
| 1960 | 1.00 | 5.30 | 1988 | 3.35 | 4.44 | |||
| 1961 | 1.15 | 6.03 | 1989 | 3.35 | 4.24 | |||
| 1962 | 1.15 | 5.97 | 1990 | 3.80 | 4.56 | |||
| 1963 | 1.25 | 6.41 | 1991 | 4.25 | 4.90 | |||
| 1964 | 1.25 | 6.33 | 1992 | 4.25 | 4.75 | |||
| 1965 | 1.25 | 6.23 | 1993 | 4.25 | 4.61 | |||
| 1966 | 1.25 | 6.05 | 1994 | 4.25 | 4.50 | |||
| 1967 | 1.40 | 6.58 | 1995 | 4.25 | 4.38 | |||
| 1968 | 1.60 | 7.21 | 1996 | 4.75 | 4.75 | |||
| 1969 | 1.60 | 6.84 | 1997 | 5.15 | 5.03 | |||
| 1970 | 1.60 | 6.47 | 1998 | 5.15 | 4.96 | |||
| 1971 | 1.60 | 6.20 | 1999 | 5.15 | 4.85 | |||
| 1972 | 1.60 | 6.01 | 2000 | 5.15 | 4.69 | |||
| 1973 | 1.60 | 5.65 | 2001 | 5.15 | 4.56 | |||
| 1974 | 2.00 | 6.37 | 2002 | 5.15 | 4.49 | |||
| 1975 | 2.10 | 6.12 | 2003 | 5.15 | 4.39 | |||
| 1976 | 2.30 | 6.34 | 2004 | 5.15 | 4.28 | |||
| 1977 | 2.30 | 5.95 | 2005 | 5.15 | 4.14 | |||
| 1978 | 2.65 | 6.38 | 2006 | 5.15 | 4.04 | |||
| 1979 | 2.90 | 6.27 | 2007 | 5.85 | 4.41 | |||
| 1980 | 3.10 | 5.90 | 2008 | 6.55 | 4.77 | |||
| 1981 | 3.35 | 5.78 | 2009 | 7.25 | 5.30 | |||
| 1982 | 3.35 | 5.78 | 2010 | 7.25 | 5.22 | |||
Information Please® Database, © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009
The table of federal minimum wage rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009 is also available in a PDF Version. In order to view and/or print PDF documents you must have a PDF viewer (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader v5 or later) available on your workstation.
| Effective Date | 1938 Act 1 | 1961 Amendments 2 | 1966 and Subsequent Amendments3 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonfarm | Farm | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1938 | $0.25 | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1939 | $0.30 | |||||||
| Oct 24, 1945 | $0.40 | |||||||
| Jan 25, 1950 | $0.75 | |||||||
| Mar 1, 1956 | $1.00 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1961 | $1.15 | $1.00 | ||||||
| Sep 3, 1963 | $1.25 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1964 | $1.15 | |||||||
| Sep 3, 1965 | $1.25 | |||||||
| Feb 1, 1967 | $1.40 | $1.40 | $1.00 | $1.00 | ||||
| Feb 1, 1968 | $1.60 | $1.60 | $1.15 | $1.15 | ||||
| Feb 1, 1969 | $1.30 | $1.30 | ||||||
| Feb 1, 1970 | $1.45 | |||||||
| Feb 1, 1971 | $1.60 | |||||||
| May 1, 1974 | $2.00 | $2.00 | $1.90 | $1.60 | ||||
| Jan. 1, 1975 | $2.10 | $2.10 | $2.00 | $1.80 | ||||
| Jan 1, 1976 | $2.30 | $2.30 | $2.20 | $2.00 | ||||
| Jan 1, 1977 | $2.30 | $2.20 | ||||||
| Jan 1, 1978 | $2.65 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1979 | $2.90 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1980 | $3.10 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jan 1, 1981 | $3.35 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Apr 1, 19904 | $3.80 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Apr 1, 1991 | $4.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Oct 1, 1996 | $4.75 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Sep 1, 19975 | $5.15 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2007 | $5.85 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2008 | $6.55 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
| Jul 24, 2009 | $7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers | |||||||
Where to Obtain Additional Information
This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.
For additional information, visit our Wage-Hour website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our Wage-Hour toll-free information and helpline, available 8am to 5pm in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )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
Ronald J. Pestritto — Our Choice Today: Bureaucratic Despotism or the Constitution — Videos
How Did the Fourth Branch of Government Come to Be?
“The Obama Administration vs. The Constitution”
Background Articles and Videos
Judge Napolitano: How Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom
Judge Andrew Napolitano w/ Glenn Beck New Book Theodore and Woodrow 2 Presidents Destroyed Freedom
Lew Rockwell interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano on Theodore and Woodrow
Teddy Roosevelt: An American Lion
Woodrow Wilson {1 of 2}
Woodrow Wilson {2 of 2}
Council on Foreign Relations – The Power Behind Big News
A Profile in Courage–Stand With Rand Filibuster: Defend and Protect The Constitution and Your 5th Amendment Rights Against Use Of Drones To Target Kill Noncombatant American Citizens — Videos
Sen. Rand Paul on America’s Newsroom w/ Megyn Kelly to discuss the Brennan Filibuster – 3/7/13
Rand Paul Fires Back At Filibuster Critics, Shocks Glenn Beck With Revelation
Michelle Malkin: Did Rand Paul’s Filibuster Refurbish The Republican Party’s Tarnished Brand? 3/7/13
Sen. Paul appears on CNN’s Newsroom with Dana Bash- 3/7/2013
#StandWithRand Rand Paul Filibuster Highlights
Rand Paul Interview: Rush Limbaugh (7 March 2013)
Drone Strikes: Where Are Obama’s Tears For Those Child Victims?
Yes, Lethal Drone Attacks on Americans Are Allowed, Says Atty General
“The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance” but has “no intention of doing so,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.”*
It’s starting to happen. Attorney General Eric Holder says lethal drone attacks without due process on Americans while on American soil, are hypothetically legal. A surprising Republican Senator is standing against it. Do Republicans and Democrats make exceptions for their own “teams?” Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
Sean Hannity & Krauthammer Talk Excitement in GOP Grassroots on Rand Paul Filibuster & Spending Cuts
Drone Strikes on American Citizens, on US Soil. Sen. Rand Paul Talks with Sean Hannity
Reality Check: Sen. Rand Paul’s Talking Filibuster of John Brennan
Rand Paul blasted Obama for using drone strikes against American citizens
Rand Paul “Senators McCain & Graham Voted FOR Indefinite Detention Of Americans!”
What’s ‘Cooler’ Than Being ‘Cool’? Rand Paul’s Filibuster, According To Fox News’ The Five
Importing the War on Terror: Glenn Greenwald & Activist Trevor Timm on Domestic Drone Surveillance
Obama’s Chilling Secrecy, From Denying Drone Program’s Existence to Stonewalling on Legal Memos
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs revealed over the weekend he was initially instructed to deny the existence of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program overseas. Even though the administration has since backed down from that stance, it continues to stonewall members of Congress on releasing the Justice Department memos explaining the program’s legal rationale. Unanswered questions around the program have held up the confirmation of CIA nominee John Brennan. “For a program that is so far reaching and that has so many consequences — not just in the word, but for the rule of law — the Obama administration has an obligation to be far more transparent than they’ve been so far,” says Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
US drones killed almost five thousand people
Special court to approve of killing Americans with drones?
Obama’s Kill List, Drones, & Assassinating U.S. Citizens
MQ-9 Reaper UAV Predator
Predator RQ-1 / MQ-1 / MQ-9 Reaper – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle part 1
Predator RQ-1 / MQ-1 / MQ-9 Reaper – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle part 2
Boeing Dominator air-launched UAV
Attack of the Drones – USA
The drone war and Obama’s “kill list” – Up w/ Chris Hayes (June 2nd, 2012)
Limits on Obama’s Flying Killer Robots?
Rand Paul: Obama Wants No Judicial Oversight To Kill An American – Hannity 3/5/2013
Eric Holder Admits Killing Americans With Drones on U.S. Soil is Unconstitutional
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster – HOUR 1
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster – HOUR 2
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster – HOUR 3
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 4
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 5
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 6
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 7
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 8
030613 – Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster Hour 9
Alluding to his full bladder, Sen. Rand Paul ends his filibuster in the Senate
Sen. Mike Lee Joins Rand Paul Filibuster of Brennan: ‘It Is The Opposite of Due Process’
Sen. Ted Cruz Joins Sen. Rand Paul’s Filibuster on Brennan Nomination Part 2
Sen. Jerry Moran Joins Rand Paul Filibuster: Drone Strikes on Americans Illogical ~ 3/6/2013
Sen. Ron Wyden Joins Rand Paul Filibuster: Drone Strikes Should Not Be Allowed Without Any Scrutiny
Harry Reid Tries, And Fails, to End Rand Paul’s Filibuster ~ 3/6/13
Alex Jones Show: Thursday (3-7-13) Full Show
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Obama’s Kill List–Drones–Remotely Piloted Aircraft–RPAs–Killing Machines–We Don’t Torture Terrorists–We Kill Americans, Civilians and Children in Undeclared Wars–Obama is Judge, Jury, and Executioner–Hope, Change, and Murder, Inc.–The Mass Murderer In The White House–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Amity Shlaes–Coolidge–Videos
President Coolidge, 1st Presidential Film (1924)
President Coolidge’s Inauguration (1925)
Calvin Coolidge: The Best President You’ve Never Heard Of – Amity Shlaes
Calvin Coolidge book by Amity Shlaes on w/ Glenn Beck on The Blaze TV
Amity Shlaes, Author, “Coolidge”
Digital Age-Why is Coolidge the Forgotten President?-Amity Shlaes
“How They Did It” – Part 1 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 2 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 3 of 4
“How They Did It” – Part 4 of 4
Background Articles and Videos
Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Calvin Coolidge–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’–Videos
Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’
America is a FREAKING MESS…
Barack Obama is AMERICA’S DAD….
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Here Comes The Judge–Here Comes The Judge–Napolitano–and The Tea Party–Videos
Here comes the Judge!
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano discusses the Libertarian Party w/ Glenn Beck & The Fr
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama Out of Step on Economic Issues With American People Including Federal Deficits, Taxes, The Economy, Energy, Immigration and Gun Policy — Videos
Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Dives Down 7 Points To 46%, GOP at 19%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160385/obama-rated-highest-foreign-affairs-lowest-deficit.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160385/obama-rated-highest-foreign-affairs-lowest-deficit.aspx
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Run On The Fed–Countries Demanding Their Gold Reserves Back–The Currency War Gets Hot–Videos
Germany Repatriates Gold From France and US
James Turk on the Central Bank Gold Heist and Bundesbank Accounting Shenaniga
Bringing in the bullion Germany to repatriate gold from US and France
Germany Moves To Relocate Gold From New York Fed to Bundesbank
Germany Wants Its Gold Back From the Fed
Keiser Report: Welcome Home German Gold (E395)
Is Germany About to Start a Run on Gold Held at the New York Fed?
German lawmakers are to review Bundesbank controls of and management of Germany’s gold reserves. Parliament’s Budget Committee will assess how the central bank manages its inventory of Germany’s gold bullion bars that are believed to be stored not only in Frankfurt, but at locations outside Germany, according to German newspaper Bild.
What’s most interesting about all this is that Germany may follow in Hugo Chavez’s footsteps and repatriate their gold to Germany so as to have direct possession of and ownership of their gold reserves. It’s really the only way to protect a central bank’s gold ownership, since by simply going in and asking the New York Fed to show Germany “their” gold, the Fed can walk them in and show them a pile of gold and tell them that it is theirs. The next day they can walk Chinese officials in and show the Chinese the exact same pile of gold and tell them that the gold is theirs.
Possession is the only sure protection.
Germany’s huge gold reserves – 3,396.3 tonnes of gold are some 73.7% of Germany’s national foreign exchange reserves, and are held not only in Germany but at the New York Fed, in London and in Paris. Dumb.
What kind of pressure will the U.S. put on Germany to prevent them from repatriating their gold? The banksters clearly have German Chancellor Merkel in their pocket, but this is unlikely to be influence that is deep into German political leaders. Thus, a run on gold, started by Germany, is not an impossibility.
In this scenario, the noise you would hear is the spike in gold as Bernanke prints more dollars for open market purchases of gold to fill demand for delivery by various central banks. Yikes.
(ViaJamesMiller)
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/is-germany-about-to-start-run-on-gold.html
U.S. Dollar Collapse: Where is Germany’s Gold?
By Peter Schiff
The financial world was shocked this month by a demand from Germany’s Bundesbank to repatriate a large portion of its gold reserves held abroad. By 2020, Germany wants 50% of its total gold reserves back in Frankfurt – including 300 tons from the Federal Reserve. The Bundesbank’s announcement comes just three months after the Fed refused to submit to an audit of its holdings on Germany’s behalf. One cannot help but wonder if the refusal triggered the demand.
Either way, Germany appears to be waking up to a reality for which central banks around the world have been preparing: the dollar is no longer the world’s safe-haven asset and the US government is no longer a trustworthy banker for foreign nations. It looks like their fears are well-grounded, given the Fed’s seeming inability to return what is legally Germany’s gold in a timely manner. Germany is a developed and powerful nation with the second largest gold reserves in the world. If they can’t rely on Washington to keep its promises, who can?
Where is Germany’s Gold?
The impact of Germany’s repatriation on the dollar revolves around an unanswered question: why will it take seven years to complete the transfer?
The popular explanation is that the Fed has already rehypothecated all of its gold holdings in the name of other countries. That is, the same mound of bullion is earmarked as collateral for a host of different lenders. Since the Fed depends on a fractional-reserve banking system for its very existence, it would not come as a surprise that it has become a fractional-reserve bank itself. If so, then perhaps Germany politely asked for a seven-year timeline in order to allow the Fed to save face, and to prevent other depositors from clamoring for their own gold back – a ‘run’ on the Fed.
Now, the Fed can always print more dollars and buy gold on the open market to make up for any shortfall, but such a move could substantially increase the price of gold. The last thing the Fed needs is another gold price spike reminding the world of the dollar’s decline.
Speculation Aside
None of these theories are substantiated, but no matter how you slice it, Germany’s request for its gold does not bode well for the future of the dollar. In fact, the Bundesbank’s official statements are all you need to confirm the Germans’ waning faith in the US.
Last October, after the Bundesbank had requested an audit of its Fed holdings, Executive Board Member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was asked in an interview why the bank kept so much of Germany’s gold overseas. His response emphasized the importance of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency:
Thiele’s statement can lead us to only one conclusion: by keeping fewer reserves in the US, Germany foresees less future need for “US dollar-denominated liquidity.””Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity.”
History Repeats
The whole situation mirrors the late 1960s, during a period that led up to the “Nixon Shock.” Back then, the world was on the Bretton Woods System – an attempt on the part of Western central bankers to pin the dollar to gold at a fixed rate, while still allowing the metal to trade privately as a commodity. This led to a gap between the market price of gold as a commodity and the official price available from the Treasury.
As the true value of gold separated further and further from its official rate, the world began to realize the system was unsustainable, and many suspected the US was not serious about maintaining a strong dollar. West Germany moved first on these fears by redeeming its dollar reserves for gold, followed by France, Switzerland, and others. This eventually culminated in Nixon “closing the gold window” in 1971 by ending any link between the dollar and gold. This “Nixon Shock” spurred chronic inflation throughout the ’70s and a concurrent rally in gold.
Perhaps the entire international community is thinking back to the ’60s, because Germany isn’t the only country maneuvering away from the dollar today. The Netherlands and Azerbaijan are also discussing repatriating their foreign gold holdings. And every month, we hear about central banks increasing gold reserves. The latest are Russia and Kazakhstan, but in the last year, countries from Brazil to Turkey have been adding to their gold holdings in order to diversify away from fiat currency reserves.
And don’t forget China. Once the biggest purchaser of US bonds, it is now a net seller of Treasuries, while simultaneously gobbling up gold. Some sources even claim that China has unofficially surpassed Germany as the second largest holder of gold in the world.
Unlike the ’60s, today there is no official gold window to close. There will be no reported “shock” indicator of a dollar flight. This demand by Germany may be the closest indicator we’re going to get. Placing blame where it’s due, let’s call it the “Bernanke Shock.”
It Takes One to Know One
In last month’s Gold Letter, I wrote about the three pillars supporting the US Treasury’s persistently low interest rates: the Fed, domestic investors, and foreign central banks – led by Japan. I examined how Japan’s plans to radically devalue the yen may undermine that country’s ability to continue buying Treasuries, which could cause the other pillars to become unstable as well.
While private investors and even the Fed might be deluding themselves into believing US bonds are still a viable investment, Germany’s repatriation news makes it clear that foreign governments are no longer buying the propaganda. And why should they? If anyone should appreciate the real constraints the US government is facing, it is other governments.
Our sovereign creditors know that Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama are just regular men in fancy suits. They know the Fed isn’t harboring some ingenious plan for raising interest rates while successfully selling back its worthless mortgage and government securities. Instead, the Fed is like a drug addict making any excuse to get its next fix. [See Bernanke's tell-all interview with Oprah where he confesses to economic doping!]
US investors should be as shocked as the Bundesbank about the Fed’s deception. While we cannot redeem our dollars for gold with the Fed, we can still buy gold with them in the open market. As more investors and governments choose to save in precious metals, the dollar’s value will go into steeper and steeper decline – thereby driving more investors into metals. That’s when the virtuous circle upon which the dollar has coasted for a generation will quickly turn vicious.
Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-dollar-collapse-where-is-germanys-gold/5321894
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Coming Collapse and Fall of the United States of America–Doug Casey, Gerald Celente, Marc Faber, Michael Maloney, Jim Rickards, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff — Videos
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation
The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse
Doug Casey on the Problem with Glenn Beck’s Galt’s Gulch (and much more)
BEST DOUG CASEY SPEECH EVER! An Anarchist, Economic Collapse & 7 billion Chi
Doug Casey talks to James Turk
Doug Casey interviews Peter Schiff
RAGING CURRENCY WARFARE!
Gerald Celente Economic Collapse IMMINENT Gerald Celente Today
Marc Faber ‘We Are in the End Game’ – Economic Collapse
How does the Global Financial Crisis End – Michael Maloney explains
Jim Rickards: the Fed is Racing to Create Inflation Before the US Economy Implodes
Jim Rogers Predicts Global Depression In 2013-2014
The Dollar Collapse Revisited and a Bull Market in US Treasuries w/Peter Schiff!
Press Conference with FOMC Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Conversations with Casey
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc
U.S. Dollar Collapse: Where is Germany’s Gold?
By Peter Schiff
The financial world was shocked this month by a demand from Germany’s Bundesbank to repatriate a large portion of its gold reserves held abroad. By 2020, Germany wants 50% of its total gold reserves back in Frankfurt – including 300 tons from the Federal Reserve. The Bundesbank’s announcement comes just three months after the Fed refused to submit to an audit of its holdings on Germany’s behalf. One cannot help but wonder if the refusal triggered the demand.
Either way, Germany appears to be waking up to a reality for which central banks around the world have been preparing: the dollar is no longer the world’s safe-haven asset and the US government is no longer a trustworthy banker for foreign nations. It looks like their fears are well-grounded, given the Fed’s seeming inability to return what is legally Germany’s gold in a timely manner. Germany is a developed and powerful nation with the second largest gold reserves in the world. If they can’t rely on Washington to keep its promises, who can?
Where is Germany’s Gold?
The impact of Germany’s repatriation on the dollar revolves around an unanswered question: why will it take seven years to complete the transfer?
The popular explanation is that the Fed has already rehypothecated all of its gold holdings in the name of other countries. That is, the same mound of bullion is earmarked as collateral for a host of different lenders. Since the Fed depends on a fractional-reserve banking system for its very existence, it would not come as a surprise that it has become a fractional-reserve bank itself. If so, then perhaps Germany politely asked for a seven-year timeline in order to allow the Fed to save face, and to prevent other depositors from clamoring for their own gold back – a ‘run’ on the Fed.
Now, the Fed can always print more dollars and buy gold on the open market to make up for any shortfall, but such a move could substantially increase the price of gold. The last thing the Fed needs is another gold price spike reminding the world of the dollar’s decline.
Speculation Aside
None of these theories are substantiated, but no matter how you slice it, Germany’s request for its gold does not bode well for the future of the dollar. In fact, the Bundesbank’s official statements are all you need to confirm the Germans’ waning faith in the US.
Last October, after the Bundesbank had requested an audit of its Fed holdings, Executive Board Member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was asked in an interview why the bank kept so much of Germany’s gold overseas. His response emphasized the importance of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency:
Thiele’s statement can lead us to only one conclusion: by keeping fewer reserves in the US, Germany foresees less future need for “US dollar-denominated liquidity.””Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity.”
History Repeats
The whole situation mirrors the late 1960s, during a period that led up to the “Nixon Shock.” Back then, the world was on the Bretton Woods System – an attempt on the part of Western central bankers to pin the dollar to gold at a fixed rate, while still allowing the metal to trade privately as a commodity. This led to a gap between the market price of gold as a commodity and the official price available from the Treasury.
As the true value of gold separated further and further from its official rate, the world began to realize the system was unsustainable, and many suspected the US was not serious about maintaining a strong dollar. West Germany moved first on these fears by redeeming its dollar reserves for gold, followed by France, Switzerland, and others. This eventually culminated in Nixon “closing the gold window” in 1971 by ending any link between the dollar and gold. This “Nixon Shock” spurred chronic inflation throughout the ’70s and a concurrent rally in gold.
Perhaps the entire international community is thinking back to the ’60s, because Germany isn’t the only country maneuvering away from the dollar today. The Netherlands and Azerbaijan are also discussing repatriating their foreign gold holdings. And every month, we hear about central banks increasing gold reserves. The latest are Russia and Kazakhstan, but in the last year, countries from Brazil to Turkey have been adding to their gold holdings in order to diversify away from fiat currency reserves.
And don’t forget China. Once the biggest purchaser of US bonds, it is now a net seller of Treasuries, while simultaneously gobbling up gold. Some sources even claim that China has unofficially surpassed Germany as the second largest holder of gold in the world.
Unlike the ’60s, today there is no official gold window to close. There will be no reported “shock” indicator of a dollar flight. This demand by Germany may be the closest indicator we’re going to get. Placing blame where it’s due, let’s call it the “Bernanke Shock.”
It Takes One to Know One
In last month’s Gold Letter, I wrote about the three pillars supporting the US Treasury’s persistently low interest rates: the Fed, domestic investors, and foreign central banks – led by Japan. I examined how Japan’s plans to radically devalue the yen may undermine that country’s ability to continue buying Treasuries, which could cause the other pillars to become unstable as well.
While private investors and even the Fed might be deluding themselves into believing US bonds are still a viable investment, Germany’s repatriation news makes it clear that foreign governments are no longer buying the propaganda. And why should they? If anyone should appreciate the real constraints the US government is facing, it is other governments.
Our sovereign creditors know that Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama are just regular men in fancy suits. They know the Fed isn’t harboring some ingenious plan for raising interest rates while successfully selling back its worthless mortgage and government securities. Instead, the Fed is like a drug addict making any excuse to get its next fix. [See Bernanke's tell-all interview with Oprah where he confesses to economic doping!]
US investors should be as shocked as the Bundesbank about the Fed’s deception. While we cannot redeem our dollars for gold with the Fed, we can still buy gold with them in the open market. As more investors and governments choose to save in precious metals, the dollar’s value will go into steeper and steeper decline – thereby driving more investors into metals. That’s when the virtuous circle upon which the dollar has coasted for a generation will quickly turn vicious.
Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets and Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. His latest book is The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy, How to Save Yourself and Your Country.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-dollar-collapse-where-is-germanys-gold/5321894
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Coming Obama Recession — Real Recession — Real Recovery Needed –Videos
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/02/january-employment-report-157000-jobs.html
Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Last Revised on: January 30, 2013 – Next Release Date February 28, 2013
| Line | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | I | II | III | IV | I | II | III | IV | ||
| 1 | Gross domestic product | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 3.1 | -0.1 |
| 2 | Personal consumption expenditures | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| 3 | Goods | 5.2 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 7.9 | 5.4 | -1.0 | 1.4 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| 4 | Durable goods | 5.5 | 10.5 | 7.2 | 15.2 | 7.3 | -2.3 | 5.4 | 13.9 | 11.5 | -0.2 | 8.9 | 13.9 |
| 5 | Nondurable goods | 5.1 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 4.5 | 4.6 | -0.3 | -0.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| 6 | Services | 1.2 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| 7 | Gross private domestic investment | 19.8 | 14.6 | 16.4 | -5.9 | -5.3 | 12.5 | 5.9 | 33.9 | 6.1 | 0.7 | 6.6 | -0.6 |
| 8 | Fixed investment | -0.9 | 14.5 | -1.0 | 7.6 | -1.3 | 12.4 | 15.5 | 10.0 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 0.9 | 9.7 |
| 9 | Nonresidential | 2.1 | 12.3 | 7.7 | 9.2 | -1.3 | 14.5 | 19.0 | 9.5 | 7.5 | 3.6 | -1.8 | 8.4 |
| 10 | Structures | -23.0 | 13.1 | -2.2 | 9.3 | -28.2 | 35.2 | 20.7 | 11.5 | 12.9 | 0.6 | 0.0 | -1.1 |
| 11 | Equipment and software | 14.7 | 12.0 | 11.9 | 9.2 | 11.1 | 7.8 | 18.3 | 8.8 | 5.4 | 4.8 | -2.6 | 12.4 |
| 12 | Residential | -11.4 | 23.1 | -28.6 | 1.5 | -1.4 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 12.1 | 20.5 | 8.5 | 13.5 | 15.3 |
| 13 | Change in private inventories | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 14 | Net exports of goods and services | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | Exports | 5.9 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 5.7 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 4.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | -5.7 |
| 16 | Goods | 9.9 | 11.9 | 9.0 | 11.2 | 5.7 | 3.7 | 6.2 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 1.1 | -7.9 |
| 17 | Services | -2.2 | 4.5 | 11.1 | 7.4 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 6.1 | -8.8 | 5.2 | 1.1 | 4.0 | -0.1 |
| 18 | Imports | 10.4 | 20.2 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 2.8 | -0.6 | -3.2 |
| 19 | Goods | 12.2 | 24.7 | 14.1 | 1.1 | 5.2 | -0.7 | 2.9 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 2.9 | -1.2 | -2.7 |
| 20 | Services | 2.4 | 1.2 | 12.9 | -5.0 | -0.6 | 4.2 | 13.8 | -1.7 | 9.0 | 2.3 | 2.6 | -5.4 |
| 21 | Government consumption expenditures and gross investment | -3.1 | 2.8 | -0.3 | -4.4 | -7.0 | -0.8 | -2.9 | -2.2 | -3.0 | -0.7 | 3.9 | -6.6 |
| 22 | Federal | 0.6 | 9.7 | 3.7 | -4.1 | -10.3 | 2.8 | -4.3 | -4.4 | -4.2 | -0.2 | 9.5 | -15.0 |
| 23 | National defense | -3.7 | 7.3 | 7.2 | -6.1 | -14.3 | 8.3 | 2.6 | -10.6 | -7.1 | -0.2 | 12.9 | -22.2 |
| 24 | Nondefense | 10.1 | 14.6 | -3.1 | 0.0 | -1.7 | -7.5 | -17.4 | 10.2 | 1.8 | -0.4 | 3.0 | 1.4 |
| 25 | State and local | -5.5 | -1.4 | -2.9 | -4.6 | -4.7 | -3.2 | -2.0 | -0.7 | -2.2 | -1.0 | 0.3 | -0.7 |
| Addendum: | |||||||||||||
| 26 | Gross domestic product, current dollars | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 5.9 | 0.5 |
Peter Schiff on Negative 4th QTR GDP “The Temporary Euphoria Of The Stimulus
Marc Faber ‘Correction is Overdue’
GDP Drops -0.1% In 4th Quarter – State Of The Economy – America In Crisis!
Surprise Q4 fall in US GDP
Rick Santelli Reacts To Negative Fourth Quarter GDP Growth: ‘We Have Become
The Economy Shrank 0.1% Last Quarter – That’s Not Good IMO – John D. Villarreal
Carney: GDP report not “good news”
US GDP drop dents FTSE’s good form– IG’s Afternoon Market Headlines 30.01.13
US economy shrinks for first time since 2009.
John Williams: We’re Going to be in a New Recession in 2013
Marc Faber. – US Economy 100% Chance of Another Recession
Recession Risks: UK heads for triple-dip as GDP shrinks
Background Articles and Videos
* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables, contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.
<!—-><!—-><!—->
| Lisa S. Mataloni: | (202) 606-5304 | (GDP) | gdpniwd@bea.gov |
| Andrew Hodge: | (202) 606-5564 | (Profits) | cpniwd@bea.gov |
| Recorded message: | (202) 606-5306 | ||
| Brent Moulton: | (202) 606-9606 | (Annual Revision) | |
| Bob Kornfeld: | (202) 606-9285 | ||
| Ralph Stewart: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) | |
| Jeannine Aversa: | (202) 606-2649 | (News Media) |
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent. The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 4 and the "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2013. The decrease in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from private inventory investment, federal government spending, and exports that were partly offset by positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased. The downturn in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in nonresidential fixed investment, a larger decrease in imports, and an acceleration in PCE. Final sales of computers added 0.15 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.11 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Motor vehicle output added 0.04 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.25 percentage point from the third-quarter change. _____________ FOOTNOTE. Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005) dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures. This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Notes and Highlights related to this release. _____________ The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 1.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the third. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the third. Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 13.9 percent, compared with an increase of 8.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent. Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent. Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.1 percent; it was unchanged in the third quarter. Equipment and software increased 12.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 2.6 percent in the third. Real residential fixed investment increased 15.3 percent, compared with an increase of 13.5 percent. Real exports of goods and services decreased 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 1.9 percent in the third. Real imports of goods and services decreased 3.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent. Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent. The change in real private inventories subtracted 1.27 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.73 percentage point to the third-quarter change. Private businesses increased inventories $20.0 billion in the fourth quarter, following increases of $60.3 billion in the third and $41.4 billion in the second. Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the third. Gross domestic purchases Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever produced -- increased 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.6 percent in the third. Disposition of personal income Current-dollar personal income increased $256.2 billion (7.9 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $72.7 billion (2.2 percent) in the third. The acceleration in personal income primarily reflected a sharp acceleration in personal dividend income, an upturn in personal interest income, and an acceleration in wage and salary disbursements. The sharp acceleration in personal dividend income reflected accelerated and special dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter in anticipation of changes in individual income tax rates. The upturn in personal interest income primarily reflected an upturn in interest rates for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. The acceleration in wages and salaries reflected the pattern of monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics employment, hours, and earnings data for the fourth quarter, as well as a judgmental estimate of accelerated compensation in the form of bonus payments and other irregular pay in the fourth quarter. Personal current taxes increased $21.0 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $10.0 billion in the third. Disposable personal income increased $235.2 billion (8.1 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $62.7 billion (2.1 percent) in the third. Real disposable personal income increased 6.8 percent, compared with an increase of 0.5 percent. Personal outlays increased $95.0 billion (3.3 percent) in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $88.6 billion (3.1 percent) in the third. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less personal outlays -- was $570.0 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $429.8 billion in the third. The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 3.6 percent in the third. For a comparison of personal saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp. Current-dollar GDP Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 0.5 percent, or $18.0 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $15,829.0 billion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 5.9 percent, or $225.4 billion. 2012 GDP Real GDP increased 2.2 percent in 2012 (that is, from the 2011 annual level to the 2012 annual level), compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in 2011. The increase in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending and from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. The acceleration in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, upturns in residential fixed investment and in private inventory investment, and smaller decreases in state and local government spending and in federal government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in PCE, exports, and nonresidential fixed investment. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in 2012, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in 2011. Current-dollar GDP increased 4.0 percent, or $600.3 billion, in 2012, compared with an increase of 4.0 percent, or $576.8 billion, in 2011. During 2012 (that is, measured from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012) real GDP increased 1.5 percent. Real GDP increased 2.0 percent during 2011. The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent during 2012, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during 2011. ______________ BOX. Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components." ______________ BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business; and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements. * * * Next release -- February 28, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for: Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012 (Second Estimate) Release Dates in 2013 2012: IV and 2012 annual 2013: I 2013: II 2013: III Gross Domestic Product Advance.......... January 30 April 26 July 31 October 30 Second........... February 28 May 30 August 29 November 26 Third............ March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20 Corporate Profits Preliminary...... ........ May 30 August 29 November 26 Revised.......... March 28 June 26 September 26 December 20 Comparisons of Revisions to GDP Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available, the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively. The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions. Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark) revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S. economy. The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision (with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend growth more than four-fifths of the time. Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons [Annual rates] Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of compared regard to sign revisions without regard to sign ____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________ Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4 Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4 Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2 Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0 ________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________ Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4 Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5 Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2 Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0 NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Recovery Shows a Soft Spot
GDP Shrinks 0.1% on Government Cuts, but Consumer, Business Spending Offer Hope
By JOSH MITCHELL
“…The U.S. economy shrank for the first time in more than three years in the fourth quarter, underscoring the halting nature of the recovery. But the strength of consumer spending and business investment suggested that the economy will grow, albeit slowly, this year.
Gross domestic product—the broadest measure of goods and services churned out by the economy—fell at a 0.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2012, according to the government’s initial estimate out Wednesday.
The details weren’t as discouraging as the headline. The drop, a surprise, was driven by a sharp fall in government spending and by businesses putting fewer goods on warehouse shelves, as well as by a decline in exports. The mainstays of the domestic private economy—housing, consumer spending and business investment in equipment and software—were stronger.
to the economy, even though it expected a return to moderate growth in the months ahead.
The U.S. joined other advanced economies in reporting contractions in the final months of last year. The U.K., Germany, Spain and Belgium have said their economies shrank in the fourth quarter, and several more euro-zone members in coming weeks are expected to report their own declines. Budget cuts appear to be a leading factor driving the contractions in many of those nations.
Deficit cutting in advanced economies is an important reason why global growth is expected to barely improve this year. The International Monetary Fund last week projected global growth of just 3.5% this year, a slight pickup from the estimated 3.2% growth in 2012, due partly to budget tightening in the U.S. and Europe. The International Monetary Fund expects advanced economies to expand just 1.4% this year, compared with 5.5% growth among developing economies.
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BK111_ECONOM_NS_20130130175403.jpg)
Wednesday’s GDP report portrayed an economy stuck in low gear. For 2012, the economy grew 2.2%, up from the 1.8% growth of 2011, but still below the roughly 3% pace notched during healthier times.
For now, the economy is riding largely on the backs of consumers. Consumer spending, adjusted for inflation, increased at a 2.2% rate in the fourth quarter, up from 1.6% in the third. That included a jump in spending on durable goods, which are big-ticket items such as cars and refrigerators.
One thing that is helping consumers: They are starting to see substantial income gains after years of stagnation. The GDP report showed after-tax income rose at a rate of 6.8%, adjusted for inflation, the fastest pace since the recession.
One company benefiting from stronger consumer spending is Nando’s Peri-Peri USA, a closely held chain of chicken restaurants in the Washington, D.C., area. Same-store sales rose roughly 5% in the final months of 2012 compared with a year ago, said Chief Executive Burton Heiss.
Mr. Heiss said he believes consumers are feeling more secure as housing and other parts of the economy improve. Higher home prices, for example, might be giving consumers the confidence to spend more freely on going out. Mr. Heiss added that the strength seems to be continuing: Sales have picked up slightly since the start of the year.
U.S. companies stepped up investment in equipment and software during the quarter, with business investment rising at a rate of 8.4%, the strongest pace in a year. That defied expectations that companies would pull back due to worries over the “fiscal cliff” budget dispute in Washington.
Still, those factors weren’t strong enough to overcome declines in federal spending and exports and slower inventory growth.
The slower inventory investment was the biggest factor behind the contraction. Businesses essentially sold items from warehouse shelves, rather than placing new orders with manufacturers.
That may have been due to inventory accumulating too quickly last summer and some businesses becoming extra cautious about restocking. The upside is that with inventory levels now depleted, many businesses will be forced to replenish, possibly boosting growth in the current quarter.
Meanwhile, government spending, which has been a drag on growth for more than two years, declined for the ninth time in 10 quarters. The biggest cuts came in military spending, which tumbled at a rate of 22.2%, the largest drop since 1972. But state and local spending also fell, dashing hopes of stabilization after a rare increase in the third quarter.
Military analysts said the decline likely was a result of pressure on the Pentagon from a number of areas.
Among them: reductions in spending on the war in Afghanistan as it winds down, a downturn in planned military spending, a constraint placed on the Pentagon budget because the federal government is operating on short-term resolutions that limit spending growth, as well as concern that further cuts may be in the pipeline.
Pentagon officials already have imposed tighter controls on military spending to deal with the challenges.
David Berteau, a former Defense Department official who now heads the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said he was surprised by the sharp drop and predicted that persistent uncertainty about the defense budget would continue to be a drag on the national economy.
“Is this a blip in the data or is it a trend?” he said. “I think you’re seeing a trend.”
The effect of defense cuts on the economy in the fourth quarter likely raises the stakes of looming budget fights between the White House and congressional Republicans. The White House said the GDP report showed the need for Congress to avoid “self-inflicted wounds” and reach a deal.
Companies tied to the defense industry already are bracing for cuts.
Noel McCormick, president of McCormick Stevenson, a small engineering firm in Clearwater, Fla., that designs weapons for major defense contractors, said big clients have told him they may resort to layoffs and cut spending if cuts happen.
That would have a “tremendous” impact on McCormick’s 12-person company, he said, likely causing it to cut back as well.
“There is a great deal of angst associated in the coming months,” Mr. McCormick said.
—Sudeep Reddy, Jon Hilsenrath, Ben Casselman and Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )« Previous Entries































































































































