Advance Estimate of Real GDP Growth in Second Quarter of 2013 is 1.7% With First Quarter of 2013 Revised Down to 1.1% (Original Advance Estimate was 2.5%!)! — U.S. Economy Is Stagnating as Growth Continues To Decline — Videos

Posted on August 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

US economy grows more than expected in Q2 – economy

BBC News – Can Hollywood give US economy a happy ending?

News Wrap: Federal Reserve Downgrades U.S. Economic Growth

No hint of stimulus pullback in the US even as growth improves

GDP Propaganda Exposed

Peter Schiff – Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis!

GDP grows faster than expected

What is the origin of GDP?

US first-quarter growth was 1.8%, not 2.4% – economy

Jobs Report July 2013 Preview: What’s The Unemployment Rate Hiding?

Peter Schiff: Buy Gold and Silver Now, Money Printing Until We Have A Currency Crisis & More

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, second quarter 2013 (advance estimate);
Comprehensive Revision: 1929 through 1st quarter 2013
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent (revised).

      The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3
and "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 18).  The "second" estimate for the second quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on August 29, 2013.

      The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory
investment, and residential investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal
government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected upturns in nonresidential
fixed investment and in exports, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and an upturn in
state and local government spending that were partly offset by an acceleration in imports and
decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE.

BOX._______

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     The estimates released today reflect the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision
of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013
"advance" estimate.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

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 (2009) dollars.  Price
indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA’s Web site  along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.
_______________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.8 percent in
the second quarter compared with 1.4 percent in the first.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.8 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.3 percent in the first.  Durable goods increased 6.5 percent, compared with an
increase of 5.8 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.0 percent, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent.  Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 4.6 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 4.6 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 6.8 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 25.7 percent.  Equipment increased 4.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.7 percent.  Real
residential fixed investment increased 13.4 percent, compared with an increase of 12.5 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.3 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 9.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.5 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 8.4 percent in the first.  National defense decreased
0.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.2 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.6 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 0.93 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $56.7 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $42.2 billion in the first quarter
and $7.3 billion in the fourth.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the
first.

Disposition of personal income

      Current-dollar personal income increased $140.1 billion (4.1 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $157.1 billion (4.4 percent) in the first.  The upturn in personal income
primarily reflected sharp upturns in personal dividend income and in wages and salaries and a sharp
deceleration in contributions for government social insurance (a subtraction in the calculation of
personal income).

*	Personal dividend income increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a large decrease in the
        first. The first-quarter decline in dividend income primarily reflected the accelerated and special
        dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter of 2012.

*	Wages and salaries increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease in the first. The
        first-quarter decline in wages and salaries is based on preliminary quarterly census of
        employment and wages data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*	The sharp deceleration in contributions for government social insurance primarily reflected the
        first-quarter expiration of the "payroll tax holiday" that increased the social security contribution
        rate for employees and self-employed workers by 2.0 percentage points.

      Personal current taxes increased $36.0 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $74.3 billion in the first.

      Disposable personal income increased $104.1 billion (3.4 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $231.5 billion (7.2 percent) in the first.  Real disposable personal income
increased 3.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 8.2 percent.

      Personal outlays increased $44.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $98.7 billion (3.4 percent) in the first.  Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $553.4 billion in the second quarter, compared with $494.0 billion in the first.

      The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
4.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the first.  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
2.4 percent, or $98.1 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $16,633.4 billion.  In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $115.0 billion.

Box._______

      Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that
is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key
Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site.  In the middle of each month, an analysis of
the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey
of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy."  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."

____________

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME AND PRODUCT
                                ACCOUNTS: 1929 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2013

      Today, BEA released revised statistics of gross domestic product (GDP) and of other national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) series from 1929 through the first quarter of 2013.
Comprehensive revisions, which are carried out about every 5 years, are an important part of BEA’s
regular process for improving and modernizing its accounts to keep pace with the ever-changing U.S.
economy.

      Most of the tables in this release present revised statistics for 2002 through the first quarter of
2013.  Selected NIPA tables, with statistics from 1929 forward, are available on BEA's Web site
(www.bea.gov).  Most of the remaining NIPA tables will be released later in August.  An article
describing the statistics will be published in the September 2013 issue of BEA’s monthly journal, the
Survey of Current Business.

Summary of revisions

      The picture of the economy shown in the revised estimates is very similar in broad outline to the
picture shown in the previously published estimates.  The similarity and some of the differences can be
seen in the following:

*	For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3 percent, 0.1 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period, 2002–2012,
        the growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the previously published
        estimates.

*	For 2002–2012, the average rate of change in the prices paid by U.S. residents was 2.3 percent,
        0.1 percentage point lower than in the previously published estimates.

*	For 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  The percent change in real GDP was
        revised up 0.1 percentage point for 2010, was unrevised for 2011, and was revised up 0.6
        percentage point for 2012.

*	For the period of contraction from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, real
        GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        decreased 3.2 percent.

*	For the period of expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real
        GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        increased 2.1 percent.

Improvements incorporated in this comprehensive revision

      Comprehensive revisions encompass three major types of improvements:

*	Changes in definitions and in classifications that update the accounts to more accurately portray
        the evolving U.S. economy,

*	Changes in presentations that make the NIPA tables more informative, and

*	Statistical changes that introduce new and improved methodologies and that bring in newly
        available and revised source data (see box on page 8).

      The improvements incorporated in the revised estimates have been previewed in a series of
articles in the Survey and are available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Changes in definitions, classifications, and presentations.  The changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations introduced in this comprehensive revision include the following:

*	Expenditures by business, government, and nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISH)
        for research and development (R&D) are recognized as fixed investment.  The new treatment
        improves BEA’s measures of fixed investment and allows users to better measure the effects of
        innovation and intangible assets on the economy.

*	Similarly, expenditures by private enterprises for the creation of entertainment, literary, and
        artistic originals are recognized as fixed investment, further expanding BEA’s measures of
        intangible assets.

*	In the NIPA fixed investment tables, a new category of investment, "intellectual property
        products," consists of research and development; entertainment, literary, and artistic originals;
        and software.

*	Transactions of defined benefit pension plans are recorded on an accrual accounting basis, which
        recognizes the costs of unfunded liabilities.

*	An expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets is recognized as fixed
        investment, and the accuracy of the associated asset values and services lives is improved.

*	The reference year for the chain-type quantity and price indexes and for the chained-dollar
        estimates is updated to 2009 from 2005.

      Statistical changes.  Important statistical changes that introduce new and improved
methodologies and that bring in newly available source data include the following:

*	BEA’s 2007 benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts, which provide the most thorough and
        detailed information on the structure of the U.S. economy, are used to benchmark the
        expenditure components of GDP and some of the income components.

*	Beginning with 1966, the estimates of employers’ contributions to state and local government-
        sponsored defined contribution pension plans are improved by incorporating new source data.

*	Beginning with 1985, the methods for computing financial services provided by commercial
        banks are improved to establish a more accurate picture of banking output.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of proprietors’ income are improved by more accurately
        accounting for the capital gains and losses attributable to corporate partners.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent-site
        housing are improved by incorporating several new data sources.

A table that summarizes the major sources of revision for selected NIPA components is available on
BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Effects of improvements on major aggregates.  The improvements and the new and revised
source data incorporated with this comprehensive revision have notable effects on current-dollar NIPA
aggregates without changing broad economic trends or the general patterns of business cycles.  In the
aggregate, changes in definitions (mainly the recognition of new forms of fixed investment) have the
largest effect on current-dollar GDP and GDI for 1929–2012, and statistical changes (improved data and
methodologies) tend to have smaller effects.  For example, for 2012, the level of current-dollar GDP was
revised up $559.8 billion; $526.0 billion of this upward revision resulted from definitional changes.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar GDP
      Changes in definitions (mainly accrual accounting for defined benefit pension plans, which
credits households with the value of accrued benefits from these plans) raise personal income and
personal saving; statistical changes have mixed effects on personal income and on personal saving.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar Personal Income
      News release tables.  This release includes the tables that will be regularly shown in future GDP
news releases; in addition, special tables have been included to highlight the effects of the
comprehensive revision.  The special tables are:

*	Tables 1A, 2A, and 4A compare revised and previously published estimates for percent changes
        in real GDP, for contributions to percent change in real GDP, and for percent changes in chain-
        type price indexes for GDP and related measures, respectively;

*	Tables 7A, 7B, and 7C show annual levels, percent changes, and revisions to percent changes for
        current-dollar GDP, for real (chained-dollar) GDP, and for chain-type price indexes for GDP,
        respectively;

*	Table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.

      Most of the tables show annual estimates beginning with 2002; quarterly estimates (if shown)
begin with the first quarter of 2007.  Three of the regular tables -- tables 3, 11, and 12 -- are split into A
and B segments in this release to accommodate this longer-than-usual time span.

      With this release, selected NIPA tables are available on BEA’s Web site.  Most of the remaining
NIPA tables will be available later in August.

Box.________

                                         New and revised data

      The revised estimates reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised source data.  The
most important source data that affect the estimates are BEA’s benchmark 2007 input-output (I-O)
accounts.  The revised estimates also incorporate data on inventories, on receipts and expenses of
business establishments and of governments, on sales by detailed commodity and by product line, on
final industry and product shipments from the 2007 Economic Census, and on trade margins from both
the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 annual surveys of merchant wholesale and of retail trade.  In
addition, the revised estimates incorporate monthly and annual Census Bureau industry data on
manufacturing, on wholesale trade, and on retail trade for 2003 forward.  The revised estimates also
reflect data on housing from the 2010 decennial Census of Population and Housing.  Estimates that are
based on BEA’s international transactions accounts (ITAs) -- primarily net exports of goods and services
and rest-of-the-world income receipts and payments -- were revised to reflect improvements to the ITAs
that were introduced since 2009.  Estimates of underreported income were revised using Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) National Research Program data for 2006.  Other data that were incorporated
include revised data on the expenditures and receipts of state and local governments for fiscal years
2006–2009 from the Census Bureau.

      The revised estimates for 2010–2012 also reflect the incorporation of newly available and
revised source data that became available since the last annual NIPA revision in July 2012.  The most
important of these data sources are Census Bureau annual surveys of state and local governments for
fiscal year 2010 (revised) and fiscal year 2011 (preliminary), of manufactures for 2010 (revised) and
2011 (preliminary), of merchant wholesale trade and of retail trade for 2010 (revised) and 2011
(preliminary), and of services and of the value of construction spending for 2010 and 2011 (revised) and
2012 (preliminary); federal government budget data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (revised); Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW) for 2010–2012 (revised);
IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns for 2010 (revised) and 2011 (preliminary) and of sole
proprietorship and partnership tax returns for 2011; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm
statistics for 2010–2012 (revised).

      Data from BEA’s annual revision of the ITAs were incorporated for 2010–2012 for most
components at their "best level;" revisions for earlier years, along with data from the June 2014 revision
of the ITAs, will be incorporated in the NIPAs in the 2014 annual revision.
_______________
FOOTNOTE.______
The 2007 benchmark input-output accounts are scheduled for release in December 2013. At that time, BEA will
also release the comprehensive revision of the annual industry accounts, which will be consistent with this
comprehensive revision of the NIPAs.
_______________

The revisions

      For this comprehensive revision, many current-dollar estimates were revised back to 1929, the
earliest year for which NIPA estimates are available, as a result of changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations.

      Real GDP growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3
percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent
period, 2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in
the previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth
rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.
For the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised up from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent for 2010,
*	was unrevised at 1.8 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent for 2012.

      Real GDI growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDI was 3.3 percent,
0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period,
2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate
of real GDI was 2.6 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised down from 3.1 percent to 2.7 percent for 2010,
*	was revised up from 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.5 percent for 2012.

      Business cycles.  For the contraction that lasted from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second
quarter of 2009, real GDP decreased at a 2.9 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates,
it decreased 3.2 percent.  The cumulative decrease in real GDP (not at an annual rate) was 4.3 percent; in
the previously published estimates, the cumulative decrease was 4.7 percent.  In the revised estimates,
real GDP decreased in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of
2009.

      For the expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP
increased at a 2.2 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates, it increased 2.1 percent.
From the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP increased in all quarters except for
the first quarter of 2011, when real GDP decreased 1.3 percent; in the previously published estimates,
real GDP increased in all quarters during this period.  Earlier business cycles show little revision.

      Price changes.  The revisions to major price indexes are small.  For 1929–2012, the average
annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 3.0 percent to
2.9 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised
down from 2.4 percent to 2.3 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was
revised down from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase in the price
index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent; the average
annual increase in the price index for GDP was revised down from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent.

      For 1929–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for personal consumption
expenditures (PCE) was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For 2002–2012, the average annual increase in the
PCE price index was revised down from 2.2 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual
increase in the PCE price index was unrevised at 2.0 percent.

      Real disposable personal income (DPI) growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual increase
in real DPI was 3.2 percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase was 2.0 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase was 1.8 percent, 0.2
percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.

      Personal saving.  Personal saving (DPI less personal outlays) was revised up for 1929–2007,
down for 2008, and up for 2009–2012.  These revisions reflect the revisions to DPI and are mainly the
result of adopting the accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.  The personal saving rate
(personal saving as a percentage of DPI) was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012, reflecting the revisions to personal saving.

Revisions to current-dollar estimates

      The revisions to current-dollar GDP, to personal income and its disposition, and to national
income are shown in table 1B.  This table shows the "revisions in level," that is, the revised estimates
less the previously published estimates; table 1B also shows the revisions as a percent of the previously
published estimates for selected years.  The revised levels of annual GDP and its major components for
1965–2012, along with percent changes from the preceding year and revisions to the percent changes,
are shown in table 7A.

      GDP.  Current-dollar GDP was revised up for all years (1929–2012).  The upward revisions to
current-dollar GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation
of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as
fixed investment (see "Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012").  The new accrual treatment for government-
sponsored defined benefit pension plans results in revisions to current-dollar GDP through revisions to
supplements to wages and salaries for government employees (specifically, employer contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds); these revisions are upward for 1929–1978, downward for
1979–1991, and upward for 1992–2012.

Box._______

                                             Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012
                                              (Billions of current dollars)

Total Revision                                                                             559.8

Due to major definitional changes                                                          526.0

Capitalization of research and development                                                 396.7
Capitalization of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals                           74.3
Expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets                       42.3
Accrual accounting for defined benefit pension programs                                     12.6

Due to statistical changes                                                                  33.8

___________

      PCE.  Revisions to PCE are generally small before 1985; PCE was revised up for 1985 and
1986, down for 1987–2011, and up for 2012.  PCE for services accounts for most of the revisions for all
years except for 2011.

      Services.  PCE for services was revised up for 1985 and 1986, down for 1987–2010, and up for
2011 and 2012.  For most years beginning with 1985, the improved method for estimating services of
commercial banks results in downward revisions to PCE for financial services.  For 1965–2012 (and for
several prior years), the gross output of NPISH was revised down; the removal of R&D expenses of
NPISH (and their reclassification as fixed investment) more than offsets the addition to expenses of
consumption of fixed capital (CFC) for R&D capital.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Goods.  Revisions to PCE for goods begin with 1998 and follow a mixed pattern, with
downward revisions for 2010–2012.  The revisions to PCE for goods reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised data from the Census Bureau’s retail trade surveys,
and of other new and revised source data.

      Private fixed investment.  Current-dollar private fixed investment was revised up for 1929–
2012.  The upward revisions reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the
creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs -- as fixed investment.

      Nonresidential structures.  The downward revisions for 2003–2012 primarily reflect the
incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of revised footage drilled and expenditure
data from the Census Bureau and trade sources, and of revised Census Bureau construction spending
data.

      Equipment.   Software is now classified as part of intellectual property products rather than as
part of private equipment and software.  Private equipment (without software) was revised up for 2003–
2012, reflecting the incorporation of BEA’s 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised Census
Bureau surveys of manufactures, and of other new and revised source data.

      Residential fixed investment.  The upward revisions to residential fixed investment for 1929–
2012 mainly reflect the recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed
assets as fixed investment.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark
I-O accounts and of new and revised data from the Census Bureau surveys of construction spending.

      Intellectual property products.  Beginning with this comprehensive revision, the NIPA tables
include a new category of fixed investment, "intellectual property products."  The recognition of
expenditures for R&D and for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals as fixed
investment results in upward revisions to gross private domestic investment.  The downward revisions to
software investment for 2010–2012 (and small revisions for 2003–2009) reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts and of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services.
      Change in private inventories.  The revisions begin with 2002 and are mostly upward; the
revisions are dominated by revisions to nonfarm inventories for 2002–2010 and by farm inventories for
2011 and 2012.  The revisions to nonfarm inventories reflect data from a variety of sources, including
newly available and revised Census Bureau data on inventory book values, and the incorporation of new
commodity price weights from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts.  The revisions to farm inventories
reflect revised USDA farm statistics for 2010–2012.

      Exports and imports of goods and services.  Revisions to net exports of goods and services are
generally small before 2002; the revisions are upward for 2002–2007, downward for 2008–2011, and
upward for 2012.  The revisions to net exports are mostly due to revisions to exports for 2002–2009 and
for 2012 and are mostly due to revisions to imports for 2010 and 2011.  Exports were revised up for
2002–2007, down for 2008–2010, and up for 2011and 2012.  The revisions to imports are upward for
2010 and 2011 and are small for other years.  The estimates reflect the incorporation of revised data
from BEA’s ITAs for 1999–2012.

      Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.  Government consumption
expenditures and gross investment was revised up for 1929–2012.  The revisions mainly reflect the
recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed investment and the addition to consumption expenditures
of the CFC for R&D assets.

      Federal government.  The upward revisions to federal government consumption expenditures
and gross investment for 1929–2012 mainly reflect the recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed
investment.  The new accrual treatment for defined benefit pension plans results in upward revisions to
contributions for employee pension and insurance funds for 1929–1979 and downward revisions for
1980–2012.  The revisions also reflect improved source data and methods, including revised federal
budget data for 2012 and 2013.

      State and local government.  State and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment was revised up for 1929–1975, down for 1976–1988, and up for 1989–2012.  These revisions
mainly reflect the new accrual approach for measuring state and local government-sponsored defined
benefit pension plans, which results in revisions to state and local government contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds that are upward for 1929–1978, downward for 1979–1986, and
upward for 1987–2012.  Revisions also result from statistical changes, including the incorporation of
improved source data on expenditures for defined contribution pension plans and the improved method
for estimating services of commercial banks.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the 2007
benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised government finances data from the Census Bureau, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Personal income.   Personal income was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012.  These revisions mainly reflect the accrual approach for measuring defined benefit pension
plans, which results in upward revisions to personal income receipts on assets for 1929–2012 and in
upward revisions to supplements (specifically, employer contributions for employee pension and
insurance funds) for 1929–1975, for 1989–2002, and for 2004–2011.  A number of other definitional
and statistical changes affected the revisions to personal income.  The revisions to the components of
personal income are discussed below.
Revisions to Personal Income
      Wages and salaries.  The revisions mainly reflect revisions to private wages and salaries.  The
revisions are generally small and mixed for years prior to 2002, are downward for 2002–2011, and are
upward for 2012.  The revisions reflect revised estimates of misreporting and new and revised BLS
QCEW data.

      Supplements to wages and salaries.  The revisions to supplements reflect the revisions to
employer contributions for pension and insurance funds that result from the accrual approach for
measuring defined benefit pension plans.  Employer contributions for state and local government
defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–1986, and up for 1987–2012.
Employer contributions for federal government defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1979 and
down for 1980–2012.  Employer contributions for private defined benefit plans was revised down for
1968–1985, up for 1986–2001, down for 2002–2006, up for 2007, and down for 2008–2012.
Contributions for state and local government defined contribution pension plans was revised up for
1967–2012, reflecting the incorporation of improved source data.

      Proprietors’ income.  Proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–2011 and up for 2012;
the revisions for years before 1965 are small.  Nonfarm proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–
2011 and up for 2012.  The revisions to proprietors’ income primarily reflect revisions to nonfarm
proprietors’ income for most years (except for 2009 and for 2012).  Farm proprietors’ income had
relatively large upward revisions for 2011 and 2012, reflecting the incorporation of revised USDA data
for 2010–2012.

      The revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income reflect a number of definitional and statistical
changes as well as revised source data.  Revisions due to the improved accounting for the capital gains
and losses attributable to corporate partners are downward for 2002–2008, upward for 2009, and
downward for 2010–2012.  Revisions due to the capitalization of expenditures for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs are
downward, while the revisions due to the capitalization of R&D expenditures are upward.  The revisions
also reflect new IRS estimates for underreporting of income as well as new IRS tabulations of tax return
data for sole proprietorships and partnerships for 2011.

      Rental income of persons.  Rental income of persons was revised down for 1929–2002 and was
revised up for 2003 forward.  The improved methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for
nonfarm permanent site housing results in downward revisions to rental income of persons for 1993–
2001 and upward revisions for 2002–2012.  The recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs for residential assets as fixed investment results in downward revisions for all years, partly
offsetting the upward revisions to rental income of persons for 2003–2012.  The revisions also reflect
revisions to owner- and tenant-occupied space rent, based on data from the 2010 Census of Housing and
the incorporation of other new and revised source data.

      Personal interest income.  Personal interest income was revised up for all years except for
2008.  The upward revisions mainly reflect the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.
Personal interest income was also affected by several other changes in methodology, including an
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income and the improved method for measuring interest associated with financial services of
commercial banks.  Revisions to personal interest income also reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data from the Federal Reserve Board and other sources.

      Personal dividend income.  Personal dividend income was revised up for most years for 1991–
2009, was revised down for 2010, was revised up for 2011, and was revised down for 2012.  The
revisions to personal dividend income reflect the improved method for distributing the investment
income of regulated investment companies by type of income as well as the incorporation of new and
revised IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns and of data from BEA’s ITAs on dividends from the rest
of the world.

      Personal current transfer receipts.  Personal current transfer receipts was revised down for
2002, up for 2003–2009, and down for 2010–2012.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data.

      Contributions for government social insurance.  The revisions to contributions for
government social insurance (which is deducted in the calculation of personal income) are small for
2002–2012.

      Personal current taxes.  Personal current taxes was revised up for 2011 and 2012; revisions are
generally small for prior years.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new tax collections data from
the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration and of new and revised Census Bureau
state and local government finances data.

      Disposable personal income.  The pattern of revisions to disposable personal income, which is
equal to personal income less personal current taxes, is similar to that of personal income.

      Personal outlays.  This series consists of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current
transfer payments.  The revisions to personal outlays primarily reflect the revisions to PCE that were
previously described.  Personal interest payments was revised up for 1985 forward; revisions for prior
years are small.  The revisions to personal interest payments result from the improved method for
measuring the financial services of commercial banks and associated interest income from the
incorporation of new and revised source data.  Personal current transfer payments was revised down for
2007–2012.

      GDI.  Current-dollar GDI, like current-dollar GDP, was revised up for all years for 1929–2012.
The upward revisions to current-dollar GDI and GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional
expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an
expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as fixed investment.

      National income.  National income was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–2001, up for
2002–2004, down for 2005–2010, and up for 2011 and 2012.  The revisions to national income reflect
the revisions to the components of national income that were previously described; the revisions to the
remaining components of national income are discussed below.
Revision to National Income
      Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments.
Corporate profits was revised up for 1929–1986, down for 1987–2001, and up for 2002–2012.
Revisions to corporate profits due to the capitalization of expenditures for R&D and for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals are upward for 1929–2012.  Revisions to corporate profits
due to the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans are upward for 1968–1985, downward
for 1986–2002, upward for 2003–2006, downward for 2007–2009, and upward for 2010–2012.  The
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income results in revisions that are downward for 1992–2001, upward for 2002, and downward for
2003–2012.  The revisions to corporate profits also reflect the incorporation of new and revised IRS
tabulations of corporate tax return data and of new and revised data from BEA’s ITAs and from other
sources.

      Net interest and miscellaneous payments.  Net interest and miscellaneous payments was
revised up for most years for 1965–2001 and down for 2002–2012.  Revisions for years prior to 1965
are small.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of several definitional and statistical improvements,
including the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans, the improved method for
distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of income, the improved
methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent site housing, and the
improved method for measuring the financial services of commercial banks, and the incorporation of
new and revised data from a number of sources.

      Consumption of fixed capital (CFC).  CFC was revised up substantially for 1929–2012.  The
upward revisions to CFC reflect the addition of CFC for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary,
and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs of residential assets.  In
addition, CFC was revised up to reflect a faster depreciation rate of brokers’ commissions on residential
structures.  The revisions to CFC also reflect statistical improvements and revisions to BEA’s estimates
of fixed investment and prices.

      Statistical discrepancy.  The statistical discrepancy, which is the difference between GDP and
GDI, was revised for 1929–2012.  The directions of the revisions are mixed for 1929–2000; the
statistical discrepancy was revised down for 2001–2003, was revised up for 2004–2008, was revised
down for 2009, was revised up for 2010, and was revised down for 2011 and 2012.  (In theory, GDP
should equal GDI; in practice, they differ because their components are estimated using largely
independent and less-than-perfect source data.)

Box._______
                    Availability of Revised Estimates and Related Information

Revised estimates for selected NIPA tables are on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov

The comprehensive revision was previewed in a series of articles in the Survey of Current Business;
the articles are also available on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions

The release schedule for revised NIPA tables is available at
www.bea.gov/national/table_schedule_20130606.htm
___________

      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 -- August 29, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                          Gross Domestic Product:  Second Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
                            Corporate Profits:  Second Quarter (Preliminary Estimate)

                                            Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

     Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule:  the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.

     Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data.  Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.

The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates.  From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point.  From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points.  The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates.  The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts.  The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.

                           Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
                                                     [Annual rates]

       Vintages                                   Average         Average without     Standard deviation of
       compared                                                    regard to sign      revisions without
                                                                                         regard to sign

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.2                 0.6                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .7                   .4
Second to third......................                .0                  .3                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .3                 1.2                  1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.1                 0.5                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .6                   .5
Second to third......................                .0                  .2                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .2                 1.3                  1.0

NOTE.  These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
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

Posted on May 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

sgs-emp

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

employment_level_April_2013

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

civilian_labor_force_level_April_2013

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

labor_force_participation_rate

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

unemployment_level_april_2013

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

unemployment_rate_u3_April_2013

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

teenage_16_19_unemployment_rate

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

average_weeks_unemployed_april_2013

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

new_entrants_unemployment_level

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

not_in_labor_force_april_2013

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.)

not_labor_force_discouraged

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

u6_unemployment_rate

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

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

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

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

Will Tea Party Caucus Vote As A Block Against Democratic and Republican Establishment Compromise Bill On Raising National Debt Ceiling By $900 Billion, Adding Over $7,000 Billion To National Debt In The Next Ten Years Plus A Huge Tax Hike in 2013?–The American People Would Like To Know!–Videos

Posted on August 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Vacations, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

 

 Judge Napolitano – U.S. Debt Limit (Law’s of Economics)

 

Schiff Happens

 

Sen. Rand Paul on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report – 08/01/11

 

Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: Freeze the Budget and Stop Plundering the American People! Aug 1, 2011 

 

 

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

 

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

 

Did President Manufacture Debt Crisis?

 

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) Discusses Congressman Connie Mack’s (R-FL) Penny Plan

 

Senator Marco Rubio: “Save The Whole House Or It Will All Burn Down”

 

Ron Paul Ad – Conviction

 

This Is Why We Need Ron Paul 2012 – Wake up Americans and fight!

 

Harry Reid Eric Cantor Revenue

 

Debt deal must have balanced budget amendment: Sen. Mike Lee

 

 

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

 

“Cut, Cap and Balance,” the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending

 

 

Underwhelming Spending Cuts from Congress and Obama

 

Klavan, Whittle & Ferreira: Is a Spending Freeze the Answer to US Budgetary Problems

 

Debt Ceiling Theatrics, U.S. Economy Back in Recession

 

Andrew Napolitano – The Story of Money

 

House Roll Call: How they voted on debt-limit bill

“…The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House. …”

FLORIDA

Democrats — Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats — Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans — Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

OHIO

Democrats — Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans — Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.
TEXAS

Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans — Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

Read more: http://thegardenisland.com/news/national/article_28736ea6-a777-59fe-9244-2ef3c128679e.html#ixzz1TpZcm4LP

 

The American people want balanced budgets.

The American people oppose adding between $7,000 billion to $8,000 billion to the National debt over the next ten years.

The American people oppose the tax hike of repealing  Bush tax rate cuts and locking in tax hikes for Obamacare that this bill would enable.

The American people are not fooled by the so-call spending cuts that are in fact only cuts in the rate of growth of the budget baseline and not actual cuts in the budget baseline itself.

The American people oppose yet another increase the national debt ceiling without either a balanced budget amendment being passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate or a balanced budget within three years. 

Now is the time for all good tea party members to come to the aid of their country and vote against the Democratic and Republican Party establishment’s compromise bill to raise the National debt ceiling by over $900 billion for Fiscal Year 2011 and add over $7,000 in additional deficit spending and more national debt over the next ten-year.

For the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 budgets the total effect on deficits is only a reduction of $21 billion and $42 billion respectively excluding any future reductions of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12357/BudgetControlActAug1.pdf

The American people are watching to see if the Tea Party caucus votes as a block to defeat this bill.

Those tea party members who vote in favor of the bill will be challenged in the primaries next year and defeated.

The tea party patriots are not pleased with those Tea Party member who apparently sold out and betrayed the tea party.

The tea party and the American people will be watching.

Should this bill pass the Federal Reserve will start printing money with quantitative easing 3 or creating money to purchase Treasury securities or more debt.

Quantitative Easing 3 or creating more money to buy U.S. Treasury securities will begin in the fall after the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee officially determines that the U.S. Economy has been in a recession since the middle of 2010.

http://papers.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html 

Once it is announced the U.S. economy is again in a recession, the Federal Reserve will use this fact to justify another massive money printing program of over $1,000 billion to finance the deficit spending in Fiscal Year 2012 of over $1,000 billion.

This in turn will lead to inflation or a general rise in the price level.

The economy is currently in a another recession that started in July 2010–the dreaded double dip recession.

The result will be even higher unemployment rates and inflation–stagflation.

This bill is not only not perfect, it is an economic disaster in the making.

Vote for this bill and you will be wrecking the economy, destroying jobs and killing the American dream.

The American people will not forget those who voted for this bill–both Democrats and Republicans.

You do not compromise your principles to vote for this bill especially given the damage this bill will cause to the American people and economy.

In 2012 the tea party will double its numbers in the Congress and the Senate with over 100 Representatives and over 12 Senators who have signed the Fiscal Responsibility Pledge.

Judge: You Can’t Get Out of Debt By Spending

 

American Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
~Thomas Jefferson

 

Fiscal Responsibility Pledge

I, ________________________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the state

of ____________________________, and to the American people that I will:

1. Support and vote for only balanced budgets or surplus budgets where total estimated Federal government tax revenues for each fiscal year equals or exceeds total estimated Federal government spending outlays.

2. Support and vote for only decreases in the national debt ceiling.

3. Support and vote for the FairTax. The FairTax abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax on new goods and services, and administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. Once enacted any changes in the FairTax or increases in the FairTax rate will require two-thirds roll call vote of the House of Representatives and Senate.

4. Support and vote for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

5. Support and vote for a balanced budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United State which allows budget surpluses or requires the balancing of tax revenues and spending outlays each fiscal year, limits Federal Government spending to eight-teen percent (18%) of Gross Domestic Product or less, requires a two-thirds majority roll call vote for any proposed tax increase in the House of Representatives and Senate and where the only exception to a surplus budget or balanced budget is the passage of a declaration of war that would require unbalanced budgets and increases in the national debt.

___________________________________________   _____________________________________

Signature                                                                                                  Date Signed

___________________________________________   _____________________________________

Witness                                                                                                     Witness

Pledge must be signed, dated, witnessed and returned to the:

American Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility

10455 N. Central Expressway-#109-228

Dallas, Texas 75231

Background Articles and Videos

 

The Secret of Oz (by Mr Bill Still)

 

Michael Savage-August 1, 2011 part 3

 

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

 

Baseline Budgeting Explained

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

http://papers.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html 

The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee

“…The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology comprises alternating dates of peaks and troughs in economic activity. A recession is a period between a peak and a trough, and an expansion is a period between a trough and a peak. During a recession, a significant decline in economic activity spreads across the economy and can last from a few months to more than a year. Similarly, during an expansion, economic activity rises substantially, spreads across the economy, and usually lasts for several years.

In both recessions and expansions, brief reversals in economic activity may occur-a recession may include a short period of expansion followed by further decline; an expansion may include a short period of contraction followed by further growth. The Committee applies its judgment based on the above definitions of recessions and expansions and has no fixed rule to determine whether a contraction is only a short interruption of an expansion, or an expansion is only a short interruption of a contraction. The most recent example of such a judgment that was less than obvious was in 1980-1982, when the Committee determined that the contraction that began in 1981 was not a continuation of the one that began in 1980, but rather a separate full recession.

The Committee does not have a fixed definition of economic activity. It examines and compares the behavior of various measures of broad activity: real GDP measured on the product and income sides, economy-wide employment, and real income. The Committee also may consider indicators that do not cover the entire economy, such as real sales and the Federal Reserve’s index of industrial production (IP). The Committee’s use of these indicators in conjunction with the broad measures recognizes the issue of double-counting of sectors included in both those indicators and the broad measures. Still, a well-defined peak or trough in real sales or IP might help to determine the overall peak or trough dates, particularly if the economy-wide indicators are in conflict or do not have well-defined peaks or troughs.

FAQs – Frequently asked Questions and additional information on how the NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee chooses turning points in the Economy …”

http://papers.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

Ron Paul: Freeze The Budget And Stop Plundering American People! – OpEd

Written by:

“…In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.

But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family’s income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year’s spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever. …”

http://www.eurasiareview.com/ron-paul-freeze-the-budget-and-stop-plundering-american-people-oped-31072011/

 

Congress moving quickly on debt and spending deal

“…Tea party favorite and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., countered that the deal “spends too much and doesn’t cut enough. … Someone has to say no. I will.”

The government presently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, and without an infusion of borrowing authority, the government would face an unprecedented default on U.S. loans and obligations — like $23 billion worth of Social Security pension payments to retirees due Aug. 3.

The increased borrowing authority includes $400 billion that would take effect immediately and $500 billion that Obama could order unless specifically denied by Congress. That $900 billion increase in the debt cap would be matched by savings produced over the coming decade by capping spending on day-to-day agency budgets passed by Congress each year.

A special bipartisan committee would be established to find up to $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts, probably taken from benefit programs like farm subsidies, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. Republicans dismissed the idea that the panel would approve tax increases.

Any agreement by the panel would be voted on by both House and Senate — and if the panel deadlocked, automatic spending cuts would slash across much of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he’d have to “swallow hard” and vote for the legislation even though he is worried about cuts in defense spending. …”

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8281927 

 

 Tea Party Caucus

The Tea Party Caucus is a caucus of the United States House of Representatives and Senate launched and chaired by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on July 16, 2010.[1] The caucus is dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility, adherence to the movement’s interpretation of the Constitution, and limited government. The idea of a Tea Party Caucus originated from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul when he was campaigning for his current seat.[2]

The caucus was approved as an official congressional member organization by the House Administration Committee on July 19, 2010[3] and held its first meeting on July 21. Its first public event was a press conference on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, also on July 21.[4] Four Senators joined the caucus on January 27, 2011.[5]

Members, 112th Congress

The caucus chairman is Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. As of March 31, 2011 the committee has 60 members, all Republicans.[15]

  • Sandy Adams, Florida
  • Robert Aderholt, Alabama
  • Todd Akin, Missouri
  • Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
  • Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
  • Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
  • Joe Barton, Texas
  • Gus Bilirakis, Florida
  • Rob Bishop, Utah
  • Diane Black, Tennessee
  • Michael C. Burgess, Texas
  • Paul Broun, Georgia
  • Dan Burton, Indiana
  • John Carter, Texas
  • Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
  • Howard Coble, North Carolina
  • Mike Coffman, Colorado
  • Chip Cravaack, Minnesota
  • Ander Crenshaw, Florida
  • John Culberson, Texas
  • Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
  • Blake Farenthold, Texas
  • Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
  • John Fleming, Louisiana
  • Trent Franks, Arizona
  • Phil Gingrey, Georgia
  • Louie Gohmert, Texas
  • Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
  • Wally Herger, California
  • Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
  • Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
  • Steve King, Iowa
  • Doug Lamborn, Colorado
  • Jeff Landry, Louisiana
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
  • Kenny Marchant, Texas
  • Tom McClintock, California
  • David McKinley, West Virginia
  • Gary Miller, California
  • Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
  • Randy Neugebauer, Texas
  • Rich Nugent, Florida
  • Steve Pearce, New Mexico
  • Mike Pence, Indiana
  • Ted Poe, Texas
  • Tom Price, Georgia
  • Denny Rehberg, Montana
  • Phil Roe, Tennessee
  • Dennis Ross, Florida
  • Ed Royce, California
  • Steve Scalise, Louisiana
  • Tim Scott, South Carolina
  • Pete Sessions, Texas
  • Adrian Smith, Nebraska
  • Lamar Smith, Texas
  • Cliff Stearns, Florida
  • Tim Walberg, Michigan
  • Joe Walsh, Illinois
  • Allen West, Florida
  • Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
  • Joe Wilson, South Carolina

Members of Senate Caucus

    • Jim DeMint (South Carolina)[5]
    • Mike Lee (Utah)[5]
    • Jerry Moran (Kansas)
    • Rand Paul (Kentucky)[5]

 

Aronoff: Media’s Disgraceful Coverage of Debt-Ceiling Debate

“…The general performance of the media during the debt ceiling debate has been atrocious. The currency of journalists consists of words, and by completely debasing that currency, they are undermining their profession. They are also making it that much more difficult for the public to understand the choices and the consequences they are facing.

The constant reference to August 2nd being the date we default on our debt is utterly false. ABC has shown a “Countdown to Default” clock, ticking away to August 2nd. CNN has run similar graphics, as have all the networks, including the Fox News Channel. Even today MSNBC is showing a graphic that says, “Four Days to Default.” They have continued right through this week. Default occurs only if and when the U.S. fails to make interest payments to the bondholders on the debt it owes. Not only is August 2nd not the day the U.S. defaults on its debt, but the issue could easily be taken off the table, and President Obama could calm the markets by announcing that under no circumstances will he allow the U.S. to default, and he could assure that by saying he will definitely make that payment the highest priority until a deal is reached in Congress. Instead, he chose to have the debt ceiling “used as a gun against the heads” of Americans, which is exactly what he accused the Republicans of doing earlier this month, in language that was supposed to be no longer acceptable after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last January.

Charles Gasparino of Fox Business News reported this week that the Obama administration has begun calling major Wall Street banks to assure them that the U.S. won’t default on its debt. Sources have told me that the administration is also trying to get the banks to lobby on its behalf.

The other egregious falsehood reveals an astounding lack of knowledge, or willingness to deceive, about the difference between the deficit and the national debt. Here, for example, from Jake Tapper of ABC News: “The president continues to push for a ‘grand bargain,’ buoyed by the bipartisan ‘Gang of Six’ proposal that would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.”

And here, from Stephanie Condon of CBS News: “The deal would reduce the deficit by nearly $4 trillion…”

President Obama in his July 25th prime time address to the country said, “This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit (emphasis added) by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.

This misuse of the language has been the rule, not the exception. As explained on the Treasury Department’s own website, “The deficit is the difference between the money Government takes in, called receipts, and what the Government spends, called outlays, each year.” (emphasis added)  The same website says that “One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.” This is basic economics, but astonishingly, the President and most of the media constantly get it wrong. Is it on purpose, to mislead, or do they not understand the difference? …”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2011/08/01/aronoff-media%e2%80%99s-disgraceful-coverage-of-debt-ceiling-debate/

Which Budgets Are Balanced And Living Within The Means of The American People?

 

4/5/11 Republican Leadership Press Conference

Democratic Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget

(Nominal Dollars in Billions)

Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,819 2,174 -1,645 10,856
2012 3,729 2,627 -1,101 11,881
2013 3,771 3,003 -768 12,784
2014 3,977 3,333 -646 13,562
2015 4,190 3,583 -607 14,301
2016 4,468 3,819 -649 15,064
2017 4,669 4,042 -627 15,795
2018 4,876 4,257 -619 16,513
2019 5,154 4,473 -681 17,284
2020 5,442 4,686 -735 18,103
2021 5,697 4,923 -774 18,967
2012-2021 45,952 38,747 -7,205 n.a.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Republican Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup

(Nominal Dollars in Billions)

Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,618 2,230 -1,388 10,351
2012 3,529 2,533 -995 11,418
2013 3,559 2,860 -699 12,217
2014 3,586 3,094 -492 12,801
2015 3,671 3,237 -434 13,326
2016 3,858 3,377 -481 13,886
2017 3,998 3,589 -408 14,363
2018 4,123 3,745 -379 14,800
2019 4,352 3,939 -414 15,254
2020 4,544 4,142 -402 15,681
2021 4,739 4,354 -385 16,071
2012-2021 39,958 34,870 -5,088 n.a.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Sen. Toomey Unveils his FY 2012 Budget

Senator Pat Toomey Talks with Michael Medved about his Budget

S-1 FY2012 Senator Pat Toomey(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues DeficitsSurplus Debt Held By Public
2011 3,625 2,230 -1,351 10,351
2012 3,477 2,538 -919 11,418
2013 3,485 2,964 -521 12,217
2014 3,509 3,216 -291 12,801
2015 3,623 3,391 -233 13,326
2016 3,765 3,524 -241 13,886
2017 3,853 3,736 -117 14,363
2018 3,955 3,916 -39 14,800
2019 4,140 4,108 -32 15,254
2020 4,302 4,325 23 15,681
2021 4,493 4,566 73 16,071
2012-2021 38,602 36,304 -2298 n.a.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55116239/Restoring-Balance-Final

SA@TAC – The GOP, War and the Debt

3/09/11: Sen. Rand Paul on balancing the budget

03/17/11: Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan

S-1 FY2012 Senator Rand Paul(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues DeficitsSurpluses Debt Held By Public
2011 3,708 2,228 -1,480 10,430
2012 3,100 2,547 -553 11,051
2013 3,152 2,755 -397 11,532
2014 3,227 3,088 -139 11,748
2015 3,360 3,244 -116 11,942
2016 3,430 3,349 19 11,997
2012-2016 16,269 15,083 -1,188 n.a.

http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

Tea Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Surpluses Debt Held By Public
2012 2,500 2,500 0 10,900
2013 2,800 2,800 0 10,900
2014 3,000 3,000 0 10,900
2015 3,200 3,200 0 10,900
2016 3,300 3,300 0 10,900
2017 3,400 3,500 100 10,800
2018 3,500 3,700 200 10,600
2019 3,600 3,900 300 10,300
2020 3,700 4,000 300 10,000
2021 3,800 4,300 500 9,500
2012-2021 32,800 34,200 1,400 n.a.

Baseline (budgeting)

“…Baseline budgeting is a method of developing a budget which uses existing spending levels as the basis for establishing future funding requirements. The concept assumes that the organization is generally headed in the right direction and only minor changes in spending levels will be required. The baseline is normally enhanced by adding adjustment factors based on issues such as inflation, new programs, and anticipated changes to existing programs.

The genesis of baseline budget projections can be found in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare projections of federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year based on a continuation of the existing level of governmental services. It also required the newly established Congressional Budget Office to prepare five-year projections of budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit. OMB published its initial current-services budget projections in November 1974, and CBO’s five-year projections first appeared in January 1976. Today’s baseline budget projections are very much like those prepared more than two decades ago, although they now span 10 years instead of five.

The Budget Act was silent on whether to adjust estimates of discretionary appropriations for anticipated changes in inflation. Until 1980, OMB’s projections excluded inflation adjustments for discretionary programs. CBO’s projections, however, assumed that appropriations would keep pace with inflation, although CBO has also published projections without these so-called discretionary inflation adjustments.

CBO’s budget projections took on added importance in 1980 and 1981, when they served as the baseline for computing spending reductions to be achieved in the budget reconciliation process. The reconciliation instructions contained in the fiscal year 1982 budget resolution (the so-called Gramm-Latta budget) required House and Senate committees to reduce outlays by a total of $36 billion below baseline levels, but each committee could determine how those savings were to be achieved. The CBO baseline has been used in every year since 1981 for developing budget resolutions and measuring compliance with reconciliation instructions.

The Deficit Control Act of 1985 provided the first legal definition of baseline. For the most part, the act defined the baseline in conformity with previous usage. If appropriations had not been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year, the baseline was to assume the previous year’s level without any adjustment for inflation. In 1987, however, the Congress amended the definition of the baseline so that discretionary appropriations would be adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Other technical changes to the definition of the baseline were enacted in 1990, 1993, and 1997.

Baseline budget projections increasingly became the subject of political debate and controversy during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and more recently during the 2011 debt limit debate. Some critics contend that baseline projections create a bias in favor of spending by assuming that federal spending keeps pace with inflation and other factors driving the growth of entitlement programs. Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending growth.

There have been attempts to eliminate the baseline budget concept and replace it with zero based budgeting, which is the opposite of baseline budgeting. Zero based budgeting requires that all spending must be re-justified each year or it will be eliminated from the budget regardless of previous spending levels.

According to the Government Accountability Office, a Baseline is as follows:

Baseline

“An estimate of spending, revenue, the deficit or surplus, and the public debt expected during a fiscal year under current laws and current policy. The baseline is a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in revenues and spending. It assumes that receipts and mandatory spending will continue or expire in the future as required by law and that the future funding for discretionary programs will equal the most recently enacted appropriation, adjusted for inflation. Under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), which will expire at the end of fiscal year 2006, the baseline is defined as the projection of current-year levels of new budget authority, outlays, revenues, and the surplus or deficit into the budget year and outyears based on laws enacted through the applicable date.

CBO Baseline

Projected levels of governmental receipts (revenues), budget authority, and outlays for the budget year and subsequent fiscal years, assuming generally that current policies remain the same, except as directed by law. The baseline is described in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) annual report for the House and Senate Budget Committees, The Budget and Economic Outlook, which is published in January. The baseline, by law, includes projections for 5 years, but at the request of the Budget Committees, CBO has provided such projections for 10 years. In most years the CBO baseline is revised in conjunction with CBO’s analysis of the President’s budget, which is usually issued in March, and again during the summer. The “March” baseline is the benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed legislation under consideration by Congress.” …”

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting)

 

Rasmussen Reports

Most Voters Are Unhappy With Both Sides in the Debt Ceiling Debate

“…Most voters don’t care much for the way either political party is performing in the federal debt ceiling debate.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat disapprove of the way President Obama and congressional Democrats are handling the debate over the debt ceiling, with 38% who Strongly Disapprove. But 53% also disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the debate, including 32% who Strongly Disapprove.

Just 36% approve of how Obama and Democrats are doing, with 10% who Strongly Approve. Forty percent (40%) approve of the GOP’s performance, including 13% who Strongly Approve. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

While the two sides continue to wrangle over how to avoid defaulting on the government’s massive debt load, most voters nationwide are worried the final deal will raise taxes too much and cut spending too little.

Whatever spending cuts are in the final deal, 49% of all voters don’t think the government will actually cut the spending agreed upon. A commentary by Scott Rasmussen, published in Politico, put it this way: “Based on the history of the past few decades, voters have learned that politicians promising unspecified spending cuts should be treated with all the credibility of a six-year old boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar promising to be good for the rest of his life.” …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/most_voters_are_unhappy_with_both_sides_in_the_debt_ceiling_debate

 

Rasmussen Reports

55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal

“…As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.

Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. …”

“…There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.

Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/july_2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal

House passes Ryan’s ’12 budget; conservatives want more cuts

By Erik Wasson and Pete Kasperowicz – 04/15/11

“…The House on Friday approved a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that seeks to drastically limit government spending next year and in years to follow.

But the vote on the measure — which imposes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — came after a clear sign that at least half of the Republican Caucus supports even tougher spending cuts.

The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. They were Reps. Ron Paul (Texas), Denny Rehberg (Mont.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and David McKinley (W.Va.).

Rehberg, the appropriator in charge of health spending, is running for Montana’s Senate seat.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said listening sessions with Republican members made it the strongest vote of the year.

“This is the process we should follow on all votes,” he said.

Every Democrat voted “no.” …”

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/156379-house-clears-ryans-2012-budget-plan-conservatives-want-more-cuts

House passes cut, cap and balance — and a deal is in sight

By

“…The Republican-controlled House defied a presidential veto threat Tuesday night in approving a bill to amend the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. But Speaker John A. Boehner acknowledged that a backup plan is needed, and a Senate GOP leader said he expects such an alternative to win his chamber’s approval.

The House voted 234 to 190 in favor of the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act,” which the White House has said will be vetoed in the unlikely event it passes the Senate and reaches President Obama’s desk. Faced with those prospects, Boehner told reporters that it would also be responsible to consider a backup plan for raising the federal debt ceiling and thus averting a potentially disastrous default on U.S. obligations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/house-passes-cut-cap-and-budget–and-a-deal-is-in-sight/2011/03/29/gIQA7JIzOI_blog.html?hpid=z3

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Tea Party Candidates And Elected Officials New Gold Standard For Balanced And Surplus Budgets, Lower Debt Ceilings and Tax Reform: Fiscal Responsibility Pledge To The American People–Videos

The Second Obama Recession Starts Or The Great Obama Depression Continues–The Growth Rate of Gross Domestic Product Declines For Four Consecutive Quarters–The Economy Has Peaked And Entered A Period Of Stagflation–Rising Prices, Unemployment And Obama Misery Index!–Ron Paul To The Rescue?–Videos

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

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...