25 Haziran 2012 Pazartesi

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Quite Deceiving

To contact us Click HERE

Much has been made of the recent news that after Japan drops its corporate tax rate to 38.01 percent, the U.S. will then have the highest rate in the developed world, at 39.2 percent.

However, to fully understand this story you have to read between the lines and look past the political posturing.

Few U.S. corporations actually pay the 39.2 percent rate because the loophole-riddled tax code gives them lower "effective" rates.

The tax code has not been thoroughly overhauled in 25 years and it is in desperate need of fixing. Corporate lobbyists worked hard at putting all those loopholes in place, and they are determined to keep them there.

However, due to a shrunken tax base, a signifiant revision may be on the way.

In February, President Obama proposed a corporate tax reform blueprint that included a 28 percent top rate. Such an idea seems like one that Republicans would love, and it provides an opportunity for genuine consensus and true bipartisanship.

The problems with the tax code are egregious, and they are robbing the Treasury of much needed revenue. In 2010 the federal government brought in $2.16 trillion in revenue — down from $2.56 trillion in 2007 — putting revenue at a 60-year low.

Much of that is due to the effects of the Great Recession. But corporations are also taking advantage of the tax code and paying lower rates than most individual taxpayers, or avoiding taxes altogether.

Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial average, 19 told shareholders their effective rate for their 2011 fiscal years (most of which ended on December 31) was below Obama's proposed new tax rate, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.

Verizon, for example, paid an effective rate of just 2.7 percent. Even more remarkable, AT&T, Bank of America and Travelers Insurance actually posted a tax gain.

From 2007 to 2009, accounting tricks helped lower Pfizer's average tax rate to 17 percent; Merck to 12.5 percent, and GE to just 3.6 percent.

Those relaxed rates are well below the rates paid in other industrialized nations.

The average 2012 corporate tax rate for the 34 developed countries is 25.4 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Obama plan would put the U.S. just above that average.

The key to reform is to fully eliminate all deductions, exemptions and loopholes. The code must create a level playing field that is fair, straightforward and incorruptible. Presently, U.S. corporations are making a mockery of the tax code.

A 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that approximately two-thirds of all corporations paid no federal income tax in 2005. However, it was part of a longer trend.

The GAO — the investigative arm of Congress — also found that two out of three US corporations paid no taxes from 1998 through 2005. The study covered 1.3 million corporations of all sizes, with a collective $2.5 trillion in sales. It also included foreign corporations that do business in the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal reported that 69 percent of U.S. corporations were organized as nontaxable businesses in 2008, up from 24 percent in 1986.

Last year, 30 of the biggest corporations spent more on lobbying than taxes. How crazy is that?

Corporations have gamed the system in their favor. So assertions about how punitive and restrictive the corporate tax code is are plainly absurd.

A government report shows that last year total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1 percent of profits — a level not seen since 1972.

Things weren't always this way. In the 1950s, US corporations contributed a 30 percent share to the federal tax base. Today it's down to 6.6 percent.

Corporations paid a higher share of revenues in the past and the economy was a whole lot healthier. Revenue from corporate income taxes was between 5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product back in the early 1950s.

However, federal corporate tax collections made up only 1.3 percent of U.S. GDP in 2010, down from 2.7 percent in 2006.

The lobbyists did what they were paid to do, and they did a really good job. Congress, ever the loyal servants to their corporate masters and benefactors, did what was asked of them and rigged the tax code.

The consumer group Citizens for Tax Justice said it surveyed major U.S. companies and found that 26 on average paid no net federal income taxes between 2008 and 2011, among them General Electric and Duke Energy.

This nation is essentially broke. In Fiscal 2011, the U.S. government borrowed roughly 36 cents for every dollar spent. Fiscally, the country is teetering on the edge of a cliff. The government simply cannot allow huge, profitable corporations to continue paying zero taxes or, worse, post tax gains.

It's also time for corporations and their Congressional cronies to drop the act; they are not burdened by high or punitive taxes. Quite the contrary. Further, U.S. corporations are fortunate to be subject to the rule of law and all of the protections that this allows.

If the tax code is rewritten, it would benefit the corporations that don't get the special sanctions and the generous tax benefits. Ultimately, the playing field should be leveled and made equal for all.

Moreover, the tax code doesn't need to be rewritten for the benefit of corporations; it needs to be rewritten for the benefit of the rest of the nation. More revenue is desperately needed by the Treasury, which is presently being swindled by corporations.

2nd ‘Gendercide’ Video Showing Planned Parenthood’s Sex-Selection Abortion Assistance

To contact us Click HERE
May 31, 2012


On Tuesday, Live Action, a pro-life group based in San Jose, California, released the first part of its series on sex-selection abortion, the process of terminating pregnancies based on an unborn child’s gender. Part one of the “Gendercide: Sex Selection in America,” series showed a Planned Parenthood counselor in Austin, Texas, allegedly giving advice on how to obtain a gender-based abortion.

The second part, released this morning, allegedly showcases a similar conversation recorded at a NYC-based Planned Parenthood office earlier this year. In the undercover clip, an employee allegedly helps a woman (an actress brought in by Live Action) determine if her child is a female so that a requested sex-selective abortion can take place. 



A description of the YouTube video, posted by Live Action, has more about the conversation that is sure to trouble pro-life activists:
In the video, Planned Parenthood social worker Randi Coun advises the woman on an early, definitive method to tell the gender of her child in the late first or early second trimester: “So if you were to have what’s called a CVS test, which is, do you know what that is?” she asks, referring to the genetic Chorionic Villus Sampling test. “It’s done between 11 and 13 weeks, so it is a test that you could do now.” CVS tests have a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100, which Coun did not mention, and are typically done to test for genetic disorders in a pregnancy.

Coun also reassures the woman that she can carry her pregnancy farther into term before her abortion. “An abortion at any stage up to 24 weeks is considered a safe procedure,” she asserts. ” It’s not that it’s unsafe, or that there’s a lot more risk involved, it‘s just there’s more steps involved and it’s just a little more complicated.” Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center in New York City does abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and is the organization’s national headquarters.

“I can tell you that here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or a bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy,” Coun adds concerning the woman’s request for a sex-selective abortion. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards yesterday opposed a ban on sex-selective abortions on the grounds that it would “limit [a woman's] choices as she makes personal medical decisions.”

Watch the undercover interaction, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-abortion-group-releases-2nd-gendercide-video-showing-planned-parenthoods-alleged-sex-selection-abortion-assistance/

Dems Kill Bill Banning Sex-Selection Abortions

To contact us Click HERE
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/31/12 

The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was turned away with 246 voting to ban sex-selection abortions and 168 voting in favor of allowing sex-selection abortions. While that's a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote, and in this case, would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill needed roughly 30 more votes for approval.

Suspension votes are normally used for non-controversial bills, but the GOP-backed bill was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in an apparent attempt to show that Democrats oppose certain policies.

In some cases, Republicans have rescheduled these bills for regular consideration after they have failed, allowing for passage by a simple majority. But Republicans gave no sign that they would try again with PRENDA.
Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated that the issue of stopping sex-selective abortion is important enough that the would try again, but he was not specific.

"This is an important issue to the American people," Boehner said to reporters off the floor. "This type of sex selection most Americans find pretty repulsive, and our members feel strongly about it. That's why it is being brought to the floor."

During debate on the bill Wednesday, Republicans said the bill is consistent with the broader U.S. position that sex-selective abortion should be condemned around the world.

"In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selective abortion worldwide," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill. "Yet, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selective abortion in any way."

While some Democrats made it clear that they oppose sex-selective abortion, they indicated that they oppose the bill's enforcement provisions, which they said would put in place an unacceptable limit on women's rights to choose abortion.

"We can all agree that women should not choose to terminate a pregnancy based solely on gender, but this bill criminalizes a legal procedure," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said Thursday afternoon.

"The bill includes a provision that would allow a women's husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures, sending an incredibly private and personal decision into the courts," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) added Thursday.

"It is another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) of the GOP bill on Wednesday. "Women should be able to make such sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors and their god, free from the fear of the police."

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Democrats voting for it were Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

Emails Reveal Obama's Cronyism With Pharmaceuticals for Obamacare Support

To contact us Click HERE

By Alicia Mundy - May 31, 2012
Newlyreleased emails give an inside look at how the White House struck a dealwith the pharmaceutical industry in 2009 to get support for the health billthat ultimately passed the next year.
Drug makers and their lobbyists believed they got a good bargain,the emails show. As TheWall Street Journal and others reported at the time, the companies escapedprice controls and forced the president to back down on his 2008 campaignpromise to allow the reimportation of cheaper drugs from other countries.
In May 2009, after the administration was hit by negative storiesabout the rising costs of its proposed health care overhaul, a drug industrylobbyist emailed colleagues, “Perfect timing to cut our deal w the White Houseas this is swirling.”
A month later, following another barrage of similar stories,another industry lobbyist wrote, ‘It’s pretty clear that the Administration hashad a horrible week on health care reform, and we are now getting jammed tomake this announcement so the story takes a positive turn before the Sunday talkshows beat up on Congress and the White House.”
The email was sent from the Pharmaceutical Research andManufacturers of America lobby on June 18, 2009, four days before theadministration’s agreement with drug makers was formally revealed. AnotherPhRMA lobbyist quickly responded, “Yes, that’s why they are doing it, but it’salso why we got a good deal.”
The Republican leadership of the House Energy and CommerceCommittee on Thursday released the emails, which they obtained fromhealth-care industry groups that worked on the bill.
The committee is investigating how the legislation was crafted.Republicans say the administration’s negotiations with industry groups weren’ttransparent and were driven by politics.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz called theemail release “a nakedly political, taxpayer-funded crusade to hurt thepresident’s re-election campaign.” He said the 2009 agreement with the drugindustry was publicly announced in the Rose Garden. The administration has saidthe deal was good for taxpayers because the industry offered multiyear savingsof $80 billion on drug costs.
The emails indicate that the White House originally wanted about$100 billion in savings and other breaks, in return for increasing the numberof patients with health insurance and drug coverage.
The emails show that drug makers won other unpublicized deals fromthe administration, which both the White House and the pharmaceutical lobbyrepeatedly denied at the time but were later disclosed in news reports. Theyincluded a promise from the White House not to demand that drug makersnegotiate Medicare prices with the federal government, which could have reduceddrug costs.
At one point, the White House threatened to shame the industrypublicly if the negotiations fell apart, according to an email written June 10by a PhRMA lobbyist. “Barack Obama is going to announce in his Saturday radioaddress support for rebating all of [Medicare Part] D unless we come to a deal.So they are punishing us” for refusing to concede, he wrote, referring to aproposal to require rebates in across-the-bard Medicare’s prescription-drugprogram.
“They can’t get 60 votes for that [in the Senate]. It isn’t even areal threat,” the email concluded. The president’s radio address, three dayslater, didn’t include the lines.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/31/emails-describe-deal-making-on-obama-health-bill/?mod=WSJ_elections_article_liveupdate

Obamacare Has 'Bent the Insurance Cost-Curve North, Not South'

To contact us Click HERE
By Susan Jones - June 1, 2012 "There's no question that the (Affordable Care) Act has, to this date, bent the health insurance cost curve north, not south, and the forecast in that regard is growing darker," an insurance benefits executive told a House panel on Thursday.

That's because the law requires health plans to cover individuals, such as adult children, that they did not cover in the past; it bars health plans from putting lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits; and it requires plans to provide preventive care services -- including contraceptives in a few months' time -- at no out-of-pocket cost to the enrollee, Edward Fensholt told the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

"These mandates have increased our clients' health plan costs 2 to 3 percent on average to this point," he said. And he said the costs will escalate further when new rules -- such as reductions in waiting periods and the automatic enrollment requirement -- take effect in 2014.

Fensholt is a senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to 2,500 mostly middle-market employers.

In addition to the Affordable Care Act’s coverage mandates, Fensholt said a "great frustration" for his clients is the law's "many additional administrative burdens."

Under federal law right now, Fensholt said, a simple group health-care plan is required to supply up to 50 separate notices, disclosures and reports to enrollees or to the federal government -- often more than once. He noted that the Affordable Care Act added more than a dozen of those notices, disclosures and reports.

Fensholt gave several examples: Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans must provide a "four-page, double-sided summary of plan coverage in a very hard-wired format at specific times, not only to enrollees but to individuals who are merely eligible for coverage. And plans face fines of up to $1,000 per violation of this requirement," he said.

And starting in 2014, the law will require "significant and frequent reporting by employers," including what specific medical coverage the employer offers; a roster of employees who are eligible and enrolled in the company's health plan and whether those employees are full-time or part-time; the cost of the employer's health insurance offerings, and the employer's and employees' respective shares of that cost; and how many months of the year an employee and each of his enrolled dependents were covered by a company-sponsored plan.

"Our clients are already drowning under the cost of provi ding robust health insurance to employees," Fensholt said. "Rather than tossing employers a lifeline, the Affordable Care Act is in many ways an anchor -- albeit a well-intentioned one -- by piling on additional costs and burdens."

Fensholt said his clients don't understand why -- at a time when they're struggling to provide a fringe benefit -- "Congress would make the process more expensive and more complicated, rather than less so."

Bill Streitberger, vice president of human resources for the Red Robin restaurant chain, told the panel that when health care costs increase, his company has less money to invest in opening new restaurants.

For the last three years, he noted, Red Robin's health care costs per employee have increased more than six percent every year -- a much greater pace than the growth of Red Robin's sales or net income, he said.

The Affordable Care Act's 2014 mandates, Streitberger added, could negatively impact the ability of companies to grow and offer benefits to their employees.

He said the law will force companies like Red Robin "to decide on whether to reduce benefits to maintain affordable coverage, or accept the burden of increased company contributions, limiting our ability to continue to grow and create new jobs. Either way, we feel it could be a lose-lose for Red Robin" and its employees, he said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-has-bent-insurance-cost-curve-north-not-south-insurance-executive-tells-house

24 Haziran 2012 Pazar

The Real Employment Situation – January 2009 through March 2012

To contact us Click HERE

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

"Our economy's now created more than 4 million private sector jobs over the past 2 years. And more than 600,000 in the past 3 months alone," Mr. Obama boasted to a forum at the White House on women and the economy, on Friday (CBS News).

And in related news, on the previous evening, Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut the U.S.A.’s credit rating one step to AA, the second downgrade in nine months and two levels below its highest grade, with a negative outlook citing the nation’s increasing debt burden (Bloomberg).

Most of us are well aware of the nation’s impending debt implosion, but the real employment situation has been distorted beyond reason. I understand how badly Mr. Obama is fighting against returning to the obscure existence he led prior to 2008, but if he was at all capable, he would at least tell us the truth about where we stand. I’m frankly weary from all the sugarcoating and distortion of facts. So what’s the real employment situation?

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

In order to know the truth, we must examine not so much monthly trends in employment, but rather changes which have occurred from the end of January 2009 through March 2012. When we examine the entire record, we find that our economy hasn’t created any jobs at all over the past 3 ¼ years, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Instead the unemployment rate has risen from 7.8% to 8.2%, the number of nonfarm jobs has declined by 740,000, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 624,000, and total employment has declined by 153,000. Meanwhile, the working age population has grown by 7,865,000, while the civilian labor force has only managed an increase of 471,000, causing the number of persons no longer counted in the labor force to balloon by 7,395,000.

The truth is that our economy hasn’t created any new jobs since Obama’s policies took effect. The total number of jobs peaked at an all time high of 146,595,000 in November of 2007, and through March of 2012 the number stands at 142,034,000, more than 4.5 million off the mark. If we had more jobs than existed in November of 2007, then Obama would have something to brag about, although not much. But since the truth is somewhat inconvenient, we are supposed to ignore the fact that we are more than 4 million jobs in the hole, and submit to repeated media brainwashing and succumb to the belief that we have somehow moved ahead by over 4 million. Phooey! Here are the facts.

Unemployment Rate

The unemployment rate rose from 7.8 percent in January of 2009 to 8.2 percent as of March 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment Situation 4/6/2012). (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Nonfarm Employment

Nonfarm payroll employment declined by 740,000 through March of 2012, from 133,561,000 in January of 2009 to 132,821,000. (See table B-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Unemployed Persons

The number of unemployed persons increased by 624,000 through March of 2012, from 12,049,000 in January of 2009 to 12,673,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Total Employment

The number of persons employed declined by 153,000 through March of 2012, from 142,187,000 in January of 2009 to 142,034,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Noninstitutional Population

The Civilian Noninstitutional Population (working age population) increased by 7,865,000 through March of 2012, from 234,739,000 in January of 2009 to 242,604,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Labor Force

The labor force increased by 471,000 through March of 2012, from 154,236,000 in January of 2009 to 154,707,000. The labor force hasn’t grown at all since October of 2008. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Not in Labor Force

The number of persons not in the labor force increased by 7,395,000 through March of 2012, from 80,502,000 in January of 2009 to 87,897,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

To make the claim of having created more jobs than Mr. Bush, which we all know was Mr. Obama’s insinuation; he must first match Mr. Bush’s all-time-high of 146,595,000. If the number of persons who involuntarily dropped out of the labor force (7.3 million), since Mr. Obama’s policies took effect, had instead been jobs created, Mr. Obama might go down in history as the all-time greatest. However, since we presently have 4.5 million fewer jobs than existed at Mr. Bush’s peak, and since, under the direction of Mr. Obama, 7.3 million new working age persons have been pushed straight into joblessness and generational dependency, Mr. Obama’s policies should perhaps be branded as the most ineffective in U.S. history.

Since employment is a lagging economic indicator, and because economists are calling for recession in 2012, and since the statistics above represent the sum total of Obama’s economic accomplishments, we’re in for serious troubles ahead. To reiterate, Mr. Obama’s policies of Inordinate Stimulus, Undue Debt and Global Warming Foolishness caused the Looming Recession.

Photo Credit: A swarm of Western Toad tadpoles eating algae. Photo: Kristiina Ovaska

Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary

Data: Worksheets

Fair Shot, Fair Share and a Glass of Algae

To contact us Click HERE

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Lake Erie is facing its worst toxic algae bloom since the 60's and somehow it is going unnoticed...” ~ JoeOH111 *

According to Mr. Obama, you don’t have a fair shot right now, and it’s all because millionaires aren’t paying enough income tax. If millionaires would just give the federal government its fair share, then you, I, and everyone else would have a fair shot…, and a glass of algae.

What, pray tell, is a fair shot?

The best definition I can surmise is “a lawful chance at odds.” But don’t we all have this already? For example, the odds of winning the recent $640 million Mega Millions jackpot were 1 in 176 million. In order to guarantee a win, one would have had to spend $176 million buying up every combination. So if some nefarious millionaire had purchased all 176 million combinations, would he or she have had an unfair advantage?

Well, perhaps, but what millionaire would be dumb enough to blow $176 million on lottery tickets? What are the odds of that ever happening? The odds of one person buying all 176 million winning combinations, across multiple States, would probably be 1 in (infinity). In other words, a guaranteed win is impossible, at least when it comes to the Mega Millions lottery. But a fair shot is open to anyone who plays the game. “You gotta be in it to win it.”

According to CBS News, one person purchased $2,600 worth of lotto tickets, and another threw down $55, while the more frugal played their usual dollar or two. Did the one who blew $2,600 have an unfair advantage over $55 and $1 players? I will concede that the $2,600 player had an advantage, but I would hesitate to call it unfair. The poor sap simply had more to lose, yet not a dime more to gain. Not one dime. Now let’s flip over to the Mega Trillions Federal Debt Lotto.

Mega Trillions Federal Debt Lotto

If a taxpayer earns $176 million in taxable income and pays $29.9 million in federal taxes (a rate of 17%), while another earns $50,000 and pays $8,500 in taxes (also a rate of 17%), and yet another earns $25,000 and pays $0, does either have an unfair advantage? Since both the millionaire and the $50,000 wage earner pay the exact same tax rate (17%), the non-taxpayer has an advantage. But is it an unfair advantage? I would say so, especially since in the recent past we all pitched in at every level of income. Yet the one paying $29.9 million in taxes has a lot more to lose than both the $8,500 payer, and the non-taxpayer.

But who wins in this crapshoot? With the federal government borrowing and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, in advance, and squandering it to produce test-tube sewage-fed algae biomass for fuel, while Lake Erie and other U.S. lakes are full of “free” blue-green scum, the answer is no one. You’d have to be an idiot to waste hundreds of billions of dollars manufacturing something that’s sitting right in front of your face, wouldn’t you? Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is priceless.

When it comes to the national debt, those who don’t pay federal income taxes make out like bandits, they have nothing to lose. And those who already pay more than their “fair share” (i.e. taxed enough already) have nothing to gain. It’s not the 2% of top earners that worry me, they generally pay their bills on time, but rather the federal government which has already borrowed more than 100% of our entire economy, an amount estimated to reach $16.3 Trillion by September 30th of this year.

Only a depraved leader would have his nose in other peoples finances while ignoring his own debt laden, broken, overspent, and soon to be bankrupt enterprise. The federal government is not the solution to our problems; it’s the $16.3 Trillion in the hole, deadbeat, money squandering, largest debtor-nation in the Universe, leach, which is forever in the way and constantly on our collective back.

The moral of this story: Never confuse motion with action.

In other words, quit giving speeches and fix the problem. No one is going to vote for a tax increase in the middle of an election cycle, no matter how many speeches are enounced and dribbled. Especially not the one proffered, which in the end will barely cover one day’s worth of current deficit spending. No not a one! We don’t have a revenue problem; no, no, no, what we have is a deadbeat, money squandering, and largest debtor-nation in the Universe, ass-backwards, leach of a federal government problem. Get a clue!

Rather than paying more taxes, or spending multi-millions on lottery tickets to become multi-millionaires all over again, our well-to-do brethren would do better by investing in their own casinos, creating jobs and fair shot opportunities for others. And that leads us back to square one all over again: cut taxes, cut spending, and get out of our way and off our backs.

Photo Credit: Lake Erie, Stirred Up | Via: NASA Earth Observatory (March 21, 2012)

Obama's Secretarial Tax Fallacy

To contact us Click HERE

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

There's no way Obama's secretary paid a higher effective tax rate than the Obamas. You don't believe it? Are income taxes such a mystery that we can't find out? Well, let's run the numbers and see.

According to Jake Tapper of ABC News, Mr. Obama released his 2011 federal income tax today, with he and his wife reporting an adjusted gross income of $789,674. The Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax – an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5%.

The White House also reported that President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, makes $95,000 a year. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told ABC News that Breckenridge “pays a slightly higher rate this year on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share.”

The only problem with this story is that Amy Brundage doesn't know how to compute a tax return, or an effective tax rate. If Ms. Breckenridge were single, made wages of $95,000, and had no other dependents or deductions, her standard deduction would have been $5,800 and her personal exemption $3,700. So taking Ms. Breckenridge's income of $95,000, and subtracting her deductions of $9,500 results in taxable income of $85,500 and an income tax of $17,564 (click the tax return image below to enlarge). Thus, her effective tax rate is 18.4% (17,564 / 95,000). The last time I checked 18.4% was less than, not greater than 20.5%.

Is the Obama Administration so delusional that it believes the American public doesn't understand basic math? Get a clue! In my opinion we're all paying way too much for the incompetence of this government. The mainstream media should be ashamed for not verifying the numbers. And Obama's definitely on the wrong track, one which will fortunately lead to the end of his short and sorry career. That suits me fine.

Note: If Ms. Breckenridge is married her tax rate will be lower, if she has dependents her total tax will be reduced, if she owns a home, gives to charity, or pays a substantial amount in State taxes she could itemize deductions on Schedule A, any combination of which would make her effective tax rate substantially lower than 18.4%. What I have calculated above is the maximum effective tax rate possible for a person with $95,000 of gross income.

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 3 : The American Dream

To contact us Click HERE

“53 Percent of All Young College Graduates in America are either Unemployed or Underemployed” ~ The Economic Collapse

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

It is a fact that the U.S. economy has lost a total of 4,884,000 Nonfarm jobs since the beginning of the Great Recession. But according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession officially ended three years ago. We would all like to believe that things aren’t so bad, that the glass is half full, but for many the American Dream appears to be fading away. The question we should be asking ourselves, three years into this economic recovery, is whether we are creating a sufficient number of jobs each and every month: (1) to keep pace with population growth, and (2) to recover the number of jobs already lost? Today, we will provide the answer.

The Working-Age Population

The Civilian Non-institutional Population, or as I prefer to call it, the Working-Age Population, includes persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (i.e. penal and mental facilities, or homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-1, one month before the recession began, the working-age population totaled 232,939,000, and as of May 31, 2012 it had grown to 242,966,000. Thus, the working-age population has increased by 10,027,000 persons since the start of the recession, and by 7,931,000 since they keys were handed to Barack Obama (see chart below).

Since we know that the economy had already lost a total of 3,514,000 jobs during the last 13 month’s of President Bush’s term, that it has shed another 1,370,000 jobs since Barack Obama’s inauguration, and that the working-age population has grown by 10,027,000 persons over the same period, the question is how many jobs must we create each and every month in order to catch-up? And in light of the answer, how does anyone get away with a statement like the following: We've created 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine?

Krugman’s Benchmark

In Paul Krugman’s December 2009 article entitled, The Jobs Deficit, he proposed a rather useful benchmark for the level of jobs the U.S. must create each month to really matter. As of November 2009 we had lost about 8.4 million jobs from the time the recession began. He began with the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) estimate that we need to add 127,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with population growth. That very same month, EPI pointed out that when you put together the number of jobs lost since the recession, along with the number required to keep pace with the population, that in order to return to pre-crisis unemployment within two years we needed to add 580,000 jobs a month.

Krugman conceded that there was no way this was going to happen within two years. So he proffered a more modest goal: a return to more or less full employment in 5 years. According to his formula, in order to keep up with population growth over those 7 years (December 2007 to December 2014), “the United States would have had to add 84 times 127,000 or 10.668 million jobs.” Krugman stated, “If that sounds high, bear in mind that we added more than 20 million jobs over the 8 Clinton years.” He continued, “Add in the need to make up lost ground, and we’re at around 18 million jobs over the next five years — or 300,000 a month.”

So using Krugman’s 300,000 jobs per month benchmark beginning in December 2009, I have created the following chart showing where we are today (in red), versus where we would be if we were truly keeping pace with population growth and making up for the jobs lost due to the recession (in blue). As you can see, we are currently more than 5.4 million jobs short of where we need to be.

The Great Recession officially ended in June of 2009 (a fact that many seem to gloss over), and as of November 30, 2009 it had consumed 8,403,000 jobs. A total of 3,514,000 had already been lost when President Bush handed the job off to Barack Obama, but an additional 4,889,000 jobs were lost during Obama’s first 11 months. It was at this point that Paul Krugman set forth this reasonable benchmark. We have needed to create 300,000 jobs per month, since December 2009, to keep up with population growth, and to recover the jobs lost up to that point. However, where we find ourselves today is 5,481,000 jobs short of the mark.

Yet, it was on June 8, 2012 when Barack Obama declared, "We've created 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine." However, what he was talking about was the number private sector jobs recovered since March 2010. What he conveniently forgot to mention is the fact that we also lost 5,135,000 Nonfarm jobs during his first 14 months in office. What about that Mr. President? In fact, had he bothered to include the number of public sector, or government jobs, his statement would have been more accurately stated as follows: ‘We’ve recovered 3,765,000 Nonfarm jobs over the last 27 months, but we lost 5,135,000 during my first 14 months in addition to the 3,514,000 lost under President Bush, so we have a long, long way to go.’

Yes it’s true, we have lost 1,370,000 jobs since Barack Obama was sworn into office, and that’s on top of the 3,514,000 jobs lost from the time the recession began until President Bush handed the keys to Mr. Obama. But the bad news is that not only have we suffered the loss of 4,884,000 Nonfarm jobs since December of 2007, but we must also account for the fact that during the current recovery, we are 5,481,000 jobs short of where we ought to be. At this point we need to not only make up for the 5,481,000 jobs we are short, but we need to do so while creating an additional 300,000 jobs per month by the end of 2014. In other words, if we apply Paul Krugman's benchmark, we now have 31 months left to create 14,781,000 jobs (9,300,000 + 5,481,000). That means we need to seriously up the pace from last month's gain of 69,000 jobs to 476,806 jobs per month.

When Barack Obama stood before a teleprompter this month, and gloated about how well his policies have done over the last 27 months of his 41-month term, he wasn’t being honest with the American people. His dishonesty regarding the economy, among other things, is why he deserves to lose this election by a landslide.

Labor Force Participation Ages 16 to 19

Like many Americans my age, I started working at the age of 16. Although my first job was only a part-time summer job, it was my first, and thus the beginning of my personal quest for the American Dream. My dream at the time was to open a savings account, buy a car (or at least pitch in on the gas), buy my own food and clothing, gain a sense of independence, and learn to be personally responsible.

There are kids who were 12 years old when the recession commenced, who are now 16 and looking forward to their first summer job, but if they can’t find work, they will miss out on some valuable lessons in the quest for the American Dream. There are others who are now 20 years of age who couldn’t find work four and a half years ago, and are still looking today. And there are yet others who were just starting college when the recession hit. We learned this month, that among recent college graduates, 53 percent find themselves either unemployed or underemployed. The dream is fading.

The Labor Force Participation Rate measures the Labor Force as a percentage of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-1, the labor force participation rate for 16 to 19 year olds averaged 54.5% in 1976, when I was 16 years old (see chart above). It stood at 41.5% prior to the recession, but had declined to 38.5% by the time Barack Obama was sworn in. It has since continued in decline to an all time low of 34.2% as of May 31, 2012. So when I was 16, a young person had about a 50/50 shot at finding a job, but for today’s youth the chances are more like 30 out of 100.

The American Dream appears to be fading into the sunset, but according to Barack Obama, the private sector is doing fine. Apparently the economy is doing well enough in his eyes that last Friday was a prefect time for him to singlehandedly grant amnesty to the children of those who have crossed our borders illegally. Oh, give me a break! How does Obama get away with it? He gets away with it because Democrats let him. You all better wake up. You’re either part of the solution, or part of the problem. If you’re so stuck on a political ideology or party brand, that you can’t see the light of day, then God help you. God help us all. If you’re still on the fence, then what are you waiting for? It’s time for a plan that works, not four more years of lecturing, finger pointing and Constitutional violations.

The bottom line: After three and a half years of Barack Obama, we find ourselves 5,481,000 jobs in the hole. At this point we must not only make up this shortfall, but must do so while creating an additional 300,000 jobs per month. In other words, if we apply Paul Krugman's reasonable benchmark, we have 31 months remaining to create 14,781,000 jobs (9,300,000 + 5,481,000). That means we need to seriously up the pace from last month's anemic 69,000 jobs to 476,806 jobs per month. But that's not going to happen until Barack Obama is sent back to Chicago.

Continued from…

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 2 : Beyond the Private Sector

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 1 : The Private Sector

Related:

The Private Sector is NOT Doing Fine | How’s the Federal Government Doing?

Adventures in Politicking II : No Shot

Manipulation 401 : U-3 vs Real Unemployment

Data:

Spreadsheets

The Real Jobs Deficit | Moving in the wrong direction.

To contact us Click HERE

“Every time in this century we've lowered the tax rates across the board, on employment, on saving, investment and risk-taking in this economy, revenues went up, not down.” ~ Jack Kemp

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

A total of 3,514,000 Nonfarm jobs had already been lost by the time President Bush handed the keys over to Barack Obama, yet even though the Great Recession officially ended in June of 2009, an additional 4,889,000 jobs were lost during Obama’s first 11 months in office (see table). By November of 2009 the recession had eliminated an estimated 8,403,000 jobs. It was at this point that Nobel Prize Winning Economist Paul Krugman set forth a reasonable benchmark for a return to more or less full employment within 5 years.

According to Mr. Krugman’s theory, in order to keep up with population growth and recover the number of jobs lost would have required the creation of 300,000 jobs per month, through December of 2014. But, as I pointed out in Obama Jobs Scorecard - Part 3, today we find ourselves more than 5.4 million jobs short of this mark. However, the real jobs deficit is even more dire.

The Real Jobs Deficit

If we return to December of 2007, the month the recession began, and apply the Economic Policy Institute’s estimate — that we need to create a minimum of 127,000 jobs each and every month to keep up with population growth — we find that the real jobs deficit, since the recession began, is currently 11,742,000 (see table). As you can see graphically in the chart below, the jobs deficit hasn’t changed much since Paul Krugman set the benchmark at 300,000 jobs a month. Since then, as shown in the corresponding table, the jobs deficit hasn’t decreased at all, but has rather increased by 291,000.

Real Jobs Deficit

Last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy created a mere 69,000 jobs (only 77,000 in the month prior). Since we need to create 127,000 a month just to keep pace with population growth that means lately we’ve been falling even farther behind. In fact, at last month’s rate, the U.S. will find itself another 3,190,000 jobs in arrears after another 4 ½ years of Obama’s economic policies [(127,000 – 69,000) * 55 months]. So we need to keep a close eye on the next official Employment Situation Report, and each subsequent report through Election Day. Anything short of a 127,000 increase in Nonfarm payroll jobs adds to the current jobs deficit, while a greater result means we’re at least moving in the right direction.

The New Jobs Benchmark

If we tweak Paul Krugman’s original jobs benchmark with the revised figures, we discover that to be meaningful, the number of jobs we need to create to return to more or less full employment by December of 2014 is now as follows:

  • In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 31 months, or 3,937,000. Add in the need to make up for lost ground and we’re at around 15,679,000 (3,937,000 + 11,742,000) over the next 31 months — or 505,774 jobs a month.

However, if we just simply write-off Barack Obama’s first 3 ½ years as a foolish, but costly experiment, and extend the target date until May of 2017, then we come up with the following:

  • In order to keep up with population growth, we would need to create 127,000 jobs times 60 months, or 7,620,000. Add in the need to make up for lost ground and we’re at around 19,362,000 (7,620,000 + 11,742,000) over the next 60 months — or 322,700 jobs a month.

In other words, we are worse off today than we were 2 ½ years ago. Every month that we create 506,000 jobs or more puts us on track towards full employment within 2 ½ years. Every month we create 320,000 jobs puts us on track towards full employment within 5 years. But every month we create fewer than 127,000 jobs increases the jobs deficit and pushes the goal of full employment farther away.

The Bottom Line: Due to the Great Recession, we already had a jobs deficit of 5,165,000 when Barack Obama was sworn into office, but since then the deficit has increased by an additional 6,577,000 (see table). In other words, we’re NOT moving in the right direction, no matter what Barack Obama says. So who's going to get us out of this ditch — the same guy who just dug a hole twice as deep as the one we were already in — or someone else?

Data Table: Real Jobs Deficit Spreadsheet on Google Docs

Related:

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 1 : The Private Sector

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 2 : Beyond the Private Sector

Obama Jobs Scorecard, Part 3 : The American Dream

The Private Sector is NOT Doing Fine | How’s the Federal Government Doing?

Adventures in Politicking II : No Shot

Manipulation 401 : U-3 vs Real Unemployment

23 Haziran 2012 Cumartesi

Venezuela Bans Private Gun Ownership

To contact us Click HERE
June 1, 2012


Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.
Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October.

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

The government has been running a gun amnesty in the run-up to the introduction of the new law to try to encourage people to give up their illegal arms without fear of consequences.
One member of the public in Caracas told the BBC: "They're killing people every day. This law is important but they need to do more, they're not doing enough now."
Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Criminal violence is set to be a major issue in presidential elections later in the year.

Campaign group The Venezuela Violence Observatory said last year that violence has risen steadily since Mr Chavez took office in 1999.

Several Latin American countries have murder rates far higher than the global average of 6.9 murders per 100,000 people.

According to a recent United Nations report, South America, Central America and the Caribbean have the highest rates of murder by firearms in the world.

It found that over 70% of all homicides in South America are as a results of guns - in Western Europe, the figure was closer to 25%.

Analysis


Besides the health of President Chavez, security is the main concern for voters ahead of presidential elections in October.

While voters don't seem to hold Mr Chavez responsible for the insecurity, the situation has worsened throughout his 13 years in office.

The government's most recent statistics put the murder rate at around 48 per 100,000, although some non-governmental organisations estimate it's much higher - 60 per 100,000 in 2011, one of the highest rates in the world.

Critics say the new gun laws and other recently announced measures, like a victim's compensation fund, are just the latest in a long line of failed attempts to bolster security.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Obama Supports Sex-Selection Abortions

To contact us Click HERE

Yesterday (May 31, 2012): The White House is unsure if obama supports or opposes late term abortions specifically because the baby happens to be a girl.  My bet is on "supports" since he supports all other forms of abortion including partial birth abortion and even infanticide (killing babies who survive abortions).  I guarantee he will wait to gauge public opinion on this issue, just as he does with the other issues.  Might not sit so well with his "war on women" rhetoric you know?!

Update:  We have confirmation.  obama supports gendercide stating, "Aborting a baby because she's a girl is part of a very personal and private decision."

The White House is opposed to a bill that was proposed in the House that would ban sex-selection abortions.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) joins obama in  his support of gendercide.

By Fred Lucas - May 31, 2012
The White House does not yet know whether President Barack Obama is for or against banning sex-selection abortions.

Asked on Wednesday about where the president stands on a bill proposed in the House that would ban abortions based on the gender of the unborn child, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he would have to check.

A reporter asked Carney, “The House is, I think this afternoon, preparing to take up a bill that would ban gender selection as a factor in abortions in this country. And I was wondering -- I haven’t seen it in a statement of administration policy, and I was wondering if the White House had a position on that.”

Carney did not have an answer. “I will have to take that as well,” Carney answered. “Been focused on other things. But I will get back to you.”



The Parental Non-Discrimination Act is expected to come to the House floor Thursday, according to the office of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The bill would make abortions based on a baby’s gender illegal by creating a penalty for those who knowingly have gender-selective abortions, coerce a woman into having one, or provide transportation to a woman so she can come to the U.S. to have a gender-selective abortion.

“There are more than two hundred million missing little girls who were aborted for the sole reason that they were girls,” King said in a statement.

“The three most dangerous words are ‘it's a girl,’ but decision time does not happen when you find out the sex of your baby. PRENDA (the House bill) will protect unborn babies from being aborted because it's about a child, not a choice. I will continue to defend the unborn. There should be no question where to stand because the choice is clear -- every child deserves the right to a fulfilling life.”

"We are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the bill’s sponsor. "This evil practice has now allowed thousands of little girls in America and millions of little girls across the world to be brutally dismembered."

Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries such as China and India, where there is a traditional preference for sons.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation’s largest abortion provider, issued a statement opposing the legislation.

“As the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health provider and advocate, Planned Parenthood knows all too well that women still face gender discrimination in this country,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a statement. “We oppose sex selection abortion.  But this bill does nothing to advance protections against discrimination and instead will have the result of further shaming and stigmatizing women.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-unsure-if-obamas-or-against-banning-sex-selection-abortions

Emails Reveal Obama's Cronyism With Pharmaceuticals for Obamacare Support

To contact us Click HERE

By Alicia Mundy - May 31, 2012
Newlyreleased emails give an inside look at how the White House struck a dealwith the pharmaceutical industry in 2009 to get support for the health billthat ultimately passed the next year.
Drug makers and their lobbyists believed they got a good bargain,the emails show. As TheWall Street Journal and others reported at the time, the companies escapedprice controls and forced the president to back down on his 2008 campaignpromise to allow the reimportation of cheaper drugs from other countries.
In May 2009, after the administration was hit by negative storiesabout the rising costs of its proposed health care overhaul, a drug industrylobbyist emailed colleagues, “Perfect timing to cut our deal w the White Houseas this is swirling.”
A month later, following another barrage of similar stories,another industry lobbyist wrote, ‘It’s pretty clear that the Administration hashad a horrible week on health care reform, and we are now getting jammed tomake this announcement so the story takes a positive turn before the Sunday talkshows beat up on Congress and the White House.”
The email was sent from the Pharmaceutical Research andManufacturers of America lobby on June 18, 2009, four days before theadministration’s agreement with drug makers was formally revealed. AnotherPhRMA lobbyist quickly responded, “Yes, that’s why they are doing it, but it’salso why we got a good deal.”
The Republican leadership of the House Energy and CommerceCommittee on Thursday released the emails, which they obtained fromhealth-care industry groups that worked on the bill.
The committee is investigating how the legislation was crafted.Republicans say the administration’s negotiations with industry groups weren’ttransparent and were driven by politics.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz called theemail release “a nakedly political, taxpayer-funded crusade to hurt thepresident’s re-election campaign.” He said the 2009 agreement with the drugindustry was publicly announced in the Rose Garden. The administration has saidthe deal was good for taxpayers because the industry offered multiyear savingsof $80 billion on drug costs.
The emails indicate that the White House originally wanted about$100 billion in savings and other breaks, in return for increasing the numberof patients with health insurance and drug coverage.
The emails show that drug makers won other unpublicized deals fromthe administration, which both the White House and the pharmaceutical lobbyrepeatedly denied at the time but were later disclosed in news reports. Theyincluded a promise from the White House not to demand that drug makersnegotiate Medicare prices with the federal government, which could have reduceddrug costs.
At one point, the White House threatened to shame the industrypublicly if the negotiations fell apart, according to an email written June 10by a PhRMA lobbyist. “Barack Obama is going to announce in his Saturday radioaddress support for rebating all of [Medicare Part] D unless we come to a deal.So they are punishing us” for refusing to concede, he wrote, referring to aproposal to require rebates in across-the-bard Medicare’s prescription-drugprogram.
“They can’t get 60 votes for that [in the Senate]. It isn’t even areal threat,” the email concluded. The president’s radio address, three dayslater, didn’t include the lines.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/31/emails-describe-deal-making-on-obama-health-bill/?mod=WSJ_elections_article_liveupdate