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

Sarah Grainger BBC News, Caracas

---

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

Louisiana's Bold Bid to Privatize Schools

To contact us Click HERE

By Stephanie Simon - June 1, 2012

Louisiana is embarking on the nation'sboldest experiment in privatizing public education, with thestate preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out ofthe public schools to pay private industry, businesses ownersand church pastors to educate children.

Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kidswill get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than120 private schools across Louisiana, including small,Bible-based church schools.

The following year, students of any income will be eligiblefor mini-vouchers that they can use to pay a range ofprivate-sector vendors for classes and apprenticeships notoffered in traditional public schools. The money can go toindustry trade groups, businesses, online schools and tutors,among others.

Every time a student receives a voucher of either type, hislocal public school will lose a chunk of state funding.

"We are changing the way we deliver education," saidGovernor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan throughthe legislature this spring over fierce objections fromDemocrats and teachers unions. "We are letting parents decidewhat's best for their children, not government."

BIBLE-BASED MATH BOOKS

The concept of opening public schools to competition fromthe private sector has been widely promoted in recent years bywell-funded education reform groups.

Of the plans so far put forward, Louisiana's plan is by farthe broadest. This month, eligible families, including thosewith incomes nearing $60,000 a year, are submitting applicationsfor vouchers to state-approved private schools.

That list includes some of the most prestigious schools inthe state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placementcourses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The topschools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The DunhamSchool in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will acceptjust four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere,they will be picked in a lottery.

Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigiousreligious schools, including some that are just a few years oldand others that have struggled to attract tuition-payingstudents.

The school willing to accept the most voucher students --314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-rankedbasketball team but no library. Students spend most of the daywatching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists ofan instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses withsubjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, abunker-like building with no windows or playground, also hasplenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students,worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake,pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extraspace to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has roomfor just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade studentssit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pacethrough Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science textthat explains "what God made" on each of the six days ofcreation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that mightconfuse our children," Carrier said.

Other schools approved for state-funded vouchers use socialstudies texts warning that liberals threaten global prosperity;Bible-based math books that don't cover modern concepts such asset theory; and biology texts built around refuting evolution.

TEACHERS WEIGH LAWSUIT

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers can be usedfor religious education so long as the state is not promotingany one faith but letting parents choose where to enroll theirchildren.

In Louisiana, Superintendent of Education John White saidstate officials have at one time or another visited all 120schools in the voucher program and approved their curricula,including specific texts. He said the state plans more "duediligence" over the summer, including additional site visits toassess capacity.

In general, White said he will leave it to principals to besure their curriculum covers all subjects kids need and leave itto parents to judge the quality of each private school on thelist.

That infuriates the teachers union, which is weighing alawsuit accusing the state of improperly diverting funds frompublic schools to private programs of questionable value.

"Because it's private, it's considered to be inherentlybetter," said Steve Monaghan, president of the LouisianaFederation of Teachers. "From a consumer perspective, it's buyerbeware."

To date, private schools have not had to give their studentsstate standardized tests, so there's no straightforward way forparents to judge their performance. Starting next year, anystudent on a voucher will have to take the tests; each privateschool must report individual results to parents and aggregateresults to the state.

The 47-page bill setting up the voucher program does notoutline any consequences for private schools that get poor testscores. Instead, it requires the superintendent of schools tocome up with an "accountability system" by Aug. 1. Once he does,the system cannot be altered except by legislative vote.

White would not say whether he is prepared to pull vouchersfrom private schools that do poorly on tests.

He pointed out that many kids applying for vouchers are nowenrolled in dismal public schools where two-thirds of thestudents can't read or do math at grade level and half will dropout before they graduate high school. Given that track record,he argues it's worth sending a portion of the roughly $3.5billion a year the state spends on education to private schoolsthat may have developed different ways to reach kids.

"To me, it's a moral outrage that the government would say,'We know what's best for your child,'" White said. "Who are weto tell parents we know better?"

That message resonates with Terrica Dotson, whose12-year-old son, Tyler, attends public school in Baton Rouge. Hemakes the honor roll, but his mom says he isn't challenged inmath and science. This week she was out visiting privateschools. "I want him to have the education he needs," she said.

The state has run a pilot voucher program for several yearsin New Orleans and is pleased with the results. The proportionof kids scoring at or above grade level jumped 7 percentagepoints among voucher students this year, far outpacing thecitywide rise of 3 percentage points, state officials said.

Studies of other voucher programs in the U.S. have shownmixed results.

In Louisiana the vouchers are available to any low- tomiddle-income student who now attends a public school where atleast 25 percent of students test below grade level.

Households qualify with annual income up to 250 percent ofthe poverty line, or $57,625 for a family of four.

Statewide, 380,000 kids, more than half the total studentpopulation of 700,000, are eligible for vouchers. There are onlyabout 5,000 slots open in private schools for the coming year,but state officials expect that to ramp up quickly.

NO FISCAL ANALYSIS

Officials have not estimated the price tag of these programsbut expect the state will save money in the long run, becausethey believe the private sector can educate kids more cheaplythan public schools.

Whether those savings will materialize is unclear.

By law, the value of each voucher can't exceed the sum thestate would spend educating that child in public school -- onaverage, $8,800 a year. Small private schools often charge aslittle as $3,000 to $5,000 a year.

Yet at some private schools with low tuition, administratorscontacted by Reuters said they would also ask the state to coveradditional, unspecified fees, which would bring the cost totaxpayers close to the $8,800 cap. The law requires the state tocover both tuition and fees.

In the separate mini-voucher program due to launch in 2013,students across Louisiana, regardless of income, will be able totap the state treasury to pay for classes that are offered byprivate vendors and not available in their regular publicschools.

White said the state hopes to spur private industry to offervocational programs and apprenticeships in exchange for vouchersworth up to $1,300 per student per class. Students can also usethe mini-vouchers to design their own curriculum, tapping statefunds to pay for online classes or private tutors if they're notsatisfied with their public school's offerings.

State officials will review every private-sector classbefore approving it. They are still working out how to assessrigor and effectiveness.

The state has not done a formal fiscal analysis, but publicschool advocates say subtracting the costs of vouchers fromtheir budgets is unfair because they have the same fixed costs-- from utilities to custodial services -- whether a child is inthe building four hours a day or six. White responds that thestate is not in the business of funding buildings; it's fundingeducation.

While public schools fear fiscal disaster, many privateschool administrators see the voucher program as an economiclifeboat.

Valeria Thompson runs the Louisiana New School Academy inBaton Rouge, which prides itself on getting troubled studentsthrough middle and high school. Families have struggled to paytuition, she said, and enrollment is down to about 60 kids.

"We're a good school," Thompson said, "but we've beenstruggling fiscally."

The vouchers have brought in a flood of new applicants andthe promise of steady income from taxpayers. Thompson enrolled17 new students in two days last month and hopes to bring in asmany as 130. "I'm so grateful," she said. "You can't imagine howgrateful."

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

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

The American Condition: Debts Remain High, Disposable Incomes & Savings Remain Low

To contact us Click HERE

The U.S. is a consumption-based society. It is also a materialistic society. After all, we have entire TV networks dedicated to shopping.

In addition to overwhelming debt, our consumption and materialism produced another rather remarkable result: In 2005, the savings rate actually turned negative for the first time since the Great Depression, and it stayed that way for about two years.

However, after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008, the U.S. savings rate started to climb. Although those who lost jobs or took pay cuts had nothing to save, most Americans began to change their spendthrift ways.

The savings rate jumped from 1.3 percent in January of 2008 all the way to 6.9 percent in May of 2009 — the highest level in 15 years.

The resulting fear and panic from the Great Recession led people to stop the frivolous spending of the bubble years and instead begin paying down debts and saving. Those were wise and, perhaps, expected choices given the economic environment.

Historically, savings rates tend to increase during times of recession.

During the early 1980s, when the economy was in a severe double-dip recession, the annual personal saving rate (effectively, income minus spending) averaged around 10%. But by the time of the 1990-91 recession, it had fallen to an average of 7%.

However, that savings rate now seems quite high, given how far it fell over the next 15 years, or so.

By 2001, the rate had fallen below 2 percent and as the decade progressed it fell below 1 percent multiple times. Finally, in 2005, at the height of the American spending and debt binge, the savings rate turned negative. Americans were actually spending more than they were earning.

All of that spending and consumption resulted in a whole lot of debt; total U.S. household debt reached a whopping $13.8 trillion by 2008.

A higher savings rate is critical because it makes more money available for business investment. And it can reduce the need to borrow from overseas. The downside is that it also leads to a slow down in a consumption-based economy.

Since consumer spending accounts for 72 percent of our GDP, it's a good indicator of how the economy is faring. If people are saving instead of spending, the economy will tend to shrink — unless the government leaps in to fill the void, as it did with the stimulus in 2009 and 2010.

Consumers have long been the engine that continually powered the ever-expanding U.S. economy. However, for many years, American consumers propelled the economy with debt-based spending. If Americans don't maintain their high-level of spending, the economy will fall into recession once again.

In the previous decade, Americans fueled their spending binges with home equity extractions.
From 2003 to 2007, people extracted more than $2 trillion from their properties in the form of home equity loans and cash-out refinancing — about 20 percent of which went to fund personal spending.

The obvious question now is, Where will Americans find the money to continue spending at a rate that will keep the economy humming along at a sufficient level?

According to the Federal Reserve, household real estate assets rose by more than two-thirds from 1999 to 2005. Americans used all that home equity to finance an unprecedented spending spree. Those days are long gone and now the economy has come back down to reality as a result. All bubbles eventually burst.

By the end of 2009, total household debt was nine times what it was in 1981 — rising twice as fast as disposable income in the same period.

Fed data also shows that the end of 2011, household debt was down to $13.2 trillion. Meanwhile, total disposable income was $10.7 trillion.

Household net worth—the difference between the value of assets and liabilities—was $58.5 trillion at the end of 2011. Though that was about $1.2 trillion more than at the end of the third quarter, for 2011 as a whole, household net worth fell close to 3/4 percent, the first annual decrease since 2008.

Perhaps falling wages and salaries have driven Americans to save less and instead spend what they must on necessities. The U.S. savings rate plunged from 4.7 percent in December to 3.7 percent in February, the lowest level since December 2007's 2.6 percent.

The lower savings rate is problematic for a number of reasons. For instance, it leaves people unprepared for retirement, or even an emergency.

The percentage of workers who said they had less than $10,000 savings grew from 39 percent in 2009 to 43 percent in 2010, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's (EBRI) annual Retirement Confidence Survey. That excludes the value of primary homes and defined-benefit pension plans.

Consequently, the EBRI found that many workers' retirement saving will run out too soon.

In this year's Retirement Confidence Survey, 60 percent of workers reported that the total value of their household's savings and investments, excluding the value of their primary home and any defined benefit plans, is less than $25,000.

Perhaps this is why just 14 percent of Americans polled in this year's survey said they were “very confident they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement.”

A recent study by LIMRA, a life insurance and financial services research organization, found that nearly half of American workers are not contributing to any form of retirement plan.

Outside of those who work in government, most people no longer have an employer pension plan to fall back on. The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans has put the responsibility for saving solely on the employees. Apparently, that's not working out so well.

Even more worrisome, just 36 percent of workers said they had $1,000 in emergency savings in 2011. This means that nearly two-thirds of workers don't even have $1,000 set aside for an unplanned expense. That could prove crippling should an unexpected medical cost, home repair, or personal disability arise.

In another survey last year, 24 percent of respondents said they had no emergency savings whatsoever.

With interest rates running well below the rate of inflation, money in a savings account or other deposit vehicle is actually losing purchasing power with each passing day. Perhaps that's part of the reason that Americans aren't saving.

As interest rates have fallen, many Americans have sought a higher rate of return form other investments, shifting out of savings accounts in the process.

Other Americans simply have nothing left to save; adjusted for inflation, wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.

It's clear that the hard times we're living in have made it quite difficult for many Americans to plan for retirement, or even a family emergency. Long term unemployment has long since dried up the savings of millions of Americans who now live day to day.

According to financial planners, most people need three to six months of living expenses in emergency savings, amounting to about half of one's gross income.

However, for a vast majority of Americans, it seems this is nothing more than a pipe dream.

And when you're struggling to get by, trying to make ends meet from week to the next, retirement can seem a long way off... until it isn't.

Then what?

Unemployment a Symptom of a Bad Economy; The Bad Economy a Symptom of High Unemployment

To contact us Click HERE
Today we learned that the U.S. economy created just 69,000 non-farm jobs in May, the smallest gain in a year. While it came as a surprise to many, it shouldn't have.

If you're unemployed and looking work, you surely know just how competitive the employment search is. Last year, there were almost seven applicants for every job opening in the U.S., a ratio that is double the historical norm.

The unemployment problem is so dire that just 75.7 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 54 have jobs, a full 5 percent less than before the recession, according to the Washington Post.

But joblessness had already been a growing problem long before the Great Recession took hold. In fact, job creation has been slowing for decades.

According to the Economic Cycle Research Institute, during periods of American economic expansion in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the number of private-sector jobs increased at about 3.5 percent a year. But during expansions in the 1980s and ’90s, jobs grew just 2.4 percent annually. And during the last decade, job growth fell to 0.9 percent annually. While the number of new workers entering the workforce swelled during that period, just 1.7 million new jobs were generated.

The trouble stubbornly persists.

Fewer Americans between the ages of 25 and 54 have jobs than at any point in the 23 years before the recession, according to government data cited by the Washington Post.

It's been widely noted by labor experts that the longer a person is unemployed, the more their job skills erode — to say nothing of their confidence and self-esteem. Because so many people in their prime working years are currently unemployed, many of them long term, it will have lasting effects on the economy as a whole.

There are vast numbers of people who are not productive or contributing to the tax base. That is a major drag on the economy. Worst of all, millions of job seekers have become so despondent after lengthy job searches, that they have simply given up looking for work. These people are no longer counted as unemployed, hence the falling unemployment figure over the past year.

The labor force participation rate (the percentage of the working-age population either working or looking for work) was 63.8 percent in May, its lowest level in 30 years, according to the Labor Department.

A record 88.4 million people are considered "not in the labor force," according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). That's a stunning figure.

The bursting of the housing bubble led to lower demand and less consumption, followed by mass layoffs and a severe recession. The economic expansion of the previous 30 years had been fueled by debt. But that fuel is now spent, literally and figuratively.

From 2003 to 2007, Americans extracted $2.2 trillion from their properties in the form of home equity loans and cash-out refinancing — about 20 percent of which went to fund personal spending. Those days are long gone. Fake equity led to fake demand. As a nation, we were fooling ourselves. People were never as rich as they thought they were. The economy was a house of cards and now it's fallen down.

This isn't a problem with a political solution. It matters not who wins the election in November. The unemployment problem and our vast economic troubles will persist no mater who is in the White House. Don't kid yourself by thinking otherwise.

Everyone is searching for a cure, a way to fix all that is broken. The only way back to the past is to re-inflate the bubble and expand our massive debts even further. But that didn't work out so well the first time around. It's how we got into this mess in the first place.

The problem isn't a matter of excess regulation or taxes being too high. Those are simple political arguments, but they aren't solutions to a national hangover from a massive debt binge.

Since the previously low unemployment rate and private sector consumption were driven by unsustainable debt-expansion, and were therefore entirely misleading, perhaps we need to reconcile ourselves to era of less — less consumption, less demand, less economic growth and less prosperity. Maybe that's not such a bad thing. Did buying all that "stuff" makes us happier as a nation? I don't think so.

America is presently confronting a new reality, and it is a really painful one.

The U.S. still has nearly 5 million fewer jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. Job losses in the recession were the deepest since the Great Depression.

More than 5 million people have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, and the average length of unemployment is more than 39 weeks, according to the BLS.

However, the labor market continues to add low wage jobs at places like retailers and temporary services, the likes of which don't typically provide benefits. But there are already too many low paying jobs — the kind that thwart demand and consumption, while preventing the economy and the tax base from growing nearly enough.

Among OECD (developed/industrialized) countries, the U.S. had the highest share of employees toiling away at low-wage work in 2009, according to OECD data. One in four U.S. employees were low-wage workers that year, according to the OECD. That is 20 percent higher than in the number-two country, the United Kingdom. Low-wage work is defined as earning less than two-thirds of the country's median hourly wage.

This is why the middle class has been shrinking for decades. How can the economy get ahead with so many people in low wage jobs? These folks don't have nearly enough disposable income to propel the economy or lift the tax base and help the government cease its chronic deficits.

The number of employees working in low-wage jobs has been rising since 1979, according to to John Schmitt, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. And low-wage workers are better educated than ever. The percentage of low-wage workers with at least some college education has spiked 71 percent since 1979 to 43.2 percent of all low-wage workers, according to Schmitt's analysis.

In May, the average length of the work week fell to 34.4 hours. Employers often give workers less than 40 hours a week to avoid providing them with benefits, or the possibility of overtime.

Even after widespread layoffs, U.S. companies have been able to get their remaining workers to do more with less. Fear of losing one's job is quite a motivator. Worker productivity has been booming in recent years. Output per hour in American manufacturing has increased by 13% in the past five years and 21% in the five years before that.

Despite that impressive increase in productivity, wages for many manufacturing workers are not keeping up with inflation. Consumer prices increased by 7% in the three year span between 2009 and 2011. That is putting a squeeze on workers' incomes and spending, which, in turn, hurts retailers and the broader economy.

Neither the long term or short term employment trends look promising.

The number of new jobs created in April was slashed to 77,000 from an original estimate of 115,000. Job growth in March was revised down to 143,000 from 154,000.

This means the three-month average for job growth is just 96,000 jobs per month. That's not enough to keep unemployment from rising. As it stands, the job market is already in a very deep hole.

It's important to remember that even if the economy simply kept up with population growth by adding 125,000 jobs each month (for a total of 1.5 million new jobs this year), it still wouldn't help the millions of Americans who are already unemployed or under-employed, meaning they can only find part-time work. It would only help the new entrants into the labor force, such as high school and college graduates.

When you add the 8.1 million persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) to the 12.7 million persons the government officially recognizes as unemployed (the U-3 figure), you find that nearly 21 million Americans are under-employed. And this ignores all the millions who have simply dropped out of the labor force altogether.

What we are now witnessing is the outcome of America's long term decline. It doesn't matter which indicators you look at: the automation and off-shoring of jobs that have led to long term unemployment problems; an aging, non-productive population that draws from the government but no longer pays taxes; a massive trade deficit fueled by a reliance on foreign oil and cheap goods; a massive federal debt and persistent deficits; an exponentially growing money supply that is fueling inflation; a housing bust with no true signs of recovery, etc.

People fear the potential, if not likelihood, of a double-dip recession. But that doesn't need to occur for the nation to remain mired in its economic malaise. The country could just muddle along at a 2 percent annual growth rate, which would not allow for nearly enough job creation. Growth must be at least 2.5 percent just to even keep up with annual population growth.

Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP growth rate averaged 3.3 percent. For perspective, the U.S. hasn't grown at that rate since 2004 and prior to that, 2000.

Once again, the trends are not good.

What we're now faced with is a chicken and egg conundrum.

Employers won't hire until the economy improves. In essence, the unemployment problem is a symptom of the poor economy.

On the other hand, the economy won't sustainably improve until hiring increases to the point that the 21 million unemployed and under-employed Americans have jobs, and are measurably contributing to the tax base and the nation's gross domestic product.

That's quite a conundrum. Which comes first?

Copyright © 2011 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.