New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, bouncing back above the key 400,000 level, while core producer prices clumbed faster than expected in March, government reports showed on Thursday.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000, the Labor Department said.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 380,000.
The prior weeks figure was revised up to 385,000 from the previously reported 382,000.
The four-week moving average of unemployment claims—a better measure of underlying trends—climbed 5,500 to 395,750.
The rise in claims interrupted a downward trend that had kept them below the 400,000 threshold for four weeks. That level is normally associated with steady job growth. Despite last weeks rise, the four-week average held below the 400,000 mark for a seventh straight week.
A Labor Department official said claims tend to rise the first week of a new quarter.
The number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid fell 58,000 to 3.68 million in the week ended April 2, the lowest level since September 2008.
Economists had expected so-called continuing claims to ease to 3.70 million from a previously reported 3.72 million.
The number of people on emergency unemployment benefits fell 12,245 to 3.55 million in the week ended March 26, the latest week for which data is available. A total of 8.52 million people were claiming unemployment benefits during that period under all programs.
Core Producer Prices Climb
U.S. core producer prices rose slightly faster than expected in March and the increase from a year ago was the largest since August 2009, pointing to a broadening in pipeline inflation pressures.
Economists had expected core PPI to rise 0.2 percent in March.
Light trucks prices, which advanced 0.7 percent, accounted for a third of the rise in core PPI last month. The increase in light truck prices was the biggest since July. Passenger vehicle prices increased 0.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009.
"It looks like the disruption to global autos production stemming from the Japanese disaster will hit autos supply and, consequently could lead to some further steep price increases over the next few months," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital economics in Toronto.
In the 12 months to March, the core producer price index rose 1.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2009, after gaining 1.8 percent in February. Marchs increase was in line with market expectations.
The increase in headline PPI, however, slowed to 0.7 percent after surging 1.6 percent in February.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected PPI to rise 1 percent last month. In the 12 months to March, producer prices increased 5.8 percent, the largest gain in a year, after rising 5.6 percent in February.
Although rising gasoline prices are exerting upward pressure on inflation at the production level, the Federal Reserve largely views this as transitory. Officials have, however, said they would act if necessary to ensure that an inflation psychology does not take root.
Energy prices, which rose 2.6 percent, accounted for nearly 90 percent of the increase in wholesale prices last month.
Energy prices rose 3.3 percent in February.
Gasoline prices rose 5.7 percent after increasing 3.7 percent in February. Food prices fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since August.
The U.S. central bank said in its Beige Book summary of economic conditions on Wednesday that businesses were reporting that higher commodity costs were putting upward pressure on prices.
But with the labor market still weak and wage growth subdued, producers have limited capacity to pass on the higher costs to consumers.
Plane with first lady came too close to cargo jet By JOAN LOWY Associated Press The Associated Press Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:08 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Air traffic controllers directed a plane carrying first lady Michelle Obama to abort a landing at Andrews Air Force Base because it was too close to a military cargo jet, officials said Tuesday.
A Boeing 737 belonging to the Air National Guard, one of several guard planes used by the White House, came within about three miles of a massive C-17 as the planes were approaching Andrews shortly after 5 p.m. Monday to land, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and Major Michelle Lai, a spokeswoman for Andrews.
The FAA requires a minimum separation of five miles between two planes when the plane in the lead is as large as the 200-ton cargo jet, in order to avoid dangerous wake turbulence that can severely affect the trailing aircraft.
The FAA is investigating the incident as a possible error by controllers at a regional radar facility in Warrenton, Va., that handles approaches and departures for several airports, including Andrews, where the president's aircraft, Air Force One, is maintained.
The C-17 and Mrs. Obama's plane didn't have the proper separation when controllers in Warrenton handed them off to the Andrews controllers, a source familiar with the incident said.
Andrews air traffic controllers initially ordered Mrs. Obama's plane to conduct a series of turns to bring it farther from the military jet. When that didn't provide enough distance, controllers realized that there might not be enough time for the cargo plane to clear the Andrews runway before Mrs. Obama's plane landed.
Controllers then directed the pilot of Mrs. Obama's plane to execute a "go-around" — to stop descending and start climbing — and circle the airport, located in a Maryland suburb of Washington. A go-around is considered a type of aborted landing.
"The aircraft were never in any danger," the FAA said in a statement.
Aviation safety expert John Cox agreed that an accident was unlikely.
"Every professional pilot I have ever known has been in situation where they were overtaking the plane in front of them and asked to do an S-turn," said Cox, a former airline pilot. "The only issue that could have come up was if they'd encountered the wake of the C-17."
Even then, Cox said, the 737 is a "very controllable" plane. "I don't think Mrs. Obama's plane would have been in any jeopardy."
Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, also was on the plane with Mrs. Obama. The first lady had been in New York earlier in the day for a TV interview.
The first lady's office declined to comment and referred all questions to officials at the FAA and Andrews. The president's West Wing press office did likewise.
The National Transportation Safety Board is gathering information about the incident but hasn't yet decided whether it will open a formal investigation, board spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said.
The incident was first reported Tuesday by The Washington Post on its website.
Obama, advocates discuss immigration law overhaul By DARLENE SUPERVILLE Associated Press The Associated Press Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:33 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Under pressure from advocates and the 2012 re-election calendar, President Barack Obama on Tuesday enlisted a diverse group of elected officials and religious, business, labor and civil rights leaders to help build support for a long-stalled overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.
Obama is making a new attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to enact a broad immigration overhaul early in his term. But his failure there has angered some Hispanics and immigrants' advocates, voters who helped elect him in 2008 and whom he'll need at the polls again next year.
A White House meeting with a group of about 70 people led to no legislative breakthroughs, but rather a call to action.
"The president asked the group to commit to moving forward to keep the debate about this issue alive, to keep it alive in the sense that it can get before Congress, where the ultimate resolution of it will have to be obtained," said Bill Bratton, the former police chief in Los Angeles and New York City. "The idea being to go out into our various communities and to speak about the issue."
Obama promised to continue working to build a bipartisan consensus around immigration and said he'd lead a "civil debate" on the issue in the months ahead, the White House said in a statement. But he also said he won't succeed if he alone is leading the debate.
"The president urged meeting participants to take a public and active role to lead a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system," the White House said. "He stressed that in order to successfully tackle this issue they must bring the debate to communities around the country and involve many sectors of American society in insisting that Congress act to create a system that meets our nation's needs for the 21st century and that upholds America's history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."
The meeting marked an attempt by the White House to demonstrate broad support for immigration overhaul and to include voices often not heard in the debate, such as San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg.
Dude, you seem to want to try to educate people...so educate us about your country. Maybe if you can convince people that socialism is the way to go..then more people may come around to your way of thinking about Obummer.
Dude, it wasn't just the GOP's saying things about Obama hiding his birth certificate.
When will you take the blinders off so that you can really see what is going on in the world with Obama. Talk about blind hope. Please do your homework and learn what Obama is really all about.
I do feel sorry for you living in a socialist country though. Maybe you should come live in America for a while to see what life is really like here.
OBAMA – a Traitor, and a War Criminal? – WHERE'S CONGRESS? Published on 03/20/11
By JB Williams
Jbwilliams09@gmail.com
On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the US Congress and majority support from the UN Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the UN and without even consulting congress.
Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.
He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.
Article II – Section II of the US Constitution identifies the US President as the civilian oversight of the US Military and Commander-in-Chief. But it gives the US President no authority to use military might to enforce its political will upon foreign nations.
Article I – Section VIII of the US Constitution rests the power to declare war solely with the US Congress. It requires both the Commander-in-Chief and Congress to commit US troops to combat, without which the act is wholly unconstitutional.
Even the Washington Times managed to get this one right in its editorial – Obama's Illegal War.
The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a US President from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
A US Commander-in-Chief can order use of military force in only three specific conditions…
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The US Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII. But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, he not only consulted congress in advance, he sought and received specific statutory authorization from congress before ordering troops into combat. Bush complied with the constitution and War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3). He also had a broad coalition of UN partners backed by years of Iraqi broken UN resolutions.
In the case of Obama and Libya, none of these conditions exist.
1) Congress did not declare war.
2) Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
3) The US was not attacked in any way by Libya which presented no threat to the US or US assets.
US State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed that the United States had been talking with Gaddafi's opposition in Libya regarding the Al Qaida threat, saying , "We are aware of these reports too and it has been one of the topics of our conversation with ... the opposition forces."
Western leaders join the concern of leaders in northern Africa that if Gaddafi steps down in Libya, Al Qaida will be ready to step into the power vacuum left behind.
In the meanwhile, Al Qaida made Baghdad a particularly dangerous place on Monday. Gunmen stormed a house in the village of Zumbraniya, 25 miles from Baghdad, killing six men and wounding three women in one family.
Also Monday, bombs went off at the homes of three separate officials in Baghdad. A bomb killed one of the bodyguards of Razzaq Marzouq, a director general at Iraq's Industrial Ministry. Three of his other bodyguards were wounded in the explosion. The director general of the government-owned Iraqi Investments Board, Bahser Muhssan, and a bystander were wounded in an explosion at Muhssan's home in southern Baghdad. Abed Majwal, a member of a consortium of counter-terrorist paramilitary groups, was killed in an explosion outside his house in western Baghdad.
Finally, gunmen killed an Iraqi police officer at a checkpoint in southwestern Baghdad.
The West is not alone in a desire to keep Al Qaida from gaining power. The nations in the Middle East have a vested interest in holding down the terrorist organization as well. Unfortunately, the uprisings have greatly opened opportunities for Al Qaida - opportunities that the group's leaders are willing to exploit.
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
"The Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old tired formula we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America," said top Budget panel Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. "Except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-smelling talk of reform."
In their budget, Republicans shied away from tackling Social Security shortfalls, steering clear of what pundits sometimes call the "third rail of American politics."
Virtually every budget expert in Washington agrees that projected Medicare cost increases are unsustainable, but the GOP initiative has brought heated disagreement.
"We hear a lot about Medicare as we know it," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark. "Well, unfortunately Medicare as we know it is going bankrupt. If you are for the status quo with regard to Medicare, you are on the side of the elimination of Medicare as we know it."
Democrats countered with official estimates showing the GOP plan would provide vouchers whose value would steadily erode.
"The Republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors — that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on Medicare to protect them in retirement," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "The Republicans' plan forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefit."
Also Friday, the House easily defeated two liberal budget alternatives. A plan offered by the conservative Republican Policy Committee failed as well, while a Democratic alternative that called for higher taxes on the wealthy and special interests fell on a 259-166 vote.
The GOP plan isn't actual legislation. Instead, under the arcane congressional budget process, the measure sketches out a nonbinding blueprint each year for running the government. The resolution doesn't require the president's signature, but it does set the framework for changes to spending or tax policy in follow-up legislation.
The most immediate impact of the GOP plan would be to cut the $1 trillion-plus budget for appropriated programs next year by $30 billion, following on the $38 billion in cuts just adopted. That would return domestic agency accounts below levels when George W. Bush left office.
Food stamps would also be cut sharply and turned into a block grant program.
For the long term, Ryan's 10-year plan still can't claim a balanced budget by the end of the decade because of promises to not increase taxes or change Medicare and Social Security benefits for people 55 and over.
But eventually annual deficits are projected to fall to the $400 billion range, enough to stabilize the nation's finances.
The Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to produce its alternative plan. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and other members of Obama's independent fiscal commission are pursuing a bipartisan "grand bargain" blending big spending curbs with new revenues flowing from a simplified tax code.
The budget deficit is projected at an enormous $1.6 trillion this year, and, more ominously, current projections show an even worse mismatch in coming decades as the baby boom generation retires and Medicare costs consume an ever-growing share of the budget.
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
Page 2
The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., exposes Republicans to political risk. Its Medicare proposal would give people presently 54 or younger health insurance subsidies that would steadily lose value over time — even as current beneficiaries and people 55 and older would stay in the current system.
The budget measure is nonbinding but lays out a vision to fundamentally reshape government benefit programs for the poor and elderly, programs whose spiraling costs threaten to crowd out other spending and produce a crippling debt burden that could put a major drag on the economy in the future.
"Which future do you want your children to have? One where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future?" Ryan asked. "Or this budget ... that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the budget but pays off our debt?"
The GOP's solution to unsustainable deficits is to relentlessly attack the spending side of the ledger while leaving Bush-era tax cuts intact. It calls for tax changes that would lower the top income tax rates for corporations and individuals by cleaning out a tax code cluttered with tax breaks and preferences, but it parts company with Obama and the findings of a bipartisan deficit commission, which proposed devoting about $100 billion a year in new revenue to easing the deficit.
Democrats and many budget experts say this spending-cuts-only approach is fundamentally unbalanced, targeting social safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps while leaving in place a tax system they say bestows too many benefits on the wealthy. The GOP blueprint would cut almost $800 million from the federal-state Medicaid program — which provides health care to the poor and disabled and pays for nursing home care for millions of indigent senior citizens — into a block grant program run by the states.
Republicans counter that low taxes and spending cuts would unleash capital into the economy and put it on firm footing — and avoid a European-style debt crisis that could force far harsher steps.
House passes huge GOP budget cuts, opposing Obama By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, April 15, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a prelude to a summer showdown with President Barack Obama, Republicans controlling the House pushed to passage on Friday a bold but politically dangerous budget blueprint to slash social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid and fundamentally restructure Medicare health care for the elderly.
The nonbinding plan lays out a fiscal vision cutting $6.2 trillion from yearly federal deficits over the coming decade and calls for transforming Medicare from a program in which the government directly pays medical bills into a voucher-like system that subsidizes purchases of private insurance plans
The GOP budget passed 235-193 with every Democrat voting "no." Obama said in an Associated Press interview that it would "make Medicare into a voucher program. That's something that we strongly object to."
The vote sets up the Republicans' next round of confrontation with Obama and Democrats over must-pass legislation to allow the government to borrow more money to finance its operations and obligations to holders of U.S. bonds. For the first time, Obama acknowledged that raising the debt limit is "not going to happen without some spending cuts" insisted upon by Republicans and some Democrats.
The vote came on the same day Obama signed a hard-fought six-month spending bill that averted a government shutdown while cutting $38 billion from the government. Struck last week, the compromise was the first between the White House and the emboldened Republican majority in the House.
Under the House Republican plan approved Friday, deficits requiring the federal government to borrow more than 40 cents for every dollar it spends would be cut by the end of the decade to 8 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent.
"If the president won't lead, we will," Boehner said as he closed debate. "No more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. Now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the American people and we will."
Obama saw the situation differently. In the AP interview, he said the Republicans' "pessimistic vision ... says that America can no longer do some of the big things that made us great, that made us the envy of the world."
6 banks shuttered; makes 34 closed in '11 By MARCY GORDON AP Business Writer The Associated Press Friday, April 15, 2011 8:49 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators on Friday shut down a total of six banks in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota and Mississippi, boosting the number of U.S. bank failures this year to 34. There were 157 bank closures in 2010 amid the shattered economy and piles of bad loans.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. seized the banks, the largest by far being Superior Bank, based in Birmingham, Ala., with $3 billion in assets and about 70 branches in Alabama and Florida.
A newly chartered bank subsidiary of Houston-based Community Bancorp LLC was set up to take over Superior Bank's assets and deposits. The new subsidiary is called Superior Bank NA.
In addition, the FDIC and Superior Bank NA agreed to share losses on $1.84 billion of the failed bank's loans and other assets.
Superior Bank received $69 million in taxpayer funds in December 2008 under the government's financial bailout program, Treasury Department data show.
Its failure is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $259.6 million.
Also shuttered were Birmingham-based Nexity Bank, with $793.7 million in assets; Bartow County Bank of Cartersville, Ga., with $330.2 million in assets; New Horizons Bank in East Ellijay, Ga., with $110.7 million in assets; Rosemount National Bank in Rosemount, Minn., with $37.6 million in assets; and Heritage Banking Group, based in Carthage, Miss., with $224 million in assets.
AloStar Bank of Commerce, also based in Birmingham, agreed to assume the assets and deposits of Nexity Bank. Hamilton State Bank, based in Hoschton, Ga., is assuming the assets and deposits of Bartow County Bank. Citizens South Bank, based in Gastonia, N.C., is acquiring the assets and deposits of New Horizons Bank. Central Bank, based in Stillwater, Minn., is assuming those of Rosemount National Bank. Trustmark National Bank, based in Jackson, Miss., is taking those of Heritage Banking Group.
In addition, the FDIC and AloStar Bank of Commerce agreed to share losses on $384.2 million of Nexity Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Hamilton State Bank are sharing losses on $247.5 million of Bartow County Bank's loans and other assets. The agency and Citizens South Bank are sharing losses on $84.7 million of New Horizons Bank's assets. The FDIC and Trustmark National Bank are sharing losses on $156.4 million of Heritage Banking Group's assets.
Gas at $4 in nation's capital, 5 states; NY next By The Associated Press The Associated Press Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) — NEW YORK (AP) — Drivers in Washington, D.C., on Saturday joined motorists in five states who are paying more than $4 per gallon for gasoline.
The average price for gas in New York could top $4 by early next week. Hawaii, Alaska, California, Illinois and Connecticut already have pump prices above that mark, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge. Hawaii has the highest price in the U.S. at $4.47 per gallon.
The national average for gas has increased for 25 straight days, and is now $3.82 per gallon. Retail surveys suggest motorists are reacting to higher prices now by buying less fuel. Still, the government expects pump prices to keep climbing this summer as vacationers take to the highways.
The average price of gas rose to $4.003 per gallon in the nation's capital Saturday. The New York average is $3.996.
For American drivers, the $4 mark harkens back to the summer of 2008, when oil rose to $147 per barrel and gas prices topped out at $4.11 per gallon before the economy went into a tailspin.
The rapid increase at the pump follows a parallel rise in oil. Since Labor Day, oil has risen 48 percent and U.S. gas prices have gone up 42 percent. The increases gained momentum in Mid-February when a popular rebellion built in Libya, eventually turning violent and shutting down the country's exports. Crude has jumped 30 percent since then, with gas prices gaining 22 percent.
Do public employees get a better deal? It depends By MICHAEL HILL Associated Press The Associated Press Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:07 PM EDT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A prosecutor in California collects $118,000 in unused sick days. A police officer in New York rings up $125,000 in overtime the year before retiring and "spikes" his pension payments. An Ohio school superintendent is hired for the same job from which he just retired and takes in more than $100,000 annually in salary and pension.
The headlines feed a stereotype of fat-cat public workers with the kind of cushy benefits that most private-sector workers can only dream about. With the economy still wobbly, governors are looking hard at employee pay and benefits, and taxpayers are asking whether state and local governments can remain so generous to public workers.
The issue has risen to national prominence as Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have sought not only to make public employees pay more for their benefits but also prohibit many aspects of collective bargaining for the unions that represent them.
———
EDITOR'S NOTE — This story is the latest installment in a joint initiative by The Associated Press and Associated Press Managing Editors on the fiscal crisis facing U.S. states and cities, how state and local governments are dealing with severe budget cuts, and how American lives will change because of it.
———
Just how accurate is the portrayal of lavish compensation and benefits for public workers?
Researchers disagree over whether public workers in different states do better when it comes to the larger picture of total compensation — that is, earnings plus benefits. But there's little debate that when it comes to benefits alone, it's better on the public side.
"Because of the economic problems, we've suddenly hit upon the fact that public workers have better benefits. But they've always had them, even previous to collective bargaining. That was one of the reasons people took a government job," said Jeffrey Keefe, a labor and employment relations associate professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who argues that state and local workers are generally undercompensated.
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press The Associated Press Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.
There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.
The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.
President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.
Trump to make 2012 announcement (or announcement about an announcement) on ‘The Apprentice’
Ever since Donald Trump began soaking up media attention around his possible 2012 presidential run, he's faced plenty of detractors claiming that he's simply using all the 2012 speculation to shore up his celebrity brand.
Everyone bases his or her decisions and actions on a worldview. We may not be able to articulate our worldview, and our worldview may be inconsistent, but we all have one. So the question is; what is a worldview?
A worldview is "an interpretive framework"-much like a pair of glasses-through which you view everything. It refers to any set of ideas, beliefs, or values that provide a framework or map to help you understand God, the world, and your relationship to God and the world. Specifically, a worldview contains a particular perspective regarding at least each of the following ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history.
This article summarizes the six worldviews that currently exert the most influence over the whole world. Other worldviews exist, but they wield much less influence. For example, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Shintoism may profoundly influence some Eastern countries, but hardly sway the entire world. The major ideas and belief systems controlling the world, and especially the West, are contained in the following six worldviews.
Conclusion
We cannot overstate the significance of these five anti-Christian worldviews. The basis for much of what is taught in the public classroom today comes from Secular, Marxist, Cosmic Humanist, and Postmodern thinking and takes on a variety of labels: liberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, deconstructionism, or self-esteem education. Or, as is often the case, the labels are dropped and courses are taught from anti-Christian assumptions without students being told which worldview is being expressed. Neutrality in education is a myth.
The first chapter of the Book of Daniel explains how Daniel and his friends prepared themselves to survive and flourish amid the clash of worldviews of their day. We believe that Christian young people equipped with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Christian worldview and its rivals can become "Daniels" who will not stand on the sidelines, but will participate in the great collision of worldviews in the twenty-first century.
Society will flourish in the light of truth only when the emphasis shifts back to a Christian perspective. This dramatic shift in emphasis can be brought about through the leadership of thousands of informed, confident Christian students who think deeply and broadly from a well-honed biblical worldview and emerge as leaders in education, business, science, and government.
Our desire to bring about this shift in emphasis is the fundamental reason Summit Ministries produces curricula and resources for Christian schools and homeschool families (primary, middle, and secondary), presents in-service worldview training for teachers across the U.S. and around the world, and provides worldview conferences for students and adults. Information is available at
Meanwhile, population growth has slowed in the eighty years since the start of Social Security and fifty since Medicare. Instead of having worker-to-enrollee ratios of 16-1, we’re rapidly approaching 2-1, which turns the entitlement structure into a teetering Ponzi scheme. The only corrective to that would be to have constant job creation and increasing percentages of workers in the population. Instead, we’re declining there as well, and that means that we should be seeing record numbers of Americans on the federal dole.
And we are: One in six Americans is receiving help from the government, just as fiscal austerity threatens to reduce some of that aid. Soaring unemployment during The Great Recession has driven tens of millions of people to the dole. Enrollment in Medicaid and food stamp programs are at record highs, while unemployment insurance rolls remain at elevated levels. Many people depend on more than one program. …
The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, hit a record 44.2 million in January. That’s up 4.7 million from the prior year. …
More than 8.4 million people are collecting either state or federal jobless benefits. While enrollment is down from its peak of 12 million early last year, it is still more than double the number it was when the recession began in late 2007. These programs sap even more resources that might go to extending the life of the retirement entitlement programs that are creaking toward collapse.
Jim Geraghty points out the irony of Barack Obama giving a lecture about “social compacts” being the greatness of America: Who’s really changing the America we’ve known in our lifetimes? Since 1950, we’ve had unemployment above 8 percent exactly twice, in the mid-70s and early 1980s. Both were milder than the current recession, and both ended with economic booms. Instead, under this president, we’ve spent trillions and we still limp along, told to celebrate every time unemployment drops a tenth of a percentage point, as more Americans endure foreclosure rates, a “scorched” housing market and more require government assistance. As noted earlier, we’re in an era ofmuch higher state and local taxes. The era of $4 to $5 per gallon gas will eat up a lot of those ever-scarcer discretionary dollars this summer; yet another year of Americans cutting back on their summer vacations.
“Changing the basic social compact”, Mr. President? Look around you when you’re on your way to your next top-dollar fundraiser with NBA stars, lobster Hors d’oeurvres, seared maine diver sea scallops and rosemary braised short ribs. American life is already changing; you and your policies have ushered in the New Era of Diminished Expectations.
In order to reverse this trend, we need to put more people back to work and completely restructure entitlements, and not necessarily in that order.
Great news: Working population percentage drops to three-decade low
Posted at 12:15 pm on April 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Maybe we can call this Generation U — for unemployed. Three decades ago, the US experienced a dramatic shift in culture and economics as women entered the workforce in record numbers, and our economy expanded to meet the labor supply. As USA Today reports, we have now returned to the same working percentage of the population as we had at the beginning of the expansion, an astonishing decline that doesn’t appear to be slowing much: The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.
The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs.
There are two pressures on the structure of the social programs, both at crisis stages. The first is the rising number of those eligible for benefits. When programs like Social Security and Medicare first began, most Americans weren’t expected to live long enough to draw benefits for more than a couple of years. In the fifty years since Medicare began, we have lowered the age of eligibility and massively expanded benefits. Not only do we have more people entering the system thanks to the Baby Boom of the postwar years, but thanks to better health, they’re staying in the program for at least fifteen years at a time.
Obama's deal will make it easy for Mexican trucks to bring in loads of illegal aliens and illegal drugs. Border inspection will be a farce, maybe only one in ten trucks inspected, perhaps merely one in twenty.
Opening our southern border to Mexican trucks will be a giant step toward the goal of creating a North American Union with open borders between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, a proposal launched by President George W. Bush using a website called Security and Prosperity Partnership (since deactivated). Obama is advancing the plan under less threatening names: the March 23, 2010 State Department fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision," a Nov. 30, 2010 "Trusted Traveler" agreement with Mexico signed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and a Feb. 4, 2011 declaration signed by Obama with Canada called "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security."
When Mexican truck drivers have their layovers and turn-arounds in the U.S., what's to prevent them from enjoying a frolic and diversion? They could use that time to father a baby who would then be proclaimed a U.S. citizen and get generous financial benefits and handouts provided by U.S. taxpayers.
We can assume that Mexican truck drivers will not be required to speak and read English, as U.S. law requires. The previous Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters, stated at a Senate hearing that if drivers respond to test questions in Spanish, the test-taker nevertheless checks the box that they are "English proficient."
While U.S. truck drivers are strictly limited to the number of hours per day they can be on the road, there is no way to figure out how many hours a Mexican truck driver has been on the road when he clocks in at the border. Has he been driving the typical Mexican 20-hour day?
Mexican trucks will make highway safety for Americans a major problem. We have no way to know a Mexican driver's record of accidents, alcohol or drugs, or a Mexican truck's record of brakes or emissions. Mexico doesn't bother with records or regulations.
Don't let anybody get by with saying that NAFTA requires us to admit Mexican trucks because it's a treaty. It isn't; NAFTA never complied with the treaty provision in the U.S. Constitution and is merely a law passed by Congress that can be changed or overturned.
Barack Obama's deal with the president of Mexico to allow Mexican trucks to carry their loads onto U.S. highways and roads is new evidence of his high-handed solo behavior that has become Standard Operating Procedure in the Administration. Here are ten reasons why Obama's plan is dangerous and must be stopped by Congress and public protest.
Obama's deal with President Felipe Calderon, announced on March 3, bypasses Congress, defies the wishes of the American people, and looks like the action of a Third World dictator who thinks representative government is a nuisance and can be ignored. Congress made its wishes emphatically clear in 2007 when it voted to continue our ban on Mexican trucks: the House roll-call vote was 411 to 3 and the Senate's was 75 to 23.
Obama's deal is a direct attack on the jobs available to U.S. truck drivers because it helps big-business interests cut their costs by hiring cheaper Mexican drivers. Obama's deal is also an attack on small business (i.e., the owner-operated and independent truck drivers) who constitute the big majority of U.S. trucks.
The claim that Obama's deal is reciprocal (i.e., U.S. trucks will be allowed to drive into Mexico) is so cynical that we can hardly believe anyone says it with a straight face. "South of the border down Mexico way" (in the words of the old popular song) is the most dangerous war zone in the world (more dangerous than Afghanistan or Libya), where U.S. truck drivers would become the targets of hijackings, theft, murder, kidnappings, and even beheadings committed by the drug cartels. Built into the Obama deal is the sneaky imposition of costs on both U.S. truck drivers and U.S. taxpayers. Each truck will be required to install an EOBR (electronic on-board recorder) costing $3,000 plus maintenance fees: U.S. drivers at their own expense, and Mexican trucks as a gift from U.S. taxpayers paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. U.S. taxpayers are already paying $1,600 each for many Mexican trucks to replace their old mufflers with catalytic converters.
Is Obama About to Push Palestinian State in September? This Would Be a Terrible Mistake
By Joel C. Rosenberg
JoelRosenberg.com
As international support builds for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare their own state at the U.N. General Assembly opening session in September, I am growing increasingly concerned that President Obama is preparing to endorse such a move and even push for it.
A new article in The Economist reports that "before the UN vote of February 18th [condemning Israel for building settlements in Judea and Samaria], Barack Obama reportedly encouraged Mr Cameron and others to take a tough line on Israel. In phone calls to his European allies, Mr Obama is said to have expressed frustration at Mr Netanyahu's approach to settlements, but to have explained he had 'too many domestic fires to extinguish" to risk a bust-up over Israel.'" The reporter says this allegation cannot be confirmed, but "in private, European officials have told Israel that their pressure is choreographed with America." A new Washington Post column asks: Is Obama Abandoning Diplomatic Support For Israel? America can ill afford turning on Israel at all, much less now. To do so would be a terrible mistake.
Bible prophecy makes it clear that in the last days the nations of the world will divide up the land of Israel. But the Scriptures are also crystal clear that the nations will face the judgment of Almighty God for doing so. "For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them to the Valley of Jehoshaphat ["the Lord judges"]. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land." (Book of Joel 3:1-2). Let the nations be warned by the God of Israel: they are on a dangerous and disastrous road. Let us pray they turn around before it is too late.
One could wish the clear warning of the Bible would be enough to dissuade the President from dividing the land of Israel. I am not sure it will. Perhaps sheer politics will help. A new poll shows that 51% of Americans oppose a unilateral declaration, and only 31% supporting one. Nevertheless, the President and his senior advisors don't seem to be listening to the Lord, or the people on this one.
"The United States plans a new push to promote comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday, suggesting a stronger U.S. hand in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," reports Reuters. "President Barack Obama will lay out U.S. policy toward the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks, Clinton told Arab and U.S. policy makers in a speech that placed particular emphasis on Israeli-Palestinian peace."
"The president will be speaking in greater detail about America's policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks," Clinton said at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, a gathering sponsored by Qatar and the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, Reuters reported. "America's core interests and values have not changed, including our commitment to promote human rights, resolve long-standing conflicts, counter Iran's threats and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies…. This includes renewed pursuit of comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."
By MICHAEL HILL Associated Press The Associated Press Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:07 PM EDT
NEWBURGH, N.Y. (AP) — A suicidal mother who loaded her four children into a minivan and drove off a boat ramp into the frigid Hudson River changed her mind as the van sank and cried, "I made a mistake, I made a terrible mistake," said her 10-year-old son, who survived by crawling out a window and swimming ashore.
Lashanda Armstrong had warned in a cryptic Facebook message just before the fatal plunge: "I'm so sorry everyone forgive me please for what I'm gonna do.... This Is It!!!!"
Her 10-year-old son, the only survivor as his mother and three siblings drowned, says she had told the children, "You're all going to die with me," but then tried, too late, to back out of the river, according to a woman who found the sopping wet boy.
Meave Ryan was driving past the boat ramp in Newburgh, about 60 miles north of New York City, on Tuesday evening when she spotted the boy, La'Shaun Armstrong, waving his arms.
Ryan said the boy told her that his mother had had a "big, big argument about my stepdad's cheating on her," then piled the four children in the minivan and sped into the river.
Ryan told The Associated Press on Thursday that La'Shaun said Armstrong had held him and the other kids — boys ages 5 and 2 and an 11-month-old girl — as the minivan began sinking.
"She was holding on to all of them and said, `If I'm going to die, you're all going to die with me,'" Ryan said. "She said that two or three times."
But as the vehicle sank, La'Shaun broke free of his mother's grasp and clambered out a window.
Ryan said: "While he was doing that, he heard his mother saying, `I made a mistake, I made a terrible mistake.' And she tried to reverse the car out, but at that time it was too late. He said, `Mommy, I'm going to go get help,' and she said, `OK.' And that was the last he heard from his mother."
Ryan drove the boy to a nearby fire station. Rescuers immediately went to the river, but it was too late: They found the van about 25 yards from shore in 8 feet of water. Lashanda Armstrong and three children were dead.
Ryan's account conforms to reports from police, who say Armstrong was involved in a domestic incident at her apartment Tuesday evening and within minutes had plunged off a boat ramp into the river just a half-mile from her apartment in a hard-luck section of the city.
Billions were saved by eliminating congressional earmarks, and billions more in funds from the Census Bureau, left over from the 2010 national head count, now finished.
The Environmental Protection Agency, one of the Republicans' favorite targets, took a $1.6 billion cut. Spending for community health centers was reduced by $600 million, and the Community Development Block Grant program favored by mayors by $950 million more.
The bipartisan drive to cut federal spending reached into every corner of the government's sprawl of domestic programs. Money to renovate the Commerce Department building in Washington was cut by $8 million. The Appalachian Regional Commission, a New Deal-era program, was nicked for another $8 million and the National Park Service by $127 million more.
While Republicans touted the cuts in the measure, Democratic supporters pointed to even deeper reductions or even outright program terminations that Republicans had been forced to give up in negotiations.
That list included a family planning program for lower-income families, federal support for National Public Radio and the funds needed to implement the health care law that Congress approved a year ago and Republicans have voted to repeal.
While Republicans were unable to muster a 217-vote majority for the spending cuts on their own, the huge freshman class broke heavily in favor, 60-27.
Normally vocal, GOP critics of the legislation did not speak during debate. "This is done. I'm prepared to move on to bigger issues," said one of them, Rep. Bill Huizinga of Michigan.
While reaching across party lines, the legislation produced few if any enthusiastic supporters.
Referring to a late lawmaker known for his sense of humor, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., told the House, "As Mo Udall once said, if you can find something everyone agrees on, you can count on it being wrong."
Moran, a veteran Virginia Democrat, said the bill "does contain more good than bad." That put him in the same category as Rep. Jeff Landry, a first-term Louisiana Republican who won office last fall with the support of tea party activists.
Congress OKs big budget cuts _ bigger fights await
By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent The Associated Press Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:06 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress sent President Barack Obama hard-fought legislation cutting a record $38 billion from federal spending on Thursday, bestowing bipartisan support on the first major compromise between the White House and newly empowered Republicans in Congress.
"Welcome to divided government," said House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Republican point man in tough negotiations with the president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that produced a bill no one claimed to like in its entirety.
Leader of a rambunctious new majority, Boehner said the cuts in domestic programs were unprecedented. Yet he also called the measure a less-than-perfect first step in a long campaign against federal red ink, and dozens of rank-and-file conservatives voted against it.
The White House also looked ahead to a struggle now beginning over national spending priorities in an era of soaring deficits and a $14 trillion national debt.
"We all know there are tough challenges ahead, from growing our economy to reducing our deficit, but we must build on this bipartisan compromise to tackle these issues and meet the expectations of the American people," said an administration statement.
The bipartisan votes belied a fierce struggle that preceded passage and only narrowly avoided a partial government shutdown a week ago.
The tally in the House was 260-167. Among the supporters were 60 of the 87 first-term Republicans, many of them elected with tea party support.
The Senate added its approval a short while later, 81-19, and most of the opponents were conservatives who wanted deeper cuts.
Even before the final votes, House Republicans pointed eagerly toward a vote Friday on their next move against mounting deficits, a comprehensive budget that claims cuts measured in the trillions, rather than billions, over the next decade. That vote is expected to be as partisan as the spending bill was not.
The measure approved Thursday will finance the government through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, chopping $38 billion from current levels and $78 billion from the president's request of more than a year ago.
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: Obama or ... do America really want the new Republican landscape?
Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise; Inflation Pressure GrowsPublished: Thursday, 14 Apr 2011 | 9:43 AM ET
New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, bouncing back above the key 400,000 level, while core producer prices clumbed faster than expected in March, government reports showed on Thursday.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000, the Labor Department said.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 380,000.
The prior weeks figure was revised up to 385,000 from the previously reported 382,000.
The four-week moving average of unemployment claims—a better measure of underlying trends—climbed 5,500 to 395,750.
The rise in claims interrupted a downward trend that had kept them below the 400,000 threshold for four weeks. That level is normally associated with steady job growth. Despite last weeks rise, the four-week average held below the 400,000 mark for a seventh straight week.
A Labor Department official said claims tend to rise the first week of a new quarter.
The number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid fell 58,000 to 3.68 million in the week ended April 2, the lowest level since September 2008.
Economists had expected so-called continuing claims to ease to 3.70 million from a previously reported 3.72 million.
The number of people on emergency unemployment benefits fell 12,245 to 3.55 million in the week ended March 26, the latest week for which data is available. A total of 8.52 million people were claiming unemployment benefits during that period under all programs.
Core Producer Prices Climb
U.S. core producer prices rose slightly faster than expected in March and the increase from a year ago was the largest since August 2009, pointing to a broadening in pipeline inflation pressures.
Economists had expected core PPI to rise 0.2 percent in March.
Light trucks prices, which advanced 0.7 percent, accounted for a third of the rise in core PPI last month. The increase in light truck prices was the biggest since July. Passenger vehicle prices increased 0.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009.
"It looks like the disruption to global autos production stemming from the Japanese disaster will hit autos supply and, consequently could lead to some further steep price increases over the next few months," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital economics in Toronto.
In the 12 months to March, the core producer price index rose 1.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2009, after gaining 1.8 percent in February. Marchs increase was in line with market expectations.
The increase in headline PPI, however, slowed to 0.7 percent after surging 1.6 percent in February.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected PPI to rise 1 percent last month. In the 12 months to March, producer prices increased 5.8 percent, the largest gain in a year, after rising 5.6 percent in February.
Although rising gasoline prices are exerting upward pressure on inflation at the production level, the Federal Reserve largely views this as transitory. Officials have, however, said they would act if necessary to ensure that an inflation psychology does not take root.
Energy prices, which rose 2.6 percent, accounted for nearly 90 percent of the increase in wholesale prices last month.
Energy prices rose 3.3 percent in February.
Gasoline prices rose 5.7 percent after increasing 3.7 percent in February. Food prices fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since August.
The U.S. central bank said in its Beige Book summary of economic conditions on Wednesday that businesses were reporting that higher commodity costs were putting upward pressure on prices.
But with the labor market still weak and wage growth subdued, producers have limited capacity to pass on the higher costs to consumers.
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.