Archive for September, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 47, September 28, 2011: Segment 2: Republican Presidential Debate, September 22, 2011–Videos

Posted on September 27, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Coal, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Monetary Policy, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Resources, Security, Socials Security, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: Fox News Google, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican Debate, Rick Perry, Ron Paul |

Pronk Pops Show 47:September 28, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Full GOP presidential debate in Orlando, FL — September 22, 2011 (FOX News)

Republican Presidential Debate pt.1

Republican Presidential Debate pt.2

Republican Presidential Debate pt.3

Republican Presidential Debate pt.4

Republican Presidential Debate pt.5

Republican Presidential Debate pt.6

Republican Presidential Debate pt.7

Republican Presidential Debate pt.8

Republican Presidential Debate pt.9

Republican Presidential Debate pt.10

Background Articles and Videos

Perry: ‘Heartless’ Poor Word Choice In Immigration Debate

Glenn Beck: Republicans Trying to Eat the Tea Party

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

“…George Shultz, writing with Henry Kissinger and others in the Wall Street Journal late last year, asserted that nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War. But reliance on nuclear weapons for [the purpose of deterrence] is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. What made nuclear weapons acceptable then, and so unacceptable today? In answering these questions Shultz addresses the difficult challenges the United States faces as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, and the threat represented by non-nation state actors: the nightmare scenario of a nuclear suitcase bomb detonating in a major American city. …”

The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Tax Rate	Single	Married Filing Joint	Married Filing Separate	Head of Household
10%	Up to $8,500	Up to $17,000	Up to $8,500	Up to $12,150
15%	$8,501 – $34,500	$17,001 – $69,000	$8,501 – $34,500	$12,151 – $46,250
25%	$34,501 – $83,600	$69,001 – $139,350	$34,501 – $69,675	$46,251 – $119,400
28%	$83,601 – $174,400	$139,351 – $212,300	$69,676 – $106,150	$119,401 – $193,350
33%	$174,401 – $379,150	$212,301 – $379,150	$106,151 – $189,575	$193,351 – $379,150
35%	Over $379,150	Over $379,150	Over $189,575	Over $379,150

Tax Rate	Single	Married Filing Joint	Head of Household
10%	Up to $8,600	Up to $17,200	Up to $12,250
15%	$8,601 – $34,900	$17,201 – $69,800	$12,251 – $46,750
25%	$34,901 – $84,500	$69,801 – $140,850	$46,751 – $120,700
28%	$84,501 – $195,950	$140,851 – $237,700	$120,701 – $216,800
36%	$195,951 – $383,350	$237,701 – $383,350	$216,801 – $383,350
39.6%	Over $383,350	Over $383,350	Over $383,350

Background Articles and Videos

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

Background Articles and Videos

Cap and Trade: It’s an Energy Tax

(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER

UPDATED

Solyndra Said to Have Violated Terms of Its U.S. Loan

By DEBORAH SOLOMON

“…Solyndra LLC had such steep financial problems in late 2010 that the company violated terms of its loan-guarantee agreement with the Department of Energy and technically defaulted on its $535 million loan, according to people familiar with the matter.

The failed solar-panel maker, which is under numerous criminal and congressional investigations, ran so short of cash in December 2010 that it was unable to satisfy certain terms of its U.S. loan agreement, these people said. The agreement required Solyndra to provide $5 million in equity to a subsidiary building its factory but cash-flow problems prevented those payments.

The Energy Department ultimately restructured the loan agreement to help keep the company afloat and Solyndra continued to draw money from its loan.

Solyndra’s cash-flow problems in late 2010 had previously come to light but it was not known that the company technically defaulted on its loan and violated its agreement with the U.S. government.

The company’s financial problems prompted the Energy Department early this year to allow it to reshuffle its debt. Under the arrangement, private investors agreed to provide a new $75 million loan and won the right to be paid ahead of the government if the company was liquidated. …”

“…Solyndra’s problems came to a head in November 2010 when it told the Energy Department it needed $150 million to make it through early 2012, at which time it believed its cash flow would improve. On Dec. 1, 2010, it was unable to make a $5 million payment to its subsidiary and technically defaulted on its loan.

The loan was officially restructured in February 2011, giving the company enough money to carry it through August. The company, which had drawn down $475 million of the U.S. loan as of Dec. 31, 2010, ended up borrowing $527 million before its bankruptcy. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576596601891250510.html

Documents show Solyndra sought second government loan guarantee for $469 million

“…Failed solar panel maker Solyndra’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that seven months after the Obama administration’s Department of Energy approved a $535 million federal loan guarantee, Solyndra applied for a second one valued at $469 million.

“On September 11, 2009, we applied for a second loan guarantee from the DOE, in the amount of approximately $469 million, to partially fund Phase II,” Solyndra wrote in a report it filed with the SEC on December 18, 2009. “If we are unable to obtain the DOE guaranteed loan in whole or in part, we intend to fund any financing shortfall with some combination of the proceeds of this offering, cash flows from operations, debt financing and additional equity financing.”

“…“Although the DOE determined on November 4, 2009, that our initial application was complete, and we submitted the second part of the application on November 17, 2009, there is no guarantee that the DOE will approve our application in the full amount requested or at all,” the company wrote in its December 18, 2009 SEC filing.

Dan Simmons of the Institute for Energy Research told TheDC that Solyndra’s failure looks even worse in light of its aim for even more taxpayer money in 2009.

“Solyndra saw the American taxpayer as their personal piggy-bank, so it’s no surprise that they wanted another half billion dollar loan from the taxpayer,” Simmons said in an email. “The only surprise is that the Obama administration rejected the second loan. After all, both private and Department of Energy financial analysts were not excited by Solyndra’s prospects before the first loan.” …”

Solyndra

“…Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of CIGS thin-film solar cells based in Fremont, California. The company suspended all of its operations as of August 2011 leaving behind the United States government as its largest creditor.^[1]

In May 2010, the company was personally promoted by President Obama in his visit as a model for government investment in green technology,^[2] and was also visited by former California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.^[3] A $535 million loan guarantee was applied for under the Bush administration but the loan was denied.^[4] The $535 million loan guarantee was later granted by the Obama administration. Private investors also invested more than $1 billion into the company.^[2]

Due to overseas price pressure coming from China in the period of constructing the new plant, the Fab 2, the company had shut-down its original plant, Fab 1, and simultaneously reduced its staff to approximately 1,100 employees.^[5] In early September 2011, the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid-off all employees.^[3] The company is also being sued by employees who were abruptly laid-off.^[2]

On September 8th, 2011, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents executed multiple search warrants at the company’s headquarters in Fremont as part of an investigation by the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General.^[2]

Technology

Solyndra designed, manufactured and sold solar photovoltaic (PV) systems composed of panels and mounting hardware for large, low-slope commercial rooftops. The panels perform optimally when mounted horizontally and packed closely together, thereby, the company claimed, covering significantly more of the typically available roof area and producing more electricity per rooftop on an annual basis than a conventional panel installation.^[6]

The solar panels developed by the company were claimed to be unlike any other product ever tried in the industry. The panels were made of racks of cylindrical tubes (also called tubular solar panels), as opposed to traditional flat panels. Solyndra rolled its copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin films into a cylindrical shape and places 40 of them in each 1-meter-by-2-meter panel. The cylindrical solar panels (think of fluorescent tube lights—except in reverse) can absorb energy from every direction (direct, indirect and reflected light).^{[citation needed]}

Each Solyndra cylinder, one inch in diameter, is made up of two tubes. The company used equipment it had developed to deposit CIGS on the outside of the inner tube, which includes up to 200 CIGS cells. On top of the CIGS material, it adds an “optical coupling agent”, which concentrates the sunlight that shines through the outer tube. After inserting the inner tube into the outer tube, each cylinder is sealed with glass and metal to keep out moisture, which erodes CIGS’s performance. The hermetic sealing technology is commonly used in fluorescent bulbs.^[7]

When combined with a white roof (the fastest growing segment of the commercial roof industry with over 1 billion square feet installed in 2008 and required for any new commercial construction in California), the company claimed that systems that employ the panels on a given rooftop could produce significantly more electricity in a given year. With a white roof, the panels can capture up to 20% more light than with a black roof.^{[citation needed]}

The other advantage claimed by the company was that the panels did not have to move to track the Sun. The panels are always presenting some of their face directly perpendicular to the Sun.^[8] The daily production of flat solar panels has an output curve that has a clear peak while Solyndra claimed their system produced more power throughout the day.

The Solyndra panels allow wind to blow through them. According to the company, these factors enable the installation of PV on a broader range of rooftops without anchoring or ballast, which are inherently problematic.^[6] Solyndra claimed that wind and snow loads are negligible and that its panels are lighter in weight per area.^{[citation needed]}

The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies.^[7] However, these efficiencies are for the cells laid flat.^[9] The company did not post any numbers when the cells are rolled up. The Solyndra 100/200 spec sheet doesn’t mention the cells nor the panel efficiencies directly. However, calculating from the data provided shows the high-end 210 panel has a field efficiency of about 8.5%.^[10]

In 2006, Solyndra began deploying demonstration systems around the world. The company stated the total count was 14 systems and that these systems were each instrumented with highly sensitive radiation, wind speed, temperate and humidity measurement devices to aid in the development of energy yield forecasting software tools, claiming there were more than 1000 Solyndra systems installed around the world and that they shipped its 100th megawatt of panels in March 2011.^{[citation needed]}

Management

Solyndra was led by Brian Harrison, a veteran of Intel Corporation, from July 27, 2010, when Solyndra announced that Brian Harrison had replaced founder Chris Gronet as CEO of the company.

Major investors included George Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. Venture Partners, CMEA Ventures, Redpoint Ventures, Virgin Green Fund, Madrone Capital Partners, RockPort Capital Partners, Argonaut Private Equity, Masdar and Artis Capital Management.

In 2009, the company posted $100 million dollars in revenue. It was estimated that its production and sales growth could lead to a market cap between $1.76 – 2 billion dollars.^[11] 2010 revenues were approximately $140 million.

Other executives include Bill Stover, CFO, Karen Alter, SVP of Marketing, Corby Whitaker, VP, Sales United States, John Gaffney, Corporate Counsel and Ben Bierman, EVP Operations and Engineering.^{[citation needed]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

Sondra faces House subcommittee hearings

Executives of the bankrupt solar energy equipment maker are likely to field questions about whether its $535-million stimulus loan was granted because of Solyndra’s financial ties to a major Democratic fundraiser.

“… Solar energy equipment maker Solyndra Inc., reeling from a recent bankruptcy filing and FBI raids last week on its Bay Area office and executives’ homes, faces a public and probably embarrassing reckoning before a House subcommittee.

The hearings Wednesday are the latest step by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its oversight arm to push an investigation it launched in February into the Energy Department’s decision to give Solyndra a $535-million loan guarantee under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. …”

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13/business/la-fi-solyndra-hearing-20110913

Big Name Investors Behind Obama’s Failed Green Tech Bet First in Line to Recoup Losses

By Michael Grunwald | September 3, 2011

“…Republicans are already dancing on the grave of Solyndra,
the solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million federal loan
in 2009 and collapsed on Wednesday. Here’s more music they can dance to:
Sources tell me the Obama administration restructured the loan this
winter, so taxpayers probably won’t even be the first creditors to get
paid after Solyndra files for bankruptcy next week. The first $75
million will go to two Solyndra investors who poured in extra cash when
the company nearly went bust in January. And one of them is a venture
associated with the billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign
bundler.

The other investor is a partnership associated with the Walton
family, which tends to lean Republican. And public filings suggest that
Kaiser-linked funds had sunk at least $320 million into Solyndra before
adding the secured financing; they’re taking a bath along with the rest
of us. “If this was a sweetheart deal, it was the worst sweetheart deal
ever,” one official quipped.

So why did the administration agree to the restructuring? The short
answer, in poker terms, is that it felt pot-committed. It had already
made a big bet; it didn’t want to fold if there was still a chance of
winning. The slightly longer answer is that administration officials
thought (as I did) that Solyndra was back on track, and that giving the
company a new lease on life would benefit taxpayers even if it
ultimately failed. A fuller explanation culled from government documents
follows. …”

Obama’s Pet Billionaire at Solyndra May Take White House Down

“…Solyndra LLC’s workers making solar-power panels in a California factory
subsidized by U.S. taxpayers showed “the promise of clean energy isn’t
just an article of faith,” President Barack Obama said on a visit to the
company in May 2010.

Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting
firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of
$535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep
enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern.”

The Obama administration stood by Solyndra
through the auditor’s warning, the abandonment of a planned initial
public offering and a last-ditch refinancing where taxpayers took a back
seat to new investors. That unwavering commitment has come under
increasing scrutiny since the company’s travails culminated in its
filing for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and a raid on its
headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation two days later. …”

http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2011/09/12/obamas-pet-billionaire-solyndra-may-take-white-house-down

The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal

by davejFollow

“…The economy tanked and cut demand, and at the same time Solyndra
could not compete with subsidized companies located in China as they
rapidly scaled up. So Solyndra ran out of money. Conservatives and oil
interests are using the bankruptcy as a platform to attack green energy
and the idea of green jobs in general, solar power in particular,
President Obama as always, stimulus funding and the idea of developing a
national strategic industrial policy to push back on China and others
who have their own national policies to win this key industry of the
future.

Conservative Attacks

Conservative are accusing the Obama administration of corruption in
choosing Solyndra to receive a government loan guarantee. The typical
conservative-outlet story follows a template of Glenn-Beckian
accusations that someone “connected to” Obama has “ties” to something.
When you hear the phrasing “has ties to” you should understand this as
code-speak for “has nothing to do with but can be made to appear to have
some sinister involvement if you twist the wording a certain way.” …”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016840/-The-Phony-Solyndra-Solar-Scandal

Background Articles and Videos

FICA Tax

John Taylor Receives the Bradley Prize — 2010

Epstein and Taylor: Are we all Keynesians now?

John Taylor’s Reason Versus Paul Krugman’s Hyperbole (Part 1 of 2)

John Taylor’s Reason Versus Paul Krugman’s Hyperbole (Part 2 of 2)

Steine Lecture Series with John B. Taylor

The Economy According to Taylor and Judd

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax

“…The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax ( /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax^[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare^[2]
—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one’s working career is indirectly tied to the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree.^{[citation needed]} This has led some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit.^[3] The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is currently codified at Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.^[4]

Overview

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.^[5] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the years 2009 and 2010) only on the first $106,800 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

“Regular” employees (most wage-earners)

For 2008, the employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2%^[6] of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324.00 in tax). For 2009 and 2010, the employee’s share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $6,621.60).^[7] This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). For the calendar year 2011, the employee’s share has been temporarily reduced to 4.2% of gross compensation, with a limit of $106,800.^[8] The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages, with no
limit on the amount of wage subject to the Medicare tax.^[6]

The employer is also liable for 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare taxes,^[9] making the total Social Security tax 12.4% of wages, and the total Medicare tax 2.9%. (Self-employed people are responsible for the entire FICA percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% + 2.9%), since they are in a sense both the employer and the employed; however, see the section on self-employed people for more details.)

If a worker starts a new job halfway through the year and has already earned the wage base limit for Social Security purposes, the new employer is not allowed to stop withholding until the wage base limit has been earned with the new employer. There are some limited cases, such as a successor-predecessor transfer, in which the payments that have already been withheld can be counted toward the year-to-date total.

If a worker has overpaid toward Social Security by having more than one job or by having switched jobs during the year, that worker can file a request to have that overpayment counted as tax paid when he or she files a Federal income tax return. If the taxpayer is due a refund, then the FICA overpayment is refunded.

Self-employed people

A tax similar to the FICA tax is imposed on the earnings of self-employed individuals, such as independent contractors and members of a partnership. This tax is imposed not by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act but instead by the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 through 26 U.S.C. § 1403 (the “SE Tax Act”). Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [Soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business’s net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact
that employees’ 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative
“employer’s half” of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don’t get taxed on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn’t get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don’t pay general income tax on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn’t pay FICA tax on it either.^[10]^[11]

These calculations are made on Schedule SE: Self-Employment Tax, although that is not readily apparent to novice self-employed taxpayers, owing to the schedule’s rather opaque name, which makes it sound like it is part of the general federal income tax. Some taxpayers have complained that Schedule SE’s title should be changed to something such as “Self-Employment FICA Tax”, so that its separateness from the general income tax is apparent,^[12] perhaps not realizing that the SE tax is not imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) at all, and that neither SE taxes nor FICA taxes are “income taxes” imposed under Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Exemption for certain full-time students

A special case in FICA regulations includes exemptions for student workers. Students enrolled at least half-time in a university and working part-time for the same university are exempted from FICA payroll taxes, so long as their relationship with the university is primarily an educational one.^[13] Medical residents working full-time are not considered students and are not exempt from FICA payroll taxes, according to a US Supreme Court ruling in 2011.^[14] In order to be exempt from FICA payroll taxes, a student’s work must be “incident to” pursuit of a course of study, which is rarely the case with full-time employment.^[14]

History

Prior to the Great Depression, the following presented difficulties for working-class Americans: ^[15]

The U.S. had no federal-government-mandated retirement savings; consequently, for those people who had not voluntarily saved money throughout their working lives, the end of their work careers was the end of all income.
Similarly, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for citizens disabled by injuries (of any kind—non-work-related); consequently, for most people, a disabling injury meant no more income (since most people have little to no income except earned income from work).
In addition, there was no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for people unable to ever work during their lives, such as anyone born with severe mental retardation.
Further, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for the elderly; consequently, for many people, the end of their work careers was the end of their ability to pay for medical care.
Finally, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for all those who are not elderly; consequently, many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, have no ability to pay for medical care.

In the 1930s, the New Deal introduced Social Security to rectify the first three problems (retirement, injury-induced disability, or congenital disability). It introduced the FICA tax as the means to pay for Social Security.

In the 1960s, Medicare was introduced to rectify the fourth problem (health care for the elderly). The FICA tax was increased in order to pay for this expense.

Criticism

Social Security regressivity debate

The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.^[16] The Social Security component is actually a flat tax for wage levels under the Social Security Wage Base (see “Regular” employees above). But since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the total tax rate declines as wages increase beyond that limit. In other words, for wage levels above the limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant; since this number (the numerator) remains constant while the wage level (the denominator) increases, the
effective tax rate steadily decreases as wage levels increase beyond the Wage Base limit.

FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as “unearned income” tends to rise with higher income brackets.

Some argue that since Social Security taxes are eventually returned to taxpayers, with interest, in the form of Social Security benefits, the regressiveness of the tax is effectively negated.^{[citation needed]} That is, the taxpayer gets back what he or she put into the Social Security system. Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, point out that the Social Security system as a whole is progressive;
individuals with lower lifetime average wages receive a larger benefit (as a percentage of their lifetime average wage income) than do individuals with higher lifetime average wages.^[17]^{[18] …”}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax}

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Future of Unemployment

US economy created no job growth in August, data show

First time since 1945 that government has reported net monthly job change of zero

“…Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged last month, the Labor Department said Friday. It was the first time since 1945 that the government has reported a net monthly job change of zero. The August payrolls report was the worst since September 2010, while nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs. …”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44370462/ns/business/

Employers Add No Net Jobs in Aug.; Rate Unchanged

“…Employers stopped adding jobs in August, an alarming setback for an economy that has struggled to grow and might be at risk of another recession.

It was the weakest jobs report since September 2010. The unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent.

Stock futures plunged on the news. In the 15 minutes after the report was released, Dow futures fell 94 points, from 11,401 to 11,318.

A strike by 45,000 Verizon workers lowered the job totals. Those workers are now back on the job.

The weakness in employment was underscored by revisions to the jobs data for June and July. Collectively, those figures were lowered to show 57,000 fewer jobs added. The downward revisions were all in government jobs.

The average work week also declined and hourly earnings fell by 3 cents to $23.09. …”

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=14432646

Unemployment Level

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	6023	6089	6141	6271	6226	6484	6583	7042	7142	7694	8003	8258
2002	8182	8215	8304	8599	8399	8393	8390	8304	8251	8307	8520	8640
2003	8520	8618	8588	8842	8957	9266	9011	8896	8921	8732	8576	8317
2004	8370	8167	8491	8170	8212	8286	8136	7990	7927	8061	7932	7934
2005	7784	7980	7737	7672	7651	7524	7406	7345	7553	7453	7566	7279
2006	7064	7184	7072	7120	6980	7001	7175	7091	6847	6727	6872	6762
2007	7100	6900	6721	6836	6766	6980	7149	7085	7191	7272	7261	7664
2008	7653	7441	7781	7606	8398	8590	8953	9489	9557	10176	10552	11344
2009	11984	12737	13278	13734	14512	14776	14663	14953	15149	15628	15206	15212
2010	14842	14860	14943	15138	14884	14593	14637	14849	14746	14876	15041	14485
2011	13863	13673	13542	13747	13914	14087	13931	13967

Official Unemployment Rate U-3

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.5	4.6	4.9	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.7
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.8	5.1	4.9	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.2	6.6	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.2	8.6	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.7	9.8	10.1	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.8	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8	9.4
2011	9.0	8.9	8.8	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.1	9.1

Labor Force Participation Rate

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	67.2	67.1	67.2	66.9	66.7	66.7	66.8	66.5	66.8	66.7	66.7	66.7
2002	66.5	66.8	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.6	66.5	66.6	66.7	66.6	66.4	66.3
2003	66.4	66.4	66.3	66.4	66.4	66.5	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	65.9
2004	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	66.0	66.1	66.1	66.0	65.8	65.9	66.0	65.9
2005	65.8	65.9	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0
2006	66.0	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.3	66.4
2007	66.4	66.3	66.2	65.9	66.0	66.0	66.0	65.8	66.0	65.8	66.0	66.0
2008	66.2	66.0	66.1	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.8	65.8
2009	65.7	65.7	65.6	65.6	65.7	65.7	65.5	65.4	65.1	65.1	65.0	64.7
2010	64.8	64.8	64.9	65.1	64.9	64.7	64.6	64.7	64.7	64.5	64.5	64.3
2011	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.1	63.9	64.0

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	7.3	7.4	7.3	7.4	7.5	7.9	7.8	8.1	8.7	9.3	9.4	9.6
2002	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8
2003	10.0	10.2	10.0	10.2	10.1	10.3	10.3	10.1	10.4	10.2	10.0	9.8
2004	9.9	9.7	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.7	9.4	9.2
2005	9.3	9.3	9.1	8.9	8.9	9.0	8.8	8.9	9.0	8.7	8.7	8.6
2006	8.4	8.4	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.0	8.2	8.1	7.9
2007	8.4	8.1	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.4	8.5	8.8
2008	9.1	8.9	9.0	9.2	9.7	10.1	10.5	10.9	11.2	11.9	12.7	13.6
2009	14.1	15.0	15.6	15.8	16.4	16.6	16.5	16.8	17.0	17.4	17.1	17.2
2010	16.5	16.8	16.8	17.0	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.7	17.1	17.0	17.0	16.7
2011	16.1	15.9	15.7	15.9	15.8	16.2	16.1	16.2

Unemployment Rate For 16-19 Years of Age

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2001	13.8	13.7	13.8	13.9	13.4	14.2	14.4	15.6	15.2	16.0	15.9	17.0
2002	16.5	16.0	16.6	16.7	16.6	16.7	16.8	17.0	16.3	15.1	17.1	16.9
2003	17.2	17.2	17.8	17.7	17.9	19.0	18.2	16.6	17.6	17.2	15.7	16.2
2004	17.0	16.5	16.8	16.6	17.1	17.0	17.8	16.7	16.6	17.4	16.4	17.6
2005	16.2	17.5	17.1	17.8	17.8	16.3	16.1	16.1	15.5	16.1	17.0	14.9
2006	15.1	15.3	16.1	14.6	14.0	15.8	15.9	16.0	16.3	15.2	14.8	14.6
2007	14.8	14.9	14.9	15.8	15.9	16.3	15.3	15.9	16.0	15.4	16.2	16.8
2008	17.8	16.5	16.0	15.8	19.0	19.2	20.8	18.7	19.2	20.0	20.3	20.6
2009	20.8	21.9	22.1	22.1	23.3	24.6	24.4	25.4	26.1	27.1	26.9	26.8
2010	26.2	25.0	26.0	25.4	26.4	25.8	26.1	26.2	26.0	27.1	24.5	25.4
2011	25.7	23.9	24.5	24.9	24.2	24.5	25.0	25.4

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed         	     USDL-11-1277
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, September 2, 2011

Technical information:
 Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

                         THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2011

Nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0) in August, and the unemployment
rate held at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment in most major industries changed little over the month. Health
care continued to add jobs, and a decline in information employment reflected
a strike. Government employment continued to trend down, despite the return
of workers from a partial government shutdown in Minnesota.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged
in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The rate has shown
little change since April. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.9
percent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (25.4 percent), whites
(8.0 percent), blacks (16.7 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent) showed
little or no change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.1 percent,
not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was
about unchanged at 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The labor force rose to 153.6 million in August. Both the civilian labor force
participation rate, at 64.0 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at
58.2 percent, were little changed. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.4 million to 8.8
million in August. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)

About 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
August, up from 2.4 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 977,000 discouraged workers in
August, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6
million persons marginally attached to the labor force in August had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as
school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment, at 131.1 million, was unchanged (0) in
August. Employment changed little in most major private-sector industries.
(See table B-1.)

Health care employment rose by 30,000 in August. Ambulatory health care
services and hospitals added 18,000 and 8,000 jobs, respectively. Over the
past 12 months, health care employment has grown by 306,000.

Employment in mining continued to trend up in August (+6,000). Since reaching
a trough in October 2009, employment in mining has risen by 144,000, with
mining support activities accounting for most of the gain.

Within professional and business services, computer systems design and related
services added 8,000 jobs in August. Employment in temporary help services
changed little over the month (+5,000) and has shown little movement on net so
far this year.

Employment in the information industry declined by 48,000 in August. About
45,000 workers in the telecommunications industry were on strike and thus off
company payrolls during the survey reference period.

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in August (-3,000),
following a gain of 36,000 in July. For the past 4 months, manufacturing has
added an average of 14,000 jobs per month, compared with an average of 35,000
jobs per month in the first 4 months of the year.

Elsewhere in the private sector, employment in construction; trade,
transportation, and utilities; financial activities; and leisure and
hospitality changed little over the month. 

Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-17,000).
Despite the return of about 22,000 workers from a partial government shutdown
in Minnesota, employment in state government changed little in August (+5,000).
Employment in local government continued to decline. Since employment peaked
in September 2008, local government has lost 550,000 jobs.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged
down by 0.1 hour over the month to 34.2 hours. The manufacturing workweek
was 40.3 hours for the third consecutive month; factory overtime increased
by 0.1 hour over the month to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production
and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down to 33.5
hours in August, after holding at 33.6 hours for the prior 6 months. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls decreased by 3 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $23.09. This decline
followed an 11-cent gain in July. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have increased by 1.9 percent. In August, average hourly earnings
of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees decreased by
2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $19.47. (See tables B-3 and B-8.) 

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from
+46,000 to +20,000, and the change for July was revised from +117,000 to
+85,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for September is scheduled to be released on Friday,
October 7, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

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

Pronk Pops Show 44, September 7, 2011: Segment 0: Union Thug Hoffa Threatens To Take Out The Tea Party At Labor Day Rally–Obama “Proud” of Hoffa–Videos

Posted on September 6, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Unions, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: Hoffa, Labor Day, Obama Labor Day Speech 2011, Pronk Pops Show 44, Tea Party, Union Membership, Unions |

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 40:August 10, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 39:August 3, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Union Thug Hoffa Threatens To Take Out The Tea Party At Labor Day Rally–Obama “Proud” of Hoffa–Videos

JIMMY HOFFA “LET’S TAKE THESE SOB’S OUT”

Obama Wants the Tea Party “Taken Out”…

Michael Savage Speaks Up For Tea Party, Attacks Jimmy Hoffa and Barack Obama – (9/6/11)

Obama Rally James Hoffa ‘We Are Your Army. Let’s Take These Sons Of Bitches Out’

President Obama talks tough at jobs rally in Detroit

President Obama’s Labor Day Message: We’ve Got to Fully Restore the Middle Class in America

Obama Says He Is “Proud” Of Hoffa After Union Leader’s Remarks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/obama_says_he_is_proud_of_hoffa.html

Rush Limbaugh – Don Hoffa Said It, Just How Obama Wrote It Part One

Rush Limbaugh – Don Hoffa Said It, Just How Obama Wrote It Part Two

Hoffa – You can’t deal with the tea party [CNN 9-05-2011]

Barack Obama on the Employee Free Choice Act

The Battle Over Card Check Has Begun

Card Check Forced Unionism Victims in Albion, Indiana Interviewed by Fox News

Former Union Organizing Director discusses Card Check

Rush Limbaugh – Comments On Obama’s Speech

Rush Limbaugh – Obama’s Pep Rally

Charles Krauthammer discusses Jared Loughner on O’Reilly

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik on the day of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Sheriff Dupnik Claims Giffords’ Shooting Fault Of Talk Radio

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Attacks Rush Limbaugh

Clarence Dupnik, Pima County AZ Sheriff, Blames AZ Political Culture for Shooting

AZ Sheriff Dupnik Liberal smear machine backfires – Tuscon AZ Sheriff’s “vitriolic rhetoric” on Fox

Krauthammer: Rush has a Condescending View of America

Historians Weigh Significance of Obama Tucson Speech

Shields and Brooks on Obama’s Tucson Speech, Calls for Political Civility

President Obama Speech at Tucson, AZ Memorial Service

What ‘New Tone?’ The Lunacy of Audacity & Hypocrisy On Full Display: Obama Vs. His Own Democrats

International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa and President Barack H. Obama addressed a Sept. 5 Labor Day rally largely of auto workers and union members in a parking lot of a General Motors plant in Detroit, Michigan.

Hoffa in introducing Obama used incendiary class warfare rhetoric to warm up the crowd:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.”

Hoffa concluded his remarks with a threat directed at the American people who support the tea party movement:

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. …”

“… Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

Hoffa’s so-called “army” of union members has been shrinking for decades as the American people reject union representation and membership. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), in 2010 union membership declined by 617,000 to 14.7 million of the labor force. The 14.7 million union workers consist of 7.1 million in the private sector and 7.6 million in the public sector. Only 6.9 percent of workers in the private sector are unionized, while 36 percent in the public sector are unionized. The percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union or similar organization has declined by 8.2 percent from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 11.9 percent of the labor force in 2010.

The Tea Party movement wants the Federal government to balance its budget by cutting government spending. This is a direct threat to unions, especially public sector unions, such as the National Education Association (NEA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) who advocate for increasing the size and scope of the Federal government.

Increases in government spending lead to more government workers, many of whom become dues paying union members. This in turn leads to more campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. Unions are one of the major supporters of the Democratic Party and Obama in terms of campaign contributions paid from union member dues.

The number one priority of organized labor has been the passage of card check. Card check forces workers to sign a union authorization card in public instead of the current system where workers vote for or against unionization by secret ballot. Under card check a secret ballot election would be bypassed provided the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) verifies that over 50 percent of the employees have signed the authorization cards. President Obama and the Democratic Party have been unsuccessful in their efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Other union leaders joining Hoffa and Obama at the Labor Day rally included American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka, United Auto Workers President Bob King, and SEIU President Mary Kay Henry.

When Obama addressed the crowd after Hoffa’s introduction, he said he was “proud” of Hoffa and the other labor union leaders.

On Jan. 8, 2011 there was a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona where Jared Loughner, a mentality disturbed individual, killed six people including United States District Court for the District of Arizona Chief Judge John Roll and wounded thirteen including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Initially there were attempts by Democrats to blame the shootings on talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin. Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, a Democrat, blamed harsh conservative rhetoric on talk radio and in particular Rush Limbaugh. Dupnik remarked after the shootings:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

The allegations were simply false and had no basis in fact. It turned out there was absolutely no connection found between the shooter, Loughner, and talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. Limbaugh was right, the Sheriff made a complete fool of himself.

The American people and the Tea Party movement remember well Obama’s inspiring Tucson memorial speech for the victims of shootings when he said:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

Christina-Taylor Green, who was born on September 11, 2011, was one of the Tucson shooting victims. She was also one of the babies in the book, Faces of Hope, a book picturing 50 babies born on Sept. 11, 2001. Referring to Christina, Obama said:

“…Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations. …”

Many Americans and Tea Party members bring their children to Tea Party events all across America to exercise their right under the United States Constitution to peaceful assembly and free speech.

It is time for President Obama and union leaders to live up to our children’s expectations and condemn Hoffa’s remarks.

Background Articles and Videos

BLS Report Shows Union Membership in Decline

by Stephen D. Smith on January 24, 2011

“…Union membership in the United States continued to decline in 2010, according to a recently-released reportissued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The data contained in the report was obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which conducts monthly assessments of basic information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. The annual report on union membership finds that the number of wage and salary workers who belong to a union declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million in 2010 (7.1 million workers in the private sector; 7.6 million in the public sector). An additional 1.6 million workers (783,000 of whom are government employees) held jobs that were covered by a union contract, but reported no union affiliation. Overall, the union membership rate fell to 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent the prior year. In contrast, the union membership rate in 1983 – the first year comparable data was available – was 20.1 percent, representing 17.7 million workers. Other notable findings include the following:

A substantially higher percentage of public sector workers, 36.2 percent, were unionized, compared to 6.9 percent for the private sector.
Private sector industries with the highest union participation rates include transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1 percent).
Private sector industries with the lowest union participation rates include agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and financial activities (2.0 percent).
Broken down by occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.1 percent) and protective service occupations (34.1 percent) had the highest unionization rates; sales and related occupations (3.2 percent) and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates.
New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent), while North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). About half of the 14.7 million union members in the U.S. lived in just six states (California, 2.4 million; New York, 2.0 million; Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; Ohio, 0.7 million; and New Jersey, 0.6 million). Overall, union membership rates declined in 2010 in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and rose in 17 states.
With respect to union member demographics, membership rates tended to be greater among men (12.6 percent) than women (11.1 percent). African American workers had the highest participation rate (13.4 percent), with Asian men having the lowest rate (9.4 percent). Union membership was also highest among workers ages 55-64 (15.7 percent).

http://www.laborrelationscounsel.com/union-organizing-corporate-campaigns/bls-report-shows-union-membership-in-decline/

Union Members 2010

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

	Number of Returns with Positive AGI	AGI ($ millions)	Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)	Group’s Share of Total AGI	Group’s Share of Income Taxes	Income Split Point	Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers	139,960,580	8,426,625	1,031,512	100%	100%	–	12.24%
Top 1%	1,399,606	1,685,472	392,149	20.00%	38.02%	$380,354	23.27%
1-5%	5,598,423	1,241,229	213,569	14.73%	20.70%		17.21%
Top 5%	6,998,029	2,926,701	605,718	34.73%	58.72%	$159,619	20.70%
5-10%	6,998,029	929,761	115,703	11.03%	11.22%		12.44%
Top 10%	13,996,058	3,856,462	721,421	45.77%	69.94%	$113,799	18.71%
10-25%	20,994,087	1,821,717	169,193	21.62%	16.40%		9.29%
Top 25%	34,990,145	5,678,179	890,614	67.38%	86.34%	$67,280	15.68%
25-50%	34,990,145	1,673,932	113,025	19.86%	10.96%		6.75%
Top 50%	69,980,290	7,352,111	1,003,639	87.25%	97.30%	>$33,048	13.65%
Bottom 50%	69,980,290	1,074,514	27,873	12.75%	2.70%	<$33,048	2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year	Total	Top 0.1%	Top 1%	Top 5%	Between 5% & 10%	Top 10%	Between 10% & 25%	Top 25%	Between 25% & 50%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1980	100%		19.05%	36.84%	12.44%	49.28%	23.74%	73.02%	19.93%	92.95%	7.05%
1981	100%		17.58%	35.06%	12.90%	47.96%	24.33%	72.29%	20.26%	92.55%	7.45%
1982	100%		19.03%	36.13%	12.45%	48.59%	23.91%	72.50%	20.15%	92.65%	7.35%
1983	100%		20.32%	37.26%	12.44%	49.71%	23.39%	73.10%	19.73%	92.83%	7.17%
1984	100%		21.12%	37.98%	12.58%	50.56%	22.92%	73.49%	19.16%	92.65%	7.35%
1985	100%		21.81%	38.78%	12.67%	51.46%	22.60%	74.06%	18.77%	92.83%	7.17%
1986	100%		25.75%	42.57%	12.12%	54.69%	21.33%	76.02%	17.52%	93.54%	6.46%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987	100%		24.81%	43.26%	12.35%	55.61%	21.31%	76.92%	17.02%	93.93%	6.07%
1988	100%		27.58%	45.62%	11.66%	57.28%	20.57%	77.84%	16.44%	94.28%	5.72%
1989	100%		25.24%	43.94%	11.85%	55.78%	21.44%	77.22%	16.94%	94.17%	5.83%
1990	100%		25.13%	43.64%	11.73%	55.36%	21.66%	77.02%	17.16%	94.19%	5.81%
1991	100%		24.82%	43.38%	12.45%	55.82%	21.46%	77.29%	17.23%	94.52%	5.48%
1992	100%		27.54%	45.88%	12.12%	58.01%	20.47%	78.48%	16.46%	94.94%	5.06%
1993	100%		29.01%	47.36%	11.88%	59.24%	20.03%	79.27%	15.92%	95.19%	4.81%
1994	100%		28.86%	47.52%	11.93%	59.45%	20.10%	79.55%	15.68%	95.23%	4.77%
1995	100%		30.26%	48.91%	11.84%	60.75%	19.62%	80.36%	15.03%	95.39%	4.61%
1996	100%		32.31%	50.97%	11.54%	62.51%	18.80%	81.32%	14.36%	95.68%	4.32%
1997	100%		33.17%	51.87%	11.33%	63.20%	18.47%	81.67%	14.05%	95.72%	4.28%
1998	100%		34.75%	53.84%	11.20%	65.04%	17.65%	82.69%	13.10%	95.79%	4.21%
1999	100%		36.18%	55.45%	11.00%	66.45%	17.09%	83.54%	12.46%	96.00%	4.00%
2000	100%		37.42%	56.47%	10.86%	67.33%	16.68%	84.01%	12.08%	96.09%	3.91%
2001	100%	16.06%	33.89%	53.25%	11.64%	64.89%	18.01%	82.90%	13.13%	96.03%	3.97%
2002	100%	15.43%	33.71%	53.80%	11.94%	65.73%	18.16%	83.90%	12.60%	96.50%	3.50%
2003	100%	15.68%	34.27%	54.36%	11.48%	65.84%	18.04%	83.88%	12.65%	96.54%	3.46%
2004	100%	17.44%	36.89%	57.13%	11.07%	68.19%	16.67%	84.86%	11.85%	96.70%	3.30%
2005	100%	19.26%	39.38%	59.67%	10.63%	70.30%	15.69%	85.99%	10.94%	96.93%	3.07%
2006	100%	19.56%	39.89%	60.14%	10.65%	70.79%	15.47%	86.27%	10.75%	97.01%	2.99%
2007	100%	20.19%	40.41%	60.61%	10.59%	71.20%	15.37%	86.57%	10.54%	97.11%	2.89%
2008	100%	18.47%	38.02%	58.72%	11.22%	69.94%	16.40%	86.34%	10.96%	97.30%	2.70%
Source: IRS

Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
Year	Total	Top 0.1%	Top 1%	Top 5%	Between 5% & 10%	Top 10%	Between 10% & 25%	Top 25%	Between 25% & 50%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1980	15.31%		34.47%	26.85%	17.13%	23.49%	14.80%	19.72%	11.91%	17.29%	6.10%
1981	15.76%		33.37%	26.59%	18.16%	23.64%	15.53%	20.11%	12.48%	17.73%	6.62%
1982	14.72%		31.43%	25.05%	16.61%	22.17%	14.35%	18.79%	11.63%	16.57%	6.10%
1983	13.79%		30.18%	23.64%	15.54%	20.91%	13.20%	17.62%	10.76%	15.52%	5.66%
1984	13.68%		29.92%	23.42%	15.57%	20.81%	12.90%	17.47%	10.48%	15.35%	5.77%
1985	13.73%		29.86%	23.50%	15.69%	20.93%	12.83%	17.55%	10.41%	15.41%	5.70%
1986	14.54%		33.13%	25.68%	15.99%	22.64%	12.97%	18.72%	10.48%	16.32%	5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987	13.12%		26.41%	22.10%	14.43%	19.77%	11.71%	16.61%	9.45%	14.60%	5.09%
1988	13.21%		24.04%	21.14%	14.07%	19.18%	11.82%	16.47%	9.60%	14.64%	5.06%
1989	13.12%		23.34%	20.71%	13.93%	18.77%	12.08%	16.27%	9.77%	14.53%	5.11%
1990	12.95%		23.25%	20.46%	13.63%	18.50%	12.01%	16.06%	9.73%	14.36%	5.01%
1991	12.75%		24.37%	20.62%	13.96%	18.63%	11.57%	15.93%	9.55%	14.20%	4.62%
1992	12.94%		25.05%	21.19%	13.99%	19.13%	11.39%	16.25%	9.42%	14.44%	4.39%
1993	13.32%		28.01%	22.71%	14.01%	20.20%	11.40%	16.90%	9.37%	14.90%	4.29%
1994	13.50%		28.23%	23.04%	14.20%	20.48%	11.57%	17.15%	9.42%	15.11%	4.32%
1995	13.86%		28.73%	23.53%	14.46%	20.97%	11.71%	17.58%	9.43%	15.47%	4.39%
1996	14.34%		28.87%	24.07%	14.74%	21.55%	11.86%	18.12%	9.53%	15.96%	4.40%
1997	14.48%		27.64%	23.62%	14.87%	21.36%	12.04%	18.18%	9.63%	16.09%	4.48%
1998	14.42%		27.12%	23.63%	14.79%	21.42%	11.63%	18.16%	9.12%	16.00%	4.44%
1999	14.85%		27.53%	24.18%	15.06%	21.98%	11.76%	18.66%	9.12%	16.43%	4.48%
2000	15.26%		27.45%	24.42%	15.48%	22.34%	12.04%	19.09%	9.28%	16.86%	4.60%
2001	14.23%	28.20%	27.50%	23.68%	14.89%	21.41%	11.58%	18.08%	8.91%	15.85%	4.09%
2002	13.03%	28.49%	27.25%	22.95%	13.87%	20.51%	10.47%	16.99%	7.67%	14.66%	3.21%
2003	11.90%	24.64%	24.31%	20.74%	12.22%	18.49%	9.54%	15.38%	7.12%	13.35%	2.95%
2004	12.10%	23.09%	23.49%	20.67%	12.28%	18.60%	9.26%	15.53%	7.01%	13.51%	2.97%
2005	12.45%	22.52%	23.13%	20.78%	12.37%	18.84%	9.27%	15.86%	6.93%	13.84%	2.98%
2006	12.60%	21.98%	22.79%	20.68%	12.60%	18.86%	9.36%	15.95%	7.01%	13.98%	3.01%
2007	12.68%	21.46%	22.45%	20.53%	12.66%	18.79%	9.43%	15.98%	7.01%	14.03%	2.99%
2008	12.24%	22.70%	23.27%	20.70%	12.44%	18.71%	9.29%	15.68%	6.75%	13.65%	2.59%
Source: IRS

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year	Outlays	Revenues (Receipts)	Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980	590,941	517,112	-73,830
1981	678,241	599,272	-78,968
1982	745,743	617,766	-127,977
1983	808,364	600,562	-207,802
1984	851,805	666,488	-185,367
1985	946,344	734,037	-212,308
1986	990,382	769,155	-221,277
1987	1,004,017	854,288	-149,730
1988	1,064,417	854,288	-155,178
1989	1,143,744	991,105	-152,639
1990	1,252,994	1,031,958	-221,036
1991	1,324,226	1,054,988	-269,238
1992	1,381,529	1,091,208	-290,321
1993	1,409,386	1,154,335	-255,051
1994	1,461,753	1,258,566	-203,186
1995	1,515,742	1,351,790	-163,392
1996	1,560,484	1,453,053	-107,431
1997	1,601,116	1,579,232	-21,884
1998	1,652,458	1,721,728	69,270
1999	1,701,842	1,827,452	125,610
2000	1,788,950	2,025,191	236,241
2001	1,862,846	1,991,082	128,236
2002	2,010,894	1,853,136	-157,758
2003	2,159,899	1,782,314	-377,585
2004	2,292,841	1,880,114	-412,727
2005	2,471,957	2,153,611	-318,346
2006	2,655,050	2,406,869	-248,181
2007	2,728,686	2,567,985	-160,701
2008	2,982,544	2,523,991	-458,553
2009	3,517,677	2,104,989	-1,412,688
2010	3,456,213	2,162,724	-1,293,489
2011 Est.	3,818,819	2,173,700	-1,645,119
2012 Est.	3,728,686	2,627,449	-1,101,237
2013 Est.	3,770,876	3,003,345	-767,531

Archive for September, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Full GOP presidential debate in Orlando, FL — September 22, 2011 (FOX News)

Republican Presidential Debate pt.1

Republican Presidential Debate pt.2

Republican Presidential Debate pt.3

Republican Presidential Debate pt.4

Republican Presidential Debate pt.5

Republican Presidential Debate pt.6

Republican Presidential Debate pt.7

Republican Presidential Debate pt.8

Republican Presidential Debate pt.9

Republican Presidential Debate pt.10

Background Articles and Videos

Perry: ‘Heartless’ Poor Word Choice In Immigration Debate

Glenn Beck: Republicans Trying to Eat the Tea Party

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll: The Cain Mutiny–Videos

Florida “Presidency 5” Straw Poll Results Announced: Herman Cain Wins Big

Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll!

Ron Paul Supporter on Herman Cain’s P5 Victory

Who Is Herman Cain?

Herman Cain’s Stunning Victory in FL Straw Poll While Rick Perry in Deep Trouble

Herman Cain on Taxes

Rick Perry Booed Again for $100K Illegal Immigrant Tuition Plan

Rick Perry AGREES with Obama: Open Borders for America!

msnbc/cnn – mitt romney vs. rick perry on securing the border

Herman Cain “We’re Not Gonna Get A Different Outcome Until We Change The Leadership”

Ron Paul Florida CPAC Speech

Gov. Mitt Romney Hits Obama and Perry in Florida CPAC Speech – 9/23/11

Gov. Rick Perry Speech at Florida CPAC: GOP Needs Candidate with Best Record, Vision

Newt Gingrich Speech at “Presidency 5” Florida Straw Poll: Rubio would be a Great VP

Rick Santorum on his success in running against all odds

Background Articles and Videos

The FairTax Versus the Obama ‘Jobs Plan’

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America.

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

~George Washington

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect

Ron Paul: Mainstream America Supports My Foreign Policy

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

Noam Chomsky Agrees with Ron Paul … on Foreign Policy

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades