Archive for April, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 71, April 25, 2012: Segment: 1: Obama’s Campaign Strategy Switches From Romney The Progressive Flip Flopper To Romney The Severe Conservative Right-Wing Extremist–Why?–Romney Is Beating Obama In Internal Polls With Independent Voters–Why? Obama’s Record of Failure–High Unemployment Rates and Gas Prices and Massive Government Deficits–$5 Trillion–Videos

Posted on April 25, 2012. Filed under: Abortion, American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Climate Change, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Networking, Philosophy, Politics, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Science, Security, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Economics, Mitt Romney, Politics, Pronk Pops Show 71, Ron Paul |

Pronk Pops Show 71: April 25, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 70: April 23, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 69: April 11, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 68: April 4, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 67: April 2, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 66: March 26, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 65: March 9, 2012

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

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 22-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment: 1: Obama’s Campaign Strategy Switches From Romney The Progressive Flip Flopper To Romney The Severe Conservative Right-Wing Extremist–Why?–Romney Is Beating Obama In Internal Polls With Independent Voters–Why? Obama’s Record of Failure–High Unemployment Rates and Gas Prices and Massive Government Deficits–$5 Trillion–Videos

Shields, Brooks on Voter Volatility, Obama vs. Romney

Obama Against Romney The ‘Flip-Flopper’ or The ‘Severe Conservative’? (P1/2)

Obama Against Romney The ‘Flip-Flopper’ or The ‘Severe Conservative’? (P2/2)

The Moderate, Progressive, Severely Conservative Romney

The Real Romney

Mitt Romney ‘I Was A Severely Conservative Governor’

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

David Axelrod People dont know Romney (4/22/12)

Extreme Intolerance: Willard Mitt Romney’s ‘Severe Conservative’ Problem

The Last Word – Romney Tries To Rewrite His Resume

Right-Wing Extremists Stand Against Flip-Flopping, ‘Unprincipled’ Willard Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Interview on Breitbart TV

Mitt Romney, Vietnam, & Mormon Church Discrimination

Obama adviser David Axelrod makes case for Mitt Romney for President

Axelrod » Obama Boulevard is a Dead End

In Strategy Shift, Obama Team Attacks Romney From the Left

By HELENE COOPER

“…So long, flip-flopper. Hello, right-wing extremist.

After months of depicting Mr. Romney as the ultimate squishy, double-talking, no-core soul, Team Obama is shifting gears. Senior administration officials, along with Democratic and campaign officials, all say their strategy now will be to tell the world that Mr. Romney has a core after all — and it’s deep red.

Mr. Romney’s overheard remarks at a fund-raiser in Florida on Sunday night that, if elected, he planned to slash government programs (though he has not spelled that out for the voters) gave Obama backers the perfect opening, and they jumped on it. “Mitt Romney Tells Rich Voters His Secret Plan to Cut Housing Assistance,” said a headline from ThinkProgress, a blog put out by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Democratic officials followed that up with a call to reporters on Thursday charging that Mr. Romney’s proposal would “cut critical funds for homeless veterans.” …”

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=democrats+paint+romney+as+right-wing+extremist&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

Background Articles and Videos

“…What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS

We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! …”

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Congressman Steve King FairTax Special Order – 11/18/2011

Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.1

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.2

Time to help small businesses and institute the Fair Tax!

Rep. King hosts FairTax Special Order

Americans For Fair Taxation

“…Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT), also known as FairTax.org, states it is the United States’ largest, single-issue grassroots organization and taxpayers union dedicated to fundamental tax code replacement.^[1] The Houston, Texas-based non-partisan political advocacy group is made up of volunteers who are working to get the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 1025) enacted in the United States; a plan to replace all federal payroll and income taxes (both corporate and personal) with a national retail sales tax and monthly tax “prebate” to households of citizens and legal resident aliens. Americans for Fair Taxation state they subscribe to the ideals of simplicity, fairness, and freedom which they believe are embodied in the FairTax.^[2]^[3] The organization claims to have signed up over 800,000 supporters.^[4]

AFFT was founded in 1994 by three Houston businessmen, Jack Trotter, Bob McNair, and Leo Linbeck, who each pledged $1.5 million as seed money to hire tax experts to identify what they perceived as faults with the current tax system, to determine what American citizens would like to see in tax reform, and then to design the best system of taxation.^[2] The three went on to raise an additional $17 million to fund focus groups with citizens around the country and tax policy studies.^[2]

Some of the experts funded include:

Professors David Burton and Dan Mastromarco, University of Maryland and The Argus Group
Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University
Stephen Moore, The Cato Institute
Professor Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University
Bill Beach (economist), the Heritage Foundation
Jim Poterba, The National Bureau of Economic Research
Professor George Zodrow, Rice University and the Baker Institute for Public Policy
Professor Joseph Kahn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

FairTax.org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax

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 with the old employer 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 without regard to the wage base limit earned under the old 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

“…What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax:

Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS

We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! …”

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Congressman Steve King FairTax Special Order – 11/18/2011

Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.1

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.2

Time to help small businesses and institute the Fair Tax!

Rep. King hosts FairTax Special Order

Americans For Fair Taxation

Some of the experts funded include:

Professors David Burton and Dan Mastromarco, University of Maryland and The Argus Group
Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University
Stephen Moore, The Cato Institute
Professor Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University
Bill Beach (economist), the Heritage Foundation
Jim Poterba, The National Bureau of Economic Research
Professor George Zodrow, Rice University and the Baker Institute for Public Policy
Professor Joseph Kahn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

FairTax.org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax

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

Overview

“Regular” employees (most wage-earners)

Self-employed people

Exemption for certain full-time students

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 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

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

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What is U.S. Debt? – P1: Intro to Debt

What is U.S. Debt? – P2: Comparing Debt to GDP

I’M TALKING TO YOU

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Facing the Arithmetic

Bill Whittle Explains our Progressive Nightmare – Part 1

Bill Whittle Explains the Conservative Solution – Part 2

Default America: Interest Suppressed

Default America: Recession & Reallocation

Default America: Laurence Kotlikoff Excerpt

Default America: Influence & Impasse

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don’t Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff

US National Debt Growing Faster Than GDP (4/9/2012)

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

The award-winning documentary I.O.U.S.A. opened up America’s eyes to the consequences of our nation’s debt and the need for our government to show more fiscal responsibility. Now that more Americans and elected officials are aware of our fiscal challenges, the producers of I.O.U.S.A. created I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions, a follow-up special focusing on solutions to the fiscal crisis. Learn more at http://www.iousathemovie.com/.

IOUSA Solutions: Part 1 of 5

IOUSA Solutions: Part 2 of 5

IOUSA Solutions: Part 3 of 5

IOUSA Solutions: Part 4 of 5

IOUSA Solutions: Part 5 of 5

Krauthammer: Obama’s debt increase “radical, unprecedented”

Dr. Coburn on CNBC’s Mad Money discussing the budget deficit facing the U.S.

(Thursday, June 10 2010) Jim Cramer discusses importance of getting a handle on the national debt, the current budget deficit, and ways to expand Congress’ knowledge of economics and budgeting by cutting spending.

Coburn on CNBC’s Squawk Box: Healthcare Law Huge Contributor to Debt, Deficit

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn Blasts Everyone in New Book: Buzz Politics 4.17

Coburn Urging the Senate to End Duplication, Pass Amendment that Saves $10 Billion

HSGAC Hearing on Reducing Duplication

(Wednesday, March 21 2012) Dr. Coburn stressing the importance of taking advantage of the GAO’s recommendations for eliminating duplication and savings hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars in today’s HSGAC hearing titled, “Retooling Government for the 21st Century: The President’s Reorganization Plan and Reducing Duplication”.

Coburn on The Kudlow Report on Problems w/ Obamacare & Gov’t-run Healthcare

Military spending, collapse of US empire

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government

David Walker – America at a Crossroads

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Free Markets and Small Government Produce Prosperity

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

Paul Ryan on CBO’s Dire Economic Warning

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Background Articles and Videos

Debt and Deficit in a Nutshell

“…Spellman, Lewis J. Professor, Department of Finance Lewis Spellman received his B.B.A. and M.B.A. from the University of Michigan and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Stanford University. His research interests include the value of third party financial guarantees, market estimates of bank risk, bank survival, and banking development. His teaching interests include debt, equity, and foreign exchange price trends, market intervention by governments, and macroeconomics and business conditions….”

http://acsprod.mccombs.utexas.edu/facstaff/displayRecord.aspx?uid=82

US Sovereign Risk Part 1-1: Reality Bites Introduction

US Sovereign Risk Part 1-2: Reality Bites Introduction

US Sovereign Risk Part 2: Growth of Debt in the US

US Sovereign Risk Part 3-1: Political Economy of the Growth of Government Debt

US Sovereign Risk Part 3-2: Political Economy of the Growth of Government Debt

US Sovereign Risk Part 3-3: Political Economy of the Growth of Government Debt

US Sovereign Risk Part 4-1: Why the Financial Market Supports Treasuries Despite the Risk

US Sovereign Risk Part 4-2: Why the Financial Market Supports Treasuries Despite the Risk

US Sovereign Risk Part 5-1: How the Market Reins in an Out of Control Sovereign

US Sovereign Risk Part 5-2: How the Market Reins in an Out of Control Sovereign

US Sovereign Risk Part 6: Capital Safe Havens

Coburn book “The Debt Bomb” hits the shelf today

By Rick Couri

“…Senator Tom Coburn hates it when taxpayer money is wasted. Now he has a new book out that points directly at the people and organizations he thinks are the worst offenders. The book is called “The Debt Bomb” and he holds no punches. “We lack the courage to do what’s in the best long term interest of the country because we always put short term political considerations first” he explained.

The Senator says the book is easy to follow because it goes step by step “first of all we tell the story of where we are and how we got here” he said. So how did we get here? Coburn says it all stems from what he calls careerism. “Careerism tends to make members of congress do what’s best for their re-election and not what’s best for the country.” Coburn told us people who hold elected office are always careful to pick the timing of their battles “we’re always waiting for the right moment to fix things well guess what, that right moment doesn’t come.” …”

http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/coburn-book-debt-bomb-hits-shelf-today/nMbXy/

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 70, April 20, 2012 Segment 0: Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 70, April 20, 2012: Segment 2: Arthur Brooks–The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America’s Future–VideosTax? Videos

Pronk Pops Show 70, April 20, 2012: Segment 3: A Ron Paul Tax Reform Plan: No Income Taxes Or I.R.S.–FairTax Less: 2013: 20%, 2014: 19%, 2015: 18%, 2016: 17%, 2017: 16%–Income Tax 16th Amendment Repealed And Balance Budget Amendment Passed!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable!”

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

Pronk Pops Show 70, April 23, 2012 Segment 0: Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos

Posted on April 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, History, Law, Media, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Buffet Rule, Capital Gains Taxes, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, National Debt, Personal Income Taxes, Politics, President Barack Obama, Tax Policy |

Pronk Pops Show 70: April 23, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 69: April 11, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 68: April 4, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 67: April 2, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 66: March 26, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 65: March 9, 2012

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

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 22-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos

Buffett Rule Rebuffed

EAT THE RICH!

Weekly Address: Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share

David Axelrod gets slammed on the economy and the Buffett rule on Fox News Sunday

Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes…even if it means less tax revenue!!

Charles Krauthammer Embarrass Obama on His Record

Priebus: Buffett Tax A Shiny Object That Would Raise Just 11 Hours Of Revenue

Steve Hayes – Buffet Tax meaningless

Gene Sperling on the Buffett Rule

Interview – The Buffett Tax: Anything But “Fair”

Real News: Buffett Rule Tax Reform

GBR: Lies from Warren Buffett

Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy

Mark Levin – The Warren Buffett-Bill Gates “Tax Us More!”

The Buffett Rule is BS pt1

The Buffett Rule is BS pt2

Debunking Warren Buffett and other tax myths

Tax Rates for the 2011 Tax Year

Federal income tax brackets for 2011

By William Perez, About.com Guide

“…For the year 2011, the same tax rates that applied in 2010 have been extended to apply to the years 2011 and 2012. The Tax Relief Act of 2010 temporarily extends the existing tax rate structure for two more years. Tax rates will change in the year 2013 unless new legislation is passed. For 2011, there will be six tax rates of:

10%,
15%,
25%,
28%,
33%, and
35%.

Until the Tax Relief Act was passed, the tax rates for 2011 were scheduled to change as follows: the 10% rate would have been collapsed into the 15% rate; the 25% rate would have become 28%, the 28% rate would have become 31%, the 33% rate would have become 36%, and the 35% rate would have become 39.6%. These tax rate changes will take effect beginning in 2013 absent further legislation.

Capital gain income might be taxed at different rates. There are special capital gains tax rates for dividends, long-term investments, collectibles, and certain types of real estate.

Note:These tax rate schedules are provided for tax planning purposes. To compute your actual income tax, please see the 2011 instructions for Form 1040 and the 2011 Tax Tables.

Single Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

10%on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
15%on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
25%on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
28%on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
33%on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]

10%on taxable income from $0 to $17,000, plus
15%on taxable income over $17,000 to $69,000, plus
25%on taxable income over $69,000 to $139,350, plus
28%on taxable income over $139,350 to $212,300, plus
33%on taxable income over $212,300 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Capital Gains Tax Rates

Long-Term and Short-Term Capital Gains Tax Rates

By William Perez, About.com Guide

The capital gains tax rates are determined by the type of investment asset and the holding period of the asset.

In additional to the federal capital gains tax rates, your capital gains will also be subject to state income taxes. Many states do not have separate capital gains tax rates. Instead, most states will tax your capital gains as ordinary income subject to the state income taxes rates.

Tax Rate on Short-Term Capital Gains

Capital gain income from assets held one year or less is taxed at the ordinary income tax ratesin effect for the year, ranging from 10% to 35%.

Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains

Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate. The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.

Zero percent rateif your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.

Tax Rate on Dividend Income

Dividends are classified either as ordinary dividends or as qualified dividends. Ordinary dividends are taxed at your ordinary tax rates for whatever tax bracket you are in. Qualified dividends are taxed at a 15% percent rate. To be eligible as a qualified dividend, the dividends must be from a domestic corporation or a qualifying foreign corporation and you must hold the stock “for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date.” (Publication 550.)

Tax Rate on Collectible Assets

Collectiblesheld longer than one year are taxed at a 28% rate. Short-term gains on collectibles are taxed at the ordinary income tax rates.

Tax Rate on Recaptured Depreciation of Real Property

Real property that has been depreciated is subject to a special depreciation recapturetax. A special 25% tax rate applies to the amount of gain that is related to depreciation deductions that were claimed or could have been claimed on a property. The remainder of the gain will be ordinary or long-term gains, depending on how long the property was held.

Planning Ahead for 2013

The special tax rates on long-term gains and qualified dividends will expire on December 31, 2012. Starting 2013, the tax rate on long-term gains will be 20% (or 10% if a taxpayer is in the fifteen percent tax bracket). Also starting in 2013, the distinction between ordinary and qualified dividends will disappear, and all dividends will be subject to the ordinary tax rates.

Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax.

http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm

Payroll Taxes

Basic Information for Employers

From Diana Van Blaricom

Generally speaking, employers report payroll by calculating gross pay and various payroll deductions to arrive at net pay. While this seems simple enough to understand, calculating various payroll deductions requires that the payroll accountant be detail-oriented and work with extreme accuracy.

Basic Formula for Net Pay:
Employee’s gross pay (pay rate times number of hours worked)
minus Statutory payroll tax deductions
minus Voluntary payroll deductions
equals Net Pay.

Statutory Payroll Tax Deductions

Payroll taxes must be withheld from an employee’s paycheck. This is required by law. Employers must hand these withholdings over to various tax agencies. Payroll tax deductions include the following:

Federal income tax withholding (based on withholding tables in Publication 15)
Social Security tax withholding (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
Medicare tax withholding (1.45%)
State income tax withholding
Various local tax withholdings (such as city, county, or school district taxes, state disability or unemployment insurance). …”
Employer Payroll Taxes

Companies are responsible for paying their portion of payroll taxes. These payroll taxes are an added expense over and above the expense of an employee’s gross pay. The employer-portion of payroll taxes include the following:
- Social Security taxes (6.2% up to the annual maximum)
- Medicare taxes (1.45% of wages)
- Federal unemployment taxes (FUTA)
- State unemployment taxes (SUTA)
FICA Taxes

FICA stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The FICA tax consists of both Social Security and Medicare taxes. Social Security and Medicare taxes are paid both by the employees and the employer. Both parties pay half of these taxes. Employees pay half, and employers pay the other half. Together both halves of the FICA taxes add up to 15.3%. The 15.3% FICA tax is broken down as follows:
- Social Security (Employee pays 6.2%)
- Social Security (Employer pays 6.2%)
- Medicare (Employee pays 1.45%)
- Medicare (Employer pays 1.45%)
For 2011 and 2012, the employee portion of Social Security is reduced to 4.2% instead of 6.2%. This payroll tax holiday was legislated as part of the Tax Relief Act of 2010, which was then extended by HR 3765 and extended again by HR 3630. Starting 2013, the employee-portion of Social Security will revert back to the full 6.2%.

Reporting Payroll Taxes

Employers are required to report their payroll tax obligations and to deposit payroll taxes in a timely manner. Reporting requirements include:
- Making federal tax deposits
- Annual federal unemployment tax return (Form 940 or 940EZ)
- Employer’s quarterly payroll tax return (Form 941)
- Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax (Form 945)
- Wage and Tax Statements (Form W-2) …”

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/qt/payroll_basics.htm

The source for the following charts is the Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html (“Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile – Early Release”).

Table 1 Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009

	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	137,982,203	$7,825,389	$865,863	100.0%	100.0%	–	11.06%
Top 1%	1,379,822	$1,324,572	$318,043	16.9%	36.7%	$343,927.00	24.01%
1-5%	5,519,288	$1,157,918	$189,864	14.8%	22.0%		16.40%
Top 5%	6,899,110	$2,482,490	$507,907	31.7%	58.7%	$154,643.00	20.46%
5-10%	6,899,110	$897,241	$102,249	11.5%	11.8%		11.40%
Top 10%	13,798,220	$3,379,731	$610,156	43.2%	70.5%	$112,124.00	18.05%
10-25%	20,697,331	$1,770,140	$145,747	22.6%	17.0%		8.23%
Top 25%	34,495,551	$5,149,871	$755,903	65.8%	87.3%	$ 66,193.00	14.68%
25-50%	34,495,551	$1,620,303	$90,449	20.7%	11.0%		5.58%
Top 50%	68,991,102	$6,770,174	$846,352	86.5%	97.7%	> $32,396	12.50%
Bottom 50%	68,991,102	$1,055,215	$19,511	13.5%	2.3%	< $32,396	1.85%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Table 2 Number of Federal Individual Income Tax Returns Filed 1980-2009 (In thousands)

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	93,239		932	4,662	4,662	9,324	13,986	23,310	23,310	46,619	46,619
1981	94,587		946	4,729	4,729	9,459	14,188	23,647	23,647	47,293	47,293
1982	94,426		944	4,721	4,721	9,443	14,164	23,607	23,607	47,213	47,213
1983	95,331		953	4,767	4,767	9,533	14,300	23,833	23,833	47,665	47,665
1984	98,436		984	4,922	4,922	9,844	14,765	24,609	24,609	49,218	49,219
1985	100,625		1,006	5,031	5,031	10,063	15,094	25,156	25,156	50,313	50,313
1986	102,088		1,021	5,104	5,104	10,209	15,313	25,522	25,522	51,044	51,044
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987	106,155		1,062	5,308	5,308	10,615	15,923	26,539	26,539	53,077	53,077
1988	108,873		1,089	5,444	5,444	10,887	16,331	27,218	27,218	54,436	54,436
1989	111,313		1,113	5,566	5,566	11,131	16,697	27,828	27,828	55,656	55,656
1990	112,812		1,128	5,641	5,641	11,281	16,922	28,203	28,203	56,406	56,406
1991	113,804		1,138	5,690	5,690	11,380	17,071	28,451	28,451	56,902	56,902
1992	112,653		1,127	5,633	5,633	11,265	16,898	28,163	28,163	56,326	56,326
1993	113,681		1,137	5,684	5,684	11,368	17,052	28,420	28,420	56,841	56,841
1994	114,990		1,150	5,749	5,749	11,499	17,248	28,747	28,747	57,495	57,495
1995	117,274		1,173	5,864	5,864	11,727	17,591	29,319	29,319	58,637	58,637
1996	119,442		1,194	5,972	5,972	11,944	17,916	29,860	29,860	59,721	59,721
1997	121,503		1,215	6,075	6,075	12,150	18,225	30,376	30,376	60,752	60,752
1998	123,776		1,238	6,189	6,189	12,378	18,566	30,944	30,944	61,888	61,888
1999	126,009		1,260	6,300	6,300	12,601	18,901	31,502	31,502	63,004	63,004
2000	128,227		1,282	6,411	6,411	12,823	19,234	32,057	32,057	64,114	64,114
2001	128,817	129	1,288	6,441	6,441	12,882	19,323	32,204	32,204	64,409	64,409
2002	128,324	128	1,283	6,416	6,416	12,832	19,249	32,081	32,081	64,162	64,162
2003	128,610	129	1,286	6,430	6,430	12,861	19,291	32,152	32,152	64,305	64,305
2004	130,371	130	1,304	6,519	6,519	13,037	19,556	32,593	32,593	65,186	65,186
2005	132,612	133	1,326	6,631	6,631	13,261	19,892	33,153	33,153	66,306	66,306
2006	135,719	136	1,357	6,786	6,786	13,572	20,358	33,930	33,930	67,860	67,860
2007	141,071	141	1,411	7,054	7,054	14,107	21,161	35,268	35,268	70,535	70,535
2008	139,961	140	1,400	6,998	6,998	13,996	20,994	34,990	34,990	69,980	69,980
2009	137,982	138	1,380	6,899	6,899	13,798	20,698	34,496	34,495	68,991	68,991

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Tax Year 2009

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$343,927	36.73
Top 5%	$154,643	58.66
Top 10%	$112,124	70.47
Top 25%	$66,193	87.30
Top 50%	$32,396	97.75
Bottom 50%	<$32,396	2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (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%
2009	100%	17.11%	36.73%	58.66%	11.81%	70.47%	16.83%	87.30%	10.45%	97.75%	2.25%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2009 (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%
2009	11.06%	24.28%	24.01%	20.46%	11.36%	18.05%	8.25%	14.68%	5.56%	12.50%	1.85%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Obama Pushes ‘Buffett Rule’ in Florida

Obama’s Capital Gains Tax “Fairness”

Obama Presses ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Pitch

RED ALERT: Buffett Rule Is Criminal Scam!

Obama Pushes “Buffett Rule” and Calls for More Romney Tax Returns

Dan Mitchell Debating the Buffett Rule on CNBC

Obama is yet again pushing the “Buffett Rule” while lying about taxes

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Indexing the Capital Gains Tax to Protect Taxpayers from Inflation

End Capital Gains and Dividends Tax

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich

The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government

Warren Buffett’s Reported Plans to Avoid Taxes and the Buffett Rule

Obama: ‘Buffett Rule’ Would Raise Taxes for Rich

Warren Buffett’s Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary’s

Warren Buffett, Secretary Debbie Bosanek Discuss Tax Rate Inequality in

Opinion: The Buffett Tax Folly

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Ron Paul_ End the IRS & Abolish the Income Tax forever

Hartmann: The defining issue of the 2012 election

Buffett Rule Fails in Senate, 51-45

By Josh Barro,

“…the so-called Buffett Rule (imposing a minimum 30 percent federal income tax rate on those making at least $2 million per year) came up for a vote in the Senate and was defeated. There were 51 votes in favor and 45 opposed, but 60 votes were required for cloture and so the proposal could not proceed.

The vote was nearly along party lines, with Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican to vote yes and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) the only Democrat to vote no. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also broke with his party and opposed the proposal, though he wasn’t in Washington D.C. today and so didn’t actually cast a vote. Lieberman said “I am opposed to the Buffett Rule because it would double to 30 percent the capital gains tax on one group of investors”—a statement that reflects the fact that the Buffett Rule debate is fundamentally a debate about whether we should have a preferential tax rate for capital gains. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/buffett-rule-fails-in-senate-51-45/

Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule

By KIM DIXON and PATRICK TEMPLE-WEST, Reuters

“….President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are laying a political trap for Republicans to be sprung on Monday when the U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the proposed “Buffett Rule,” which would slap a minimum tax on the highest-income Americans. With polls showing strong public support for the rule, Democrats plan to bring it up for a procedural vote in the Senate. Republicans are solidly against it and the proposal is not expected to garner enough votes to move forward.

Even if it does advance in the Senate, it is not expected to be taken up in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Democrats control the Senate, but just barely. Despite the proposal’s poor outlook, Democrats hope that the Senate vote and the debate around it will help them politically ahead of the November 6 elections by casting the Republicans and their presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney, himself a multi-millionaire, as the party of the wealthy.

Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule as a diversion from the weak economy. They also argue that raising taxes on the rich would hit small businesses and discourage their growth. Here is a Q+A on the legislation and the issues behind it.

What Is the Buffett Rule?
Named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who backs it, the rule would require individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Democrats have been careful to stress that the tax would not apply to people with $1 million or more in assets, who comprise a much larger slice of the U.S. population than those with annual incomes of $1 million or more. About 433,000 U.S. households earn more than $1 million a year. That is only about 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group. The bill being voted on in the Senate, sponsored by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would impose the 30-percent tax on adjusted gross income after a modified deduction for charitable giving and certain other tax credits. …”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/16/Dems-Lay-Trap-for-GOP-with-Buffett-Rule.aspx#page1

Senate Republicans defeat ‘Buffett Rule’ in procedural vote

NEWSCORE

“…WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans defeated President Barack Obama’s so-called “Buffett Rule” in a 51-45 procedural vote Monday.

Sixty votes were required to move the legislation forward.

The legislation’s defeat was widely-expected, but the White House was eager to put Republicans on record against the proposal, which phases in a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, minus any deductions for charitable giving.

The rule is named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who famously complained that his own tax rate is lower than that of his secretary.

Critics have said the tax hike would harm job creation while only adding $47 billion to federal coffers over 10 years, but administration officials have argued the measure is not intended to be a revenue-raising mechanism. Instead, they say, it is an attempt to build a more progressive tax code. …”

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifestoto discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifestowritten by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership) 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.

None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free…. http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Background Articles and Videos

Ronald Reagan Convention Speech 1976 Election

Ron Paul: What If… Amazing Speech 2-12-09

The Last Nail – Floor Speech May 25 2011

Ron Paul ”Imagine For A Moment” Speech

Simon and Garfunkel – Bridge Over Troubled Water Original Version

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	136559(1)	136598	136701	137270	136630	136940	136531	136662	136893	137088	137322	137614
2001	137778	137612	137783	137299	137092	136873	137071	136241	136846	136392	136238	136047
2002	135701	136438	136177	136126	136539	136415	136413	136705	137302	137008	136521	136426
2003	137417(1)	137482	137434	137633	137544	137790	137474	137549	137609	137984	138424	138411
2004	138472(1)	138542	138453	138680	138852	139174	139556	139573	139487	139732	140231	140125
2005	140245(1)	140385	140654	141254	141609	141714	142026	142434	142401	142548	142499	142752
2006	143150(1)	143457	143741	143761	144089	144353	144202	144625	144815	145314	145534	145970
2007	146028(1)	146057	146320	145586	145903	146063	145905	145682	146244	145946	146595	146273
2008	146397(1)	146157	146108	146130	145929	145738	145530	145196	145059	144792	144078	143328
2009	142187(1)	141660	140754	140654	140294	140003	139891	139458	138775	138401	138607	137968
2010	138500(1)	138665	138836	139306	139340	139137	139139	139338	139344	139072	138937	139220
2011	139330(1)	139551	139764	139628	139808	139385	139450	139754	140107	140297	140614	140790
2012	141637(1)	142065	142034
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	142267(1)	142456	142434	142751	142388	142591	142278	142514	142518	142622	142962	143248
2001	143800	143701	143924	143569	143318	143357	143654	143284	143989	144086	144240	144305
2002	143883	144653	144481	144725	144938	144808	144803	145009	145552	145314	145041	145066
2003	145937(1)	146100	146022	146474	146500	147056	146485	146445	146530	146716	147000	146729
2004	146842(1)	146709	146944	146850	147065	147460	147692	147564	147415	147793	148162	148059
2005	148029(1)	148364	148391	148926	149261	149238	149432	149779	149954	150001	150065	150030
2006	150214(1)	150641	150813	150881	151069	151354	151377	151716	151662	152041	152406	152732
2007	153144(1)	152983	153051	152435	152670	153041	153054	152749	153414	153183	153835	153918
2008	154075(1)	153648	153925	153761	154325	154316	154480	154646	154559	154875	154622	154626
2009	154236(1)	154521	154143	154450	154800	154730	154538	154319	153786	153822	153833	153091
2010	153454(1)	153704	153964	154528	154216	153653	153748	154073	153918	153709	154041	153613
2011	153250(1)	153302	153392	153420	153700	153409	153358	153674	154004	154057	153937	153887
2012	154395(1)	154871	154707
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.1	67.1	66.9	66.9	66.9	66.8	66.9	67.0
2001	67.2	67.1	67.2	66.9	66.7	66.7	66.8	66.5	66.8	66.7	66.7	66.7
2002	66.5	66.8	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.6	66.5	66.6	66.7	66.6	66.4	66.3
2003	66.4	66.4	66.3	66.4	66.4	66.5	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	65.9
2004	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	66.0	66.1	66.1	66.0	65.8	65.9	66.0	65.9
2005	65.8	65.9	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0
2006	66.0	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.3	66.4
2007	66.4	66.3	66.2	65.9	66.0	66.0	66.0	65.8	66.0	65.8	66.0	66.0
2008	66.2	66.0	66.1	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	65.9	66.0	65.8	65.8
2009	65.7	65.8	65.6	65.6	65.7	65.7	65.5	65.4	65.1	65.0	65.0	64.6
2010	64.8	64.9	64.9	65.1	64.9	64.6	64.6	64.7	64.6	64.4	64.5	64.3
2011	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.1	64.0	64.1	64.1	64.1	64.0	64.0
2012	63.7	63.9	63.8

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	5708	5858	5733	5481	5758	5651	5747	5853	5625	5534	5639	5634
2001	6023	6089	6141	6271	6226	6484	6583	7042	7142	7694	8003	8258
2002	8182	8215	8304	8599	8399	8393	8390	8304	8251	8307	8520	8640
2003	8520	8618	8588	8842	8957	9266	9011	8896	8921	8732	8576	8317
2004	8370	8167	8491	8170	8212	8286	8136	7990	7927	8061	7932	7934
2005	7784	7980	7737	7672	7651	7524	7406	7345	7553	7453	7566	7279
2006	7064	7184	7072	7120	6980	7001	7175	7091	6847	6727	6872	6762
2007	7116	6927	6731	6850	6766	6979	7149	7067	7170	7237	7240	7645
2008	7678	7491	7816	7631	8395	8578	8950	9450	9501	10083	10544	11299
2009	12049	12860	13389	13796	14505	14727	14646	14861	15012	15421	15227	15124
2010	14953	15039	15128	15221	14876	14517	14609	14735	14574	14636	15104	14393
2011	13919	13751	13628	13792	13892	14024	13908	13920	13897	13759	13323	13097
2012	12758	12806	12673

U-3 Unemployment Rate

 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
2000	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
2001	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.5	4.6	4.9	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.7
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.4
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.9	8.7	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2

U-6 Total Unemployment Rate

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
2000	7.1	7.2	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.0	7.0	7.1	7.0	6.8	7.1	6.9
2001	7.3	7.4	7.3	7.4	7.5	7.9	7.8	8.1	8.7	9.3	9.4	9.6
2002	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8
2003	10.0	10.2	10.0	10.2	10.1	10.3	10.3	10.1	10.4	10.2	10.0	9.8
2004	9.9	9.7	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.7	9.4	9.2
2005	9.3	9.3	9.1	8.9	8.9	9.0	8.8	8.9	9.0	8.7	8.7	8.6
2006	8.4	8.4	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.0	8.2	8.1	7.9
2007	8.4	8.2	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.8
2008	9.2	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.7	10.1	10.5	10.8	11.1	11.8	12.7	13.5
2009	14.2	15.1	15.7	15.8	16.4	16.5	16.5	16.7	16.8	17.2	17.1	17.1
2010	16.7	16.9	16.9	17.0	16.6	16.5	16.5	16.6	16.9	16.8	16.9	16.6
2011	16.1	15.9	15.7	15.9	15.8	16.2	16.1	16.2	16.4	16.0	15.6	15.2
2012	15.1	14.9	14.5

Background Articles and Videos

Unemployment Rate Primer

John Williams of Shadow Stats “This is end of the world type stuff”

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-0614
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, April 6, 2012

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 -- MARCH 2012

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment rose in manufacturing, food services and drinking
places, and health care, but was down in retail trade.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate
(8.2 percent) were both little changed in March. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(7.6 percent), adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (25.0 percent), whites
(7.3 percent), blacks (14.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.3 percent) showed
little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 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 essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals
accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number
of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate (63.8 percent) and the
employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were little changed in March.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 8.1 to 7.7 million
over the month. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

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

Among the marginally attached, there were 865,000 discouraged workers
in March, about the same as a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in March 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 rose by 120,000 in March. In the prior
3 months, payroll employment had risen by an average of 246,000 per month.
Private-sector employment grew by 121,000 in March, including gains in
manufacturing, food services and drinking places, and health care. Retail
trade lost jobs over the month. Government employment was essentially
unchanged. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment rose by 37,000 in March, with gains in motor
vehicles and parts (+12,000), machinery (+7,000), fabricated metals
(+5,000), and paper manufacturing (+3,000). Factory employment has risen
by 470,000 since a recent low point in January 2010.

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking
places rose by 37,000 in March and has risen by 563,000 since a recent
low point in February 2010.

In March, health care employment continued to grow (+26,000). Within the
industry, offices of physicians and hospitals each added 8,000 jobs over the
month.

Employment in financial activities was up by 15,000 in March, with most of
the gain occurring in credit intermediation (+11,000).

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up
in March (+31,000). Employment in the industry has grown by 1.4 million
since a recent low point in September 2009. In March, services to buildings
and dwellings added 23,000 jobs. Employment in temporary help services
was about unchanged over the month after increasing by 55,000 in February.

Retail trade employment fell by 34,000 in March. A large job loss in general
merchandise stores (-32,000) and small losses in other retail industries
more than offset gains in health and personal care stores (+6,000) and in
building material and garden supply stores (+5,000).

Employment in the other major private-sector industries, including mining,
construction, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and information,
changed little in March.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged
down by 0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in March. The manufacturing workweek fell
by 0.3 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.4 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 5 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $23.39. Over the past 12 months,
average hourly earnings have increased by 2.1 percent. In March, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
rose by 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $19.68. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised from
+284,000 to +275,000, and the change for February was revised from +227,000
to +240,000.

______________
The Employment Situation for April is scheduled to be released on
Friday, May 4, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).