Illegal Immigration

The Pronk Pops Show 985, Story 1: Fed Draining The Swamp — A Flattening Treasury Yield Curve Indicator of Possible Recession Especially If Republican Controlled Congress Fails To Totally and Completely Repeal and Replace Obamacare and Passes Trump’s Timid Tiny Targeted Temporary Tax Cut For Middle Class — Replace All Federal Taxes With A Broad Based Consumption Tax With Generous Tax Prebates And Balanced Budgets — FairTax or Fair Tax Less That Democrats, Republicans and Independents Would Pass — Otherwise Recession in 2018 –Videos

Posted on October 18, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Monetary Policy, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Trade Policy, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for cartoons on trump's tax cut

Story 1: Fed Draining The Swamp — A Flattening Treasury Yield Curve Indicator of Possible Recession Especially If Republican Controlled Congress Fails To Totally and Completely Repeal and Replace Obamacare and Passes Trump’s Timid Tiny Targeted Temporary Tax Cut For Middle Class — Replace All Federal Taxes With A Broad Based Consumption Tax With Generous Tax Prebates And Balanced Budgets — FairTax or Fair Tax Less That Democrats, Republicans and Independents Would Pass — Otherwise Recession in 2018 –Videos

US Economy: Where We Are Right Now

Major Economic Crash + Recession coming 2018

GE’s CEO Says the U.S. Economy Is in Investment Recession

Wilbur Ross: Trump’s tax reductions will grow the economy

Wilbur Ross: U.S. Recession Likely in Next 18 Months

PETER SCHIFF STOCK MARKET CRASH IS COMING OCTOBER 2017

A Great Crash Is Coming! Stock Market Crash Imminent Economic Collapse In 2017 – 2018

Jim Rogers (October 14, 2017) – What will collapse first

Jim Rogers (October 09, 2017) – Expects the worst crash in our lifetime

RAY DALIO: US economy looks like 1937 and we need to be careful

Jim Rickards (October 02, 2017) – The Coming Big Freeze – The Daily Reckoning

Analyzing Trump’s Tax Plan

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Ben Shapiro: The analysis of President Trump’s tax reform plan (audio from 09-28-2017)

TAX PLAN: Insane Bernie Attacks Trump! | Louder With Crowder

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Tax Cuts Mean Nothing So Long As We Refuse to Nationalize and Control the Federal Reserve

G. Edward Griffin: Donald Trump is an Amazing Phenomenon

G. Edward Griffin — The Federal Reserve, Taxes, The I.R.S. & Solutions

Jim Rickards (October 02, 2017) – Fed to Cause A Recession

Jim Rickards (September 25, 2017) – Collapse & War with N Korea

Greenspan: You Can’t Fix U.S. Economy Until You Fix Entitlements

Keiser Report: Is US really a 3% GDP economy? (E1119)

Robert Shiller // Why it’s become hard to predict the markets

Nassim Taleb on Black Monday, Fed, Market Lessons

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Sees Greater Risks Than Nuclear War

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Sees Worse Tail Risks Than in 2007

Keiser Report: Gutting of America’s Wealth Creation Machine (E1097)

David Stockman // Black swan event to trigger a deep correction

David Stockman // Tax cut, reform will fall apart

Ep. 292: Record Confidence in U.S. Stocks Means Trouble Ahead

Stockman: Trump’s Now ‘Blowing Kisses to Janet Yellen’ (Fox Business, September 15, 2017)

Jim Rogers // The next bear market will be the worst in our lifetime

Stock Market Party Coming To An End Warns Marc Faber – (Part 1/3)

Marc Faber // Get ready for a massive stock market decline

Marc FABER (NEW REPORT) – Making America Broke Again: Trump & The Inevitable Financial Crisis

Sam Zell // This is not a time to ‘buy anything’

MUST SEE! U.S Economic Outlook: 3 Recession Indicators Flashing Red

A flatter yield curve says the market isn’t worried about inflation

What is Yield Curve?

Introduction to the yield curve | Stocks and bonds | Finance & Capital Markets | Khan Academy

The Inverted Yield Curve, Lecture 016, Securities Investment 101, Video00018

We Can Pretend All We Want, The US Is In A Recession & Heading For The Big One – Episode 1311a

YIELD CURVE GETTING READY TO INVERT?

Jim Rickards on Keiser Report: We don’t need to worry about a recession; we’re in a depression

Published on May 23, 2013

Neil Howe — The really big crisis has yet to arrive!

Neil Howe and William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan

Neil Howe and William Strauss on Generations in 1998 CSpan

Neil Howe: It’s going to get worse; more financial crises coming

The Fourth Turning: Why American ‘Crisis’ May Last Until 2030

 

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs

  • Bond pros are watching a phenomenon in the bond market that could signal recession ahead and trouble for the stock market.
  • The yield curve is flattening, meaning the spread between 2-year note yields and 10-year yields is narrowing, and at 0.75, it was the lowest since before the financial crisis.
  • Even though the move is a warning, strategists say some of the action has to do with the Fed reversing long-term easing policy and may not be a problem for stocks.

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs  

The bond market is warning that trouble could be on the horizon, either from an economic slowdown or an eventual recession.

The yield curve, a set of interest rates watched closely by bond market pros, has gotten to its flattest level since before the financial crisis. The spread between 2-year note yields and 10-year yields this week reached near the lows, at about 0.75, it has been since before the financial crisis.

“It certainly is giving you some sort of signal in here. The signals are when the yield curve flattens, it tells you that inflation is not a problem and the Fed is doing something at the front end,” said David Ader, Informa Financial Intelligence chief macro strategist. “Historically, it signals a slowdown or recession.”

But with the Federal Reserve set to raise interest rates in December, and uncertainty about who the next Fed chief will be, there are also other concerns in the market, including that a new Fed head could be more hawkish and set the Fed on a more rapid rate-hiking course.

“It’s also telling you there could be a policy error in the Fed’s hiking particularly if they accelerate it,” said Ader. Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s monthly fund manager survey showed that fund managers in October believe the biggest risk for markets is a central bank policy misstep.

Treasurys on the move  

Some strategists say ignore it at your own peril, but others point to the fact that stocks can still rally when longer-duration interest rates are low but the short-term rate is rising.

The fear is that a flattening yield curve could lead to an inversion, meaning the short-end rate would actually go higher than the longer-end yield. That is typically viewed as a recession signal, and the flattening curve is a warning of that.

“Typically you eventually get to a much flatter yield that could lead to a recession,” said Peter Boockvar, chief market analyst with the Lindsey Group. “Right now it’s hard to get to inversion because of how actually low short-term interest rates are. You don’t need to get to the inversion this time.”

Jeff Gundlach, CEO of DoubleLine, weighed in on Twitter, pointing out that stock market bulls point to low rates as a positive, yet rates are climbing. The 2-year yield was at a new nine-year high Wednesday, touching 1.57 percent, while the 10-year was at 2.34 percent.

2 year Tsy yield back on the rise. Should accelerate w/ a close above 1.56%. Keep hearing SPX P/E OK due to low rates. But they are rising.

Strategists say years of quantitative easing by global central banks and extreme low interest rates cast doubt on some of the conventional wisdom about bond behavior. For instance, the Fed is also slowing down its purchases of Treasurys, mostly at the short end, and that could be influencing the behavior of the curve.

“I think it’s the expectation that further Fed tightening, whether it’s on the short end or it’s the quantitative tightening, is eventually going to slow the U.S. economy, and that’s what the yield curve is saying, while the stock market is drunk on hopes for tax reform,” Boockvar said. At the same time, expectations for a Fed rate hike at its December meeting continue to rise.

Wealth manager: bond markets are creating the 'biggest financial crisis of our lifetime'

Wealth manager: Bond markets are creating the ‘biggest financial crisis of our lifetime’  

Dallas Fed President Rob Kaplan said the low rate of the 10-year may not be because of easy financial conditions. “That may be a sign of worry about future growth,” Kaplan told reporters after participating on a panel with New York Fed President William Dudley about regional economic trends.

Source: Strategas Research

Todd Sohn, technical analyst at Strategas, looked at the behavior of the stock market during periods of flattening yield curves, and he found that until the curve actually inverted, stocks performed very well. In some cases, it took awhile for stocks to react when the curve inverted.

“It’s on our mind,” he said. “But until you get the inversion I don’t think we should put too much weight on it. Equity performance is still positive.”

Sohn said as the curve flattened between August 1977 and August 1978, for example, the S&P 500 gained 7 percent. But after the curve inverted in August 1978, the S&P corrected, falling about 14 percent from September to mid-November.

As the curve flattened between July 1988 and January 1989, the S&P was up 9 percent. But Sohn said after the curve inverted in January 1989, the S&P went uninterrupted until October 1989, when it corrected about 10 percent through February 1990. Then it saw a 20 percent correction from July 1990 to October 1990.

“The curve inversion in June 1998 saw a sharp 19 percent S&P correction from mid-July 1998 and the end of August 1998… before the race higher into the March 2000 peak,” he noted.

Just ahead of the financial crisis, the curve inverted in January 2006. There was a shallow 8 percent correction from May to June 2006, and stocks moved higher until October 2007.

“It’s very case-by-case but curve inversion does typically lead to some form of a correction,” Sohn noted. “We’re not there yet but just something worth keeping in mind.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/bond-market-flashing-warning-sign-even-as-stocks-rally-to-new-highs.html

Here’s how the Fed is flattening the yield curve

Published: Oct 18, 2017 2:42 p.m. ET

‘There is a sense that the market is getting ahead of itself’: BMO

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
One way to flatten things.

By SUNNYOH

Traders betting on a steeper yield curve are being thwarted by two factors: a Federal Reserve intent on raising rates and lackluster inflation. This potent combination is making for the flattest yield curve by one measure in nearly a decade.

The yield curve is a line plotting the yields across Treasury maturities from the shortest dated to the longest, and can reflect investor expectations for growth and inflation. A flatter curve is seen as a sign investors are worried about growth.

SeeShould investors still worry if the yield curve sends this ominous signal?

After four rate increases in the current hiking cycle, the spread between the 5-year yield TMUBMUSD05Y, +2.22%   and the 30-year yield TMUBMUSD30Y, +1.78%   one way to assess the curve’s steepness, narrowed to 0.86 percentage point. The curve has flattened steadily since Donald Trump’s presidential election victory last November sparked a selloff in long-dated Treasurys on fears that his pro-growth agenda would spur inflation. Yields and bond prices move in opposite directions.

The dramatic speed of the flattening has surprised investors. In the past four tightening cycles, the gap between the 5-year yield and the 30-year yield narrowed on average by 0.98 percentage point. But after peaking at 3.02 percentage points in November 2010, the spread has tightened by 2.18 percentage points.

“There is a sense that the market is getting ahead of itself in the aggressiveness of the flattening currently underway,” wrote Ian Lyngen and Aaron Kohli, fixed-income strategists at BMO Capital Markets.

ReadInvestors fear a Fed policy misstep as central bank reaffirms rate-hike trajectory

Traders tend to concentrate on the spread between the 5-year yield and the 30-year yield versus other measures of the curve. The 5-year yield can serve as a more accurate reflection of market expectations for short-term rates than the 2-year yieldTMUBMUSD02Y, +2.41%  , which is largely under the central bank’s control, said Tim Alt, director of currencies and rates at Aviva Investors.

At the long end of the curve, the 30-year yield has slipped as inflation expectations weaken. Investors demand more of a yield premium when they fear inflation is on the rise because inflation erodes the purchasing power of future cash flows.

“It is the lack of inflation and anemic term premium that are exaggerating the move,” wrote Lyngen and Kohli. The term premium refers to the extra yield investors need to be compensated for buying a long-dated bond if short-term yields do not develop as expected.

The narrowing term premium reflects the newfound transparency of the Federal Reserve under Chairwoman Janet Yellen and former chairman Ben Bernanke, said Marvin Loh, senior fixed-income strategist at BNY Mellon.

Since the Fed’s September policy meeting, investors have been inundated with speeches from central bankers. Every voting member of the Fed’s interest-rate setting body has delivered public remarks, many more than once, giving market participants a clear idea of the central bank’s plans, as well as factors that could forestall the current tightening path.

On the flip side, the central bank’s push to telegraph its intentions have also helped power short-dated yields TMUBMUSD02Y, +2.41%   to their highest level since the recession. Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan highlighted this trend, saying the central bank should raise rates one more time this year on Tuesday. The Federal Reserve has signaled further rate rises on the assumption that tightness in labor markets will spur wage growth and, in turn, inflation.

But inflation has been absent in recent months. The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, known as the personal consumption expenditures deflator, was 1.43% year-over-year in August, a steady descent from the five-year high of 2.18% notched in February.

Nonetheless, Yellen has tried to get ahead of the curve, adding to investors’ concerns that a lack of price pressures will not put off the central bank’s plan to see interest rates move higher.

Also readFed flunks econ 101: understanding inflation

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-fed-is-flattening-the-yield-curve-2017-10-18

One Of These 3 Black Swans Will Likely Trigger A Global Recession By End Of 2018

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Shutterstock

Exactly ten years ago, we were months way from a world-shaking financial crisis.

By late 2006, we had an inverted yield curve steep to be a high-probability indicator of recession. I estimated at that time that the losses would be $400 billion at a minimum. Yet, most of my readers and fellow analysts told me I was way too bearish.

Turned out the losses topped well over $2 trillion and triggered the financial crisis and Great Recession.

Conditions in the financial markets needed only a spark from the subprime crisis to start a firestorm all over the world. Plenty of things were waiting to go wrong, and it seemed like they all did at the same time.

We don’t have an inverted yield curve now. But when the central bank artificially holds down short-term rates, it is difficult, if not almost impossible, for the yield curve to invert.

We have effectively suppressed the biggest warning signal.

But there is another recession in our future (there is always another recession), which I think will ensue by the end of 2018. And it’s going to be at least as bad as the last one was in terms of the global pain it causes.

Below are three scenarios that may turn out to be fateful black swans. But remember this: A harmless white swan can look black in the right lighting conditions. Sometimes, that’s all it takes to start a panic.

Black Swan #1: Yellen Overshoots

It is clear that the U.S. economy is not taking off like the rocket some predicted after the election:

  • President Trump and the Republicans haven’t been able to pass any of the fiscal stimulus measures we hoped to see.
  • Banks and energy companies are getting some regulatory relief, and that helps, but it’s a far cry from the sweeping health care reform, tax cuts and infrastructure spending we were promised.
  • Consumer spending is still weak, so people may be less confident than the sentiment surveys suggest. Inflation has perked up in certain segments like health care and housing, but otherwise it’s still low to nonexistent.

Is this, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of economy in which the Federal Reserve should be tightening monetary policy? No—yet the Fed is doing so.

It’s in part because they waited too long to end QE and to begin reducing their balance sheet. FOMC members know they are behind the curve, and they want to pay lip service to doing something before their terms end.

Plus, Janet Yellen, Stanley Fischer and the other FOMC members are religiously devoted to the Phillips curve.

The black-swan risk here is that the Fed will tighten too much, too soon.

We know from recent FOMC minutes that some members have turned hawkish in part because they wanted to offset expected fiscal stimulus from the incoming administration. That stimulus has not been coming, but the FOMC is still acting as if it will be.

What happens when the Fed raises interest rates in the early, uncertain stages of a recession instead of lowering them? Logic suggests the Fed will curb any inflation pressure that exists and push the economy into outright deflation.

Deflation in an economy as debt-burdened as ours could be catastrophic.

Let me make an uncomfortable prediction: I think the Trump Fed—and since Trump will appoint at least six members of the FOMC in the coming year, it will be his Fed—will take us back down the path of massive quantitative easing and perhaps even to negative rates if we enter a recession.

The urge to “do something,” or at least be seen as trying to do something, is just going to be too strong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/07/27/one-of-these-3-black-swans-will-likely-trigger-a-global-recession-by-end-of-2018/#520a1131875f

4 Non-Reasons For Recession In 2018

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Forecasts of a recession next year are nothing new. In early 2016, I noticed analysts saying we might are already be in recession. One source quoted perennial bear Peter Schiff, another interviewed Jim Grant, and gold bug David Haggith wrote that we definitely were in recession. Not only did 2016 turn out to be not a recession, but it looks like 2017 won’t be either.

Dr. Bill Conerly based on Wall Street Journal survey.

Risk of Recession

Recessions don’t just happen randomly, nor do they occur because the expansion is old, nor do they come about because a certain person is in the White House. There is always a trigger, so we’ll go through the usual causes of recession.

1. Overly tight monetary policy is the most common cause of recession, but is unlikely right now. Here in the United States, the Federal Reserve caused or played a large role in the recessions of 1973-74, 1980, 1982, 1990 and 2001. I’ve heard it argued monetary policy was overly tight in 2008, but I don’t buy that as the cause of that recession, but perhaps the cause of the anemic recovery.

 Risk of Recession

Could monetary policy be tight enough to trigger a recession in 2018? Keep in mind that monetary policy acts with long time lags, so a December rate hike wouldn’t do much damage in the following year. The Fed’s rate hikes this year total one-half a percentage point, with perhaps one or two more on the way. (That’s the Fed’s own guess; mine is no more rate hikes this year.)

When the Fed moves strongly, it pushes short-term interest rates about three percentage points in a year. (1969, 1973, 1979, 1981, 1989) In the past six months, short-term interest rates have risen three-quarters of a percent—hardly a recessionary change.

 Yield curve June 2017 and 2016
Dr. Bill Conerly based on Federal Reserve data.

Yield curve June 2017 and 2016

The yield curve is a common expression of monetary policy and works pretty well as a predictive indicator. When interest rates are plotted against time to maturity—one month Treasury notes on the left and 30-year bonds on the right—then the shape of the curve is a good leading indicator. The normal shape is for the curve to rise, meaning higher interest rates are paid on bonds of longer maturity. Recessions are frequently preceded by an inverted yield curve, meaning short-term interest rates are higher than long-term interest rates. Right now the curve is very normal, and the last year’s shift upward has been an almost parallel move, with little change in the relationship between short-term rates and long-term rates. I see no recession coming from tight monetary policy, at least in the usual way.

The unusual way relates to the Fed’s reduction of its holdings of long-term securities, which will push interest rates up. This is uncharted territory. As the Fed had never before engaged in massive quantitative easing, it also never unwound a past massive easing. Two considerations are in order. First, the Fed won’t be too aggressive in its unwinding. If they see their actions pushing up long-term interest rates too quickly, they will hold off on further asset sales. Worrying about time lags—that the Fed won’t see their errors soon enough to ward off recession—makes senses, but it’s not certain.

The second consideration is that long-term interest rates are determined globally, by the world’s demand for credit compared to its supply of savings. The U.S is a big part of the global financial market, but it’s not the whole thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2017/07/19/4-non-reasons-for-recession-in-2018/#19da4731616c

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-985

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

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 17-26

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017, Story 1: Major Bubble and Major Bust When Congress Fails To Pass Both Fundamental Tax Reform and Total Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare — Results Count — Trump Runs Against The Do Nothing Congress of Democrats and Republicans in 2020 –American People vs. Political Elitist Establishment — Golden Opportunity Missed and Replaced By Smoke and Mirror Postcard Propaganda For Timid Tiny Tax Cut and Fake Repeal of Obamacare — Trump Narrowly Wins Second Term — National Debt Hits $25 Trillion & Unfunded Liabilities Hit $250 Trillion By 2024 –Videos — Story 2: How Obama Destroyed The Democratic and Damaged The U.S. Economy — Will Trump Reform The Republican Party and Revive The U.S. Economy — Videos

Posted on October 11, 2017. Filed under: American History, Barack H. Obama, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for victor Davis hanson

 

Story 1: Major Bubble and Major Bust When Congress Fails To Pass Both Fundamental Tax Reform and Total Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare — Good Intentions No Substitute For Results —  Golden Opportunity Missed and Replaced By Smoke and Mirror Tax Return Postcard and Spending Cuts Propaganda Spin For Timid Tiny Tax Cut and Fake Repeal of Obamacare — Trump Runs Against The Do Nothing Congress of Democrats and Republicans in 2020 –American People and Trump vs. Political Elitist Establishment —  Trump Narrowly Wins Second Term — National Debt Hits $25 Trillion & Unfunded Liabilities or Obligations Hit $250 Trillion By 2024 –Videos —

U.S. Debt Clock.org

Click to find real time amounts

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

How Big is the U.S. Debt? – Learn Liberty

Smashing The D.C. Monopoly – Official Trailer

Tom Coburn tells Congress: ‘America doesn’t trust you’

Tom Coburn, “Smashing the DC Monopoly”

Mark Levin interviews Tom Coburn about his book “Smashing the DC Monopoly” (June 01 2017)

9 Terrifying Facts About the US Debt Crisis

US Debt & Unfunded Liabilities-Where we are going-Dr. Yaron Brook

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Milton Friedman: The Two Major Enemies of a Free Society

Tax reform held hostage by Senate?

Faction of GOP trying to derail Trump’s agenda?

Congress is ‘very close’ to comprehensive tax reform: Rep. Black

Why the GOP may struggle passing tax reform

Analyzing President Trump’s tax plan

House Passes Budget. Paves Way for Tax Reform.

Larry Kudlow On GOP Tax Reform Plan: Doubling The Standard Deduction Is Huge | CNBC

House passes 2018 budget, taking a crucial step toward tax overhaul

Rush Limbaugh outlines his problem with GOP’s tax plan

What Trump’s tax plan could mean for workers and businesses

Trump, GOP begin tax reform push after health care failure

Mnuchin: Tax plan will cut deficit by $1T

BREAKING: Trump Wins Major Victory In Congress

McCarthy on tax reform: This is not for Republicans but for Americans

Trump tax reform is very pro-growth: Norquist

It’s Official! Trump Just Enraged Dems Overnight With What Passed Behind Their Backs Without …

BREAKING Republicans Pass Budget Resolution – Prepare for Tax Reform

Can GOP-led Congress pass health care and tax reform?

No higher priority than having tax reform done this year: Mnuchin

President Trump’s tax reform plan sparks debate

Ben Shapiro on the issue of Article Five – Convention of States (audio from 12-23-2016)

Ben Shapiro: Today I endorse Convention of States

Jim DeMint to state legislators: D.C. elites will never willingly give up their power

Jim DeMint on Mark Levin Show: Thank you for opening my eyes to Convention of States

 

2018 United States federal budget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2018 Budget of the United States federal government
Submitted March 16, 2017
Submitted by Donald Trump
Submitted to 115th Congress
Total revenue $3.654 trillion
Total expenditures $4.094 trillion[1]
Deficit $440 billion
GDP $20,237 billion
Website https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
‹ 2017

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2018, named America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again, was the first budget proposed by newly-elected President Donald Trump, submitted to the 115th Congress on March 16, 2017. If passed, the $4.1 trillion budget will fund government operations for fiscal year 2018, which runs from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.[2][3]

Background

Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States during the November 8, 2016 elections, campaigning for the Republican Party on a platform of tax cuts and projects like the Mexican border wall. During his campaign, Trump promised to cut federal spending and taxes for individuals and corporations.

Trump administration budget proposal

The Trump administration proposed its 2018 budget on February 27, 2017, ahead of his address to Congress, outlining $54 billion in cuts to federal agencies and an increase in defense spending.[4] On March 16, 2017, President Trump sent his budget proposal to Congress, remaining largely unchanged from the initial proposal.[5]

CBO scoring of the budget

CBO chart explaining the impact of the 2018 budget on spending, tax revenue, and deficits over the 2018–2027 periods.

The Congressional Budget Office reported its evaluation of the budget on July 13, 2017, including its effects over the 2018–2027 period.

  • Mandatory spending: The budget cuts mandatory spending by a net $2,033 billion (B) over the 2018–2027 period. This includes reduced spending of $1,891B for healthcare, mainly due to the proposed repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare); $238B in income security (“welfare”); and $100 billion in reduced subsidies for student loans. This savings would be partially offset by $200B in additional infrastructure investment.
  • Discretionary spending: The budget cuts discretionary spending by a net $1,851 billion over the 2018–2027 period. This includes reduced spending of $752 billion for overseas contingency operations (defense spending in Afghanistan and other foreign countries), which is partially offset by other increases in defense spending of $448B, for a net defense cut of $304B. Other discretionary spending (cabinet departments) would be reduced by $1,548B.
  • Revenues would be reduced by $1,000B, mainly by repealing the ACA, which had applied higher tax rates to the top 5% of income earners. Trump’s budget proposal was not sufficiently specific to score other tax proposals; these were simply described as “deficit neutral” by the Administration.
  • Deficits: CBO estimated that based on the policies in place as of the start of the Trump administration, the debt increase over the 2018–2027 period would be $10,112B. If all of President Trump’s proposals were implemented, CBO estimated that the sum of the deficits (debt increases) for the 2018–2027 period would be reduced by $3,276B, resulting in $6,836B in total debt added over the period.[6]
  • CBO estimated that the debt held by the public, the major subset of the national debt, would rise from $14,168B (77.0% GDP) in 2016 to $22,337B (79.8% GDP) in 2027 under the President’s budget.[7]

Department and program changes

The proposed 2018 budget includes $54 billion in cuts to federal departments, and a corresponding increase in defense and military spending.[8][9]

Department Budget Amount change Percent change Notes
Department of Agriculture $17.9 billion $-4.7 billion −21% Includes the elimination of food for education and water and wastewater loan programs. Decreases funding for the United States Forest Service by $118 million.[10]
Department of Commerce $7.8 billion $−1.4 billion −16% Includes cuts to coastal research programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the elimination of the Economic Development Administration
Department of Defense $574 billion $52 billion +9% Includes an increase in the size of the Army and Marine Corps, as well as the Naval fleet
Department of Education $68.2 billion $−9.2 billion −14% Cuts programs and grants for teacher training, after-school and summer care, and aid to low-income students. Eliminates $1.2 from the 21st Century Community Learning Center program and cuts $732 million from the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant. Eliminates Striving Readers/Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants as well as cuts funding for Supporting Effective Instruction State grants by $2.3 billion[11].
Department of Energy $28 billion $−1.7 billion −6% Largest cuts go to the Office of ScienceARPA-E and Departmental Loan Programs eliminated. Increases spending on National Nuclear Security Administration by 11.4% while slashing high energy physics and almost all other science programs (Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Infrastructure and Administration, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists) by 18%. The only science program not to receive a cut is the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which is to receive a small budget increase of $101 million. Money spent on the NNSA would go to the modernization and upkeep of nuclear weapons as well as $1.5 billion going to naval nuclear reactors. The budget cuts funding for energy programs by over 50% reducing the funding by $2.4 billion. Energy programs cut include: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development.[12][13]
Department of Health and Human Services $65.1 billion $−15.1 billion −18% Cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health and training programs
Department of Homeland Security $44.1 billion $2.8 billion +7% Increases spending on border security and immigration enforcement and builds a wall on the US-Mexico border. Cuts funding for certain FEMA grant programs.
Department of Housing and Urban Development $40.7 billion $−6.2 billion −13% Eliminates grant programs for community development, investment partnerships, home-ownership, and Section 4 affordable housing
Department of the Interior $11.7 billion $−1.6 billion −12% Eliminates over 4000 jobs. Eliminates funding for 49 National Historic Sites and decreases funding for land acquisition. Decreases funding for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. Cuts funding by $2 million for dealing with invasive species.[14][15]
Department of Justice $27.7 billion $−1.1 billion −4% Reduces spending on prison construction and reimbursements to state and local governments for incarceration of undocumented immigrants
Department of Labor $9.6 billion $−2.6 billion −21% Eliminates funding for senior-work programs, grants for non-profits and public agencies used for health training, and closes some Job Corps centers
State Department $27.1 billion $−10.9 billion −29% Eliminates funding for United Nations programs, including peacekeeping and climate change mitigation
Department of Transportation $16.2 billion $−2.4 billion −13% Eliminates funding for the Federal Transit Administration‘s New Starts grant program, long-distance Amtrak service, cuts the TIGER grant program and eliminates funding for the Essential Air ServiceAir traffic control would be shifted to private service under the proposal.
Treasury Department $11.2 billion $−0.5 billion −4% Reduces funding for the Internal Revenue Service
Department of Veteran Affairs $78.9 billion $4.4 billion +6% Expands health services and the benefit claims system. Slashes disability benefits to 225,000 elderly veterans. The VA currently provides additional disability compensation benefits to Veterans, irrespective of age, who it deems unable to obtain or maintain gainful employment due to their service-connected disabilities through a program called Individual Unemployability (IU). The IU program is a part of VA’s disability compensation program that allows VA to pay certain Veterans disability compensation at the 100 percent rate, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at the total level. These Veterans have typically received an original disability ratings between 60 and 100 percent. Under this proposal, Veterans eligible for Social Security retirement benefits would have their IU terminated upon reaching the minimum retirement age for Social Security purposes, or upon enactment of the proposal if the Veteran is already in receipt of Social Security retirement benefits.These Veterans would continue to receive VA disability benefits based on their original disability rating, at the scheduler evaluation level. IU benefits would not be terminated for Veterans who are ineligible for Social Security retirement benefits, thus allowing them to continue to receive IU past minimum retirement age. Savings to the Compensation and Pensions account are estimated to be $3.2 billion in 2018, $17.9 billion over five years, and $40.8 billion over ten years.[16]
Environmental Protection Agency $5.7 billion $−2.5 billion −31% Eliminates more than 50 programs and 3,200 jobs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) $19.1 billion $-0.1 billion −1% Cuts funding for Earth science programs and missions, and eliminates the Office of Education. Cuts funding for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate by $166 million (−21%). Cuts funding for Space Technology research by $148.4 million (−18%). Cuts funding for Human Exploration Operations by $4478.9 million (−53%). Cuts funding for the Education program by $62.7 million (−62.7%).[17][18]
Small Business Administration $.8 billion $−0.1 billion −5% Eliminates technical-assistance grant programs

The $971 million budget for arts and cultural agencies, including the Corporation for Public BroadcastingNational Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, would be eliminated entirely.

Criticism

Economist Joseph Stiglitz said about the 2018 budget proposal: “Trump’s budget takes a sledgehammer to what remains of the American Dream”. Senator Bernie Sanders also criticized the proposal: “This is a budget which says that if you are a member of the Trump family, you may receive a tax break of up to $4 billion, but if you are a child of a working-class family, you could well lose the health insurance you currently have through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and massive cuts to Medicaid”.[19]

Related fiscal legislation

On September 8, 2017, Trump signed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017. The bill contained a continuing resolution and a suspension of the debt ceiling lasting until December 8, as well as additional disaster funding for FY2017.[20][21]

References

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Sept.
2016
July
2017
Aug.
2017
Sept.
2017
Change from:
Aug.
2017-
Sept.
2017

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

254,091 255,151 255,357 255,562 205

Civilian labor force

159,830 160,494 160,571 161,146 575

Participation rate

62.9 62.9 62.9 63.1 0.2

Employed

151,926 153,513 153,439 154,345 906

Employment-population ratio

59.8 60.2 60.1 60.4 0.3

Unemployed

7,904 6,981 7,132 6,801 -331

Unemployment rate

4.9 4.3 4.4 4.2 -0.2

Not in labor force

94,261 94,657 94,785 94,417 -368

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.9 4.3 4.4 4.2 -0.2

Adult men (20 years and over)

4.6 4.0 4.1 3.9 -0.2

Adult women (20 years and over)

4.4 4.0 4.0 3.9 -0.1

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

15.9 13.2 13.6 12.9 -0.7

White

4.4 3.8 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Black or African American

8.3 7.4 7.7 7.0 -0.7

Asian

3.9 3.8 4.0 3.7 -0.3

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

6.4 5.1 5.2 5.1 -0.1

Total, 25 years and over

4.1 3.6 3.8 3.5 -0.3

Less than a high school diploma

8.5 6.9 6.0 6.5 0.5

High school graduates, no college

5.2 4.5 5.1 4.3 -0.8

Some college or associate degree

4.2 3.7 3.8 3.6 -0.2

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 -0.1

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,930 3,378 3,523 3,359 -164

Job leavers

900 757 804 738 -66

Reentrants

2,327 2,083 2,132 2,079 -53

New entrants

802 703 656 669 13

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,584 2,133 2,222 2,226 4

5 to 14 weeks

2,220 2,017 2,015 1,874 -141

15 to 26 weeks

1,164 957 1,055 963 -92

27 weeks and over

1,963 1,785 1,740 1,733 -7

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

5,874 5,282 5,255 5,122 -133

Slack work or business conditions

3,587 3,161 3,266 3,121 -145

Could only find part-time work

1,972 1,754 1,645 1,733 88

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,742 21,260 21,447 21,011 -436

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,844 1,629 1,548 1,569

Discouraged workers

553 536 448 421

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Sept.
2016
July
2017
Aug.
2017(P)
Sept.
2017(P)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

249 138 169 -33

Total private

223 133 164 -40

Goods-producing

11 -20 66 9

Mining and logging

0 0 6 2

Construction

23 -9 19 8

Manufacturing

-12 -11 41 -1

Durable goods(1)

-10 -18 33 4

Motor vehicles and parts

-5.2 -27.1 23.9 -3.2

Nondurable goods

-2 7 8 -5

Private service-providing

212 153 98 -49

Wholesale trade

13.3 4.3 1.8 6.7

Retail trade

27.3 -10.8 -7.3 -2.9

Transportation and warehousing

-1.7 7.7 8.0 21.8

Utilities

0.5 -0.7 -0.3 0.0

Information

8 -3 -4 -9

Financial activities

9 11 8 10

Professional and business services(1)

83 43 43 13

Temporary help services

29.5 12.9 7.5 5.9

Education and health services(1)

48 51 45 27

Health care and social assistance

23.6 38.2 20.9 13.1

Leisure and hospitality

11 50 0 -111

Other services

13 1 4 -5

Government

26 5 5 7

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

239 164 172 91

Total private

205 164 168 86

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.6 49.5 49.5 49.5

Total private women employees

48.2 48.1 48.1 48.1

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.3 82.4 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4

Average hourly earnings

$25.81 $26.39 $26.43 $26.55

Average weekly earnings

$887.86 $907.82 $909.19 $913.32

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

105.8 107.2 107.4 107.3

Over-the-month percent change

0.5 -0.2 0.2 -0.1

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

130.6 135.3 135.7 136.2

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (261 industries)

57.9 63.2 60.2 55.7

Manufacturing (78 industries)

39.7 60.9 66.0 50.0

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2016 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

 

The Tax Reform Tipping Point

Breitbart’s Steve Bannon is lighting up media coverage by championing primaries, but GOP operatives are more concerned with snagging a legislative win to calm the growing strife.

By David Catanese, Senior Politics Writer |Oct. 11, 2017, at 5:32 p.m.

The Tax Reform Tipping Point

What Bannon’s Civil War on the GOP Means for Tax Reform
Bloomberg
 Republican strategists and activists increasingly fear that a failure to deliver on tax reformin the coming months will intensify primary challenges to sitting incumbents next year and imperil the party’s already precarious standing in the midterm elections.

Angry GOP donors, a restless conservative base, a standstill Congress and a uniquely impetuous president are raising the stakes for a fourth-quarter legislative agenda that will be largely defined by an attempt at revamping the tax code that has languished for months.

An outside insurrection by Breitbart News head and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon already is ominously fanning the flames of internecine warfare. But many top Republican minds believe the most powerful tipping point for the GOP is whether it can deliver on Trump’s key campaign promise of producing tax relief for Americans.

“If Congress passes the key elements of the conservative agenda, including repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes, some of the anger at the grass roots will dissipate,” says Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition. “But if Congress fails to do so, I think there will be a lot of primaries in 2018 and 2020, and I think there will be a lot of vulnerable incumbents.”

Saddled by multiple failed attempts to repeal former President Barack Obama’s health care law, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are now turning their concerted attention to pitching lower tax rates and a simplification of the filing system. But there’s a growing realization they are now up against a calendar that leaves only two and a half months until an election year – and some of the most fiery activists already have lost their patience.

President Trump To Advance Tax Reform Plan
CBS New York
 The latest evidence of intraparty unrest came Wednesday in the form of a blistering letter from leading conservative groups asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and members of his leadership team to step aside, citing their failure to act on an array of issues from illegal immigration and deficit spending to Planned Parenthood funding and a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

“Republicans were given full control of the federal government. They – you – have done nothing,” the letter reads. “Worse, it is painfully clear that you intend to do nothing because, as is most apparent, you had no intention of honoring your solemn commitments to the American people. You were not going to drain the swamp. You are the swamp.”

The searing missive was signed by Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund; Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots; Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks; David Bozell, president of ForAmerica; Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica; and conservative activist Richard Viguerie.

The cadre also questioned McConnell’s “commitment to real reform” on taxes – and a key GOP member of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday acknowledged lawmakers will have to settle for at least some changes that won’t be permanent. “We’re not going to do as well as we had hoped in terms of permanence. It’s obvious,” said Rep. Pete Roskam of Illinois.

Meanwhile, even as Bannon’s clarion call for primary challengers to half a dozen GOP Senate incumbents has shaken the political media establishment as he intended, many GOP campaign veterans privately contend his influence has been widely overblown.

Plenty of anti-establishment candidates and would-be contenders mulling 2018 bids were stirring the pot long before Bannon came along. Alabama’s Roy Moore, for example, was beating Sen. Luther Strange ahead of Bannon’s blessing. Arizona’s Kelli Ward had run in 2016 against Sen. John McCain, and shortly after that defeat switched her focus to Sen. Jeff Flake.

 Mississippi’s Chris McDaniel, who is inching closer to a challenge of GOP Sen. Roger Wicker, gained national notoriety in 2014 for falling barely short in his bid to unseat Sen. Thad Cochran.

Bannon is also in talks with potential challengers to Sen. John Barrasso in Wyoming and Sen. Orrin Hatch in Utah, but so far neither has drawn a formal primary opponent, and Hatch hasn’t even formally decided to run again. In Nebraska, one key GOP player mocked any Bannon effort to draft a candidate to run against first-term Sen. Deb Fischer. “There’s really not any anti-Deb sentiment in Nebraska,” says Mike Kennedy, a 25-year GOP activist from Omaha. “I don’t see any traction for Bannon at all. They’re going to have to look under a lot of rocks.”

“Let’s be honest: Steve’s a drum major desperately running in front of a parade,” says a prominent conservative activist, speaking anonymously because he counts Bannon as a friend. “He’s good copy. He’s a good story. The issue is not Bannon. The issue is what these people were told for eight years: That when we got the White House, the Senate and the House, this stuff was going to happen. The grass roots feel like they’ve been played.”

“If we don’t pass the tax cut, I think all bets are off,” the activist adds, referring to the number of ferocious primaries that could multiply across the map.

Strategists working to preserve and expand the 52-member Republican Senate majority are also pinning their hopes on tax reform to hand their incumbents a tangible accomplishment that will land in voters’ pocketbooks. At the same time, they know it stands to impact their own bottom lines.

 A Senate GOP source acknowledges fundraising has begun to lag since June and that the National Republican Senatorial Committee – the entity tasked with electing GOP senators – has spent more than it’s raised over the preceding two months.

“Donors are so pissed off,” the source says. “If we don’t get tax reform, we won’t have the money to fund all our races. They just don’t understand why nothing’s been done.”

Terry Schilling, executive director of conservative think tank the American Principles Project, agrees that Republicans need an accomplishment on tax reform that they can hold in front of voters next year.

But unlike others, he doesn’t view Bannon’s efforts as necessarily counterproductive. Instead, Schilling says, Bannon’s looming threat of outside fire provides a constant incentive for even the most dependable incumbents to make good on Trump’s agenda.

“It’s probably not fair to target Barrasso, but then Barrasso gets to go to [John] McCain and [Lisa] Murkowski and [Susan] Collins and say, ‘I’m your friend and I’m getting heartburn for this.’ It’s pressure; it’s just politics,” he says. “These incumbents better be able to point to how they’ve been supportive of Trump. Otherwise, they’re going to be Luther Strange.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2017-10-11/tax-reform-key-to-republicans-fate-in-2018-midterms

Story 2: How Obama Destroyed The Democratic and Damaged The U.S. Economy — Will Trump Reform The Republican Party and Revive The U.S. Economy? — Videos

Victor D. Hanson: How the Obama Presidency Destroyed Todays Democratic Party

Taking Stock of Trumpism: Where It Came From, What It Has Accomplished, and Where It Is Going

Victor D. Hanson: The Media Hysteria over Trump | and the Reality

Victor D. Hanson on Obama’s Last Year & the Problem w/ Elites in Society

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON (6/9/2017)

Victor Davis Hanson on Obama and the current administartion.

‘Two-States of California’- Victor Davis Hanson at American Freedom Alliance

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-981

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

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 17-26

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017, Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos — Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

Posted on September 30, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, Airlines, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Life, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Image result for Donald Trump Plan Tax BracketsImage result for trump's tax frameworkImage result for fairtax

Image result for cartoon's trump's tax frameworkImage result for trump's tax framework

Image result for HHS secretary resigns tom price resigns

Image result for fairtax

Image result for trump's new tax plan compared with current tax system

Corporations paying fewer taxes

 

Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos


The American People Want The FairTax and

The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Image result for Fair Tax Replaces


Inside the GOP’s tax blueprint

Mulvaney: Impossible to say tax benefit to rich – NEWS TODAY

Mick Mulvaney defends Trump’s Puerto Rico response, tax plan

Treasury secretary on Trump administration’s new tax plan

“IT WOULD BE LIKE HOUDINI!!!” Chuck Todd’s BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump Lackey Steven Mnuchin |News

Newt Gingrich with Martha MacCallum on Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan. #NewtGingrich #TaxReform #POTUS

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Middle Class Will ‘Get Nothing’ In Tax Proposal: Steve Rattner | Morning Joe | MSNBC

What Democrats don’t like about Trump’s tax reform plan

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Trump pitches tax reform plan to manufacturers

Sen. John Kennedy on Tax Reform

Speaker Ryan Previews Unified Framework for Tax Reform

Trump pushes first tax overhaul since President Reagan

Trump tax reform is very pro-growth: Norquist

Who wins and loses in the GOP’s proposed tax overhaul

President Trump Unveils STUNNING Tax Plan | Full Speech 9/27/17

President Donald Trump unveils his ‘middle class miracle’, a stunning tax plan with three brackets, zero tax on couples’ first $24,000 and a massive corporate rate slash. ‘The largest tax cut in American History.’ MAGA 🇺🇸

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

What Trump’s tax plan could mean for workers and businesses

Trump’s tax plan mirrors Ronald Reagan’s

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNVEILS SWEEPING TAX PLAN

Chuck Schumer SLAMS Trump’s New Tax Reform Plan on his Press Conference 9/27/2017

Inside Politics 09/27/17: TRUMP TAX PLAN COULD COST $5 TRILLION

Rush Limbaugh 09/27/2017 | Trump tax plan isn’t conservative, it’s populist, raises taxes on rich

Hannity: Trump’s tax plan is designed to grow the economy

Analyzing President Trump’s tax plan

Trump Unveils Tax Plan: It’s Mostly Good

Gordon Gray discusses President Trump’s tax plan details jpg

Will Trump’s tax plan deliver the goods on jobs?

What to expect from Trump’s tax plan

Trump Tax Reform Explained

David Stockman: We are heading into an absolute fiscal bloodbath

Keiser Report: America’s Falling Apart (E1123)

$20 Trillion: U.S. Debt Crisis | Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Trump’s tax cuts won’t pay for themselves: David Stockman

Congress not likely to tackle tax reform without spending cuts?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

Revenue Neutral

Sen. McConnell to soften on revenue-neutral tax plan: Gasparino

McConnell Seeks Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform This Congress

Rand Paul’s Frustration with “Revenue Neutral” Tax Cuts!


The American People Want The FairTax 

Especially The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax or Fair Tax Less — It Is Time

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Congressman Pence – FairTax and FlatTax

Pence on the Fair Tax

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

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

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax with Colleagues on House Floor

The Fair Tax

Congressman King Speaks in Favor of FairTax

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax on House Floor

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Why is the FairTax better than other tax reform efforts?

AIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

What is the FairTax legislation?

Does the FairTax protect privacy and other civil liberties?

How is the FairTax collected?

How does the FairTax affect the economy?

How does the FairTax impact interest rates?

Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

How will used goods be taxed?

What assumptions does the FairTax make about government spending?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Can’t Americans just cross the border to avoid the FairTax

Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How will the FairTax impact seniors?

How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?

How will the FairTax impact people who don’t file income taxes?

How will the FairTax help people who don’t hire an accountant?

How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?

How does the FairTax impact tax free bonds?

What will happen to cities who depend on tax free bonds?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How does the FairTax impact retailers?

How does the FairTax affect tax preparers and CPAs?

Will the FairTax tax services?

Can I pretend to be a business to avoid the sales tax?

If people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?

What is the Prebate?

How does the “prebate” work?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?

Will the prebate create a massive new entitlement system?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How do we keep exemptions and exclusions from undermining the FairTax?

How does the FairTax impact charitable giving?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

Will bartering present a compliance problem under the FairTax?

How does the FairTax affect illegal immigration?

How does the FairTax rate compare to today’s?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

Is education taxed under the FairTax?

Will government pay taxes under the FairTax?

How can you tax life saving medical treatment?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

What will the transition be like from the income tax to the FairTax?

Isn’t it a stretch to say the IRS will go away?

The Fair Tax – It’s Time

FairTax Prebate Explained

The FairTax… For a better America

Is the Fair Tax Act Fair?

Is America’s Tax System Fair?

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Pence on the Fair Tax

#30 The FAIRtax and President Elect Trump

Elvis Presley – It`s Now Or Never 1960

Elvis – It’s Now Or Never (O Sole Mio)

Elvis Presley – My Way (High Quality)

Frank Sinatra .My Way

Trump’s tax plan is ALREADY in trouble with his own party as plan to axe state and local tax deduction comes under fire from Republicans

  • The White House’s tax plan proposes to raise $1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating the deduction for the state and local income taxes people pay
  • That’s drawing howls of protest from Republicans whose states charge high income tax rates
  • Seven states have no income taxes, meaning their citizens wouldn’t be affected
  • But some states charge up to 13.3 per cent on top of federal taxes
  • A family in Los Angeles earning $100,000 would have to fork over roughly an additional $1,800 to Washington if the longstanding deduction goes away
  • Trump is pitching his tax plan to the National Association of Manufacturers on Friday 

As President Trump prepares to sell his tax plan to the nation’s manufacturing lobby on Friday, his best-laid tax plans have already drawn objections from some fellow Republicans who are fuming over the decision to end deductions for state and local income taxes.

The situation will pit the White House against members of Congress from states that pile high income taxes on top of what the federal government takes from paychecks.

High-income Californians, for instance, pay as much as 13.3 per cent of their income to the state in addition to their federal taxes. New Yorkers can pay up to 8.82 per cent.

Just seven U.S. states have no personal income taxes, including Texas, Florida and Nevada.

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he'll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he’ll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don't collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don’t collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

Under the Trump tax reform plan, a family earning $100,000 in Los Angeles pays about $6,000 in state and local income taxes. Losing the ability to deduct that expense would cost the hypothetical taxpayers around $1,800.

The GOP is working on a way to pacify legislators whose constituents would wind up paying more.

‘The members with concerns from high-tax states have to be accommodated,’ Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam told The Wall Street Journal. Roskam is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

‘So, you can imagine a soft landing on this that creative people are putting much time and energy into.’

The White House has shown no sign that it’s willing to budge on eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes since it would bring in about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

With the prospect of persuading Democrats to go along with a new tax play already slim, the GOP will need every Republican vote it can get.

The Journal reports that the nine states whose citizens use the deduction, measured as a percentage of income, are represented by 33 House Republicans.

If Republicans lose more than 22 votes, Trump’s tax plan is effective dead.

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a 'soft landing' for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a ‘soft landing’ for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn't promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn’t promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

APRIL 13, 2016

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Corporations paying fewer taxes

Tax-deadline season isn’t many people’s favorite time of the year, but most Americans are OK with the amount of tax they pay. It’s what other people pay, or don’t pay, that bothers them.

Just over half (54%) of Americans surveyed in fall by Pew Research Center said they pay about the right amount in taxes considering what they get from the federal government, versus 40% who said they pay more than their fair share. But in a separate 2015 surveyby the Center, some six-in-ten Americans said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share.

It’s true that corporations are funding a smaller share of overall government operations than they used to. In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues (though payroll taxes have grown considerably over that period).

Nor have corporate tax receipts kept pace with the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen 153% since 1980, while inflation-adjusted corporate tax receipts were 115% higher in fiscal 2015 than in fiscal 1980, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There have been a lot of ups and downs over that period, as corporate tax receipts tend to rise during expansions and drop off in recessions. In fiscal 2007, for instance, corporate taxes hit $370.2 billion (in current dollars), only to plunge to $138.2 billion in 2009 as businesses felt the impact of the Great Recession.

Corporations also employ battalions of tax lawyers to find ways to reduce their tax bills, from running income through subsidiaries in low-tax foreign countries to moving overseas entirely, in what’s known as a corporate inversion (a practice the Treasury Department has moved to discourage).

But in Tax Land, the line between corporations and people can be fuzzy. While most major corporations (“C corporations” in tax lingo) pay according to the corporate tax laws, many other kinds of businesses – sole proprietorships, partnerships and closely held “S corporations” – fall under the individual income tax code, because their profits and losses are passed through to individuals. And by design, wealthier Americans pay most of the nation’s total individual income taxes.

Wealthy pay more in taxes than poorIn 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.

The relative tax burdens borne by different income groups changes over time, due both to economic conditions and the constantly shifting provisions of tax law. For example, using more comprehensive IRS data covering tax years 2000 through 2011, we found that people who made between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 23.8% of the total tax liability in 2011, up from 18.8% in 2000. Filers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 group, on the other hand, paid 12% of the total liability in 2000 but only 9.1% in 2011. (The tax liability figures include a few taxes, such as self-employment tax and the “nanny tax,” that people typically pay along with their income taxes.)

All told, individual income taxes accounted for a little less than half (47.4%) of government revenue, a share that’s been roughly constant since World War II. The federal government collected $1.54 trillion from individual income taxes in fiscal 2015, making it the national government’s single-biggest revenue source. (Other sources of federal revenue include corporate income taxes, the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, excise taxes such as those on gasoline and cigarettes, estate taxes, customs duties and payments from the Federal Reserve.) Until the 1940s, when the income tax was expanded to help fund the war effort, generally only the very wealthy paid it.

Since the 1970s, the segment of federal revenues that has grown the most is the payroll tax – those line items on your pay stub that go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. For most people, in fact, payroll taxes take a bigger bite out of their paycheck than federal income tax. Why? The 6.2% Social Security withholding tax only applies to wages up to $118,500. For example, a worker earning $40,000 will pay $2,480 (6.2%) in Social Security tax, but an executive earning $400,000 will pay $7,347 (6.2% of $118,500), for an effective rate of just 1.8%. By contrast, the 1.45% Medicare tax has no upper limit, and in fact high earners pay an extra 0.9%.

All but the top-earning 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to a Treasury Department analysis.

Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

Of course, people can and will differ on whether any of this constitutes a “fair” tax system. Depending on their politics and personal situations, some would argue for a more steeply progressive structure, others for a flatter one. Finding the right balance can be challenging to the point of impossibility: As Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, is said to have remarked: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

Note: This is an update of an earlier post published March 24, 2015.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Distrust of Senate grows within GOP

A day after the GOP presented a united front around the rollout of President Trump’s tax plan, House Republicans are expressing deep reservations about the Senate’s ability to get the job done.

Lawmakers stung over the failure to pass ObamaCare repeal worry the same fate could befall the tax measure if a handful of senators raise objections.

Donald Trump won with an electoral landside and his three big campaign points were ObamaCare repeal, tax reform and border security. For a handful of senators to derail that agenda is very frustrating,” said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who is close to the House GOP leadership, says colleagues are frustrated with a handful of senators “overruling the will of the entire House.”

“We do need to see them step up and actually deliver for a change. We have over 200 bills sitting stalled over there. They haven’t been able to deliver on [health care] reform and they all ran on it and now we have a do-or-die moment on tax reform,” he said.

There’s also a sense among House Republicans that their Senate brethren aren’t under the same pressure to get results — perhaps because the GOP’s majority in the Senate is seen as safer in the 2018 midterm elections than the House majority.

“They put our majority in jeopardy with their failure on health care, more than they did their own,” Cole said.

While Republicans have a bigger majority in the House than in the Senate, the political map favors the Senate GOP in 2018.

Republicans only have to defend nine seats next year, and only one — held by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) — is in a state won by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Democrats are defending more than 20 seats, including 10 in states won by Trump.

In the House, Republicans represent 23 districts carried by Clinton, just shy of what Democrats would need to win to take back the majority.

Republicans are excited about moving to tax reform, and Trump’s plan received enthusiastic support at a half-day private retreat the House GOP held Wednesday to review it.

The president’s proposals to eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax received ovations.

But the mood turned more somber when Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) stood up to ask if the Senate could be counted on to pass tax legislation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

A spokesman for Poliquin did not respond to a request for comment.

“A lot of House members trust a lot of senators to introduce their own tax reform bills,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), alluding to how senators seek to show independence by offering their own bills.

House Republicans say they can easily see GOP Sens. Susan Collins(Maine), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who all voted against a slimmed-down ObamaCare repeal bill in July, bucking the leadership again.SPONSORED BY NEXT ADVISOR

“I do not understand what motivates John McCain,” King said. “I don’t know what goes on in the minds of folks from Maine.”

Earlier this year, in an illustration of the frustration House Republicans hold for the Senate hold-outs, Farenthold joked about challenging Collins to a duel. He later apologized.

McCain later told The Hill that the health-care bill was doomed because it’s virtually impossible to tackle something as huge as reform as health care on a partisan basis.

“If you’re going to pass a major reform, you got to have bipartisan support,” he said.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is making the case that Senate Republicans are more likely to come through on tax reform because McConnell and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have already negotiated a tax reform framework with the administration and House leaders.

“What we did differently in this go around is we spent the last four months basically working together, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, making sure that we’re on the same page,” Ryan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday morning.

Ryan explained that leaders made sure they did “the hard lifting, the tough work ahead of schedule, ahead of rollout.”

But he also acknowledged that House Republicans have just about run out of patience with the Senate after the collapse of health care reform this week.

“We’re really frustrated. Look, we passed 373 bills here in the House — 270-some are still in the Senate,” he said.

Already there are doubts that Senate Republicans will stick to the plan on taxes.

Hatch, who heads the Senate’s tax writing panel, told reporters Thursday afternoon that he would like to keep in place the deduction for state and local taxes, which the administration wants to eliminate to provide revenue for lower rates.

A spokeswoman for the Finance Committee said, “Chairman Hatch recognizes that every major provision within the tax code has an important constituency and consequence.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/352999-distrust-of-senate-grows-within-gop

Key Findings

  • This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23rd, 113 days into the year.
  • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden.
  • Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of more than $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.
  • Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2017 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.
  • If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 14 days later, on May 7.

What Is Tax Freedom Day?

Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day takes all federal, state, and local taxes—individual as well as payroll, sales and excise, corporate and property taxes—and divides them by the nation’s income. In 2017, Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total tax bill of $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of national income. This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23, 113 days into the year.

What Taxes Do We Pay?

This year, Americans will work the longest—46 days—to pay federal, state, and local individual income taxes. Payroll taxes will take 26 days to pay, followed by sales and excise taxes (15 days), corporate income taxes (10 days), and property taxes (10 days). The remaining six days are spent paying estate and inheritance taxes, customs duties, and other taxes.

When Is Tax Freedom Day if You Include Federal Borrowing?

Since 2002, federal expenses have surpassed federal revenues, with the budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion annually from 2009 to 2012. In calendar year 2017, the deficit is expected to shrink slightly, from $657 billion to $612 billion. If we include this annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 7, 14 days later. The latest ever deficit-inclusive Tax Freedom Day occurred during World War II, on May 25, 1945.

When Is My State’s Tax Freedom Day?

The total tax burden borne by residents across states varies considerably due to differing tax policies and the progressivity of the federal tax system. This means that states with higher incomes and higher taxes celebrate Tax Freedom Day later: Connecticut (May 21), New Jersey (May 13), and New York (May 11). Residents of Mississippi bear the lowest average tax burden in 2017, with their Tax Freedom Day having arrived on April 5. Also early were Tennessee (April 7) and South Dakota (April 8).

2017 Tax Freedom Day - State Dates

How Has Tax Freedom Day Changed over Time?

The latest ever Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000; in that year, Americans paid 33 percent of their total income in taxes. A century earlier, in 1900, Americans paid only 5.9 percent of their income in taxes, so that Tax Freedom Day came on January 22.

Tax Freedom Day Over Time

Methodology

In the denominator, we count every dollar that is officially part of net national income according to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the numerator, we count every payment to the government that is officially considered a tax. Taxes at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—are included in the calculation. In calculating Tax Freedom Day for each state, we look at taxes borne by residents of that state, whether paid to the federal government, their own state or local governments, or governments of other states. Where possible, we allocate tax burdens to each taxpayer’s state of residence. Leap days are excluded, to allow comparison across years, and any fraction of a day is rounded up to the next calendar day

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/tax-freedom-day/

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit

By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 13, 2017 | 4:28 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government collected record total tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016 through the end of August), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Through August, the federal government collected approximately $2,966,172,000,000 in total tax revenues.

That was $8,450,680,000 more (in constant 2017 dollars) than the previous record of $2,957,721,320,000 in total tax revenues (in 2017 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2016.

At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.

Individual income taxes have provided the largest share (47.9 percent) of federal revenues so far this fiscal year. From Oct. 1 through the end of August, the Treasury collected $1,421,997,000,000 in individual income taxes.

Payroll taxes provided the second largest share (35.9 percent), with the Treasury collecting $1,065,751,000,000 in these taxes.

The $233,631 in corporate income taxes collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 equaled only 8.6 percent of total tax collections.

The $21,172,000,000 collected in estate and gift taxes equaled only 0.71 percent of total taxes collected this fiscal year.

(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

The Latest: State legislatures ‘dismayed’ by GOP tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Republican plan to overhaul the tax code (all times local):

4:40 p.m.

An organization that advocates for state legislatures says it’s “dismayed” the Republican tax cut proposal unveiled Wednesday would do away with a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says the deduction has existed in the federal tax code since its inception. The group says “tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers of every political affiliation” would experience a greater tax burden if the deduction were eliminated.

The group says the deduction’s elimination will also impede states in their efforts to invest in education and other public services.

About a third of tax filers itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns. The Tax Policy Center says virtually all who do claim a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

___

4:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump is issuing a warning shot to Indiana’s Democratic senator: Support my tax overhaul or I’ll campaign against you next year.

Trump says at a tax event in Indiana that if Sen. Joe Donnelly doesn’t approve the plan, “we will come here and we will campaign against him like you wouldn’t believe.”

But Trump is predicting that numerous Democrats will come across the aisle and support his plan “because it’s the right thing to do.”

The president has made overtures to Democratic senators like Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota in recent weeks. All three are facing re-election in 2018.

___

4 p.m.

Small business advocates are split over the draft of the new Republican tax plan.

The National Federation of Independent Business is praising the proposal to tax business income at 20 percent — including sole proprietors whose business income is taxed at individual rates up to 39.6 percent.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says the plan would simplify business taxes, encourage business investment and increase owners’ confidence.

But the Small Business Majority says the plan wouldn’t help most small companies, and the current top rate is paid by less than 2 percent of those businesses.

And John O’Neill, a tax analyst at the American Sustainable Business Council, says tax reform isn’t as useful to the economy as investing in infrastructure and education.

President Donald Trump is calling the current tax system a “relic” and a “colossal barrier” that’s standing in the way of the nation’s economic comeback.

Trump says at an event in Indianapolis that his tax proposal will help middle-class families save money and will eliminate loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

Trump says the wealthy “can call me all they want. It’s not going to help.” The billionaire president says he’s “doing the right thing. And it’s not good for me, believe me.”

The president says under his plan, “the vast majority of families will be able to file their taxes on a single sheet of paper.”

__

3:40 p.m.

President Donald Trump is making the case for a sweeping plan to overhaul the tax system for individuals and corporations. He calls it a “once in a generation” opportunity to cut taxes.

The president says in Indiana that he wants to cut taxes for middle-class families to make the system simpler and fairer.

Trump says his tax plan will “bring back the jobs and the wealth that have left our country.” He says it’s time for the nation to fight for American workers.

He’s praising his vice president, Mike Pence, Indiana’s former governor. Trump says, “it’s time for Washington to learn from the wisdom of Indiana.”

__

2:52 p.m.

A budget watchdog group in Washington says the new GOP tax plan could cost $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget admits its estimate is very preliminary since so many details are unclear, but its take is that the plan contains about $5.8 trillion in tax cuts but only $3.6 trillion worth of offsetting tax increases. That $2.2 trillion would be added to the nation’s $20 trillion debt.

That’s more than the $1.5 trillion debt cost that has emerged in a deal among Senate Republicans.

Republicans controlling Congress initially promised that the overhaul of the tax code wouldn’t add to the debt. The group also notes that the $2.2 trillion cost could grow by another $500 billion when interest costs are added in.

_____

1:54 p.m.

President Donald Trump says he’s always wanted to reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent — even though he said repeatedly he wanted to see it lowered to 15 percent.

Trump told reporters as he departed Washington for Indiana on Wednesday afternoon that a 20 percent rate was his “red line” and that it had always been his goal.

“In fact, I wanted to start at 15 so that we got 20,” he said, adding: “20′s my number.”

Trump also denies the plan unveiled by the White House and congressional Republicans Wednesday would benefit the wealthy.

He says: “I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

Under the plan, corporations would see their top tax rate cut from 35 percent to 20 percent.

____

1:37 p.m.

A vocal group of the most conservative House Republicans has come out in support of a draft tax plan endorsed by both President Donald Trump and top congressional GOP leaders.

The House Freedom Caucus endorsement is noteworthy because it could ease House passage of a budget plan that’s the first step to advancing the tax cut measure through Congress.

The group says the outline will allow workers to “keep more of their money,” while simplifying the loophole-choked tax code and making U.S. companies more competitive with their foreign rivals.

The group had held up action on the budget measure as they demanded more details on taxes.

_____

11:21 a.m.

President Donald Trump has two red lines that he refuses to cross on overhauling taxes: the corporate rate must be cut to 20 percent and the savings must go to the middle class.

Gary Cohn, the president’s top economics aide, says any overhaul signed by the president needs to include these two elements.

Trump had initially pushed for cutting the 39.6 percent corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

The administration says that the benefits of any tax cut will not favor the wealthy, with Cohn saying that an additional tax bracket could be added to levy taxes on the top one percent of earners if needed.

_____

11:20 a.m.

The Senate’s top Democrat is blasting a new tax cut plan backed by President Donald Trump as a giveaway to the rich.

Sen. Chuck Schumer says Trump’s plan only gives “crumbs” to the middle class, while top-bracket earners making more than a half-million dollars a year would reap a windfall.

The New York Democrat also blasted the plan for actually increasing the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent, calling it a “punch to the gut of working Americans.”

Schumer said the plan is little more than an “across-the-board tax cut for America’s millionaires and billionaires.”

The plan, to be officially released Wednesday afternoon, is the top item on Washington’s agenda after the GOP failure to repeal the Obama health care law.

_____

9:53 a.m.

A new Republican blueprint for overhauling the U.S. tax code employs the themes of economic populism that President Donald Trump trumpeted during the presidential campaign to win support from working-class voters.

A copy of the plan to be released later Wednesday says, “Too many in our country are shut out of the dynamism of the U.S. economy.” That’s led to what the plans says is “the justifiable feeling that the system is rigged against hardworking Americans.”

The plan, obtained by The Associated Press, says the Trump administration and Congress “will work together to produce tax reform that will put America first.”

The GOP plan for the first major rewrite of the U.S. tax code in 30 years also says corporations will be stopped from shipping jobs and capital overseas.

_____

9:20 a.m.

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are proposing a tax plan that they say will be simple and fair.

In a document obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday, they outline a blueprint for almost doubling the standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly to $24,000, and $12,000 for individuals.

The plan calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. The GOP proposal also calls for reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three with a surcharge on the wealthiest Americans.

The plan also leaves intact the deduction for mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

The White House and Republicans plan a formal roll out later Wednesday.

__

4:26 a.m.

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are rolling out a sweeping plan to cut taxes for individuals and corporations, simplify the tax system, and likely double the standard deduction used by most Americans.

Months in the making, the plan meets a political imperative for Republicans to deliver an overhaul of the U.S. tax code after the failure of the health care repeal.

The public reveal of the plan was set for Wednesday. The day before, details emerged on Capitol Hill while Trump personally appealed to House Republicans and Democrats at the White House to get behind his proposal.

https://apnews.com/f609602269d54524aa14e1d9c74ec97c

 

President Trump spoke about his administration’s tax reform plan in Indianapolis on Wednesday.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The tax plan that the Trump administration outlined on Wednesday is a potentially huge windfall for the wealthiest Americans. It would not directly benefit the bottom third of the population. As for the middle class, the benefits appear to be modest.

The administration and its congressional allies are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of business income, primarily benefiting the small share of the population that owns the vast majority of corporate equity. President Trump said on Wednesday that the cuts would increase investment and spur growth, creating broader prosperity. But experts say the upside is limited, not least because the economy is already expanding.

The plan would also benefit Mr. Trump and other affluent Americans by eliminating the estate tax, which affects just a few thousand uber-wealthy families each year, and the alternative minimum tax, a safety net designed to prevent tax avoidance.

The precise impact on Mr. Trump cannot be ascertained because the president refuses to release his tax returns, but the few snippets of returns that have become public show one thing clearly: The alternative minimum tax has been unkind to Mr. Trump. In 2005, it forced him to pay $31 million in additional taxes.

Mr. Trump has also pledged repeatedly that the plan would reduce the taxes paid by middle-class families, but he has not provided enough details to evaluate that claim. While some households would probably get tax cuts, others could end up paying more.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-10/html/container.html

The plan would not benefit lower-income households that do not pay federal income taxes. The president is not proposing measures like a reduction in payroll taxes, which are paid by a much larger share of workers, nor an increase in the earned-income tax credit, which would expand wage support for the working poor.

Indeed, to call the plan “tax reform” seems like a stretch — Mr. Trump himself told conservative and evangelical leaders on Monday that it was more apt to refer to his plan as “tax cuts.” Mr. Trump’s proposal echoes the large tax cuts that President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, and President George W. Bush, in 2001, passed in the first year of their terms, not the 1986 overhaul of the tax code that he often cites. Like his Republican predecessors, Mr. Trump says cutting taxes will increase economic growth.

Photo

The public portion of the debt equaled 24 percent of the gross domestic product in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut at his vacation home near Santa Barbara, Calif. In June of this year, the debt equaled 75 percent of economic output. CreditAssociated Press

“It’s time to take care of our people, to rebuild our nation and to fight for our great American workers,” Mr. Trump told a crowd in Indianapolis.

But the moment is very different. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush cut taxes during recessions. Mr. Trump is proposing to cut taxes during one of the longest economic expansions in American history. It is not clear that the economy can grow much faster; the Federal Reserve has warned that it will seek to offset any stimulus by raising interest rates.

At the time of the earlier cuts, the federal debt was considerably smaller. The public portion of the debt equaled 24 percent of the gross domestic product in 1981, and 31 percent in 2001. In June, the debt equaled 75 percent of economic output.

The Trump administration insists that its tax cut will catalyze such an economic boom that money will flow into the federal coffers and the debt will not rise. The Reagan and Bush administrations made similar claims. The debt soared in both instances.

Another issue: Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan proposed to cut taxes when federal revenues had climbed unusually high as a share of the national economy.

Mr. Trump wants to cut taxes while revenues are close to an average level.

Since 1981, federal revenue has averaged 17.1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, while federal spending has averaged 20.3 percent.

Last year’s numbers were close to the long-term trend: Federal revenue was 17.5 percent of gross domestic product; spending was 20.7 percent.

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economics professor and a longtime adviser to Republican presidents, said that the moment was not perfect, but that Mr. Trump should nevertheless press ahead because the changes would be valuable.

“The debt is moving in the wrong direction,” Mr. Feldstein said. “But the tax reform is moving in the right direction.”

Proponents of the plan assert that the largest benefits are indirect. In particular, they argue that cutting corporate taxes will unleash economic growth.

Mr. Trump’s plan is more focused on business tax cuts than the Reagan and Bush plans, and economists agree that this makes economic gains more likely.

The key elements are large reductions in the tax rates for business income: To 20 percent for corporations, and to 25 percent for “pass-through” businesses, a broad category that includes everything from mom-and-pop neighborhood shops to giant investment partnerships, law firms — and real estate developers.

The plan also lets businesses immediately deduct the full cost of new investments.

“You’re going to get a boost in investment,” said William Gale, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “It’s hard to argue that there won’t be a positive effect.”

But Mr. Gale added that there are reasons to think it would be modest.

The most important is that the economy is already growing at a faster pace than the Fed considers sustainable. “Economy roaring,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Photo

After President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid 34.7 percent of their income in taxes, while Americans in the middle income brackets paid 16.1 percent. CreditRon Edmonds/Associated Press

Also, interest rates are low, and nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.84 trillion that they don’t want to spend. “It’s not lack of funds that’s stopping companies from investing,” Mr. Gale said.

And the stimulus would come at the cost of increased federal borrowing. Interest rates might not rise if foreigners provide the necessary money, as happened in the 1980s and the 2000s, but that means some of the benefits also end up abroad.

It’s a venerable principle that lower tax rates encourage corporate investment. But a study of a 2003 cut in the tax rate on corporate dividendsfound no discernible impact on investment. The finding would not have surprised Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary at the time, Paul O’Neill, who was fired for opposing the plan. “You find somebody who says, ‘I do more R & D because I get a tax credit for it,’ you’ll find a fool,” Mr. O’Neill, a former Alcoa chairman, said at the time.

Mr. Trump’s plan also continues a long-term march away from progressive taxation. The federal income tax is the centerpiece of a longstanding bipartisan consensus that wealthy Americans should pay an outsize share of the cost of government.

But successive rounds of tax cuts have eroded that premise, according to research by the economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley. In 1980, the wealthiest Americans paid 59 percent of their income in taxes while the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 24.5 percent. After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid 34.7 percent of their income in taxes, while Americans in the middle income brackets paid 16.1 percent.

Under President Barack Obama, Congress increased taxation of upper-income households. Mr. Trump is seeking to resume the long-term trend toward flattening the curve. Upper-income households would get large tax cuts; lower-income households would get none.

The exact impact on the middle class is not yet clear. The outline released Wednesday proposes new tax brackets but does not specify income thresholds. It also proposes to replace the current tax deduction for each dependent with a child tax credit — but the administration did not propose a dollar amount for that new credit.

 

The administration said Wednesday that it was committed “to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code.” That language, however, applies only to personal income taxes. The proposed reduction of business taxes and the elimination of the estate tax would both disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans.

“I don’t think there’s any way to justify this as a progressive proposal,” said Lily Batchelder, a law professor at New York University who served as deputy director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council. “In broad brush strokes, they’re doing nothing for the bottom 35 percent, they’re doing very little and possibly raising taxes on the middle class, and they’ve specified tax cuts for the wealthy.”

 

Tax reform: Trump, GOP mull surcharge on wealthy, doubling standard deduction

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(<cite>Evan Vucci</cite>)
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are considering an income tax surcharge on the wealthy and doubling the standard deduction given to most Americans, with the GOP under pressure to overhaul the tax code after the collapse of the health care repeal.

On the eve of the grand rollout of the plan, details emerged on Capitol Hill on Tuesday while Trump personally appealed to House Republicans and Democrats at the White House to get behind his proposal.

“We will cut taxes tremendously for the middle class. Not just a little bit but tremendously,” Trump said as he met with members of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. He predicted jobs “will be coming back in because we have a non-competitive tax structure right now and we’re going to go super competitive.”

Among the details: repeal of the tax on multimillion-dollar estates, a reduction in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and potentially four tax brackets, down from the current seven. The current top rate for individuals, those earning more than $418,000 a year, is 39.6 percent.

The goal is a more simple tax code that would spur economic growth and make U.S. companies more competitive. Delivering on the top legislative goal will be crucial for Republicans intent on holding onto their majorities in next year’s midterm elections.

The tax overhaul plan assembled by the White House and GOP leaders, which would slash the rate for corporations, aims at the first major revamp of the tax system in three decades. It would deliver a major Trump campaign pledge.

The outlines of the plan were described by GOP officials who demanded anonymity to disclose private deliberations.

The plan would likely cut the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. A new surcharge on wealthy taxpayers might soften the appearance of the wealthiest Americans and big corporations benefiting from generous tax cuts.

Republicans already were picking at the framework, pointing up how divisions within GOP ranks can complicate efforts to overhaul taxes as has happened with the series of moves to repeal the Obama health care law.

Details of the proposal crafted behind closed doors over months by top White House economic officials, GOP congressional leaders and the Republican heads of tax-writing panels in the House and Senate were set to be released Wednesday. Trump and the Republicans were putting the final touches on the plan when the Democrats were brought in. A senior Democrat saw it as the opening of negotiations.

Trump had previously said he wanted a 15 percent rate for corporations, but House Speaker Paul Ryan has called that impractically low and has said it would risk adding to the soaring $20 trillion national debt.

Trump said Tuesday some of the components included doubling the standard deduction used by families and increasing the child tax credit. He said the majority of Americans would be able to file their taxes on a single page. “We must make our tax code simple and fair. It’s too complicated,” Trump said.

Some conservative GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, dug their heels in on the shape of the plan.

Rep. Mark Meadows, head of the House Freedom Caucus, said he’d vote against tax legislation if it provided for a corporate tax rate over 20 percent, a rate for small businesses higher than 25 percent, or if it fails to call for a doubling of the standard deduction.

“That’s the red line for me,” Meadows said at a forum of conservative lawmakers. He noted he was speaking personally, not as head of the conservative grouping.

Disgruntlement came from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., over the process of putting together the plan.

“I get that we want to move to 3 percent but I’d like to know how,” Kennedy said referring to Trump’s ambitious goal of annual growth in the economy through tax cuts. “I’m not much into all the secrecy,” he said. “We need to do this by November, and at the rate we’re going I’m not encouraged right now.”

The Democrats, while acknowledging the tax system should be simplified, have insisted that any tax relief should go to the middle class, not the wealthiest. Tax cuts shouldn’t add to the ballooning debt, the Democrats say.

Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, came away from the White House meeting in a negotiating mood. “This is when the process gets kicked off,” Neal told reporters at the Capitol.

The rate for wealthiest taxpayers shouldn’t be reduced, he said. Democrats are concerned by indications from Trump and his officials that “they intend to offer tax relief to people at the top,” he said.

Still, there may be room to negotiate over the Republicans’ insistence on repealing the estate tax, Neal indicated, since “there are other things you can do with it” to revise it short of complete elimination.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/09/tax_reform_trump_gop_mull_surcharge_on_wealthy_doubling_standard_deduction.html

9 ways Trump’s tax plan is a gift to the rich, including himself

President Trump and congressional Republicans keep saying their tax plan doesn’t help the rich. But that’s not true.

The nine-page outline released Wednesday is full of goodies that will make millionaires and billionaires happy. Republicans say it’s a starting point, but it would have to be turned on its head to be anything other than a windfall for the wealthy. In fact, in nine pages, The Washington Post counts at least nine ways the wealthy benefit, including Trump himself. Here’s our list:

1) A straight-up tax cut for the rich. The top tax rate in the United States is 39.6 percent. Trump and GOP leaders propose lowering that to 35 percent. It’s also worth noting the 39.6 percent tax rate applies only to income above $418,400 for singles and $470,700 for married couples. The outline doesn’t specify what income level the new 35 percent rate would kick in at. It’s possible the rich will get an every bigger tax cut if the final plan raises that threshold.

2) The estate tax goes bye-bye. Trump likes to call the estate tax the “death tax.” At the moment, Americans who pass money, homes or other assets on to heirs when they die pay a 40 percent tax. But here’s the important part Trump leaves out: The only people who have to pay this tax are those passing on more than $5.49 million. (And a married couple can inherit nearly $11 million without paying the tax.)

September 28 at 12:45 PM

Trump frequently claims the estate tax hurts farmers and small-business owners. But as The Post’s Fact Checker team points out, only 5,500 estates will pay any estate tax at all in 2017 (out of about 3 million estates). And of those 5,500 hit with the tax, only 80 (yes, you read that right) are farms or small businesses.

3) Hedge funds and lawyers get a special tax break. The plan calls for the tax rate on “pass-through entities” to fall from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. Republicans claim this is a tax break for small-business owners because “pass-through entities” is an umbrella term that covers the ways most people set up businesses: sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations. But the reality is, most small-business owners (more than 85 percent) already pay a tax rate of 25 percent or less, according to the Brookings Institution.

Only 3 percent pay a rate greater than 30 percent. That 3 percent includes doctors, lawyers, hedge fund managers and other really well-off people. Instead of paying a 35 percent income tax, these rich business owners would be able to pass off their income as business income and pay only a 25 percent tax rate. (The tax outline released Wednesday “contemplates” that Congress “will adopt measures to prevent” this kind of tax dodging. But there’s no guarantee that will happen).

4) The AMT is over. Republicans want to kill the alternative minimum tax, a measure put in place in 1969 to ensure the wealthy aren’t using a bunch of loopholes and credits to lower their tax bills to paltry sums. The AMT starts to phase in for people with earnings of about $130,000, but the vast majority of people subject to the AMT earn over $500,000, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Trump himself would benefit from repealing the AMT. As The Post’s Fact Checker team notes, Trump’s leaked tax return from 2005 shows that the AMT increased his tax bill from about $5.3 million to $36.5 million. In 2005 alone, he potentially could have saved $31 million.

5) The wealthy get to keep deducting mortgage interest. Only about 1 in 4 taxpayers claims the mortgage interest deduction, the Brookings Institution says. “Upper-income households primarily benefit from the subsidy,” wrote Brookings scholar Bruce Katz in a report last year. In fact, the wealthy can deduct interest payments on mortgages worth up to $1 million. There have been many calls over the years to lower that threshold, but the Trump tax plan is keeping it in place.

The GOP is doing this even though the tax cuts would add to the United States’ debt, since it doesn’t raise enough revenue to offset all the money lost from the new tax breaks. The outline also calls for the charitable deduction to stay, another deduction used heavily by the top 1 percent.

6) Stockholders are going to be very happy. Trump is calling for a super-low tax rate on the money big businesses such as Apple and Microsoft bring back to the United States from overseas, a process known as “repatriation.” Trump argues companies will use all this money coming home to build new U.S. factories. But the last time the United States did this, in the early 2000s, it ended up being a big win for people who own stocks. Companies simply took most of the money and gave it to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks.

Guess what? Just about everyone (outside the White House) predicts the same thing will happen again. Corporations are even admitting it.

7) The favorite tax break of hedge fund billionaires is still safe. There’s no mention in the tax-overhaul rubric of “carried interest.” Those two words make most people’s eyes glaze over, but they are a well-known tax-dodging trick for millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street. Hedge fund and private-equity managers earn most of their money from their investments doing well. But instead of paying income taxes on all that money at a rate of 39.6 percent, the managers are able to claim it as “carried interest” so they can pay tax at the low capital gains rate of 20 percent.

Trump called this totally unfair on the campaign trail. During the primaries, he said he would eliminate this loophole because hedge fund managers were “getting away with murder.” But that change didn’t end up in the GOP plan.

8) Capital gains taxes stay low. The nine-page document also says nothing about capital gains, the tax rate people pay when they finally sell a stock or asset after holding on to it for many years. At the moment, the wealthiest Americans pay a 20 percent capital gains rate. Trump and Republican leaders aren’t proposing any changes to that, even though it is a popular way for millionaires to lower their tax bill.

9) The Obamacare investment tax goes away. The Affordable Care Act put in place a 3.8 percent surcharge on investment income (known formally as the Net Investment Income Tax). It applies only to individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples earning more than $250,000. There’s no mention of this tax in the outline released this week, but Republicans clearly want to get rid of it. Repealing it was part of the GOP health-care bills that failed to pass Congress in recent weeks. One way or another, Republicans are likely to roll back this tax.

When reporters asked Trump whether the tax plan would help him personally, he quickly said no.

“No, I don’t benefit. I don’t benefit,” Trump said. “In fact, very, very strongly, as you see, I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), who was part of the team that worked with the White House to craft the tax-overhaul outline, was asked a similar question on Fox News. He, too, said this plan does little to help the rich.

“I think those who benefit most are middle-class families struggling to keep every dollar they earn,” Brady told Fox News.

But one look at this plan tells a very different story. It gives an outright tax cut to the wealthiest Americans and it preserves almost all of the most popular loopholes they use to reduce their tax bills.

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), a strong proponent of tax cuts, was more straightforward this week. He told reporters, “This is a supply-side approach,” another way of saying trickle-down economics.

Read more:

The GOP tax plan, explained in simplest possible terms

Fact-checking President Trump’s tax speech in Indianapolis

The one surefire way to grow your wealth in the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/28/9-ways-trumps-tax-plan-is-a-gift-to-the-rich-including-himself/?utm_term=.bb9dafe36550

The GOP tax plan, explained in simplest possible terms

The big tax code makeover President Trump and Republicans have been promising for months is finally out.

It’s nine pages long. That may sound like a lengthy document, but the final bill in Congress will be hundreds of pages. What the White House released today is a framework. It’s a summary of what top Trump officials and congressional Republican leaders have agreed to so far. The Trump administration says it’s the job of Congress to flesh out the specifics.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • The plan will likely add to America’s $20 trillion debt. There are lots of tax cuts spelled out. There are almost no loopholes eliminated.
  • The rich make out pretty well. The White House vows poor people won’t have to pay more than they do now, but there are few specifics in the plan so far to ensure that.
  • Businesses (both small and large) get major tax cuts.
  • Most people will pay lower taxes, although it’s unclear if the rich get a bigger break than the middle class.
  • There are still a lot of details Congress has to figure out.

What’s in there for the rich?
The wealthy get a tax cut. They will pay only 35 percent on their income taxes (down from 39.6 percent). At the moment, this rate applies to any income above about $418,000. It’s unclear if Congress will tinker with the income level that rate kicks in at. Trump says he would be fine with Congress raising taxes on the rich in the final plan, but he isn’t requiring that they do that.

The bigger tax break for the rich is the elimination of the estate tax, sometimes called the “death tax.” It’s the tax families currently pay when an asset like a house or ranch worth over $5.49 million is passed down to a heir after someone dies. Trump’s plan scraps this tax entirely.

What’s in there for the middle class?
This is the giant question mark. There’s a lot of details left for Congress to fill out. Under the plan, America will have just three tax rates: 35, 25 and 12 percent, but we don’t know yet which rate someone earning $50,000 or $80,000 will pay.

What we do know is the standard deduction (currently $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for married couples) will nearly double. This means that a married couple earning $24,000 or less or an individual earning $12,000 or less won’t pay any taxes. But the plan also eliminates what’s known as the additional standard deduction and the popular personal exemption. Some filers may end up worse off after these changes.

The plan also promises a “significant increase” to the child tax credit (it’s currently $1,000 per child) and that middle class Americans can keep using the mortgage interest deduction as well as tax breaks for retirement savings (e.g. 401ks) and higher education. But it eliminates the state and local tax deduction, which is used by many in high-tax states like New York and California.

Can I really file my taxes on a postcard?
The “file on a postcard” idea was an exaggeration. The goal now is to get most people’s tax returns down to one page.

What about the working poor?
A senior White House official told journalists Tuesday, “We are committed to making the tax code at least as progressive as the current tax code.” Translation: The poor should not end up paying more than they do now. But it’s hard to check if that’s true because we still don’t have enough details.

In theory, increasing the standard deduction should mean that more Americans pay $0 in taxes, but it depends what happens to a lot of other tax provisions (and whether Congress ends up cutting safety net programs that help the poor to pay for tax cuts). Top Republican officials have not decided what to do with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is widely used by the working poor to help them reduce their tax bill and even get a small amount of money back from the government.

What happens to the Alternative Minimum Tax?
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would go away under the plan. It currently applies mainly to individuals earning more than $130,000 and married couples earning more than $160,00. It was created in the 1970s to prevent wealthier families from taking so many tax breaks that they end up paying little to no taxes, but over the years, the AMT has impacted more and more families.

What happens to big businesses?
America’s large corporations will get a big tax cut. The top rate at the moment is 35 percent, one of the highest rates among developed nations. Most U.S. companies don’t pay that rate, but it is still a starting point. The Trump plan slashes the rate to 20 percent, just below the average of major developed countries the U.S. competes against.

The White House and Congress promised to close some loopholes that businesses currently enjoy, but no one is saying what those are yet. In fact, the only details we have show MORE business goodies, not less. The plan calls for businesses to be able to write off their investments (e.g. the cost of building a new factory) right away instead of crediting a little bit each year for several years. This is supposed to encourage companies to invest more, which will hopefully create more jobs.

What happens to small businesses?
Small businesses also get a tax cut under the plan. At the moment, many small business owners pay whatever their personal income tax rate is, so some end up paying as much as 39.6 percent. Under this plan, most “pass throughs” (code for small businesses) would pay at the 25 percent rate (the exception is if a small businesses earned very little income, they might be able to pay at the 12 percent rate).

There’s concern some rich people, especially hedge fund managers and consultants to the stars, will simply use this as a way to lower their tax bill. Instead of paying at the new 35 percent top income tax rate, they could say all their income is small business income and pay at the 25 percent rate. Trump has promised to fix that problem, but no one is sure how.

How will this plan help growth?
Trump’s big claim is that this tax overhaul will unleash economic growth. The United States has been growing at about 2 percent a year lately, below the historic norm. Trump keeps saying this plan will unleash growth of 3 percent — or more.

Economists, even those who work at Wall Street banks and for big companies, only project a modest boost to growth. Estimates range from 2.1 percent to 2.25 percent.

How much will this add to the debt?
Originally, Republican leaders said they would not add $1 to America’s debt, but that promise appears to be gone. The White House says it will go along with whatever price tag Congress allows. Right now, Senate Republicans have a deal to add $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade, so there’s a good chance this tax plan will add to the debt.

What are the pitfalls?
There’s a ton we don’t know yet. Many on the left are concerned this plan gives away too much to the rich and big businesses. Many across the political spectrum are alarmed that it will likely add to America’s already large debt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/27/the-gop-tax-plan-explained-in-simplest-possible-terms/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4de9a2bfc9ce

Some tax breaks are for the rich.
Others for the poor. Which are for you?

The Republican tax reform plan is finally out – you can read the full document here. The framework touches on many parts of the tax code, but two critical areas are tax deductions and credits. These reduce how much taxpayers owe, but they affect income groups differently. How could the proposed changes to these policies affect your taxes?

Most beneficial tax deductions and exemptions, 2015

Deductions and exemptions reduce your tax bill by decreasing your taxable income.

Other deductionsState and local taxesCharitable contributionsReal estate taxesEmployee business expensesMedical/dental expensesHome mortgage interestStandard deductionPersonal and dependent exemptions$10,000$25,000$50,000$100,000$500,000Lower incomeHigher income$30,000 to $40,000
DEDUCTION MEAN DEDUCTION*
Personal and dependent exemptions (?) $7,700
Standard deduction (?) $7,100
Home mortgage interest (?) $700
Medical/dental expenses (?) $500
Employee business expenses (?) $400
Real estate taxes (?) $400
Charitable contributions (?) $300
State and local taxes (?) $200
Other deductions $200

* Mean deduction is the total deduction amount received by the income group divided by the number of returns in that group, including those that did not receive the deduction.

Note: Returns for those filing singly and those filing jointly or in other categories are lumped together. Tax returns cannot claim both the standard deductions and itemized deductions. Total deductions and exemptions can exceed adjusted gross income, but the excess does not affect taxes owed, as taxable income cannot drop below zero.

Taxpayers – except the highest earners – are currently eligible for tax “exemptions” to reduce their taxable income. In 2016, Americans could take a $4,050 personal exemption from their income (double if filing as a married couple), and then get additional exemptions for dependents.

After exemptions taxpayers can further reduce their taxable income by taking tax deductions. 69 percent of taxpayers in 2015 took the “standard deduction,” a fixed amount that is currently $6,300 for (most) taxpayers filing singly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.09de159b6eeb

subscribe
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

The remaining taxpayers – mostly in higher income groups – “itemized” their tax returns, meaning they chose to take advantage of more specific tax deductions based on their expenses. The deductions came out to more than they would have gotten through the standard deduction.

Here’s what the Republican’s tax reform framework would change about deductions:

  • Republicans want to nearly double the standard deduction to $12,000 for those filing singly and $24,000 for those filing jointly. At the same time, the framework calls for the repeal of exemptions, consolidating these different parts of the tax system.
  • The framework aims to simplify the tax code by gutting many itemized deductions, although charitable contributions and mortgage interestwould be retained. That makes the state and local taxes deduction (SALT) a major target. SALT lets you deduct state and local income or sales taxes you owe from your federal taxable income and largely benefits blue states with higher taxes.

Most beneficial tax credits, 2015

Tax credits are subtracted directly from taxes owed.

Prior-year minimum tax creditGeneral business creditResidential energy creditsForeign tax creditChild care creditOther creditsAmerican opportunity creditNonrefundable education creditChild tax creditAdditional child tax creditEarned income credit$10,000$25,000$50,000$100,000$500,000Lower incomeHigher income$30,000 to $40,000
CREDIT MEAN CREDIT*
Earned income credit (?) $500
Additional child tax credit (?) $300
Child tax credit (?) $200
Nonrefundable education credit (?) $100
American opportunity credit (?) $100
Other credits $0
Child care credit (?) $0
Foreign tax credit (?) $0
Residential energy credits (?) $0
General business credit (?) $0
Prior-year minimum tax credit (?) $0

* Mean credit is the total credit amount received by the income group divided by the number of returns in that group, including those that did not receive the credit.

Note: Returns for those filing singly and those filing jointly or in other categories are lumped together.

Credits can reduce federal income taxes owed down to zero, but “refundable” credits can reduce them even more, allowing some taxpayers to receive a net gain from the federal government after filing.

Here’s what the Republican’s tax reform framework would change about credits:

  • The plan calls for an expansion of the child tax credit, increasing its value from the current $1,000 max and making it available to more income groups. The framework also proposes an additional $500 non-refundable credit for “non-child dependents.”
  • Like with deductions, the framework calls for the repeal of “numerous other” credits to simplify the tax code but does not specify which policies will be targeted.

Just part of the picture

Of course, the tax policies we’re looking at above are just part of U.S. federal tax code. Actual income tax rates are central to tax reform proposals; the Republican tax reform framework would reduce the seven income brackets currently used to just three, lowering rates for many but increasing them for some in the lowest bracket. It also calls for the repeal of the estate tax.

The plan also proposes a large decrease in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent, among many other changes to the business tax code.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.09de159b6eeb

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2014, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

  • In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes.
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.
  • In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.
  • The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

Reported Income and Taxes Paid Both Increased Significantly in 2014

Taxpayers reported $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 139.5 million tax returns in 2014. Total AGI grew by $675 billion from the previous year’s levels. There were 1.2 million more returns filed in 2014 than in 2013, meaning that average AGI rose by $4,252 per return, or 6.5 percent.

Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes in 2014, an 11.5 percent increase from taxes paid in the previous year. The average individual income tax rate for all taxpayers rose from 13.64 percent to 14.16 percent. Moreover, the average tax rate increased for all income groups, except for the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, whose average rate decreased from 27.91 percent to 27.67 percent.

The most likely explanation behind the higher tax rates in 2014 is a phenomenon known as “real bracket creep.” [2] As incomes rise, households are pushed into higher tax brackets, and are subject to higher overall tax rates on their income. On the other hand, the likely reason why the top 0.1 percent of households saw a slightly lower tax rate in 2014 is because a higher portion of their income consisted of long-term capital gains, which are subject to lower tax rates.[3]

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent rose to 20.58 percent of total AGI, up from 19.04 percent in 2013. The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent also rose, from 37.80 percent in 2013 to 39.48 percent in 2014.

Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% All Taxpayers
Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2014
Number of Returns 1,395,620 6,978,102 13,956,203 34,890,509 69,781,017 69,781,017 139,562,034
Adjusted Gross Income ($ millions) $1,997,819 $3,490,867 $4,583,416 $6,690,287 $8,614,544 $1,094,119 $9,708,663
Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income 20.58% 35.96% 47.21% 68.91% 88.73% 11.27% 100.00%
Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) $542,640 $824,153 $974,124 $1,192,679 $1,336,637 $37,740 $1,374,379
Share of Total Income Taxes Paid 39.48% 59.97% 70.88% 86.78% 97.25% 2.75% 100.00%
Income Split Point $465,626 $188,996 $133,445 $77,714 $38,173
Average Tax Rate 27.16% 23.61% 21.25% 17.83% 15.52% 3.45% 14.16%
 Note: Does not include dependent filers

High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2014, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $38,173) earned 11.27 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $38 billion in taxes, or 2.75 percent of all income taxes in 2014.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $465,626 and above) earned 20.58 percent of all AGI in 2014, but paid 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes.

Figure 1.

High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates

The 2014 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher average individual income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.[4]

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs below $38,173) faced an average income tax rate of 3.45 percent. As household income increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($133,445 and $188,996) pay an average rate of 13.7 percent – almost four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $465,626 and above) paid the highest effective income tax rate, at 27.2 percent, 7.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers.

Figure 2.

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent (with AGIs over $2.14 million), paid an even higher average tax rate, of 27.7 percent.

573 $442 $1,015 $458 $1,473 $318
1982 $1,876 $167 $398 $207 $605 $460 $1,065 $478 $1,544 $332
1983 $1,970 $183 $428 $217 $646 $481 $1,127 $498 $1,625 $344
1984 $2,173 $210 $482 $240 $723 $528 $1,251 $543 $1,794 $379
1985 $2,344 $235 $531 $260 $791 $567 $1,359 $580 $1,939 $405
1986 $2,524 $285 $608 $278 $887 $604 $1,490 $613 $2,104 $421
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $2,814 $347 $722 $316 $1,038 $671 $1,709 $664 $2,374 $440
1988 $3,124 $474 $891 $342 $1,233 $718 $1,951 $707 $2,658 $466
1989 $3,299 $468 $918 $368 $1,287 $768 $2,054 $751 $2,805 $494
1990 $3,451 $483 $953 $385 $1,338 $806 $2,144 $788 $2,933 $519
1991 $3,516 $457 $943 $400 $1,343 $832 $2,175 $809 $2,984 $532
1992 $3,681 $524 $1,031 $413 $1,444 $856 $2,299 $832 $3,131 $549
1993 $3,776 $521 $1,048 $426 $1,474 $883 $2,358 $854 $3,212 $563
1994 $3,961 $547 $1,103 $449 $1,552 $929 $2,481 $890 $3,371 $590
1995 $4,245 $620 $1,223 $482 $1,705 $985 $2,690 $938 $3,628 $617
1996 $4,591 $737 $1,394 $515 $1,909 $1,043 $2,953 $992 $3,944 $646
1997 $5,023 $873 $1,597 $554 $2,151 $1,116 $3,268 $1,060 $4,328 $695
1998 $5,469 $1,010 $1,797 $597 $2,394 $1,196 $3,590 $1,132 $4,721 $748
1999 $5,909 $1,153 $2,012 $641 $2,653 $1,274 $3,927 $1,199 $5,126 $783
2000 $6,424 $1,337 $2,267 $688 $2,955 $1,358 $4,314 $1,276 $5,590 $834
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $6,116 $492 $1,065 $1,934 $666 $2,600 $1,334 $3,933 $1,302 $5,235 $881
2002 $5,982 $421 $960 $1,812 $660 $2,472 $1,339 $3,812 $1,303 $5,115 $867
2003 $6,157 $466 $1,030 $1,908 $679 $2,587 $1,375 $3,962 $1,325 $5,287 $870
2004 $6,735 $615 $1,279 $2,243 $725 $2,968 $1,455 $4,423 $1,403 $5,826 $908
2005 $7,366 $784 $1,561 $2,623 $778 $3,401 $1,540 $4,940 $1,473 $6,413 $953
2006 $7,970 $895 $1,761 $2,918 $841 $3,760 $1,652 $5,412 $1,568 $6,980 $990
2007 $8,622 $1,030 $1,971 $3,223 $905 $4,128 $1,770 $5,898 $1,673 $7,571 $1,051
2008 $8,206 $826 $1,657 $2,868 $905 $3,773 $1,782 $5,555 $1,673 $7,228 $978
2009 $7,579 $602 $1,305 $2,439 $878 $3,317 $1,740 $5,058 $1,620 $6,678 $900
2010 $8,040 $743 $1,517 $2,716 $915 $3,631 $1,800 $5,431 $1,665 $7,096 $944
2011 $8,317 $737 $1,556 $2,819 $956 $3,775 $1,866 $5,641 $1,716 $7,357 $961
2012 $9,042 $1,017 $1,977 $3,331 $997 $4,328 $1,934 $6,262 $1,776 $8,038 $1,004
2013 $9,034 $816 $1,720 $3,109 $1,034 $4,143 $2,008 $6,152 $1,844 $7,996 $1,038
2014 $9,709 $986 $1,998 $3,491 $1,093 $4,583 $2,107 $6,690 $1,924 $8,615 $1,094
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2014 ($Billions)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 $249 $47 $92 $31 $123 $59 $182 $50 $232 $18
1981 $282 $50 $99 $36 $135 $69 $204 $57 $261 $21
1982 $276 $53 $100 $34 $134 $66 $200 $56 $256 $20
1983 $272 $55 $101 $34 $135 $64 $199 $54 $252 $19
1984 $297 $63 $113 $37 $150 $68 $219 $57 $276 $22
1985 $322 $70 $125 $41 $166 $73 $238 $60 $299 $23
1986 $367 $94 $156 $44 $201 $78 $279 $64 $343 $24
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $369 $92 $160 $46 $205 $79 $284 $63 $347 $22
1988 $413 $114 $188 $48 $236 $85 $321 $68 $389 $24
1989 $433 $109 $190 $51 $241 $93 $334 $73 $408 $25
1990 $447 $112 $195 $52 $248 $97 $344 $77 $421 $26
1991 $448 $111 $194 $56 $250 $96 $347 $77 $424 $25
1992 $476 $131 $218 $58 $276 $97 $374 $78 $452 $24
1993 $503 $146 $238 $60 $298 $101 $399 $80 $479 $24
1994 $535 $154 $254 $64 $318 $108 $425 $84 $509 $25
1995 $588 $178 $288 $70 $357 $115 $473 $88 $561 $27
1996 $658 $213 $335 $76 $411 $124 $535 $95 $630 $28
1997 $727 $241 $377 $82 $460 $134 $594 $102 $696 $31
1998 $788 $274 $425 $88 $513 $139 $652 $103 $755 $33
1999 $877 $317 $486 $97 $583 $150 $733 $109 $842 $35
2000 $981 $367 $554 $106 $660 $164 $824 $118 $942 $38
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $885 $139 $294 $462 $101 $564 $158 $722 $120 $842 $43
2002 $794 $120 $263 $420 $93 $513 $143 $657 $104 $761 $33
2003 $746 $115 $251 $399 $85 $484 $133 $617 $98 $715 $30
2004 $829 $142 $301 $467 $91 $558 $137 $695 $102 $797 $32
2005 $932 $176 $361 $549 $98 $647 $145 $793 $106 $898 $33
2006 $1,020 $196 $402 $607 $108 $715 $157 $872 $113 $986 $35
2007 $1,112 $221 $443 $666 $117 $783 $170 $953 $122 $1,075 $37
2008 $1,029 $187 $386 $597 $115 $712 $168 $880 $117 $997 $32
2009 $863 $146 $314 $502 $101 $604 $146 $749 $93 $842 $21
2010 $949 $170 $355 $561 $110 $670 $156 $827 $100 $927 $22
2011 $1,043 $168 $366 $589 $123 $712 $181 $893 $120 $1,012 $30
2012 $1,185 $220 $451 $699 $133 $831 $193 $1,024 $128 $1,152 $33
2013 $1,232 $228 $466 $721 $139 $860 $203 $1,063 $135 $1,198 $34
2014 $1,374 $273 $543 $824 $150 $974 $219 $1,193 $144 $1,337 $38
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%
Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of total AGI earned by each group)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 100% 8.46% 21.01% 11.12% 32.13% 24.57% 56.70% 25.62% 82.32% 17.68%
1981 100% 8.30% 20.78% 11.20% 31.98% 24.69% 56.67% 25.59% 82.25% 17.75%
1982 100% 8.91% 21.23% 11.03% 32.26% 24.53% 56.79% 25.50% 82.29% 17.71%
1983 100% 9.29% 21.74% 11.04% 32.78% 24.44% 57.22% 25.30% 82.52% 17.48%
1984 100% 9.66% 22.19% 11.06% 33.25% 24.31% 57.56% 25.00% 82.56% 17.44%
1985 100% 10.03% 22.67% 11.10% 33.77% 24.21% 57.97% 24.77% 82.74% 17.26%
1986 100% 11.30% 24.11% 11.02% 35.12% 23.92% 59.04% 24.30% 83.34% 16.66%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 12.32% 25.67% 11.23% 36.90% 23.85% 60.75% 23.62% 84.37% 15.63%
1988 100% 15.16% 28.51% 10.94% 39.45% 22.99% 62.44% 22.63% 85.07% 14.93%
1989 100% 14.19% 27.84% 11.16% 39.00% 23.28% 62.28% 22.76% 85.04% 14.96%
1990 100% 14.00% 27.62% 11.15% 38.77% 23.36% 62.13% 22.84% 84.97% 15.03%
1991 100% 12.99% 26.83% 11.37% 38.20% 23.65% 61.85% 23.01% 84.87% 15.13%
1992 100% 14.23% 28.01% 11.21% 39.23% 23.25% 62.47% 22.61% 85.08% 14.92%
1993 100% 13.79% 27.76% 11.29% 39.05% 23.40% 62.45% 22.63% 85.08% 14.92%
1994 100% 13.80% 27.85% 11.34% 39.19% 23.45% 62.64% 22.48% 85.11% 14.89%
1995 100% 14.60% 28.81% 11.35% 40.16% 23.21% 63.37% 22.09% 85.46% 14.54%
1996 100% 16.04% 30.36% 11.23% 41.59% 22.73% 64.32% 21.60% 85.92% 14.08%
1997 100% 17.38% 31.79% 11.03% 42.83% 22.22% 65.05% 21.11% 86.16% 13.84%
1998 100% 18.47% 32.85% 10.92% 43.77% 21.87% 65.63% 20.69% 86.33% 13.67%
1999 100% 19.51% 34.04% 10.85% 44.89% 21.57% 66.46% 20.29% 86.75% 13.25%
2000 100% 20.81% 35.30% 10.71% 46.01% 21.15% 67.15% 19.86% 87.01% 12.99%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 8.05% 17.41% 31.61% 10.89% 42.50% 21.80% 64.31% 21.29% 85.60% 14.40%
2002 100% 7.04% 16.05% 30.29% 11.04% 41.33% 22.39% 63.71% 21.79% 85.50% 14.50%
2003 100% 7.56% 16.73% 30.99% 11.03% 42.01% 22.33% 64.34% 21.52% 85.87% 14.13%
2004 100% 9.14% 18.99% 33.31% 10.77% 44.07% 21.60% 65.68% 20.83% 86.51% 13.49%
2005 100% 10.64% 21.19% 35.61% 10.56% 46.17% 20.90% 67.07% 19.99% 87.06% 12.94%
2006 100% 11.23% 22.10% 36.62% 10.56% 47.17% 20.73% 67.91% 19.68% 87.58% 12.42%
2007 100% 11.95% 22.86% 37.39% 10.49% 47.88% 20.53% 68.41% 19.40% 87.81% 12.19%
2008 100% 10.06% 20.19% 34.95% 11.03% 45.98% 21.71% 67.69% 20.39% 88.08% 11.92%
2009 100% 7.94% 17.21% 32.18% 11.59% 43.77% 22.96% 66.74% 21.38% 88.12% 11.88%
2010 100% 9.24% 18.87% 33.78% 11.38% 45.17% 22.38% 67.55% 20.71% 88.26% 11.74%
2011 100% 8.86% 18.70% 33.89% 11.50% 45.39% 22.43% 67.82% 20.63% 88.45% 11.55%
2012 100% 11.25% 21.86% 36.84% 11.03% 47.87% 21.39% 69.25% 19.64% 88.90% 11.10%
2013 100% 9.03% 19.04% 34.42% 11.45% 45.87% 22.23% 68.10% 20.41% 88.51% 11.49%
2014 100% 10.16% 20.58% 35.96% 11.25% 47.21% 21.70% 68.91% 19.82% 88.73% 11.27%
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%
Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
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%
The 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%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 15.68% 33.22% 52.24% 11.44% 63.68% 17.88% 81.56% 13.54% 95.10% 4.90%
2002 100% 15.09% 33.09% 52.86% 11.77% 64.63% 18.04% 82.67% 13.12% 95.79% 4.21%
2003 100% 15.37% 33.69% 53.54% 11.35% 64.89% 17.87% 82.76% 13.17% 95.93% 4.07%
2004 100% 17.12% 36.28% 56.35% 10.96% 67.30% 16.52% 83.82% 12.31% 96.13% 3.87%
2005 100% 18.91% 38.78% 58.93% 10.52% 69.46% 15.61% 85.07% 11.35% 96.41% 3.59%
2006 100% 19.24% 39.36% 59.49% 10.59% 70.08% 15.41% 85.49% 11.10% 96.59% 3.41%
2007 100% 19.84% 39.81% 59.90% 10.51% 70.41% 15.30% 85.71% 10.93% 96.64% 3.36%
2008 100% 18.20% 37.51% 58.06% 11.14% 69.20% 16.37% 85.57% 11.33% 96.90% 3.10%
2009 100% 16.91% 36.34% 58.17% 11.72% 69.89% 16.85% 86.74% 10.80% 97.54% 2.46%
2010 100% 17.88% 37.38% 59.07% 11.55% 70.62% 16.49% 87.11% 10.53% 97.64% 2.36%
2011 100% 16.14% 35.06% 56.49% 11.77% 68.26% 17.36% 85.62% 11.50% 97.11% 2.89%
2012 100% 18.60% 38.09% 58.95% 11.22% 70.17% 16.25% 86.42% 10.80% 97.22% 2.78%
2013 100% 18.48% 37.80% 58.55% 11.25% 69.80% 16.47% 86.27% 10.94% 97.22% 2.78%
2014 100% 19.85% 39.48% 59.97% 10.91% 70.88% 15.90% 86.78% 10.47% 97.25% 2.75%
Year Total Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50%
Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2014 (Minimum AGI for Tax Returns to Fall into Various Percentiles; Thresholds Not Adjusted for Inflation)
1980 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 $227,546 $101,141 $74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 $250,736 $108,048 $79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 $269,496 $114,729 $83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 $293,415 $120,846 $87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $1,393,718 $306,635 $132,082 $96,151 $59,026 $31,418
2002 $1,245,352 $296,194 $130,750 $95,699 $59,066 $31,299
2003 $1,317,088 $305,939 $133,741 $97,470 $59,896 $31,447
2004 $1,617,918 $339,993 $140,758 $101,838 $62,794 $32,622
2005 $1,938,175 $379,261 $149,216 $106,864 $64,821 $33,484
2006 $2,124,625 $402,603 $157,390 $112,016 $67,291 $34,417
2007 $2,251,017 $426,439 $164,883 $116,396 $69,559 $35,541
2008 $1,867,652 $392,513 $163,512 $116,813 $69,813 $35,340
2009 $1,469,393 $351,968 $157,342 $114,181 $68,216 $34,156
2010 $1,634,386 $369,691 $161,579 $116,623 $69,126 $34,338
2011 $1,717,675 $388,905 $167,728 $120,136 $70,492 $34,823
2012 $2,161,175 $434,682 $175,817 $125,195 $73,354 $36,055
2013 $1,860,848 $428,713 $179,760 $127,695 $74,955 $36,841
2014 $2,136,762 $465,626 $188,996 $133,445 $77,714 $38,173
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
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%
Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2014 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
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%
The 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%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 14.47% 28.17% 27.60% 23.91% 15.20% 21.68% 11.87% 18.35% 9.20% 16.08% 4.92%
2002 13.28% 28.48% 27.37% 23.17% 14.15% 20.76% 10.70% 17.23% 8.00% 14.87% 3.86%
2003 12.11% 24.60% 24.38% 20.92% 12.46% 18.70% 9.69% 15.57% 7.41% 13.53% 3.49%
2004 12.31% 23.06% 23.52% 20.83% 12.53% 18.80% 9.41% 15.71% 7.27% 13.68% 3.53%
2005 12.65% 22.48% 23.15% 20.93% 12.61% 19.03% 9.45% 16.04% 7.18% 14.01% 3.51%
2006 12.80% 21.94% 22.80% 20.80% 12.84% 19.02% 9.52% 16.12% 7.22% 14.12% 3.51%
2007 12.90% 21.42% 22.46% 20.66% 12.92% 18.96% 9.61% 16.16% 7.27% 14.19% 3.56%
2008 12.54% 22.67% 23.29% 20.83% 12.66% 18.87% 9.45% 15.85% 6.97% 13.79% 3.26%
2009 11.39% 24.28% 24.05% 20.59% 11.53% 18.19% 8.36% 14.81% 5.76% 12.61% 2.35%
2010 11.81% 22.84% 23.39% 20.64% 11.98% 18.46% 8.70% 15.22% 6.01% 13.06% 2.37%
2011 12.54% 22.82% 23.50% 20.89% 12.83% 18.85% 9.70% 15.82% 6.98% 13.76% 3.13%
2012 13.11% 21.67% 22.83% 20.97% 13.33% 19.21% 9.96% 16.35% 7.21% 14.33% 3.28%
2013 13.64% 27.91% 27.08% 23.20% 13.40% 20.75% 10.11% 17.28% 7.31% 14.98% 3.30%
2014 14.16% 27.67% 27.16% 23.61% 13.73% 21.25% 10.37% 17.83% 7.48% 15.52% 3.45%
  1. For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.
  2. Income tax after credits (the measure of “income taxes paid” above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included, the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.
  3. The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for more than 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than federal payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes.
  4. AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, and others.
  5. The unit of analysis here is that of the tax return. In the figures prior to 2001, some dependent returns are included. Under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit), these returns would likely be paired with parents’ returns.
  6. These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax. Most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.

[1] Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Tax-Shares.

[2] See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027, Jan. 2017, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52370-outlook.pdf.

[3] There is strong reason to believe that capital gains realizations were unusually depressed in 2013, due to the increase in the top capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. In 2013, capital gains accounted for 26.6 percent of the income of taxpayers with over $1 million in AGI received, compared to 31.7 percent in 2014 (these calculations apply for net capital gains reported on Schedule D). Table 1.4, Publication 1304, “Individual Income Tax Returns 2014,” Internal Revenue Service, https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report.

[4] Here, “average income tax rate” is defined as income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

 

Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

The Real Reason Tom Price Resigned | The Last Word | MSNBC

Tom Price: From Private Jets To Private Citizen

Chris Wallace Takes On Tom Price to Pay For Charter Flights

President Trump GRILLED on Tom Price Resigns, Puerto Rico & NFL owners players press conference

What A Waste: Tom Price’s Private Jet Trips

Will HHS Secretary Tom Price Keep His Job? | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Guess What Private Jet Scold Tom Price Is Up To

Price resigns from HHS after facing fire for travel

His exit comes after POLITICO revealed his extensive use of private jets and military aircraft for government business.

Updated 

HHS Secretary Tom Price resigned Friday in the face of multiple federal inquiries and growing criticism of his use of private and government planes for travel, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 million since May.

The White House said the former seven-term Georgia congressman, 63, offered his resignation earlier in the day and that President Donald Trump had accepted it.

As late as Thursday, Price said he believed he had the president’s support. But the tumult surrounding his travel became another distraction for an administration already reeling from the defeat of repeated Senate efforts to repeal Obamacare and facing criticism for its hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico.

In his resignation letter, Price expressed regret that “recent events” distracted from efforts to overhaul the health care system, reduce regulatory burdens and improve global health. “In order for you to move forward without further disruption, I am officially tendering my resignation as the Secretary of Health and Human Services effective 11:59 PM on Friday,” Price wrote.

Tom Price resigns as Trump administration health chief after outrage over pricey private jet flights

  • Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned Friday after criticism over his repeatedly taking expensive private jets instead of commercial flights.
  • Price’s private travel, added to his use of military jets for overseas trips, has cost taxpayers more than $1 million.
  • Price said he will reimburse the government just a fraction of the cost of the flights.

Senate Democrats quickly served notice they were preparing for a potential confirmation fight over Price’s successor, saying the next HHS secretary must not undermine Obamacare. Under Price, the department cut the law’s enrollment period in half and massively slashed advertising and outreach for the upcoming enrollment period starting in November.

“The mission of the Health and Human Services secretary should be to support Americans’ health care, not take it away,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “The next HHS secretary must follow the law when it comes to the Affordable Care Act instead of trying to sabotage it.”

“Tom Price’s replacement needs to be focused on implementing the law as written by Congress and keeping the president’s promise to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs,” Senate Finance ranking Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon said in a statement.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a close ally, praised Price as a dedicated public servant who fought for others. “His vision and hard work were vital to the House’s success passing our health care legislation,” Ryan said in a statement.

POLITICO revealed in a series of articles that Price flew at least 26 times on private aircraft at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, a sharp break with his predecessors’ practice. Many of Price’s flights were between major cities that offered inexpensive alternatives on commercial airlines, including Nashville, Philadelphia and San Diego.

On some of those trips, Price, an orthopedic surgeon, mixed official business with personal affairs. He took a government-funded private jet in August to get to St. Simons Island, an exclusive Georgia resort where he and his wife own land, a day and a half before he addressed a medical conference he and his wife have long attended. In June, HHS chartered a private jet to fly Price to Nashville, where he owns a condominium and where his son resides. Price toured a medicine dispensary, spoke to a local health summit organized by a friend and had lunch with his son, an HHS official confirmed.

Price also used military aircraft for multi-national trips to Africa, Europe and Asia, at a cost of more than $500,000 to taxpayersThe White House said it had approved those trips but not the private jets within the United States.

Price tried to defuse the controversy by promising on Thursday to reimburse the government for the approximately $52,000 cost of his own seat on his domestic trips. But that wasn’t enough to tamp down the scandal, which had infuriatedPresident Donald Trump and prompted a bipartisan inquiry from the House Oversight Committee and separate calls for accountability from lawmakers including Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. The inspector general of Price’s own agency is reviewing if Price complied with federal travel regulations.

The issue of Cabinet members’ travel was also extending beyond Price: POLITICO reported Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his aides took several flights on private or military aircraft, including a $12,000 charter plane to take him to events in his hometown in Montana and private flights in the Caribbean. Zinke dismissed the furor as a “little B.S.” during a Friday appearance at the Heritage Foundation.

Price’s wife, Betty, accompanied him on the military flights, while other members of the secretary’s delegation flew commercially to Europe.

HHS spokeswoman Charmaine Yoest said Price reimbursed the agency for his wife’s travel, but declined to elaborate.

White House officials have groused about Price’s frequent travels, with one senior White House official saying the HHS secretary was “nowhere to be found” as they mounted a last-ditch unsuccessful push to repeal Obamacare.

Congressional Democrats attacked Price for advocating spending cuts to the health agencies he oversaw and health care programs while spending taxpayer dollars on private jets. “There could not be a clearer statement of the Trump administration’s priorities,” Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said. Key Democrats overseeing health issues in Congress had formally requested that HHS’s inspector general review Price’s travel practices.

In June, Price defended a proposed fiscal 2018 budget for HHS that included a $663,000 cut to the agency’s $4.9 million annual spending on travel, or roughly 15 percent. “The budgeting process is an exercise in reforming our federal programs to make sure they actually work — so they do their job and use tax dollars wisely,” Price told the Senate Finance Committee on June 8.

Ethical questions dogged Price even before questions about his travel arose. During his Senate confirmation hearing to helm HHS, Price faced pointed questions about his personal investments in health care companies during his time in Congress. Democrats called on government ethics officials to investigate Price’s health care stock trades, following reports that he got a sweetheart deal from a biotech company and invested in Zimmer Biomet, a medical device-maker, just days before writing legislation that would have eased regulations on the sector.

The Senate confirmed Price by a 52-47 margin in February after he maintained full Republican support.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/price-has-resigned-as-health-and-human-services-secretary-243315

Jacob Pramuk | Dan Mangan

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.

Tom Price out as HHS Secretary

Tom Price, secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, resigned Friday amid a furor over his taking more than two dozen costly private plane trips instead of less-expensive commercial flights.

The White House in a statement said that President Donald Trump intends to tap a top HHS official, Don Wright, to serve as acting secretary of the department

Wright currently serves as deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Secretary of Health and Human Services Thomas Price offered his resignation earlier today and the President accepted,” the White House said, about an hour after Trump said he would decide by Friday night whether to fire Price.

Price’s resignation came a day after he said he would reimburse taxpayers for just a small fraction of the cost of his flights, and after he vowed to not use charter planes in the future.

A longtime critic of wasteful federal spending and the administration’s putative point man on attacking Obamacare — Price had taken 26 flights on charter plans since May, according to a Politico investigation.

In June, Price traveled on a $17,760 roundtrip charter from Washington to Nashville, Tennessee, Politico revealed. He spent less than six hours there, making two official appearances and eating lunch with his son.

In a four-day stretch in September, Price took flights costing an estimated $60,000 in total, according to Politico. Some of those flights came at times when dramatically cheaper commercial air travel would have been available.

Politico on Thursday reported that Price had also taken trips overseas using military jets, at a cost of more than $500,000 — putting the total tab for his penchant for pricey travel above $1 million.

Also Thursday, BuzzFeed News reported that Price had asked a White House official soon after taking office to tell Trump that he wanted to reopen the executive dining room at HHS, which had been closed since George W. Bush was president.

Price, who only became health secretary in February, was reportedly already on thin ice with top officials in the Trump administration when the controversy exploded over his pricey jet jaunts.

Those officials believed he did not do enough in recent weeks to support an ultimately doomed, last-ditch effort in Congress to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.

Price’s department for months has been taking steps to undercut that major health-care law — gutting advertising budgets designed to promote enrollment in Obamacare plans, suspending joint efforts with state-level groups to encourage insurance sign-ups and bad-mouthing Obamacare at every opportunity.

But he was noticeably absent at meetings to promote the passage of the Senate repeal bill, Graham-Cassidy, in September, Politico reported. That bill would have dramatically slashed federal spending on subsidizing health insurance coverage for Americans.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump told reporters “I am not happy about” Price’s use of private planes, “and I let him know it.”

“We’ll see,” Trump said, when asked if he would fire Price.

Price on Thursday had tried to tamp down the controversy by saying he would repay the government for the cost of “my seat” on the charter flights. Price said he will pay about $52,000 of the more than $400,000 taxpayer tab for his private trips.

The offer was immediately met with derision by critics who said Price was shortchanging taxpayers.

The 62-year-old Price, a former House member from Georgia, was a prominent critic of Obamacare while serving in Congress.

He also had billed himself as a staunch fiscal conservative with a record of pushing for government spending discipline.

Price leaves the Trump administration after the latest in an unsuccessful string of Republican attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

His departure also comes amid broader concerns about the ethical standards of the Trump administration and its top officials.

While Price has said he received prior approval from legal and HHS advisors for his private flights, his use of charters was in stark contrast to that of his two immediate predecessors as chief of HHS, Sylvia Burwell and Kathleen Sebelius, who took commercial flights to domestic engagements.

HHS’ inspector general is now reviewing Price’s use of private planes.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also has racked up a $58,000 bill on noncommercial and military flights since mid-February, according to The Washington Post.

In a letter to Trump on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pointed out that “federal regulations specifically prohibit official travel by chartered jet when it is not the most cost-effective mode of travel ‘because the taxpayer should pay no more than necessary for your transportation.'”

Grassley asked Trump to urge his Cabinet secretaries to use “reasonable and cost-effective modes of travel.”

The senator noted that in addition to questions about the travel habits of Price and Pruitt, the inspector general of the Treasury Department is investigating the travel expenses of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

During his Senate confirmation hearings as HHS secretary, Price was criticized for having traded more than $300,000 worth of about 40 health-care stocks in the previous four years, which involved companies that could have benefited from legislation he favored as a House member.

For one of those companies, the small Australian biotech firm Innate Immunotherapeutics, Price was offered the opportunity to buy shares at a discount, while sitting on a committee that could affect the financial outlook of the firm.

Price eventually sold his stake in the company during the HHS confirmation process and made a profit of at least $225,000 on a $94,000 investment, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Price during his Senate hearings denied that he invested using nonpublic information.

“Everything that we have done is absolutely aboveboard, transparent, legal and ethical,” he said at the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/price-out-as-trump-health-chief-after-outrage-over-private-jet-flights.html

 

Tom Price Resigns Under Pressure

Tom Price, the health and human services secretary, resigned on Friday. Mr. Price drew criticism for his use of expensive chartered flights, which undermined President Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” of an entitled capital.

 By CHRIS CIRILLO, GLENN THRUSH and A.J. CHAVAR on Publish DateSeptember 29, 2017. Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times

.Watch in Times Video »WASHINGTON — Tom Price, the health and human services secretary, resigned under pressure on Friday after racking up at least $400,000 in travel bills for chartered flights and undermining President Trump’s promise to drain the swamp of a corrupt and entitled capital.

Already in trouble with Mr. Trump for months of unsuccessful efforts to repeal and replace President Barack Obama’s health care program, Mr. Price failed to defuse the president’s anger over his high-priced travel by agreeing to pay a portion of the cost and expressing “regret” for his actions.

In a statement, the White House said that Mr. Price “offered his resignation earlier today and the president accepted.”

It said Mr. Trump will tap Don J. Wright of Virginia to serve as acting secretary at midnight Friday. Mr. Wright currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for health and as director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Mr. Price’s resignation came barely an hour after Mr. Trump publicly dressed him down for the second time in a week and said he would decide whether to fire the secretary by the end of the day. “I’m not happy, O.K.?” the president told reporters before boarding a helicopter as he headed to his New Jersey golf club for the weekend. “I can tell you, I’m not happy.”

Mr. Price’s job was on the line ever since the first of a string of reports by Politico on Sept. 19 about his extensive use of charter aircraft. Mr. Trump has fumed privately and publicly about Mr. Price’s actions, fearing that they undercut his promise to rid Washington of the sort of abuses that have soured the public on its political class. The president made clear on Friday that he also saw it as undermining his promise to save the government money, citing efforts to renegotiate contracts.

Mr. Price, a career physician and former congressman who had long opposed Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act, had been a point man on the drive to scrap the law. In July, Mr. Trump said he would fire Mr. Price if he did not get the votes for the legislation. “He better get them,” Mr. Trump told an audience with Mr. Price at his side. “Otherwise, I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired.’”

He said it in a jocular fashion, and his audience at the time took it as a jest, but in fact the president has been privately fuming about Mr. Price over the unsuccessful efforts to pass health care legislation in the Senate. The latest effort collapsed this week when enough Republicans defected to deprive Mr. Trump of a majority.

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-975

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

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 17-26

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

 

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017: Story 1: Economy Slowing Down As Consumer Confidence and Spending Decline — Videos — Story 2: Latest Senate Repeal of Obamacare Fails — Time For Replacing Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell With A New Conservative Leader — Videos — Story 3: Trump Supports Republican Establishment Candidate Luther Strange vs. Trump Supporters of Judge Roy Moore For Senator From Alabama– Who Will Win? — The Winner Is Moore! — Moore Out Trumps Trump — Videos

Posted on September 26, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Countries, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Image result for us consumer confidence september 26, 2017 conference board

Image result for repeal of obamacare fails again in the senate

Image result for luther strange vs roy moore raceImage result for trump supports luther strange

 

Image result for conference board consumer confidence index september 2017

 

Story 1: Economy Slowing Down As Consumer Confidence and Spending Decline — Videos

Image result for conference board consumer confidence index september 2017

Image result for conference board consumer confidence index september 2017

Consumer confidence, home sales down thanks to hurricanes

Hurricanes to blame for slipping consumer confidence

Us consumer confidence takes a hit from hurricanes

U.S. Consumer Confidence Reading Coming – Tuesday 26/9/2017

Investopedia Video: Consumer Confidence Index

Episode 135: The Consumer Confidence Index

Consumer confidence

08: CONSUMER CONFIDENCE INDEX

 

What is CONSUMER CONFIDENCE? What does CONSUMER CONFIDENCE mean? CONSUMER CONFIDENCE meaning

The Formula For Economic Growth

Econ 1.6- Economic Systems: Why is Communist China doing so well?

How China became the world’s second largest economy

Consumer Confidence Survey®

The Consumer Confidence Survey® reflects prevailing business conditions and likely developments for the months ahead. This monthly report details consumer attitudes and buying intentions, with data available by age, income, and region.

Please visit the Consumer Measures page to learn more about detailed consumer confidence data and CEO confidence data.

Purchase Historical Data

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined Slightly in September

26 Sep. 2017

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had improved marginally in August, declined slightly in September. The Index now stands at 119.8 (1985=100), down from 120.4 in August. The Present Situation Index decreased from 148.4 to 146.1, while the Expectations Index rose marginally from 101.7 last month to 102.2.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey®, based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen, a leading global provider of information and analytics around what consumers buy and watch. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was September 18.

“Consumer confidence decreased slightly in September after a marginal improvement in August,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “Confidence in Texas and Florida, however, decreased considerably, as these two states were the most severely impacted by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Despite the slight downtick in confidence, consumers’ assessment of current conditions remains quite favorable and their expectations for the short-term suggest the economy will continue expanding at its current pace.”

Consumers’ assessment of current conditions moderated in September. Those saying business conditions are “good” decreased slightly from 34.5 percent to 33.9 percent, while those saying business conditions are “bad” increased from 13.2 percent to 13.8 percent. Consumers’ appraisal of the labor market was also somewhat less upbeat. Those stating jobs are “plentiful” declined from 34.4 percent to 32.6 percent, however, those claiming jobs are “hard to get” decreased marginally from 18.4 percent to 18.1 percent.

Consumers’ optimism about the short-term outlook was somewhat better in September. The percentage of consumers expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months rose slightly from 19.8 percent to 20.2 percent, but those expecting business conditions to worsen increased from 8.0 percent to 9.9 percent.

Consumers’ outlook for the labor market was more favorable than in August. The proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead increased from 16.8 percent to 19.5 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs rose marginally from 13.2 percent to 13.5 percent. Regarding their short-term income prospects, the percentage of consumers expecting an improvement increased moderately from 19.9 percent to 20.5 percent, while the proportion expecting a decline was virtually unchanged at 8.3 percent.

Source: September 2017 Consumer Confidence Survey®

The Conference Board

The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index®, at 10 a.m. ET on the last Tuesday of every month. Subscription information and the technical notes to this series are available on The Conference Board website: https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerdata.cfm.

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE BOARD

The Conference Board is a global, independent business membership and research association working in the public interest. Our mission is unique: To provide the world’s leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve their performance and better serve society. Winner of the Consensus Economics 2016 Forecast Accuracy Award (U.S.), The Conference Board is a non-advocacy, not-for-profit entity holding 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt status in the United States. www.conference-board.org

ABOUT NIELSEN

Nielsen Holdings plc (NYSE: NLSN) is a global performance management company that provides a comprehensive understanding of what consumers watch and buy. Nielsen’s Watch segment provides media and advertising clients with Total Audience measurement services for all devices on which content — video, audio and text — is consumed. The Buy segment offers consumer packaged goods manufacturers and retailers the industry’s only global view of retail performance measurement. By integrating information from its Watch and Buy segments and other data sources, Nielsen also provides its clients with analytics that help improve performance. Nielsen, an S&P 500 company, has operations in over 100 countries, covering more than 90 percent of the world’s population. For more information, visit www.nielsen.com.

https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

US consumer confidence takes a hit from hurricanes

In this Wednesday, April 26, 2017, photo, pedestrians walk past a store on Miami Beach, Floridas Lincoln Road. American consumers feel a bit less confident in September 2017, their spirits pulled down by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, according to consThe Associated Press
In this Wednesday, April 26, 2017, photo, pedestrians walk past a store on Miami Beach, Florida’s Lincoln Road. American consumers feel a bit less confident in September 2017, their spirits pulled down by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, according to consumer confidence index information released Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, by the Conference Board. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

American consumers feel a bit less confident this month, their spirits pulled down by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

The Conference Board says its consumer confidence index fell to 119.8 in September from 120.4 in August. Conference Board economist Lynn Franco says that confidence “decreased considerably” in hurricane-hit Florida and Texas.

The reading still shows that U.S. consumers are in a mostly sunny mood, suggesting that “the economy will continue expanding at its current pace,” said Franco, the Conference Board’s director of economic indicators. The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3 percent annual rate from April through June, lifted by healthy consumer spending.

Just 18.1 percent of respondents told that Conference Board that jobs were “hard to get” in September — the lowest share since August 2001.

The index takes into account Americans’ views of current economic conditions and their expectations for the next six months.

Their view of today’s economy slipped from August when the assessment was the sunniest in 16 years. Their outlook rose slightly in September.

The overall index hit bottom at 25.3 in February 2009 at the depths of the Great Recessionbefore rebounding as the U.S. economy recovered.

Economists pay close attention to the numbers because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity.

Michael Pearce, U.S. economist at Capital Economics, said the solid September reading “underlines just how resilient the household sector is” despite the North Korean nuclear threat, a string of natural disasters and the racial tensions arising from the violent protests last month in Charlottesville, Virginia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-consumer-confidence-takes-hit-hurricanes-5010104

U.S. consumer confidence slips; new home sales hit eight-month low

Reuters

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. consumer confidence fell in September and home sales dropped to an eight-month low in August due to the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, supporting the view that the storms would hurt economic growth in the third quarter.

Still, relatively high levels of consumer confidence together with continued strong gains in house prices should support consumer spending and keep the economy on solid ground. Rebuilding in the hurricane-ravaged Texas and Florida also is expected to deliver a boost in the fourth quarter.

“Though hurricane disruptions will make spending uneven geographically over the next few months, we expect consumers to remain a primary driver of U.S. economic growth in 2018,” said James Bohnaker, a U.S. economist at IHS Markit in Lexington, Massachusetts.

The Conference Board said on Tuesday its consumer confidence index declined to a reading of 119.8 this month from 120.4 in August, which was the highest reading in five months. It said confidence in Texas and Florida “decreased considerably.”

The survey’s so-called labor market differential, derived from data about respondents who think jobs are hard to get and those who think jobs are plentiful, slipped to 14.5 this month from 16.0 in August.

That measure, which closely correlates to the unemployment rate in the Labor Department’s employment report, still remains consistent with more absorption of labor market slack.

The number of consumers expecting an improvement in their incomes rose marginally to 20.5 percent in September from 19.9 percent last month. The share expecting a drop in income was little changed at 8.3 percent.

Despite being near full employment, the labor market has struggled to generate strong wage growth, frustrating both consumers and policymakers. But rising home prices should continue to underpin consumer spending, even though the housing market is slowing.

The Atlanta Federal Reserve is forecasting the economy to grow at a 2.2 percent annualized rate in the third quarter, slowing from the April-June period’s brisk 3.0 percent pace.

A second report on Tuesday showed the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller composite index of house prices in 20 metropolitan areas rose 5.8 percent in July on a year-on-year basis after increasing 5.6 percent in June.

U.S. financial markets were little moved by the data.

The dollar rose to a one-month high against the euro as investors worried that months of talks to form a coalition government in Germany could hurt the country’s economy and make closer euro zone integration difficult. Stocks on Wall street were little changed, while prices for U.S. Treasuries fell.

HOUSING SLOWING In a third report on Tuesday, the Commerce Department said new home sales decreased 3.4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 560,000 units last month, which was the lowest level since December 2016. Sales were down 1.2 percent on a year-on-year basis in August.

New home sales, which are drawn from permits, account for 9.5 percent of overall home sales. The Commerce Department suggested Harvey and Irma likely impacted new home sales data last month.

It said “information on the sales status at the end of August was collected for only 65 percent of cases in Texas and Florida counties” affected by the hurricanes. That compared to a normal response rate of 95 percent.

Harvey weighed on retail sales and industrial production in August.

Last month, new home sales fell 4.7 percent in the South, which accounts for more than 50 percent of the new homes market. Harvey hurt sales of previously owned homes in August and held back the completion of houses under construction.

With Irma slamming Florida in September, housing market activity could remain weak. The areas in Texas and Florida affected by the storms accounted for 14 percent of single-family home permits in 2016.

The housing market was softening even before the hurricanes struck, buffeted by headwinds including shortages of homes available for sale, skilled labor and suitable land for building. Rising prices for building materials are also undercutting the market.

In August, new single-family homes sales also fell in the Northeast and West. They were unchanged in the Midwest.

“The U.S. housing market entered a strange kind of twilight zone over the summer, in which home prices kept rising steadily, but actual home sales activity largely leveled off at fairly underwhelming levels,” said Svenja Gudell, chief economist at Zillow.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen says economic outlook is highly uncertain

By Don Lee

In a speech Tuesday marked by large doses of both statistics and humility, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen said that the economic outlook is highly uncertain, suggesting that the central bank may move slowly in raising interest rates and scaling back easy-money policies.

The Fed has been moving to reduce monetary support for the economy based on an assessment that the labor market is strengthening and that inflation, which has been unusually low, will soon stabilize.

Last week, the Fed began unwinding the massive bond-buying effort it began after the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and signaled that another interest rate hike would come by the end of the year.

But Yellen suggested that the future policy course was uncertain.

“My colleagues and I may have misjudged the strength of the labor market,” she said at a conference of the National Assn. for Business Economics in Cleveland. She said the same about “the degree to which longer-run inflation expectations are consistent with our inflation objective, or even the fundamental forces driving inflation.”

Inflation has been running persistently below the Fed’s 2% target, puzzling economists and causing policymakers to be hesitant in raising rates. Yellen said that she still expected inflation to move up to the Fed’s desired goal in coming months, but she noted that the labor market, which historically has been a key factor in moving inflation, may not be as tight as the low unemployment rate suggests.

For much of this year, the jobless figure has been below 4.5%, which most Fed officials see as essentially full employment. While more employers have been reporting trouble finding workers, there’s been little indication of a pick-up in wage increases, which on average have remained relatively modest. The low rate of wage increases could indicate that the labor market has more slack than economists had believed.

Because of demographic and other structural changes, “the unemployment rate that is sustainable today may be lower than the rate that was sustainable in the past,” Yellen said.

Similarly, she said that inflation expectations, which are important in actual inflation outcomes as people make decisions on hiring and spending based on them, may also be uncertain. “There is a risk that inflation expectations may not be as well anchored as they appear and perhaps are not consistent with our 2% goal,” she said.

Several factors could be restraining inflation, Yellen said, including healthcare prices, which have not grown as fast as in the past, and the growing use of online shopping, which may be making it tough for businesses to raise prices.

“How should policy be formulated in the face of such significant uncertainties?” Yellen asked. “In my view, it strengthens the case for a gradual pace of adjustments.”

“It would be imprudent to keep monetary policy on hold until inflation is back to 2%,” she said, but, she added, “we should be wary of raising rates too gradually.”

In a question and answer session, Yellen said policymakers should be prepared for surprises and shocks.

“Nothing is set in stone,” she said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-yellen-in-ohio-20170926-story.html

Yellen: Fed may have ‘misjudged’ inflation, keeping rates lower

 8 19LINKEDIN 2COMMENTMORE

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen conceded Tuesday that inflation may be weaker than Fed officials have anticipated, a development that could lead to a more gradual rise in interest rates.

While several Fed policymakers have raised that possibility, Yellen’s remarks represent her most detailed and explicit acknowledgment that the Fed may have been too confident in its long-held view that inflation will soon pick up and move toward the Fed’s annual 2% target.

“My colleagues and I may have misjudged the strength of the labor market, the degree to which longer-run inflation expectations are consistent with our inflation objective, or even the fundamental forces driving inflation,” Yellen said in prepared remarks at a meeting of the National Association for Business Economics in Cleveland. She added that “downward pressures on inflation could prove to be unexpectedly persistent.”

More: Economists see slower growth for U.S. than Trump does

More: Consumer confidence takes a hit from hurricanes

If inflation remained sluggish, that “would naturally result in a policy path that is somewhat easier than that now anticipated.”

The Fed has raised its benchmark short-term interest rate three times since December to a range of 1% to1¼%. Last week, it maintained its forecast of three quarter-point rate hikes next year but cut its projection from three to two increases in 2019, lifting the rate to 2.9% by 2020.

The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation fell to 1.4% in July from nearly 2% early this year. Yellen said the Fed’s baseline outlook still calls for an acceleration and blamed the recent retreat on a drop in wireless service prices due to the rollout of unlimited data plans, among other temporary factors. But she also gave more weight to the view that wages and prices could continue to edge up slowly because of longer-term obstacles.

For example, although unemployment is at a low 4.4%, the share of Americans ages 25 to 54 who are working remains low and the portion of part-time workers who prefer full-time jobs is still above the prerecession levels, Yellen said. That could mean there’s more “slack” in the labor market, providing employers a shadow labor force that’s keeping wage growth contained.

And while Yellen acknowledged that several indicators have revealed tepid pay increases, she traced the development to meager gains in productivity, or worker output, that have curtailed profit margins. She added that the share of firms planning wage increases “has moved back up to its pre-recession level” and many employers are having trouble finding qualified workers — “possible harbingers of stronger wage gains to come.”

Yellen also said some measures of inflation expectations, such as a survey of consumers by the New York Fed, have been unusually low. Inflation expectations help determine actual wage and price increases because workers are less likely to ask for raises, for example, if they expect inflation to remain anemic.

Finally, Yellen said other longer-term trends could be suppressing inflation. Those include subdued growth in health care prices; the integration of China and other emerging markets into the global economy, which restrains both wages and prices; and the spread of low-price online shopping.

The risk that inflation stays low “strengthens the case for a gradual” increase in the Fed’s key short-term interest rate, Yellen said. If the rate rises too quickly, disrupting the recovery, the Fed “will have only limited scope” to cut the still-low rate “should the economy be hit with an adverse shock.”

At the same time, she said the Fed “should also be wary of moving too gradually.”

“Without further modest increases in the federal funds rate over time, there is a risk that the labor market could eventually become overheated, potentially creating inflationary problems down the road that might be difficult to overcome without triggering a recession,” Yellen said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/26/yellen-fed-may-have-misjudged-inflation-keeping-rates-lower/703920001/

Consumer confidence index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. consumer confidence index (CCI) is an indicator designed to measure consumer confidence, which is defined as the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending. Global consumer confidence is not measured. Country by country analysis indicates huge variance around the globe. In an interconnected global economy, tracking international consumer confidence is a lead indicator of economic trends.[1]

In the United States consumer confidence is issued monthly by The Conference Board, an independent economic research organization, and is based on 5,000 households. Such measurement is indicative of consumption component level of the gross domestic productThe Federal Reserve looks at the CCI when determining interest rate changes, and it also affects stock market prices.

The consumer confidence index was started in 1967 and is benchmarked to 1985=100. This year was chosen because it was neither a peak nor a trough. The Index is calculated each month on the basis of a household survey of consumers’ opinions on current conditions and future expectations of the economy. Opinions on current conditions make up 40% of the index, with expectations of future conditions comprising the remaining 60%. In the glossary on its website, The Conference Board defines the Consumer Confidence Survey as “a monthly report detailing consumer attitudes and buying intentions, with data available by age, income and region”.

Another well-established index that measures consumer confidence is the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, run by University of Michigan‘s Institute for Social Research.

Calculation

In simple terms, increased consumer confidence indicates economic growth in which consumers are spending money, indicating higher consumption. Decreasing consumer confidence implies slowing economic growth, and so consumers are likely to decrease their spending. The idea is that the more confident people feel about the economy and their jobs and incomes, the more likely they are to make purchases. Declining consumer confidence is a sign of slowing economic growth and may indicate that the economy is headed into trouble.

Each month The Conference Board surveys 5,000 US households. The survey consists of five questions that ask the respondents’ opinions about the following:[2]

  1. Current business conditions
  2. Business conditions for the next six months
  3. Current employment conditions
  4. Employment conditions for the next six months
  5. Total family income for the next six months

Survey participants are asked to answer each question as “positive”, “negative” or “neutral”. The preliminary results from the consumer confidence survey are released on the last Tuesday of each month at 10am EST.

Once the data have been gathered, a proportion known as the “relative value” is calculated for each question separately. Each question’s positive responses are divided by the sum of its positive and negative responses. The relative value for each question is then compared against each relative value from 1985. This comparison of the relative values results in an “index value” for each question.

The index values for all five questions are then averaged together to form the consumer confidence index; the average of index values for questions one and three form the present situation index, and the average of index values for questions two, four and five form the expectations index. The data are calculated for the United States as a whole and for each of the country’s nine census regions.

Usage

Manufacturers, retailers, banks and the government monitor changes in the CCI in order to factor in the data in their decision-making processes. While index changes of less than 5% are often dismissed as inconsequential, moves of 5% or more often indicate a change in the direction of the economy.

A month-on-month decreasing trend suggests consumers have a negative outlook on their ability to secure and retain good jobs. Thus, manufacturers may expect consumers to avoid retail purchases, particularly large-ticket items that require financing. Manufacturers may pare down inventories to reduce overhead and/or delay investing in new projects and facilities. Likewise, banks can anticipate a decrease in lending activity, mortgage applications and credit card use. When faced with a down-trending index, the government has a variety of options, such as issuing a tax rebate or taking other fiscal or monetary action to stimulate the economy.

Conversely, a rising trend in consumer confidence indicates improvements in consumer buying patterns. Manufacturers can increase production and hiring. Banks can expect increased demand for credit. Builders can prepare for a rise in home construction and government can anticipate improved tax revenues based on the increase in consumer spending.

Consumer-demand surveys versus consumer-confidence and -sentiment surveys[edit]

Consumer-demand surveys are interview-based statistical surveys that measure the percentage of households that will buy a car, white goods, PCs, TVs, home furnishings, kitchenware or toys in, for example, the next three-month period. The surveys provide a percentage of those who will purchase more, less or the same amount of food and clothing in the next three months than in the corresponding period the year before. If you ask people about their purchasing behavior within the coming six or 12 months, there will be more of those who “hope to be able to buy”, than if consumers are asked about what they will purchase in the next three months. The shorter the time spans, the closer to actual behavior.

Consumer-confidence and -sentiment surveys measure how people are doing financially, how they look at the overall economy of the country or business conditions in the country, if they think that the government is doing a good or a poor job and if people think that it is a good or a bad time to buy a car or to buy or sell a house.

When the business cycle is fairly stable, consumer demand surveys and consumer confidence and sentiment indices will often correlate closely and indicate the same direction of the economy, but in times with a high degree of economic or political uncertainty or during a prolonged crisis, the two types of consumer surveys might differ significantly. In 2011 the confidence and sentiment surveys went up from March to April, while consumer demand surveys dropped significantly. In August 2011 the confidence and sentiment surveys dropped significantly and stayed low during September and October, while consumer demand surveys showed resilience, a development confirmed later by official statistics.

Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan and the Conference Board both publish a monthly consumer confidence and attitude survey. The Institute for Business Cycle Analysis publishes a monthly consumer demand survey known as US Consumer Demand Indices.

In the United States

US consumer confidence index 1966–2012

The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index is the most widely accepted index among the United States media, businesspeople, and many consumers.[citation needed] The chart to the left shows the index over time from December 1966 to April 2012.

Other measures of consumer confidence in the United States

In addition to the Conference Board’s CCI, other survey-based indices attempt to track consumer confidence in the U.S.:

  • The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index (MCSI) is a consumer confidence index published monthly by the University of Michigan. It uses an ongoing, nationally representative survey based on telephonic household interviews to gather information on consumer expectations regarding the overall economy.
  • The Washington Post-ABC News Consumer Comfort Index is a consumer confidence index based on telephone interviews with 1,000 randomly selected adults over the previous four-week period. It asks respondents “to rate the condition of the national economy, the state of their personal finances and whether now is a good time to buy things”.

[3]

Given the potential for sampling biases of individual survey reports, researchers and investors try sometimes to average the values of different index reports into a single aggregated measure of consumer confidence.

In India

The ZyFin India Consumer Outlook Index[4] is a monthly index of consumer sentiment in India. The COI is designed to provide reliable insights into the direction of the Indian national and regional economies. Released once a month, the index is computed from the results of a monthly survey of 4,000 consumers in 18 cities across India.

In the Republic of Ireland

KBC Bank Ireland (formerly IIB Bank) and the Economic and Social Research Institute (a think-tank) have published a monthly consumer sentiment index since January 1996.[5]

In Canada

The Conference Board of Canada’s index of consumer confidence has been ongoing since 1980. It is constructed from responses to four attitudinal questions posed to a random sample of Canadian households. Those surveyed are asked to give their views about their households’ current and expected financial positions and the short-term employment outlook. They are also asked to assess whether now is a good or a bad time to make a major purchase such as a house, car or other big-ticket items.

Consumer confidence index in Indonesia

Consumer Survey-Bank Indonesia (CS-BI) is a monthly survey that has been conducted since October 1999 by Bank Indonesia.[6] The survey represents the consumer confidence about the overall economic condition, general price level, household income, and consumption plans three and six months ahead. Since January 2007, the survey is conducted with approximately 4,600 household respondents (stratified random sampling) in 18 cities: Jakarta, Bandung, Semarang, Surabaya, Medan, Makassar, Bandar Lampung, Palembang, Banjarmasin, Padang, Pontianak, Samarinda, Manado, Denpasar, Mataram, Pangkal Pinang, Ambon, and Banten. At a significance level of 99%, the survey has a sampling error of 2%. Data canvassing run through interviews by phone and direct visits in particular cities that is based on rotational system. The Balance Score Method (net balance + 100) has been adopted to construct the index, where the index above 100 points indicates optimism (positive responses) and vice versa. The consumer confidence index (CCI), is an average of the current economic condition index (CECI) and consumer expectation index (CEI).

The CECI is made up of the average of current condition of several factors compared to six months ago

  1. Household income
  2. Right time to buy durable goods
  3. Unemployment

The CEI is made up from the average of future prospects of several factors

  1. Household income
  2. Overall economic condition
  3. Unemployment rate.

Other sources

Danareksa conducts a monthly consumer survey to produce the Consumer Confidence Index. [7]

References

  1. Jump up^ Benjamin, Colin (30 October 2008). “Consumer Confidence – Global Monitor of Consumer Sentiment Index Reports and Country Update on Consumer Confidence Changes”. Marshall Place Associates. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  2. Jump up^ “Consumer Confidence: An Online NewsHour Special Report”The NewsHour with Jim LehrerPBS. May 2001. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  3. Jump up^ Washington Post-ABC News Consumer Comfort Index Survey”. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  4. Jump up^ ZyFin India Consumer Outlook Index
  5. Jump up^ “Consumer Sentiment”Economic and Social Research Institute. Retrieved 2009-02-24.
  6. Jump up^ Nurcahyo Heru Prasetyo, Ririn Yuliatiningsih. “BANK INDONESIA – CONSUMER SURVEY” (PDF). Bank Indonesia. Retrieved 2011-02-26.
  7. Jump up^ Danareksa, Research Institute. “Consumer Confidence Index”. Danareksa. Retrieved 26 February 2011.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_confidence_index

Story 2: Latest Senate Repeal of Obamacare Fails — Time For Replacing Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell With A New Conservative Leader — Videos

Republican push to repeal Obamacare collapses

Republicans vow to ‘press on’ with health care bill in CNN debate

19 seconds of drama: Reaction to McCain’s vote

Watch The Moment John McCain Votes Against The GOP’s Health Care Plan

Obamacare overhaul efforts are dead for now. What does that mean if you’re an Obamacare consumer?

Maureen Groppe, USA TODAYPublished 4:26 p.m. ET Sept. 26, 2017 | Updated 6:27 p.m. ET Sept. 26, 2017

Republicans’ last-ditch effort to rewrite the Affordable Care Act collapsed Thursday after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., acknowledged it lacked the votes to pass.

It’s unclear whether the bipartisan attempts to fix some of Obamacare’s problems —which were derailed by the latest repeal bill — can now be successful.

Here’s what that means for you:

Who is affected?

Despite all the attention Obamacare has gotten this year, the lack of action by lawmakers won’t affect most Americans’ health care coverage. The problems are centered in the health insurance marketplaces created by the ACA for people who don’t get coverage through an employer or a government program like Medicare or Medicaid. Only about 7% of the population buys insurance on the individual market. An average of 10 million a month have been getting those plans through the subsidized marketplaces this year.

Will people still be able to buy Obamacare insurance?

As insurers filed their initial coverage plans for 2018 earlier this year, there were dozens of counties without an insurer. But other providers stepped in to fill those gaps. That could still change before 2018 enrollment begins in November. Wednesday is the deadline for insurers to finalize their contracts with the federal government. (States that run their own marketplaces have their own set of rules.)

Still, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected this month that, over the next decade, fewer than half of 1% of people live in areas where no insurers will want to participate.

Will people have a choice of insurers?

Nearly half of counties could have only one insurance provider, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said last week.  Because many of those counties are rural, the share of people using the exchanges would could lack choice is closer to one quarter. Still, participation by insurers has declined.

How much will the insurance cost?

Prices won’t become public until later this fall. But CBO projects the average premium for a benchmark plan — those used to determine a consumer’s subsidy — will be about 15% higher than this year. (The average benchmark premium for a 45-year-old is now about $4,800 a year.)

Most people are insulated from premium increases because of the premium subsidies available to those earning up to about $48,000.

People earning up to about $30,000 can also get help paying for deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket expenses. But the Trump administration has not said how long it will continue to reimburse insurers for providing these discounts. That’s a main reason premiums are going up and insurers’ participation is going down.

So will the subsidies continue?

The administration has been making the payments to insurers on a month-to-month basis. This doesn’t directly affect the customer, however, because the law requires insurers to provide the assistance. What remains to be determined is how long insurers will be compensated. A challenge to the payments brought by congressional Republicans after the ACA’s passage is pending in federal court.

How could a bipartisan bill help?

Most of the focus of bipartisan efforts to improve the individual insurance markets has been on funding and flexibility. Democrats want to continue the cost-sharing reduction payments and want to provide new funds to help offset the costs of the sickest customers. Republicans want to make it easier for states to change insurance regulations and to allow more people who either can’t afford or don’t want full insurance to buy plans that cover only about half of medical costs.

Could lawmakers still agree on a bipartisan set of fixes?

Maybe. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and GOP Rep. Tom Reed of New York, co-chairmen of a bipartisan group called the House Problem Solvers Caucus, said Monday the only way to get something passed is if both sides come together. “Now is our moment,” Gottheimer said. But there’s still plenty of opposition. Many Republicans don’t want to look like they’re “bailing out” insurance companies or shoring up Obamacare. And Democrats are worried about changes they worry could undermine patient protections.

Tennessee GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander, who had been working with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., on a bipartisan bill, said Tuesday he’ll resume trying to find a consensus on a limited plan that could help make insurance more available and affordable in 2018 and 2019.

What else could affect the Obamacare marketplaces?

The administration has shortened the open enrollment period to less than half the time people have had to sign up. Officials also significantly reducing spending on advertising and on paying “navigators” to help people enroll.

As a result, CBO projects that while participation will increase next year, it won’t go up as much as previously expected. And because the dropoff is likely to be heaviest among the young and healthy, insurers are likely to seek higher rates for 2019.

What about Medicaid?

The failure of the GOP repeal bills means the ACA’s funding for states to expand Medicaid eligibility continues. Of the 19 states which haven’t gone along, CBO expects many could still wait for more funding predictability. But within a decade, 70% of people made newly eligible by the ACA will live in states that have expanded Medicaid, CBO predicts.

Some states could be induced to expand by the Trump administration’s eagerness to waive some Medicaid rules. But advocates for the poor could challenge any actions like work requirements that they think go beyond what’s allowed without changing the law.

Read more:

RIP, repeal and replace: Republicans’ last-ditch effort on health care is dead

Senate Republicans pull Obamacare repeal bill as support falters in their own party

House Democrats tell Graham-Cassidy bill ‘Bye Bye Bye’

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/26/what-happens-now-obamacare-consumers/705229001/

 

Conservative Review Scorecard for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Liberty Score: Solid F at 42%

Party leaders of the United States Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Current Leaders
McConnell
Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R)
Cornyn
Majority Whip
John Cornyn (R)
Schumer
Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D)
Durbin
Minority Whip
Dick Durbin (D)
Party Leaders of the U.S. Senate

The Senate Majority and Minority Leaders are two United States Senators and members of the party leadership of the United States Senate. These leaders serve as the chief Senate spokespeople for the political partiesrespectively holding the majority and the minority in the United States Senate, and manage and schedule the legislative and executive business of the Senate. They are elected to their positions in the Senate by their respective party caucuses, the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Senate Republican Conference.

By rule, the Presiding Officer gives the Majority Leader priority in obtaining recognition to speak on the floor of the Senate. The Majority Leader customarily serves as the chief representative of their party in the Senate, and sometimes even in all of Congress if the House of Representatives and thus the office of Speaker of the House is controlled by the opposition party.

The Assistant Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate (commonly called Senate Majority and Minority Whips) are the second-ranking members of each party’s leadership. The main function of the Majority and Minority Whips is to gather votes on major issues. Because they are the second ranking members of the Senate, if there is no floor leader present, the whip may become acting floor leader. Before 1969, the official titles were Majority Whip and Minority Whip.

Contents

 [show

Current floor leaders

The Senate is currently composed of 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats.

The current leaders are long-time Senators Mitch McConnell (R) from Kentucky and Chuck Schumer (D) from New York. The current Assistant Leaders/Whips are long-time Senators John Cornyn (R) from Texas and Dick Durbin(D) from Illinois.

History

The Democrats began the practice of electing floor leaders in 1920 while they were in the minority. John W. Kern was a Democratic Senator from Indiana. While the title was not official, he is considered[by whom?] to be the first Senate party leader from 1913 through 1917 (and in turn, the first Senate Democratic Leader), while serving concurrently as Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. In 1925 the majority (at the time) Republicans also adopted this language when Charles Curtis became the first (official) Majority Leader[citation needed], although his immediate predecessor Henry Cabot Lodge is considered the first (unofficial) Senate Majority Leader.

The Constitution designates the Vice President of the United States as President of the United States Senate. The Constitution also calls for a President pro tempore to serve as the leader of the body when the President of the Senate (the Vice President) is absent. In practice, neither the Vice President nor the President pro tempore—customarily the most senior (longest-serving) Senator in the majority party—actually presides over the Senate on a daily basis; that task is given to junior Senators of the majority party. Since the Vice President may be of a different party than the majority and is not a member subject to discipline, the rules of procedure of the Senate give the presiding officer very little power and none beyond the presiding role. For these reasons, it is the Majority Leader who, in practice, manages the Senate. This is in contrast to the House of Representatives where the elected Speaker of the House has a great deal of discretionary power and generally presides over votes on bills.[citation needed]

List of party leaders

The Democratic Party first selected a leader in 1920. The Republican Party first formally designated a leader in 1925.

Cong-
ress
Dates Democratic Whip Democratic Leader Majority Republican Leader Republican Whip
63rd March 4, 1913 –
March 4, 1915
J. Hamilton Lewis None Democratic
← Majority
None None
64th March 4, 1915 –
March 4, 1915
James Wadsworth, Jr.
March 4, 1915 –
March 4, 1917
Charles Curtis
65th March 4, 1917 –
March 4, 1919
66th March 4, 1919 –
March 4, 1921
Peter Gerry Oscar Underwood Republican
Majority →
Henry Cabot Lodge (unofficial)
67th March 4, 1921 –
March 4, 1923
68th March 4, 1923 –
November 9, 1924
Joseph Taylor Robinson
1925 Charles Curtis Wesley Jones
69th March 4, 1925 –
March 4, 1927
70th March 4, 1927 –
March 4, 1929
71st March 4, 1929 –
March 4, 1931
Morris Sheppard James E. Watson Simeon Fess
72nd March 4, 1931 –
March 4, 1933
73rd March 4, 1933 –
January 3, 1935
J. Hamilton Lewis Democratic
← Majority
Charles L. McNary Felix Hebert
74th January 3, 1935 –
January 3, 1937
None[Note 1]
75th January 3, 1937 –
July 14, 1937
July 22, 1937 –
January 3, 1939
Alben W. Barkley
76th January 3, 1939 –
?
Sherman Minton
1940 Warren Austin (acting)
77th January 3, 1941 –
January 3, 1943
J. Lister Hill Charles L. McNary
78th January 3, 1943 –
February 25, 1944
Kenneth Wherry
February 25, 1944 –
January 3, 1945
Wallace H. White Jr. (acting)
79th January 3, 1945 –
January 3, 1947
Wallace H. White Jr.
80th January 3, 1947 –
January 3, 1949
Scott W. Lucas Republican
Majority →
81st January 3, 1949 –
January 3, 1951
Francis Myers Scott W. Lucas Democratic
← Majority
Kenneth S. Wherry Leverett Saltonstall
82nd January 3, 1951 –
January 3, 1952
Lyndon B. Johnson Ernest McFarland
January 3, 1952 –
January 3, 1953
Styles Bridges
83rd January 3, 1953 –
July 31, 1953
Earle Clements Lyndon B. Johnson Republican
Majority →
Robert A. Taft
August 3, 1953 –
January 3, 1955
William F. Knowland
84th January 3, 1955 –
January 3, 1957
Democratic
← Majority
85th January 3, 1957 –
January 3, 1959
Mike Mansfield Everett Dirksen
86th January 3, 1959 –
January 3, 1961
Everett Dirksen Thomas Kuchel
87th January 3, 1961 –
January 3, 1963
Hubert Humphrey Mike Mansfield
88th January 3, 1963 –
January 3, 1965
89th January 3, 1965 –
January 3, 1967
Russell B. Long
90th January 3, 1967 –
January 3, 1969
91st January 3, 1969 –
September 7, 1969
Ted Kennedy Hugh Scott
September 24, 1969 –
January 3, 1971
Hugh Scott Robert Griffin
92nd January 3, 1971 –
January 3, 1973
Robert Byrd
93rd January 3, 1973 –
January 3, 1975
94th January 3, 1975 –
January 3, 1977
95th January 3, 1977 –
January 3, 1979
Alan Cranston Robert Byrd Howard Baker Ted Stevens
96th January 3, 1979 –
January 3, 1981
97th January 3, 1981 –
January 3, 1983
Republican
Majority →
98th January 3, 1983 –
January 3, 1985
99th January 3, 1985 –
January 3, 1987
Bob Dole Alan Simpson
100th January 3, 1987 –
January 3, 1989
Democratic
← Majority
101st January 3, 1989 –
January 3, 1991
George Mitchell
102nd January 3, 1991 –
January 3, 1993
Wendell H. Ford
103rd January 3, 1993 –
January 3, 1995
104th January 3, 1995 –
June 12, 1996
Tom Daschle Republican
Majority →
Trent Lott
June 12, 1996 –
January 3, 1997
Trent Lott Don Nickles
105th January 3, 1997 –
January 3, 1999
106th January 3, 1999 –
January 3, 2001
Harry Reid
107th January 3, 2001 –
January 20, 2001
Democratic
← Majority
January 20, 2001 –
June 6, 2001
Republican
Majority →
June 6, 2001 –
January 3, 2003[Note 2]
Democratic
← Majority
108th January 3, 2003 –
January 3, 2005
Republican
Majority →
Bill Frist Mitch McConnell
109th January 3, 2005 –
January 3, 2007
Richard Durbin Harry Reid
110th January 3, 2007 –
December 18, 2007
Democratic
← Majority
Mitch McConnell Trent Lott
December 19, 2007 –
January 3, 2009
Jon Kyl
111th January 3, 2009 –
January 3, 2011
112th January 3, 2011 –
January 3, 2013
113th January 3, 2013 –
January 3, 2015
John Cornyn
114th January 3, 2015 –
January 3, 2017
Republican
Majority →
115th January 3, 2017 –
January 3, 2019
Chuck Schumer

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ No Republican whips were appointed from 1935 to 1944 since only 17 Republicans were in the Senate following the landslide reelection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. Accordingly, the minutes of the Republican Conference for the period state: “On motion of Senator Hastings, duly seconded and carried, it was agreed that no Assistant Leader or Whip be elected but that the chairman be authorized to appoint Senators from time to time to assist him in taking charge of the interests of the minority.” A note attached to the conference minutes added: “The chairman of the conference, Senator McNary, apparently appointed Senator Austin of Vermont as assistant leader in 1943 and 1944, until the conference adopted Rules of Organization.” Source: Party Whips, via Senate.gov
  2. Jump up^ Democrats remained in control after November 25, 2002, despite a Republican majority resulting from Jim Talent‘s special election victory in Missouri. There was no reorganization as Senate was no longer in session. Party Division in the Senate, 1789–present, via Senate.gov

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

Mitch McConnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell close-up.JPG
United States Senator
from Kentucky
Assumed office
January 3, 1985
Serving with Rand Paul
Preceded by Walter Huddleston
Senate Majority Leader
Assumed office
January 3, 2015
Deputy John Cornyn
Preceded by Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader
In office
January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2015
Deputy Trent Lott
Jon Kyl
John Cornyn
Preceded by Harry Reid
Succeeded by Harry Reid
Senate Majority Whip
In office
January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2007
Leader Bill Frist
Preceded by Harry Reid
Succeeded by Dick Durbin
Chair of the Senate Rules Committee
In office
January 20, 2001 – June 6, 2001
Preceded by Chris Dodd
Succeeded by Chris Dodd
In office
January 3, 1999 – January 3, 2001
Preceded by John Warner
Succeeded by Chris Dodd
Judge-Executive of Jefferson County
In office
1977–1984
Preceded by Todd Hollenbach III
Succeeded by Bremer Ehrler
United States Assistant Attorney Generalfor the Office of Legislative Affairs
Acting
In office
1975
President Gerald Ford
Preceded by Vincent Rakestraw
Succeeded by Michael Uhlmann
Personal details
Born Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr.
February 20, 1942 (age 75)
Sheffield, Alabama, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Sherrill Redmon (m. 1968;div. 1980)
Elaine Chao (m. 1993)
Children 3
Education University of Louisville(BA)
University of Kentucky(JD)
Net worth $22.5 million (estimate)[1]
Signature
Website Senate website
Military service
Allegiance  United States
Service/branch  United States Army
Years of service 1967
Unit United States Army Reserve

Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (born February 20, 1942) is an American politician and the seniorUnited States Senator from Kentucky. A member of the Republican Party, he has been the Majority Leader of the Senate since January 3, 2015. He is the 15th Republican and the second Kentuckian to lead his party in the Senate.[2] McConnell is the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Kentucky history.[3]

During the administration of President Barack Obama, McConnell was known to the left as being an obstructionist,[4] while opinion on the right was sharply divided. Some on the right praised him for tenacity and courage,[5]while others criticized him for being part of the political establishment and not keeping his promises to conservatives.[6] McConnell has gained a reputation as a skilled political strategist and tactician.[7][8] However, this reputation dimmed after Republicans failed to pass a replacement for the Affordable Care Act in 2017.[9][10]

From early 2016, McConnell refused to schedule Senate hearings for Obama’s nominee to the Supreme CourtMerrick Garland, to replace Associate JusticeAntonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. Garland’s nominationremained before the Senate for 294 days, from March 16, 2016, until it expired on January 3, 2017, more than double the time of any other Supreme Court nomination.[11] Later, McConnell used the so-called “nuclear option” to lower the threshold for overriding filibusters for Supreme Court nominees to a simple majority, with the aim of confirming Neil Gorsuch to the Court.[12]

Contents

 [show

Early life and education

McConnell is of Scots-Irish and English descent, the son of Addison Mitchell McConnell, and his wife, Julia (née Shockley). McConnell was born on February 20, 1942, in Sheffield, Alabama, and raised as a young child in nearby Athens.[13]

As a youth, McConnell overcame polio,[14] which he was struck with at age 2.[15] He received treatment at the Warm Springs Institute in Georgia, which potentially saved him from being disabled for the rest of his life.[16] In 1990, McConnell said that his family “almost went broke” because of costs related to his illness.[17]

When he was eight, McConnell’s family moved to Georgia.[18] When he was a teenager, his family moved to Louisville, where he attended duPont Manual High School. He graduated with honors from the University of Louisville with a B.A. in political science in 1964. McConnell was president of the Student Council of the College of Arts and Sciences and a member of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity. He has maintained strong ties to his alma mater and “remains a rabid fan of its sports teams.”[19] In 1967, McConnell graduated from the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was president of the Student Bar Association.

In March 1967, shortly before graduating from law school, McConnell enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve at Louisville, Kentucky. In August 1967, after five weeks of military training at Fort Knox, he received an honorable discharge for medical reasons (optic neuritis).[20][21]

Early career

McConnell began interning for Senator John Sherman Cooper (R-KY) in 1964, and his time with Cooper inspired him to run for the Senate eventually himself.[22] Later, McConnell was an assistant to Senator Marlow Cook (R-KY) and was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General under PresidentGerald R. Ford, where he worked alongside future Justice Antonin Scalia.[23] In 1977, McConnell was elected the Jefferson County Judge/Executive, the former top political office in Jefferson County, Kentucky. He was re-elected in 1981.[22]

U.S. Senate

Elections

1984

In 1984, McConnell ran for the U.S. Senate against two-term Democratic incumbent Walter Dee Huddleston. The election race wasn’t decided until the last returns came in, and McConnell won by a thin margin—only 5,200 votes out of more than 1.8 million votes cast, just over 0.4%.[24] McConnell was the only Republican Senate challenger to win that year, despite Ronald Reagan‘s landslide victory in the presidential election. Part of McConnell’s success came from a series of television campaign spots called “Where’s Dee”, which featured a group of bloodhounds trying to find Huddleston,[25][26] implying that Huddleston’s attendance record in the Senate was less than stellar. His campaign bumper stickers and television ads asked voters to “Switch to Mitch”.[27]

1990

In 1990, McConnell faced a tough re-election contest against former Louisville Mayor Harvey I. Sloane, winning by 4.4%.

1996

In 1996, he defeated Steve Beshear by 12.6%, even as Bill Clintonnarrowly carried the state. In keeping with a tradition of humorous and effective television ads in his campaigns, McConnell’s campaign ran television ads that warned voters to not “Get BeSheared” and included images of sheep being sheared.[27]

2002

In 2002, he was re-elected against Lois Combs Weinberg by 29.4%, the largest majority by a statewide Republican candidate in Kentucky history.

2008

In 2008, McConnell faced his closest contest since 1990. He defeated Bruce Lunsford by 6%.[28]

2014

In 2014, McConnell faced Louisville businessman Matt Bevin in the Republican primary.[29] The 60.2% won by McConnell was the lowest voter support for a Kentucky U.S. Senator in a primary by either party since 1938.[30]He faced Democratic Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes in the general election. Although polls showed the race was very close, ultimately McConnell defeated Grimes by 56.2%–40.7%, resulting in a margin of victory of 15.5 percentage points – one of his largest margins of victory, second only to his 2002 margin.

Leadership

During the 1998 and 2000 election cycles, McConnell was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Republicans maintained control of the Senate after both elections. He was first elected as Majority Whip in the 108th Congress and unanimously re-elected on November 17, 2004. Senator Bill Frist, the Majority Leader, did not seek re-election in the 2006 elections. In November 2006, after Republicans lost control of the Senate, they elected McConnell to replace Frist as Minority Leader. After Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 Senate elections, McConnell became the Senate Majority Leader.

Tenure

Senator Mitch McConnell in 1992

Reputation

According to The New York Times, in his early years as a politician in Kentucky, McConnell was “something of a centrist”. In recent years, however, McConnell has veered sharply to the right. He now opposed collective-bargaining rights and minimum-wage increases that he previously supported, and abandoned pork barrel projects he once delivered to the state of Kentucky. He believed that Reagan’s popularity made conservatism much more appealing.[22]

According to a profile in Politico, “While most politicians desperately want to be liked, McConnell has relished—and cultivated—his reputation as a villain.” The Politico profile also noted “For most of Obama‘s presidency, McConnell has been the face of Republican obstructionism.”[31] According to Salon, “Despite McConnell’s reputation as the man who said his No. 1 goal was to stop President Obama from winning a second term, it’s been McConnell at the table when the big deals—be they over threatened government shutdowns, debt defaults or fiscal cliffs—have been finalized.”[32]

Reporter Alec MacGillis wrote a book about Mitch McConnell, published by Simon & Schuster on December 23, 2014, titled The Cynic, which alludes to the author’s belief that McConnell mostly acts the way he does for political gains and not out of ideology.[33]

With a 49% disapproval rate in 2016, he had the highest disapproval rate out of all senators.[34] McConnell has repeatedly been found to have the lowest home state approval rating of any sitting senator.[35][36]

Foreign policy

After winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, McConnell backed anti-apartheid legislation with Chris Dodd.[37] McConnell went on to engineer new IMF funding to “faithfully protect aid to Egypt and Israel,” and “promote free elections and better treatment of Muslim refugees” in Myanmar, Cambodia and Macedonia. According to a March 2014 article in Politico, “McConnell was a ‘go-to guy’ for presidents of both parties seeking foreign aid,” but he has lost some of his idealism and has evolved to be more wary of foreign assistance.[38]

McConnell stands in front and directly to the right of President Obama as he signs tax cuts and unemployment insurance legislation on December 17, 2010.

In August 2007, McConnell introduced the Protect America Act of 2007, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor telephone and electronic communications of suspected terrorists outside the United States without obtaining a warrant.[39] McConnell was the only party leader in Congress to oppose the resolution that would authorize military strikes against Syria in September 2013, citing a lack of national security risk.[40]

On March 27, 2014, McConnell introduced the United States International Programming to Ukraine and Neighboring Regions bill, which would provide additional funding and instructions to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in response to the 2014 Crimea crisis.[41][42]

In September 2016, the Senate voted 71 to 27 against the Chris Murphy–Rand Paul resolution to block the $1.15 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia.[43] The Saudi Arabian-led coalition in Yemen has been accused of war crimes.[43]Following the vote, McConnell said: “I think it’s important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudi Arabia as possible.”[44]

Campaign finance

McConnell argued that campaign finance regulations reduce participation in political campaigns and protect incumbents from competition.[45] He spearheaded the movement against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known since 1995 as the “McCain–Feingold bill” and from 1989 to 1994 as the “Boren–Mitchell bill”), calling it “neither fair, nor balanced, nor constitutional.”[46] His opposition to the bill culminated in the 2003 Supreme Court case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and the 2009 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. McConnell has been an advocate for free speech at least as far back as the early 1970s when he was teaching night courses at the University of Louisville. “No issue has shaped his career more than the intersection of campaign financing and free speech,” political reporter Robert Costa wrote in 2012.[47] In a recording of a 2014 fundraiser McConnell expressed his disapproval of the McCain-Feingold law, saying, “The worst day of my political life was when President George W. Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law in the early part of his first Administration.”[48]

On January 2, 2013, the Public Campaign Action Fund, a liberal nonprofit group that backs stronger campaign finance regulation, released a report highlighting eight instances from McConnell’s political career in which a vote or a blocked vote (filibuster), coincided with an influx of campaign contributions to McConnell’s campaign.[49][50]Progress Kentucky, a SuperPAC focused on defeating McConnell in 2014, hosted a press conference in front of the Senator’s Louisville office to highlight the report’s findings.[51][52]

Flag Desecration Amendment

McConnell opposed the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2000. According to McConnell: “We must curb this reflexive practice of attempting to cure each and every political and social ill of our nation by tampering with the Constitution. The Constitution of this country was not a rough draft. It was not a rough draft and we should not treat it as such.” McConnell offered an amendment to the measure that would have made flag desecration a statutory crime, illegal without amending the Constitution.[53]

Health policy

In August 2001, McConnell introduced the Common Sense Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2001. The bill would require that a health care liability action must be initiated within two years, non-economic damages may not exceed $250,000, and punitive damages may only be awarded in specified situations.[54]

McConnell voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act) in December 2009,[55] and he voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[56] In 2014, McConnell repeated his call for the full repeal of Obamacare and said that Kentucky should be allowed to keep the state’s health insurance exchange website, Kynect, or set up a similar system.[57] McConnell is part of the group of 13 Senators drafting the Senate version of the AHCA behind closed doors.[58][59][60][61] The Senator refused over 15 patient advocacy organization’s requests to meet with his congressional staff to discuss the legislation. This included groups like the American Heart AssociationMarch of DimesAmerican Lung Association. and the American Diabetes Association.[62]

McConnell received the Kentucky Life Science Champion Awards for his work in promoting innovation in the life science sector.[63]

In 2015, both houses of Congress passed a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.[64] It was vetoed by President Obama in January 2016.[65]

After President Trump took office in January 2017, Senate Republicans, under McConnell’s leadership, began to work on a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. They faced opposition from both Democrats and moderate Republicans, who claimed that the bill would leave too many people uninsured, and more conservative Republicans, who protested that the bill kept too many of the ACA’s regulation and spending increases, and was thus not a full repeal. Numerous attempts at repeal failed. On June 27, after a meeting with President Trump at the White House, McConnell signaled improvements for the repeal and replacement: “We’re not quite there. But I think we’ve got a really good chance of getting there. It’ll just take us a little bit longer.”[66] During a Rotary Club lunch on July 6, McConnell said, “If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur.”[67]

Economy

In July 2003, McConnell sponsored the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2003. The bill would protect small businesses from litigation excesses and limit the liability of non-manufacturer product sellers.[68][69]

McConnell was the sponsor of the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. The bill, which did not pass, would have allowed states to engage in increased offshore and domestic oil exploration in an effort to curb rising gas prices.[70]

In June 2008, McConnell introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax and Extenders Tax Relief Act of 2008. The bill was intended to limit the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax.[71]

McConnell with President Barack Obama, August 2010

In an interview with National Journal magazine published October 23, 2010, McConnell explained that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Asked whether this meant “endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president,” McConnell clarified that “if [Obama is] willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.”[72]

In September 2010, McConnell sponsored the Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010. The bill would have permanently extended the tax relief provisions of 2001 and 2003 and provided permanent Alternative Minimum Tax and estate tax relief.[73]

In 2010, McConnell requested earmarks for the defense contractor BAE Systems while the company was under investigation by the Department of Justice for alleged bribery of foreign officials.[74][unreliable source?][75]

In June 2011, McConnell introduced a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment. The amendment would require two-thirds votes in Congress to increase taxes or for federal spending to exceed the current year’s tax receipts or 18% of the prior year’s GDP. The amendment specifies situations when these requirements would be waived.[76][77]

In December 2012, McConnell called for a vote on giving the president unilateral authority to raise the federal debt ceiling. When Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called for an up or down vote, McConnell objected to the vote and ended up filibustering it himself.[78] In 2014, McConnell voted to help break Ted Cruz‘s filibuster attempt against a debt limit increase and then against the bill itself.[79]

After two intersessions to get federal grants for Alltech, whose president T. Pearse Lyons made subsequent campaign contributions to McConnell, to build a plant in Kentucky for producing ethanol from algae, corncobs, and switchgrass, McConnell criticized President Obama in 2012 for twice mentioning biofuel production from algae in a speech touting his “all-of-the-above” energy policy.[80][81]

In April 2014, the United States Senate debated the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199; 113th Congress). It was a bill that “punishes employers for retaliating against workers who share wage information, puts the justification burden on employers as to why someone is paid less and allows workers to sue for punitive damages of wage discrimination.”[82] McConnell said that he opposed the legislation because it would “line the pockets of trial lawyers”, not help women.[82]

In July 2014, McConnell expressed opposition to a U.S. Senate bill that would limit the practice of corporate inversion by U.S. corporations seeking to limit U.S. tax liability.[83]

Environment

McConnell expressed skepticism that climate change is a problem, telling the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board in 2014, “I’m not a scientist, I am interested in protecting Kentucky’s economy, I’m interested in having low cost electricity.” [84][85][86]

McConnell was one of 22 senators to sign a letter[87] to President Donald Trump urging the President to have the United States withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell has received over $1.5 million from the oil and gas industry since 2012.[88]

Gun rights

On the weekend of January 19–21, 2013, the McConnell for Senate campaign emailed and robo-called gun-rights supporters telling them that “President Obama and his team are doing everything in their power to restrict your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” McConnell also said, “I’m doing everything in my power to protect your 2nd Amendment rights.”[89] On April 17, 2013, McConnell voted against expanding background checks for gun purchases.[90]

Iraq War

In October 2002, McConnell voted for the Iraq Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.[91] McConnell supported the Iraq War troop surge of 2007.[92] In 2010, McConnell “accused the White House of being more concerned about a messaging strategy than prosecuting a war against terrorism.”[93]

In 2006, McConnell publicly criticized Senate Democrats for urging that troops be brought back from Iraq.[94] According to Bush’s Decision Points memoir, however, McConnell was privately urging the then President to “bring some troops home from Iraq” to lessen the political risks. McConnell’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, in an editorial titled “McConnell’s True Colors”, criticized McConnell for his actions and asked him to “explain why the fortunes of the Republican Party are of greater importance than the safety of the United States.”[95]

Regarding the failure of the Iraqi government to make reforms, McConnell said the following on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer: “The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment. Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government. I read just this week that a significant number of the Iraqi parliament want to vote to ask us to leave. I want to assure you, Wolf, if they vote to ask us to leave, we’ll be glad to comply with their request.”[96]

On April 21, 2009, McConnell delivered a speech to the Senate criticizing President Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, and questioned the additional 81 million dollar White House request for funds to transfer prisoners to the United States.[97][98]

Fundraising

From 2003 to 2008, the list of McConnell’s top 20 donors included five financial/investment firms: UBSFMR Corporation (Fidelity Investments), CitigroupBank of New York, and Merrill Lynch.[99]

In April 2010, while Congress was considering financial reform legislation, a reporter asked McConnell if he was “doing the bidding of the large banks.” McConnell has received more money in donations from the “Finance, Insurance and Real Estate” sector than any other sector according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[99][100] McConnell responded “I’d say that that’s inaccurate. You could talk to the community bankers in Kentucky.” The Democratic Party’s plan for financial reform is actually a way to institute “endless taxpayer funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks”, said McConnell. He expressed concern that the proposed $50 billion, bank-funded fund that would be used to liquidate financial firms that could collapse “would of course immediately signal to everyone that the government is ready to bail out large banks”.[99][100] In McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, the Lexington Herald-Leader ran an editorial saying: “We have read that the Republicans have a plan for financial reform, but McConnell isn’t talking up any solutions, just trashing the other side’s ideas with no respect for the truth.”[101] According to one tally, McConnell’s largest donor from the period from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015, was Bob McNair, contributing $1,502,500.[102]

2016 Supreme Court vacancy

In an August 2016 speech in Kentucky, McConnell, speaking of President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court (to fill the vacancy caused by Antonin Scalia‘s death in February 2016) said, “One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'”[103][104][105]

2016 presidential election

McConnell initially endorsed fellow Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Following Paul’s withdrawal, McConnell stayed neutral for the remainder of the primary. On May 4, 2016, McConnell endorsed then presumptive nominee Donald Trump. “I have committed to supporting the nominee chosen by Republican voters, and Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee, is now on the verge of clinching the nomination.” [106]

On multiple occasions, McConnell criticized Trump but continued to endorse Trump’s candidacy. On May 27, 2016, after Trump suggested that a Federal Judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, was biased against Trump because of his Mexican heritage, McConnell responded, “I don’t agree with what he (Trump) had to say. This is a man who was born in Indiana. All of us came here from somewhere else.” On July 31, 2016, after Trump had criticized the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq, McConnell stated, “Captain Khan was an American hero, and like all Americans, I’m grateful for the sacrifices that selfless young men like Captain Khan and their families have made in the war on terror. All Americans should value the patriotic service of the patriots who volunteer to selflessly defend us in the armed services.” On October 7, 2016, following the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy, McConnell stated: “As the father of three daughters, I strongly believe that Trump needs to apologize directly to women and girls everywhere, and take full responsibility for the utter lack of respect for women shown in his comments on that tape.”[107]

With regards to the US response to intelligence findings that Russia was responsible for cyberattacks undertaken to influence the American election, after Trump won the election, Senator McConnell expressed “support for investigating American intelligence findings that Moscow intervened.”.[108] Prior to the election however, when FBI Director James Comey, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and other officials met with the leadership of both parties to make the case for a bipartisan statement warning Russia that such actions would not be tolerated “McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics,” The Washington Post reported,[109]citing accounts of several unnamed officials.[110][111]

On February 7, 2017, McConnell stopped Senator Elizabeth Warren who was reading out statements opposing Jeff Sessions‘s nomination as federal judge that had been made by Ted Kennedy and Coretta Scott King, on the grounds of Senate Rule XIX. He defended his decision by saying “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted,”[112] a statement which was turned into a battle cry by Warren supporters.[113]

On April 2, McConnell denied knowing anything about potential wiretapping of Trump by the Obama administration, saying there was an ongoing investigation.[114]

Committee assignments

Electoral history

Elections are shown with a map depicting county-by-county information. McConnell is shown in red and Democratic opponents shown in blue.

Year  % McConnell Opponent(s) Party affiliation  % of vote County-by-county map
1984 49.9% Walter Huddleston (incumbent)Dave Welters DemocraticSocialist Workers 49.5% KY-USA 1984 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
1990 52.2% Harvey I. Sloane Democratic 47.8% KY-USA 1990 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
1996 55.5% Steve BeshearDennis Lacy

Patricia Jo Metten

Mac Elroy

DemocraticLibertarian

Natural Law

U.S. Taxpayers

42.8% KY-USA 1996 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
2002 64.7% Lois Combs Weinberg Democratic 35.3% KY-USA 2002 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
2008 53.0% Bruce Lunsford Democratic 47.0% KY-USA 2008 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
2014 56.2% Alison Lundergan GrimesDavid Patterson DemocraticLibertarian 40.7% KY-USA 2014 Senate Results by County 2-color.svg
U.S. Senate Republican primary election in Kentucky, 1984
Party Candidate Votes % +%
Republican Mitch McConnell 39,465 79.2%
Republican Roger Harker 3,798 7.6%
Republican Tommy Klein 3,352 6.7%
Republican Thurman Jerome Hamlin 3,202 6.4%
U.S. Senate Republican primary election in Kentucky, 1990
Party Candidate Votes % +%
Republican Mitch McConnell (inc.) 64,063 88.5%
Republican Tommy Klein 8,310 11.5%
U.S. Senate Republican primary election in Kentucky, 1996
Party Candidate Votes % +%
Republican Mitch McConnell (inc.) 88,620 88.6%
Republican Tommy Klein 11,410 11.4%
U.S. Senate Republican primary election in Kentucky, 2008
Party Candidate Votes % +%
Republican Mitch McConnell (inc.) 168,127 86.1%
Republican Daniel Essek 27,170 13.9%
U.S. Senate Republican primary election in Kentucky, 2014
Party Candidate Votes % +%
Republican Mitch McConnell (inc.) 213,753 60.2%
Republican Matt Bevin 125,787 35.4%
Republican Shawna Sterling 7,214 2.0%
Republican Chris Payne 5,338 1.5%
Republican Brad Copas 3,024 0.9%

Personal life

McConnell is a Southern Baptist.[115] He was married to his first wife, Sherrill Redmon, from 1968 to 1980, and had three children.[116] Following their divorce, she became a feminist scholar at Smith College and director of the Sophia Smith Collection.[117][118] His second wife, who married him in 1993, is Elaine Chao, the former Secretary of Labor under George W. Bush.[119] On November 29, 2016, incoming President Donald Trump nominated Chao to serve as the Secretary of Transportation. She was confirmed by the Senate on January 31, 2017, in a 93–6 vote.[119] McConnell himself voted “present” during the confirmation roll call.[120]

McConnell is on the Board of Selectors of Jefferson Awards for Public Service.[121]

In 1997, he founded the James Madison Center for Free Speech, a Washington, D.C.-based legal defense organization.[122][123] McConnell was inducted as a member of the Sons of the American Revolution on March 1, 2013.[124]

In 2010, the OpenSecrets website ranked McConnell one of the wealthiest members of the U.S. Senate, based on net household worth.[125] His personal wealth was increased after receiving a 2008 personal gift to him and his wife, given by his father-in-law James S. C. Chao after the death of McConnell’s mother-in-law, that ranged between $5 and $25 million.[126][127]

In popular culture

McConnell appears in the title sequence of seasons 1 and 2 of Alpha House making a speech with Matt Malloy‘s Senator Louis Laffer apparently standing just behind him.

Former Daily Show host Jon Stewart repeatedly mocked McConnell for his supposed resemblance to a turtle or tortoise.[128]

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

 

Story 3: Trump Supports Republican Establishment Candidate Luther Strange vs. Trump Supporters of Judge Roy Moore For Senator From Alabama– Who Will Win — Beats Me — The Winner Is … — Videos — Story 2: Economy Slowing Down As Consumer Confidence and Spending Decline — Videos

Image result for strange vs Moore senate race

Image result for trump supporters for roy moore

Judge Roy Moore’s Victory Speech in Alabama (Sweet Home)

Bill O’Reilly Interview and Roy Moore Wins!

O’Reilly Interview (part 2)

Judge Roy Moore Wins Big in Alabama!

Rep. Jim Jordan: Roy Moore Win Would Be Message To The Establishment | MTP Daily | MSNBC

Polls close in Alabama Senate runoff seen as test of Trump influence

Chuck Todd: Alabama Senate Runoff is “Trump vs. Trumpism”

Republican Party splintering over Luther Strange’s Senate race

[youtube4=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_d-TGB6VSw]

Steve Bannon At Roy Moore For Alabama Attorney General Rally 9/25/17

Nigel Farage speech in Alabama in support of Roy Moore

AMAZING: Judge Roy Moore Speech at Alabama will Leave you SPEECHLESS!!!

Roy Moore and Luther Strange!

Alabama’s Roy Moore Takes the Stage!

Gorka: A Roy Moore victory in Alabama strengthens Trump

Trump Admits He ‘May Have Made a Mistake Endorsing Luther Strange Over Roy Moore in Alabama

Sean Hannity Interview, Steve Bannon Rails Against McConnell and Paul Ryan (9/25/17)

Full Speeches by Sarah Palin and Sebastian Gorka for Roy Moore!

Judge Roy Moore on Yesterday’s Alabama Senate Race!

Full AL Senate Debate Between Swamp Creature Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore

The Latest Alabama Senate Primary Runoff Results

Alabama Republicans on Tuesday voted decisively to nominate Roy Moore, a former state Supreme Court judge, for a U.S. Senate seat, delivering a rebuke to President Donald Trump and the GOP establishment that supported his rival.

Mr. Moore was declared the victor over Sen. Luther Strange by the Associated Press in a runoff primary election to choose a successor to Attorney General jeff Sessions.

Speaking to his supporters after conceding the race, Mr. Strange said the president wasn’t responsible for his defeat. “It’s not his fault,” he said.

The vote came after a bitter primary campaign that pitted Mr. Trump against many in his own political base—including former White House strategist Steve Bannon —who supported Mr. Moore.

Mr. Trump’s inability to deliver victory to Mr. Strange suggests he won’t be able to reliably harness the antiestablishment political movement that he unleashed within the GOP and rode to the White House in the 2016 campaign.

Many Republicans believed that Mr. Moore, an anti-incumbent outsider, was more in line with the spirit of the Trump 2016 campaign than Mr. Strange, who has close ties to the party hierarchy in Washington. The Moore win elevates a firebrand who, if he prevails in the general election, could make it more difficult for President Trump to advance his agenda and for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to manage his slim Senate majority.

Mr. Moore has taken some stands at odds with Mr. Trump, including his opposition to the latest GOP bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which he believed didn’t go far enough, and he campaigned hard against Mr. McConnell, whom he portrayed as an exemplar of an out-of-touch Washington elite.

“Mitch McConnell needs to be replaced,” Mr. Moore said at his election-eve rally in Fairhope, Ala.

Mr. Moore’s victory could encourage other outsider candidates to challenge incumbent Republicans in the 2018 midterm election, and Mr. Bannon has made plain he wants to help them.

“We’re not going to hug out our differences,” he said at the Moore rally. “We’re going to fight at the ballot box.”

Mr. Moore now faces a Dec. 12 general election against Democrat Doug Jones, a former U.S. attorney best known for his prosecution of Ku Klux Klan members involved in a 1963 church bombing that killed four African-American girls. Former Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to campaign with him on Oct. 3.

A key question is how effectively the GOP will unite behind Mr. Moore for the general election campaign. A key Strange backer sounded a conciliatory note Tuesday night, conceding defeat even before the race was officially called,based on early returns skewing heavily toward Mr. Moore.

“Judge Roy Moore won this nomination fair and square and he has our support, as it is vital that we keep this seat in Republican hands.” said Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership, a super PAC allied with Mr. McConnell that invested heavily in supporting Mr. Strange.

In a state as Republican as Alabama—Mr. Trump won there with 62% of the vote—Democrats admit that Mr. Jones faces an uphill fight. But many believe he has more of a chance than if Mr. Strange had won because Mr. Moore is a controversial figure even among Republicans.

Mr. Moore gained notoriety as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, a post he twice lost: Once because he defied a court order to take down a Ten Commandments monument in a state building and a second time, after he was re-elected, because he refused to obey the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. He has blamed many of society’s ills and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the decline of religion in public life.

“Our foundation has been shaken,” he said in a debate with Mr. Strange. “Crime, corruption, immorality, abortion, sodomy, sexual perversion sweep our land.”

In a state where support for the president remains high, Mr. Strange built his entire campaign around the Trump endorsement. His supporters hoped his rally with the president in Huntsville last Friday would give him a burst of momentum.

But the president’s embrace wasn’t enough to help Mr. Strange, a former state attorney whose appointment as interim senator in February by Gov. Robert Bentley drew blowback after the governor was driven from office by personal and political scandal. Opponents used the connection in their attacks to portray Mr. Strange as a creature of corruption.

He was hurt, as well as helped, by the support of Mr. McConnell and other pillars of the GOP establishment. They gave Mr. Strange a huge financial advantage: His campaign and its outside supporters outspent Mr. Moore’s by about seven to one, according to an analysis by Issue One, a nonpartisan campaign finance group.

But that made it easy for Mr. Strange’s opponent to portray him as a creature of the McConnell party establishment. Mr. Bannon inveighed ominously against that establishment at the Moore rally. “Your day of reckoning is coming,” he said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roy-moore-wins-alabamas-gop-senate-primary-1506475781

 

United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017
Alabama


← 2014 December 12, 2017 2020 →
No image.svg Doug Jones for Senate (cropped).jpg
Nominee TBD Doug Jones
Party Republican Democratic

Incumbent U.S. Senator
Luther Strange
Republican

special election for the United States Senate in Alabama is scheduled to be held on December 12, 2017, to choose SenatorJeff Sessions‘ successor for the Senate term through January 2021. Sessions was confirmed by the Senate to serve as U.S. Attorney General on February 8, 2017, and subsequently resigned from the Senate. GovernorRobert J. Bentley chose Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama, to succeed Sessions, filling the seat until the special election takes place. Although he had the power to schedule an election in 2017, Bentley initially decided to align it with the 2018 general election,[1] before Kay Ivey, his successor, later moved the date up to December 12, 2017, scheduling the primary for August 15 and primary runoff for September 26.[2]

Doug Jones, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, won the Democratic primary, while Strange and Roy Moore, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, advanced to a Republican primary runoff.[3]

Background

Potential appointees

Following then-President-electDonald Trump‘s nomination of then-Senator Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General, Robert Aderholt, a member of the United States House of Representatives, had asked to be appointed to the seat.[4] Representative Mo Brooks had also expressed interest in the seat, while Strange had stated before being selected that he would run for the seat in the special election whether or not he was appointed.[5][6] Other potential choices Bentley interviewed for the appointment included Moore, Del Marsh, the President Pro Tem of the Alabama Senate, and Jim Byard, the director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs.[7]

Republican primary

Candidates

Advanced to runoff

Eliminated in Primary

Withdrew

Declined

Endorsements

Polling

First round

Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
James
Beretta
Joseph
Breault
Randy
Brinson
Mo
Brooks
Mary
Maxwell
Roy
Moore
Bryan
Peeples
Trip
Pittman
Luther
Strange
Undecided
Trafalgar Group[106] August 13–14, 2017 870 ± 3.3% 1% 1% 6% 17% 1% 38% 1% 6% 24% 5%
Emerson College[107] August 10–12, 2017 373 ± 5.0% 1% 0% 0% 15% 0% 29% 0% 10% 32% 11%
Trafalgar Group[108] August 8–10, 2017 1,439 ± 2.6% 1% 1% 4% 20% 2% 35% 1% 6% 23% 8%
Cygnal[109] August 8–9, 2017 502 ± 4.4% 2% 18% 31% 7% 23% 13%
Strategy Research[110] August 7, 2017 2,000 ± 2.0% 1% 1% 1% 19% 4% 35% 1% 9% 29% 0%
JMC Analytics[111] August 5–6, 2017 500 ± 4.4% 2% 19% 30% 6% 22% 17%
RRH Elections[112] July 31–August 3, 2017 426 ± 5.0% 2% 18% 31% 8% 29% 11%
Strategy Research[113] July 24, 2017 3,000 ± 2.0% 1% 1% 2% 16% 5% 33% 2% 5% 35%
Cygnal[114] July 20–21, 2017 500 ± 2.0% 16% 26% 33%

Runoff

Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
Roy
Moore
Luther
Strange
Undecided
Cygnal[115] September 23–24, 2017 996 ± 3.1% 52% 41% 7%
Trafalgar Group[116] September 23–24, 2017 1,073 ± 3.0% 57% 41% 2%
Optimus[117] September 22–23, 2017 1,045 ± 2.9% 55% 45%
Emerson College[118] September 21–23, 2017 367 ± 5.1% 50% 40% 10%
Gravis Marketing[119] September 21–22, 2017 559 ± 4.1% 48% 40% 12%
Strategy Research[120] September 20, 2017 2,000 ± 3.0% 54% 46%
Strategy Research[121] September 18, 2017 2,930 ± 3.0% 53% 47%
JMC Analytics[122] September 16–17, 2017 500 ± 4.4% 47% 39% 14%
Time for Choosing[123] September 9–12, 2017 700 ± 3.7% 50% 37% 13%
Voter Consumer Research[124] September 9–10, 2017 604 ± 4.0% 41% 40% 19%
Emerson College[125] September 8–9, 2017 355 ± 5.2% 40% 26% 34%
Strategic National[126] September 6–7, 2017 800 ± 3.5% 51% 35% 14%
Southeast Research[127] August 29–31, 2017 401 ± 5.0% 52% 36% 12%
Harper Polling[128] August 24–26, 2017 600 ± 4.0% 47% 45% 8%
Voter Consumer Research[129] August 21–23, 2017 601 ± 4.0% 45% 41% 14%
Opinion Savvy[130] August 22, 2017 494 ± 4.4% 50% 32% 18%
JMC Analytics[131] August 17–19, 2017 515 ± 4.3% 51% 32% 17%
Cygnal[109] August 8–9, 2017 502 ± 4.4% 45% 34% 11%
RRH Elections[112] July 31–August 3, 2017 426 ± 5.0% 34% 32% 34%

Results

August 15, 2017 Republican primary results[3]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Roy Moore 164,524 38.9%
Republican Luther Strange 138,971 32.8%
Republican Mo Brooks 83,287 19.7%
Republican Trip Pittman 29,124 6.9%
Republican Randy Brinson 2,621 0.6%
Republican Bryan Peeples 1,579 0.4%
Republican Mary Maxwell 1,543 0.4%
Republican James Beretta 1,078 0.3%
Republican Dom Gentile 303 0.1%
Republican Joseph Breault 252 0.1%
Total votes 423,282 100.0%
September 26, 2017 Republican primary runoff results
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Roy Moore
Republican Luther Strange
Total votes

Democratic primary

Candidates

Nominated

Eliminated in Primary

Withdrew

  • Ron Crumpton, activist, nominee for the State Senate in 2014 and nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2016[139][37]
  • Brian McGee, retired teacher and Vietnam War veteran[10][140][141]

Declined

Endorsements

Polling

Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
Will
Boyd
Vann
Caldwell
Jason
Fisher
Michael
Hansen
Doug
Jones
Robert
Kennedy Jr.
Charles
Nana
Undecided
Emerson College[107] August 10–12, 2017 164 ± 7.6% 8% 2% 1% 0% 40% 23% 1% 25%
Strategy Research[149] August 7, 2017 2,000 ± 2.0% 9% 5% 3% 7% 30% 40% 5%
Strategy Research[150] July 24, 2017 3,000 ± 2.0% 6% 4% 4% 4% 28% 49% 5%

Results

County results for the Democratic primary. Blue represents counties won by Doug Jones, purple indicates counties won by Will Boyd.

Democratic primary results[3]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Doug Jones 109,105 66.1%
Democratic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 29,215 17.7%
Democratic Michael Hansen 11,105 6.7%
Democratic Will Boyd 8,010 4.9%
Democratic Jason Fisher 3,478 2.1%
Democratic Brian McGee 1,450 0.9%
Democratic Charles Nana 1,404 0.9%
Democratic Vann Caldwell 1,239 0.8%
Total votes 165,006 100.0%

Independents

Candidates

Declared

Declined

General election

Endorsements

Polling

with Roy Moore
Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
Roy
Moore (R)
Doug
Jones (D)
Undecided
Emerson College[118] September 21–23, 2017 519 ± 4.3% 52% 30% 18%
Emerson College[125] September 8–9, 2017 416 ± 4.8% 44% 40% 16%
with Luther Strange
Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
Luther
Strange (R)
Doug
Jones (D)
Undecided
Emerson College[118] September 21–23, 2017 519 ± 4.3% 49% 36% 15%
Emerson College[125] September 8–9, 2017 416 ± 4.8% 43% 40% 17%

References

Luther Strange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luther Strange
Luther Strange official portrait.jpg
United States Senator
from Alabama
Assumed office
February 9, 2017
Serving with Richard Shelby
Appointed by Robert Bentley
Preceded by Jeff Sessions
47th Attorney General of Alabama
In office
January 17, 2011 – February 9, 2017
Governor Robert Bentley
Preceded by Troy King
Succeeded by Steve Marshall
Personal details
Born Luther Johnson Strange III
March 1, 1953 (age 64)
Birmingham, AlabamaU.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Melissa Strange
Children 2
Education Tulane University(BAJD)
Website Senate website

Luther Johnson Strange III (born March 1, 1953) is an American lawyer and politician currently serving as the juniorUnited States Senator from Alabama. He was appointed to fill that position after it was vacated by now-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions upon Sessions’s confirmation.

He previously served as the 47th Attorney General of the U.S. state of Alabama from 2011 until 2017.[1] Strange was a candidate for public office in both 2006 and 2010.[2][3] In 2006, Strange ran for Lieutenant Governor of Alabama and defeated George Wallace, Jr. in the Republican primary. Strange then lost the general election to DemocratJim Folsom, Jr. In 2010, Strange defeated incumbent Attorney General Troy King in the Republican primary, before going on to win the general election against Democrat James Anderson.[4]

After President Donald Trump appointed Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions to the office of Attorney General of the United States, then-Governor Robert J. Bentley appointed Strange to fill out the vacancy.[5] He subsequently advanced to the runoff in the 2017 special election to finish the term.

Early life and education

Luther Strange was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and lived in Sylacauga until the age of six, when his family moved to Homewood. Strange graduated from Shades Valley High School in 1971. He received his undergraduate degree from Tulane University, where he was a scholarship reserve basketball player nicknamed “The Big Bunny” (according to a former teammate posting to social media). He then graduated from Tulane University Law School. Strange was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 1981.[6]

Early career

Strange’s first job after graduating law school was at Sonat Offshore, a subsidiary of Sonat Inc., a natural gas utility based in Birmingham, Alabama; he joined the company in 1980 as a lawyer. In 1985, Strange became head of Sonat’s Washington, D.C. office. He left the company in 1994. In the 1980s and 1990s, Strange was a registered lobbyist in Washington for Sonat and Transocean Offshore Drilling Co.[7]

Prior to being elected Attorney General, Strange was the founder of the law firm Strange LLC, a Birmingham, Alabama-based law firm. Before establishing his own law firm, Strange was a partner with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.[1]

Attorney General of Alabama

Luther Strange campaign sign, 2010

As Alabama Attorney General, Strange sued the federal government several times, over such issues as a U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education directive on the treatment of transgender students[8] and changes in the U.S. Department of the Interior‘s calculation of Gulf of Mexico offshore drilling royalties.[9] Strange also joined a suit brought by some states against the federal government that challenged the Obama administration‘s Clean Power Plan.[10] Along with other Republican state attorneys general, Strange “came to the defense of ExxonMobil when it fell under investigation by attorneys general from states seeking information about whether the oil giant failed to disclose material information about climate change” (see ExxonMobil climate change controversy).[11]

Strange is an opponent of same-sex marriage. He expressed disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.[12][13]

His tenure in office included the conviction and removal from office of the Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard in June 2016. However, Strange recused himself from that case, appointing Van Davis as Acting Attorney General to oversee it.[14]

As attorney general, Strange was the coordinating counsel for the Gulf Coast states in the litigation on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[10]

In April 2014, Strange argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lane v. Franks. The case involved a whistleblower who reported corruption within the Alabama community college system. This was Strange’s first argument before the Court.[15][16]

In March 2014, Strange brought Alabama into a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster against California’s egg production standards as embodied in Prop 2. In October 2014, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, rejecting the states’ challenge to Proposition 2, California’s prohibition on the sale of eggs laid by caged hens kept in conditions more restrictive than those approved by California voters in a 2008 ballot initiative. Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled that Alabama and the other states lacked legal standing to sue on behalf of their residents and that the plaintiffs were representing solely the interests of egg farmers, not “a substantial statement of their populations.”[17][18][19][20][21]

Strange served as chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association in 2016 and 2017.

U.S. Senate

The appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as United States Attorney General in November 2016 created an opening for a U.S. Senate seat that Governor Bentley would fill by appointment upon Sessions’ confirmation. Many aspirants publicly declared their interest in the appointive Senate seat, and in running for it even if not selected by Bentley.[22]

Appointment

Strange revealed his intention to seek the Senate seat to Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard on November 22, regardless of whether he was appointed by Bentley, calling a run “the right thing for me to do.”[23] Strange filed paperwork for the potential special election one week later and made a public announcement of his candidacy on December 6. “The voters will make the ultimate decision about who will represent them, and I look forward to making my case to the people of Alabama in the months to come as to why they can trust me to keep protecting and fighting for our conservative values.”[24] In January, the new Strange for Senate federal campaign committee reported raising more than $309,000 in the few weeks leading to the December 31st filing deadline.[25]

Bentley began interviewing candidates for the Senate appointment in mid-December.[26][27] On December 22, the Montgomery Advertiser reported a complete list of Alabamians who had been interviewed over a two-week period for the Senate seat (based on information released by the Governor’s office). They included: Chief Justice Roy Moore, U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Huntsville); Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh (R-Anniston), Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), Sen. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster), Sen. Bill Hightower (R-Mobile), Sen. Trip Pittman (R-Montrose), House Ways and Means Education chairman Bill Poole (R-Tuscaloosa), Associate Justice Glenn Murdock, St. Rep. Connie Rowe (R-Jasper), ex-St. Rep. Perry Hooper of Montgomery (also Trump 2016 Chair in Alabama).[28]

Strange was not interviewed until the following week, along with U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, U.S. Rep. Gary PalmerTim James (son of former Governor Fob James), St. Sen. Greg Reed (R-Jasper), St. Sen. Phil Williams (R-Rainbow City).[29] Three additional persons interviewed before January 6 were U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, Revenue Commissioner Julie P. Magee, and Department of Economic and Community Affairs Director Jim Byard. The total number of interviews was 20 (which represented the limit the Governor would go).[30]

In January, Gov. Bentley announced the special election for the remainder of Sessions’ term would not take place until 2018, giving the prospective new appointee a year of incumbency.[30] On February 2, Governor Bentley named six finalists for the appointment. The list included U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, Senate President pro tempore Del Marsh, Attorney General Strange; Bentley ACEA appointee Jim Byard, St. Rep. Connie Rowe, and ex-St. Rep. Perry Hooper Jr.[31]

Selection

Following the Sessions confirmation on February 8, Bentley announced Strange’s appointment on February 9. “Let me tell you why I chose Luther Strange,” Bentley said. “I truly believe Luther has the qualifications and has the qualities that will serve our people well and serve this state well.” Speaking with his wife Melissa by his side, Strange called the appointment “the honor of my life,” while citing his efforts with other Republican attorneys general to stop environmental, educational and labor regulations put forward by former President Barack Obama’s administration. “Now we have the chance to go on the offense,” he said. “Jeff Sessions as attorney general is the first step in that process.”[32]

Reaction

Strange’s appointment was welcomed by fellow Republicans, such as Arkansas Attorney GeneralLeslie Rutledge,[33] and Karl Rove.[34] Conservative activists, such as Chris W. Cox of the NRA, also hailed the appointment.[35]NPR Southern political analyst Debbie Elliottsaid that Strange’s conservative politics are “very much in the mold of Jeff Sessions.” She noted that as state attorney general: “He’s been very active in state-led fights against federal environmental regulations, against Obamacare, against transgender bathroom directives. He’s fought for Alabama’s strict abortion laws. He defended the state’s controversial immigration law. A good bit of it was struck down by federal courts.”[36]

There was negative reaction from other Republicans who expressed concern about Strange’s appointment. In early November 2016, prior to Election Day, he had requested that impeachment proceedings against Bentley be delayed.[37] Some saw a link between this and Strange’s appointment. “There’s going to be such an air of conspiracy hanging over our state and our new senator,” said state representative Ed Henry.[38] “It’s just one of those things where it appears there could have been collusion,” said state representative Allen Farley.[39] “The whole thing stinks,” said State Auditor Jim Zeigler. “It is outrageous. We have the potential for Gov. Blagojevich situation.”[40]

This interpretation was disputed by Mike Jones Jr., House Judiciary Committee Chairman, who said he believes the appointment was done in good faith. Jones noted that the hearings were stopped before the election and before the senate seat was available. “I made it clear in November when we were asked to pause that that did not mean this would not finish, that there would come a time when we would conclude this investigation and we would have a hearing. I still say that.”[41] Jones and House Speaker Mac McCutcheon said February 9 they would wait for word from the attorney general’s office before resuming the committee’s work. McCutcheon said he wanted the process to play out.[42]

Strange himself said February 10, “We have never said and I want to make this clear. We have never said in our office that we are investigating the governor. I think it’s unfair to him and unfair to the process that it’s been reported out there.[43] We have six years of a record of the highest caliber of conduct of people in our Attorney General’s office. That’s why we don’t comment on these things and why I don’t plan to comment on that anymore.”[42] Governor Bentley later resigned after being indicted on criminal charges.

2017 election

Strange finished second to Roy Moore, 38.87% to 32.83%, in the Republican primary on August 15, 2017. The primary run-off is scheduled to be held on September 26, 2017.[44] The general election date is December 12, 2017.

Tenure

In 2017, Strange was one of 22 senators to sign a letter[45] to President Donald Trump urging the President to have the United States withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Committee assignments

Source:[46]

Electoral history

Alabama Lieutenant Governor Republican Primary Election, 2006
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Luther Strange 208,558 48.13
Republican George Wallace, Jr. 144,619 33.37
Republican Mo Brooks 67,773 15.64
Republican Hilbun “HA” Adams 12,413 2.86
Alabama Lieutenant Governor Republican Primary Runoff Election, 2006
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Luther Strange 108,904 54.81
Republican George Wallace, Jr. 89,788 45.19
Alabama Lieutenant Governor Election, 2006
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jim Folsom, Jr. 629,268 50.61
Republican Luther Strange 610,982 49.14
Write-ins 3,029 0.24
Democratichold
Alabama Attorney General Republican Primary Election, 2010
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Luther Strange 284,853 60.13
Republican Troy King (incumbent) 188,874 39.87
Alabama Attorney General Election, 2010
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Luther Strange 868,520 58.84
Democratic James Anderson 606,270 41.07
Write-ins 1,285 0.09
Republicanhold
Alabama Attorney General Election, 2014
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Luther Strange (incumbent) 681,973 58.39
Democratic Joe Hubbard 483,771 41.42
Write-ins 2,157 0.18
Republicanhold
United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 Republican primary
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Roy Moore 164,524 38.87%
Republican Luther Strange (incumbent) 138,971 32.83%
Republican Mo Brooks 83,287 19.68%
Republican Trip Pittman 29,124 6.88%
Republican Randy Brinson 2,621 0.62%
Republican Bryan Peeples 1,579 0.37%
Republican Mary Maxwell 1,543 0.36%
Republican James Beretta 1,078 0.25%
Republican Dom Gentile 303 0.07%
Republican Joseph Breault 252 0.06%
Total votes 423,282 100.00%

Political positions

Strange has associated himself with Donald Trump, saying that he wants “his agenda passed” and that “couldn’t be more honored” to be given Trump’s endorsement.[47] As of August 2017, Strange voted in line with Trump’s position 91.7% of the time.[48][49]

Personal life

Strange is married to Melissa Strange[50] and resides in Homewood, Alabama.[51]

At 6 feet 9 inches (2.06 m) tall, Strange is the tallest U.S. Senator in history and is currently the tallest member of Congress.[52]

Strange is a member of the Episcopal Church.

Strange holds a 16% share of Sunbelt EB-5 Regional Center, LLC, which helps broker deals between investors and U.S. projects that need capital. The company uses the EB-5 visa program which allows foreigners to earn permanent residency for themselves and their children, if they invest $500,000 or $1 million in an American business venture that creates at least 10 jobs. Strange earned over $150,000 for his role in helping a Birmingham Baptist hospital expansion.[53]

Awards and honors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Strange

Roy Moore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roy Moore
Chief Justice Roy Moore Official Portrait.png
30th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama
In office
January 15, 2013 – April 26, 2017
Suspended: May 6, 2016 – April 26, 2017
Preceded by Chuck Malone
Succeeded by Lyn Stuart
In office
January 15, 2001 – November 13, 2003
Preceded by Perry O. Hooper Sr.
Succeeded by Gorman Houston (Acting)
Judge for the Sixteenth Circuit Court of Alabama
In office
1992–2000
Appointed by H. Guy Hunt
Preceded by Julius Swann
Succeeded by William Millican
Personal details
Born Roy Stewart Moore
February 11, 1947 (age 70)
Gadsden, AlabamaU.S.
Political party Democratic(Before 1992)
Republican(1992–present)
Spouse(s) Kayla Kisor
Children (1 adopted)
Education United States Military Academy(BS)
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa(JD)
Website Campaign website

Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American lawyer, politician, and former judge. Moore is running for the United States Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions upon Sessions’s confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.

Moore was elected to the position of Chief Justice of the AlabamaSupreme Court in 2001, but removed from his position in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments commissioned by him from the Alabama Judicial Building, despite orders to do so by a federal court. Moore sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama in 2006, but lost to incumbentBob Riley in the June primary by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. He sought the Republican nomination for the office again in 2010,[1] but placed fourth in the Republican primary.

Moore was again elected Chief Justice in 2013, but was suspended in May 2016, for directing probate judges to continue to enforce the state’s ban on same-sex marriage despite the fact that it had been overturned. Following an unsuccessful appeal, Moore resigned in April 2017, and announced that he would be running for the United States Senate seat which was vacated by Jeff Sessions, upon his confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.[2][3] He qualified for the runoff in the Republican primary, which is set on September 26.

In the years preceding his first election to the state Supreme Court, Moore successfully resisted attempts to have a display of the Ten Commandments removed from the courtroom. The controversy around Moore generated national attention. Moore’s supporters regard his stand as a defense of “judicial rights” and the Constitution of Alabama. Moore contended that federal judges who ruled against his actions consider “obedience of a court order superior to all other concerns, even the suppression of belief in the sovereignty of God.”[4]

Early life

Education and military service

Moore was born in Gadsden, the seat of Etowah County, to Roy Baxter Moore (died 1967) and the former Evelyn Stewart. They had met and married after his discharge from the United States Army during World War II. Roy was the oldest of five children, three boys and two girls. Moore describes his father, a construction worker, as “a hardworking man who earned barely enough to make ends meet, but he taught me more than money could ever buy. From him I learned about honesty, integrity, perseverance, and never to be ashamed of who you are or what you believe in. Early on my dad shared with me the truth about God’s love and the sacrifice of His own Son, Jesus.” Moore described his mother as a “homemaker who was always there to help me with my schoolwork, to care for me when I was sick, and to encourage me to do the best I could.”[4]

In 1954, the Moores relocated to Houston, Texas, site of a postwar building boom. After about four years, they returned to Alabama, next moved to Pennsylvania, and returned permanently to Alabama. Moore’s father worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority, first building dams and later the Anniston Army Depot. Roy Moore attended high school his freshman year at Gallant near Gadsden, but he transferred to Etowah County High School for his final three years, graduating in 1965.[4]

On the recommendation of outgoing DemocraticU.S. RepresentativeAlbert Rains, after confirmation by incoming Republican Representative