Networking

The Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Hosts a Listening Session with High School Students and Teachers at White House — Videos

Posted on February 21, 2018. Filed under: American History, Assault, Breaking News, College, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Employment, Former President Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trump Surveillance/Spying, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Image result for concealded carry teachers and staff in schoolsSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

Story 1: President Trump Hosts a Listening Session with High School Students and Teachers at White House — Videos

Trump hosts emotional listening session on school safety

President Trump Hosts a Listening Session with High School Students and Teachers. 2.21.18 — Videos

President Trump: “It’s called concealed carry.” (C-SPAN)

The Ingraham Angle 2/21/18 , The Ingraham Angle February 21. 2018

Tucker Carlson Tonight 2/21/18 | Fox News Today | February 21, 2018

Sean Hannity 2/21/18 – Fox News Today February 21, 2018

President Trump full statement on Parkland, Florida School Shooting (C-SPAN)

Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp – Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting Massacre

What Is An “Assault Rifle”? – You’ve Probably Been Lied To

The Difference Between SEMI-AUTOMATIC and FULLY AUTOMATIC GUNS

Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle

Published on Dec 30, 2012

The media and the anti-gunners are trying to tell Americans that “assault weapons” need to be banned for public safety. The problem is, assault rifles were banned in 1986. What they want to ban now are semi-automatic sporting firearms. The firearms they want to ban account for less than 1% of the firearms used in crime. We need to stop this mindless attack on our Constitutional rights.

Full Auto vs. Semi-Auto with an AK

Inside the AK-47

What is a Bump Stock? Should it be illegal?!

Rush Limbaugh: We Need Concealed Carry in Schools. “Bashing NRA Isn’t Going to Do it”

Texas school allows teachers to carry concealed weapons

Tx. Teachers To Carry Guns

Published on Aug 19, 2008
The Harrold, Texas school district calls for teachers to carry guns to prevent a future Columbine school incident. Harry Smith talks to the superintendent and a teacher’s federation representative.

The school where teachers are armed

The Safest School District In The USA! Shamrock ISD In Amarillo Texas

Marble Falls TX School Allows Teachers To Carry Guns On Campus

Published on Jan 31, 2013
Because it makes sense, that’s why!

Principals and Teachers Who Carry Guns at School

What It’s Like Inside a School Shooting Drill

Auburn University Active Shooter Response Training – ALICE

ALICE training

ALICE Training Video

Law to allow concealed carry guns on school campuses

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

More Guns Mean Less Crime: The Most Rigorously Comprehensive Data Analysis (2000)

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

The Port Arthur Massacre – Australia’s Worst Shooting Spree in History (Crime Documentary)

Published on Mar 10, 2017
The Port Arthur Massacre – Australia’s Worst Shooting Spree in History (Crime Documentary) The Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 was a massacre in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. It occurred mainly at the historic Port Arthur former prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. It was the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history, and amongst the worst in the world.[3] Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, was found guilty of the shootings and given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. Following the incident, it emerged in the media that Bryant had significant intellectual disabilities. He is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near the Risdon Prison Complex. Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of high capacity semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories.

Norway’s Utoeya massacre: 5 years on – BBC News

BBC This World – Norway’s Massacre

 

Florida Carry calls for emergency legislation to arm teachers in the classroom

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The pro-gun group “Florida Carry” is requesting the Florida Senate pass emergency legislation to allow all public school teachers to bring their concealed firearms to the classrooms to use in their defense.

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The pro-gun group “Florida Carry” is requesting the Florida Senate pass emergency legislation to allow all public school teachers to bring their concealed firearms to the classrooms to use in their defense.

The idea is nothing new and, tragically, the timing of it isn’t either as gun legislation comes to the forefront of discussion following another mass shooting.

“I think what we have to consider is that the training to have a concealed weapons permit doesn’t really bring you to the level of law enforcement dealing with an active shooter situation,” said Shine.

He’s an instructor in shooting sports and a teacher of a local concealed weapons class.

“I’ve been doing this for about 15 years, even at my level I don’t feel comfortable confronting an active shooter in a school.”

He says change must happen after 17 innocent lives were taken in what’s supposed to be a safe setting.

“We are in a new reality so it wouldn’t be surprising if we saw that in the future

He says arming untrained teachers is too great a risk right now, but it’s something that should bve up for debate.

“How would a law enforcement office knows the teacher is not the shooter?”

On Saturday Shine sent a letter to Superintendent Patricia Willis offering alternative forms of security.

“Mace and pepper spray have a range of about 20 feet,” said Shine.

In his letter, he says:

One thing to consider is allowing trained members of a school staff to use/have access to non-lethal intervention tools — mace, bean bag, body armor, etc.. I understand it will be impossible to stop all events, but if we can minimize the event — or even more, create the perception among possible perpetrators that they will be less likely to be successful in consummating their crime — the deterrent factor could be of value.

He also says that Duval County’s aging buildings need to be updated with technology.

“For example, if a door is open that shouldn’t be a buzz will go off in the front office.”

Shine says Florida Concealed Weapons holders are restricted from carry in a number of locations, not just schools; among these “places of nuisance” are bars and commercial events that have alcohol.

In training for CCW, persons are instructed to avoid danger and generally move away from fire, says Shine.

“The proposal we talked about today would involve educators “moving into fire.” That is a radical departure from personal protection practices and training. However, Florida law does allow you to “stand in the shoes of another” regarding deadly force is the force is reasonable in protecting live or grievous bodily injury.”

Shine says the state publication that is sent to CCW permit holders when the license is granted, actually says “a CCW does not make you a free-lance policeman.”

“So, what we are talking about in the proposal to the state is very different the current CCW parameters.”

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/florida-carry-calls-for-emergency-legislation-to-arm-teachers-in-the-classroom/77-520002175

 

Guns in Schools

Schools should be a safe haven from the violence that touches so many Americans, yet many states lack proper legal protection against the presence of firearms in schools. Dangerous gaps in gun-free schools laws, like concealed carry exceptions, threaten the safety of children and increase the likelihood of tragic school shootings. Meanwhile, the gun lobby’s efforts to force colleges and universities to allow guns on campuses poses a threat to the safety of post-secondary students and educators.

BACKGROUND

Guns have no place in our nation’s schools. The tragedies that took place at Sandy Hook,1 Columbine,2 Virginia Tech,3 and other schools across the US4 demonstrate the devastating effect guns have on our school communities. Calls to arm teachers or to allow college students to carry guns will only lead to more gun deaths and injuries, not fewer. By contrast, laws that prohibit guns in schools and impose harsh penalties for gun possession help keep students and educators safe. The presence of guns in higher education classrooms also burdens the First Amendment right to academic freedom of speech — guns can impede the candid discourse that is critical to the collegiate experience. Allowing guns on campus poses a grave threat to people employed by schools, as well, making the workplace more dangerous for university staff and faculty.

REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE AT K–12 SCHOOLS

Shootings at K–12 schools shock us because schools are generally safe havens from the gun violence that is so prevalent elsewhere. A report issued by the US Departments of Education and Justice found that between 1992 and 2006, at least 50 times as many murders of young people ages 5–18 occurred away from school than at school.5 In addition, at least 140 times as many youth suicides were committed off school property than at school.6 During the 2010-11 school year, there was about one homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 3.5 million enrolled students.7

Federal and state laws ensuring that schools are gun-free zones have helped make K–12 schools even safer, significantly reducing gun violence in these places. School-associated student homicide rates decreased after the federal laws restricting guns within 1,000 feet of schools were adopted in the early 1990s,8 and fewer students are carrying guns.9

Proposals offered by the gun lobby to arm teachers and repeal gun-free school zones laws are dangerous and counter-productive.10 There is no reason to believe such proposals will help curb those rare instances of gun violence at school. Teachers are not trained law enforcement officers — their purpose is to be educators and role models. Further, the gun lobby’s claim that “gun-free zones” invite mass shootings has been thoroughly debunked by research showing that the overwhelming majority—nearly 90%—of all high-fatality gun massacres since 1966 have occurred wholly or partly in locations where civilian guns were allowed or there was armed security or law enforcement present.11

Gun violence prevention measures for our schools should focus on educating kids and parents about the dangers of firearms and importance of safe storage, rather than on arming teachers. A study of 37 school shootings in 26 states found that in nearly two-thirds of the incidents, the attacker got the gun from his or her own home or that of a relative.12 For more information about the safe storage of firearms, see our summary on Safe Storage.

PROTECTING COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM GUN HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE

America’s college and university campuses are also generally safe havens from gun violence.13 As described below, in most states, legislators or the governing bodies of higher education institutions have prohibited or significantly restricted gun possession on most or all areas of public college and university campuses.14 Moreover, as described in the summary on the Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess, students under age 21 may not carry handguns on campus in many states because they are prohibited from possessing handguns.

As a result of these laws, few students have access to guns on campus, ensuring that colleges and universities remain safe learning environments:

  • Less than 2% of college students report being threatened with a gun while at school.15
  • There were 11,920 total gun homicides in the US in 2003,16 but only 10 total murders or non-negligent homicides on college campuses.17
  • Violent crime for college students age 18–24 declined significantly between 1995 and 2002.18
  • Students living on college campuses are less likely to be victimized than when living off-campus — over 90% of victimizations occur off-campus.19

Allowing guns on campus would likely lead to more campus homicides and suicides. Young adults between the ages of 18–25 experience the highest rate of serious mental illness.20 Between 9% and 11% of college students seriously considered suicide in the previous school year,21 and about 1,100 college students commit suicide each year.22 When a gun enters this mix, a suicide attempt becomes considerably more lethal, as 85% of gun suicide attempts are fatal.23

Gun-owning college students also have a greater propensity for engaging in risky, sometimes violent, behavior. A 2002 study from the Journal of American College Health found that students who owned guns were more likely than non-gun-owning students to binge drink and then engage in risky activities “such as driving when under the influence of alcohol, vandalizing property, and having unprotected intercourse.”24

These facts belie any need for students, faculty and visitors to carry guns on campus — for self-defense or any other reason.25 There is no credible statistical evidence to suggest that students carrying guns, particularly concealed handguns, will reduce violence on our college campuses. Instead, evidence suggests that permissive concealed gun carrying generally will increase crime and place students at risk.26Guns on campus pose additional concerns as well, including greater likelihood of gun thefts,27 and increased liability and public relations costs for schools.28 Forcing guns onto America’s college campuses also inhibits the free exchange of ideas in the classroom by making students and faculty feel less safe to express controversial views.29

In seeking to force higher education institutions to allow guns on campus, the gun lobby has recently argued that college-aged women should be able to carry concealed firearms to defend themselves against sexual assault. This position ignores clear evidence that “campus carry” laws will not make women safer from sexual violence.30To the contrary, after campus carry policies took effect in Utah and Colorado, crimes committed on or near college campuses in those states, including forcible rapes, increased (during a time period when the nationwide rate of sexual assaults decreased).31 As survivors of sexual assault and groups like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence have observed, allowing guns on campus won’t make women safer, but will give women and other students more reason to fear potentially armed predators and rapists.32 And all students likewise would have good reason to fear that introducing guns onto college campuses will lead to more homicides, suicides, and gun accidents, decreasing campus safety overall.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW

No federal law restricts guns on college or university campuses. Two federal laws regulate the possession of firearms in or near K-12 schools:

1)   the Gun-Free Schools Act (which requires some K-12 schools to expel students found with guns); and

2)   the Gun-Free School Zones Act (which deems K-12 schools to be “gun-free zones”). However, the federal law deeming K-12 schools to be gun-free zones has a dangerous loopholeit doesn’t apply to individuals licensed by a state to possess or carry a handgun.

FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS GUNS AT K-12 SCHOOLS – WITH DANGEROUS EXCEPTIONS

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) prohibits any person from knowingly possessing a firearm that has moved in or otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.33 The GFSZA defines “school zone” as:

1) In, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school that provides elementary or secondary education; or

2) Within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school that provides elementary or secondary education.34

However, the federal prohibition against possessing a gun in a school zone does not apply to people licensed by a state or locality to possess a gun.35 This exception covers many people licensed to possess firearms or to carry concealed firearms.36 In addition, the federal GFSZA allows firearm possession in school zones if:

1) The firearm is unloaded and “in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle”;37 or

2) The firearm is possessed for use in a program approved by a school, or in accordance with a contract entered into between a school and the individual or an employer of the individual.38

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES K-12 SCHOOLS TO EXPEL STUDENTS FOR GUN POSSESSION

The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) was enacted in 1994 as a response to increasing levels of gun violence in schools.39 Unlike the GFSZA, which applies to any person possessing a firearm in the defined prohibited areas, the GFSA focuses on student behavior, penalizing students to deter them from bringing firearms to school.40

The current GFSA, effective as of 2002, requires that states receiving certain federal funds require local educational agencies to expel students from school for a minimum period of one year if they bring a firearm to school or possess one at school.41 The GFSA also requires that, in order to receive federal funds, each local educational agency must:

1) Refer any student who brings a firearm to a school served by the agency to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system;42

2) Annually provide an assurance that the local educational agency is in compliance with the state expulsion law;43 and

3) Annually provide a description of the circumstances surrounding any expulsions imposed under the state expulsion law.44

The GFSA expressly permits firearm possession if the gun is lawfully stored inside a locked vehicle on school property, or if the gun is possessed for a school activity approved and authorized by the local educational agency (if appropriate safeguards have been adopted to ensure student safety).45 The GFSA also allows states to permit the chief administering officer of a local educational agency to modify an expulsion for a student, in writing, on a case-by-case basis.46 To date, the GFSA has not been challenged.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO SHOOTINGS AT K-12 SCHOOLS

In the aftermath of the Newtown shootings, in 2013, President Obama issued a series of executive orders focusing on firearms and ammunition regulation, mental health issues, and school shootings. A few of these orders deal directly with safety in K-12 schools:

  • The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have been directed to provide continuing training and security assessments for law enforcement, first responders, and school officials on active shooter situations.47
  • The Departments of Education, Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services have developed model emergency management planning guides to help schools prepare for shootings.48

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Grants available to fund school resource officers.49 In September 2013, DOJ announced the awarding of 263 COPS Hiring Grants totaling approximately $125 million, including around $45 million to fund 356 new school resource officer positions.50

SUMMARY OF STATE LAW

As described below, almost all states prohibit guns in K–12 schools, but only 40 states and Washington DC extend this prohibition to people who have been granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW permit holders). Two additional states allow individuals schools to decide to ban CCW permit holders from carrying guns, leaving eight states that either allow concealed carry of firearms at K–12 schools or have no relevant law prohibiting it.

Most states either prohibit or restrict firearms on college or university campuses, or allow those institutions to set their own rules banning firearms. Eighteen states, including DC, have laws prohibiting or restricting guns on higher education campuses, while 21 additional states leave the decision up to each campus. However, 12 states force public colleges or universities to allow concealed carry of guns in some or all areas of campus, or by some individuals (e.g., staff or faculty) anywhere on campus. In some states, state colleges and universities are also subject to state statutes limiting the authority of political subdivisions to regulate firearms.

State Guns in K–12 Schools CCW in K–12 Schools Guns on College and University Campuses CCW on College and University Campuses
AL Prohibited51 Allowed52 Schools may prohibit.53
AK Prohibited54 Allowed55 Schools may prohibit.
AZ Prohibited56 Prohibited in public schools; private schools may prohibit.57 Schools may prohibit.58
AR Prohibited59 Prohibited60 Prohibited for handguns.61 Public schools may not prohibit.62
CA Prohibited63 Prohibited64 Prohibited65 Prohibited66
CO Prohibited67 Prohibited68 Prohibited69 Public schools may not prohibit.70
CT Prohibited71 Prohibited72 Schools may prohibit.
DE Prohibited73 Prohibited74 Schools may prohibit.
DC Prohibited75 Prohibited76 Prohibited77 Prohibited78
FL Prohibited79 Prohibited80 Prohibited81 Prohibited, except in motor vehicles.82
GA Prohibited83 Prohibited84 Prohibited85 Public schools may not prohibit.86
HI87 No relevant statute. Schools may prohibit.
ID Prohibited88 Prohibited89 Schools may prohibit.90 Public schools may not prohibit.91
IL Prohibited92 Prohibited93 Prohibited94 Prohibited95
IN Prohibited96 Prohibited97 Schools may prohibit.
IA Prohibited98 Prohibited99 Schools may prohibit.100
KS Prohibited101 Schools may prohibit.102 Schools may prohibit. Public schools may not prohibit.103
KY Prohibited104 Prohibited105 Schools may prohibit.106
LA Prohibited107 Prohibited108 Prohibited109 Prohibited with vehicle and other exceptions.110
ME Prohibited111 Prohibited112 Schools may prohibit.113
MD Prohibited114 Prohibited115 Schools may prohibit.
MA Prohibited116 Prohibited117 Prohibited118 Prohibited119
MI Prohibited120 Prohibited121 Schools may prohibit. Prohibited in dorms and classrooms.122
MN Prohibited123 Prohibited124 Schools may prohibit.125
MS Prohibited126 Prohibited127 Prohibited128 Schools may not prohibit.129
MO Prohibited.130 Prohibited131 Schools may prohibit.132 Prohibited, except in motor vehicles.133
MT Prohibited134 Prohibited135 Schools may prohibit.
NE Prohibited136 Prohibited137 Prohibited138 Prohibited, except in motor vehicles.139
NV Prohibited140 Prohibited141 Prohibited142 Prohibited at public schools.143
NH Allowed144 Allowed145 Schools may prohibit.
NJ Prohibited146 Prohibited147 Prohibited148 Prohibited149
NM Prohibited150 Prohibited151 Prohibited152 Prohibited with vehicle and other exceptions.153
NY Prohibited154 Prohibited155 Prohibited156 Prohibited157
NC Prohibited158 Prohibited159 Prohibited.160 Prohibited, except in motor vehicles.161
ND Prohibited162 Prohibited163 Schools may prohibit.164
OH Prohibited165 Prohibited166 Schools may prohibit. Prohibited, except in motor vehicles.167
OK Prohibited168 Prohibited169 Prohibited170 Prohibited with vehicle and other exceptions.171
OR Prohibited172 Allowed173 Prohibited174 Public schools may not prohibit in open areas via formal rule.175
PA Prohibited176 Prohibited177 Schools may prohibit.
RI Prohibited178 Allowed179 Schools may prohibit.
SC Prohibited180 Prohibited181 Prohibited182 Prohibited with vehicle and other exceptions.183
SD Prohibited184 Prohibited185 Schools may prohibit.
TN Prohibited186 Prohibited187 Prohibited188 Public schools may not prohibit carry by employees.189
TX Prohibited190 Prohibited191 Prohibited192 Public schools may not prohibit.193
UT Prohibited194 Allowed195 Prohibited196 Public schools may not prohibit.197
VT Prohibited198 Prohibited199 Schools may prohibit.200
VA Prohibited201 Prohibited202 Schools may prohibit. Public schools may not prohibit in open areas.203
WA Prohibited204 Prohibited205 Schools may prohibit.206
WV Prohibited207 Prohibited208 Schools may prohibit.
WI Prohibited209 Prohibited210 Schools may prohibit.211 Public schools may not prohibit in open areas.212
WY No relevant statute. Allowed for school employees.213 Schools may prohibit. Prohibited.214

 

MOST STATES BAN GUNS AT K–12 SCHOOLS, BUT SOME ALLOW CONCEALED CARRY

The vast majority of states — 47 of them — and the District of Columbia prohibit carrying or possessing a firearm on K–12 school property, within safe school or gun-free school zones, on school-provided transportation, or at school-sponsored events. Only Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Wyoming do not generally prohibit people from bringing guns onto the property of K–12 schools.215

However, only 40 states and DC extend their laws prohibiting guns at K–12 schools to people who have a concealed weapons permit.216 Two additional states somewhat regulate concealed carry of firearms at K–12 schools: Kansas allows such schools to ban concealed carry, while Arizona requires public schools to prohibit all firearms unless the carrier has gotten specific authorization from school administrators, but allows private schools to decide whether or not to allow concealed carry of firearms on their property for approved events.217 The remaining eight states either allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns at K–12 schools, or have no law addressing the subject:

Alabama218
Alaska219
Hawaii220
New Hampshire221
Oregon222
Rhode Island223
Utah224
Wyoming225

Among the 40 states and DC that generally prohibit concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms to K–12 schools, one notable exception common to these states’ laws is where an adult is in lawful possession of a firearm, and the firearm is within a vehicle when the adult is dropping off or picking up a student on school property. Other common exceptions include:

1) Guns locked in vehicles on school property;

2) Guns possessed for hunting or safety courses, school-authorized sports or recreation activities, or military or peace officer training;

3) Lawful possession of a gun within a residence, place of business, or other private property that lies within a school zone but is not part of the school grounds or property;

4) Guns possessed while hunting on school grounds or traversing school grounds to access hunting lands during hunting season; and

5) Where the possessor has obtained prior permission from the school or district.

ALMOST ALL STATES EXPEL STUDENTS FOR GUN POSSESSION

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia require that any student possessing a firearm at an elementary or secondary school or on school property be expelled for not less than one year.226 Consistent with the federal Gun-Free Schools Act, these states commonly grant authority to the school to modify the expulsion of a particular student on a case-by-case basis. Most states authorize school districts to provide educational services to an expelled student in an alternative setting. Only Massachusetts does not require the expulsion of a student for possessing a gun at school.227

STATE LAWS ON GUNS AT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

States that Prohibit or Restrict Firearms on Campus

Eighteen states, including the District of Columbia, have a law or regulation that prohibits the possession of firearms on campuses of colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher education. Detailed information about each of the states that prohibit or restrict firearms on higher education campuses can be found in the above chart. Of those 18 states:

  • Seven (California, DC, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York) have banned both open and concealed carry of firearms on college and university campuses.
  • Seven (Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina) have banned open and concealed carry in most campus locations, but allow loaded firearms to be carried inside motor vehicles on campus in specified circumstances (among certain other exceptions as well).
  • Four (Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wyoming) restrict concealed carry, but do not actually ban open carry on public or private college or university campuses, though they may allow individual colleges and universities to exercise their own authority to ban open carry.

States that Let Schools Decide How to Regulate Guns on Campus

In 21 states, state law either expressly allows colleges and universities to regulate firearms, or is silent on the matter, leaving gun regulation decisions up to the governing bodies of colleges and universities in the state. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,228 Washington and West Virginia.

Generally, in these 21 states, the absence of law addressing gun possession on college and university campuses gives the governing bodies of colleges and universities the authority to prohibit open and concealed carry of firearms. For example, in Iowa and Washington, the public higher education system has adopted an administrative rule prohibiting possession of firearms on campus.229 In three other states — Kentucky, Maine, and Minnesota — public and private colleges and universities are expressly permitted to pass their own rules concerning guns on campus.230 Similarly, in Delaware, public institutions of higher education are required to develop security policies that include “regulations governing the possession and use of firearms on campus by employees, students and visitors.”231

However, developments in some of these 21 states have caused colleges and universities to go in the other direction. For instance, in Pennsylvania, the Governor’s Office of General Counsel and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education issued nonbinding guidance suggesting that an outright ban of firearms on campus would violate the state constitution, causing some colleges to change their policies to allow concealed carry in some campus locations.232 In Arizona, Kentucky, and Minnesota, state laws appear to prevent colleges and universities from restricting firearms inside private vehicles, even though guns may be prohibited elsewhere on campus.233

States with “Campus Carry” Policies that Force Guns onto Campus

The gun lobby continually pushes state legislators to adopt dangerous laws or policies requiring higher education institutions to allow the carry of concealed firearms on campus. A number of states have passed “Campus Carry” laws mandating that concealed firearms be permitted on some or all areas of college and university campuses, while in other states, judicial decisions interpreting state concealed carry laws have had the same effect. In all but one of these states, laws or court decisions allowing guns on campus have targeted public colleges and universities, reserving to private colleges and universities the authority to set their own rules for firearms on their property.234

The following states have “Campus Carry” laws or equivalent judicial decisions:

Arkansas

In 2017, Arkansas enacted a law greatly expanding the places where individuals with handgun-carry permits can carry concealed firearms if they complete just eight hours of additional training to obtain an enhanced permit. The new law allows individuals with enhanced permits to carry loaded, concealed firearms “in the buildings and on the grounds of a public university, public college, or community college.”235 Under the law, private colleges and universities may adopt a policy disallowing concealed handguns in buildings and on campus grounds if they post required signs.236

Colorado

Colorado courts have found that under the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute, any person licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Colorado may do so on the grounds of a college or university campus. Schools may institute policies regulating guns on campus, but do not have the authority to ban concealed handguns on campus.237

Georgia

In 2017, Georgia passed a law allowing concealed carry license-holders to carry concealed firearms while “in any building or on real property owned by or leased to any public technical school, vocational school, college, or university, or other public institution of postsecondary education.”238 There are certain exceptions to the law, mainly that it does not authorize carrying concealed firearms in student housing, fraternities or sororities, buildings using for athletic events, or faculty offices. Also exempt are spaces used for preschool, childcare, or classes where high school students are enrolled.

Idaho

In 2014, Idaho enacted a law removing the authority of the governing bodies of higher education institutions to regulate or prohibit the possession or carrying of firearms in classrooms and open areas of campus by individuals licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Concealed guns still may not be carried into a student dormitories or residence halls, or into a building of a public entertainment facility that has posted the proper sign prohibiting firearms.239

Kansas

In 2013, Kansas enacted a law requiring public colleges and universities to allow concealed firearms on campus, unless the campus posts “armed personnel at public entrances” and installs “electronic equipment” such as metal detectors, and such security measures are sufficient to ensure that no weapons are brought into campus buildings.240 The law goes into effect in July 2017. In response to the law, the Kansas Board of Regents, with authority over Kansas public universities, adopted a new weapons policy that allows concealed carry starting in July 2017.241

Mississippi

State law allows a person who has taken a voluntary course on the safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor to obtain an enhanced concealed carry permit, which authorizes them to carry a concealed weapon on the campuses of public and private colleges and universities in Mississippi.242 Applicants must be over age 21 and must pass a background check for the enhanced permit.

Oregon

In 2011, the Court of Appeals of Oregon invalidated an Oregon State Board of Higher Education rule imposing sanctions on people who possess or use firearms on university property. The court held that the regulation prohibiting gun possession was outside the Board’s authority and not expressly authorized by the legislative assembly, but also concluded that the Board’s authority to control and manage its properties includes the ability to adopt policies regarding the conduct of visitors or members of the public on institutional properties.243 In 2012, the Board, using its authority, banned guns, including concealed carry, from classrooms, buildings, dormitories, and sporting and entertainment events.244

Tennessee

In 2016, Tennessee enacted a law allowing full-time faculty, staff and other employees of public colleges and universities who have handgun-carry permits to carry concealed guns on campus, as long as they first notify the local law enforcement agency with responsibility for campus security, such as campus police.245 The University of Tennessee estimated that about 27,000 full-time employees are now eligible to carry guns.246

Texas

In 2015, Texas enacted a law allowing licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of public colleges and universities.247 The law authorizes public colleges and universities to establish reasonable rules regarding the carrying of concealed handguns, as long as those rules do not generally prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns. Private colleges and universities remain free to regulate or prohibit concealed carry after consulting with their students, staff, and faculty.248

Utah

The Utah State Legislature assumed jurisdiction of the state’s public universities in 2004. Universities now must permit the lawful possession or carrying of concealed firearms in most areas of their campuses, except in one area designated as a secure “hearing room.”249

Virginia

Colleges and universities may prohibit gun possession by the general public in the most vulnerable areas of campus (e.g., academic buildings, administrative offices, student residences, dining facilities, or places where sporting, entertainment or educational events are held).250 Colleges and universities may also regulate gun possession by students and employees.251 However, according to an opinion by the state Attorney General, public colleges and universities in Virginia must allow concealed carry permit holders who are members of the general public to possess guns on the open grounds of campus.252

Wisconsin

Colleges and universities must generally allow concealed carry permit holders to carry on campus grounds. Schools may, however, prohibit any person, including a concealed weapons permit holder, from entering or remaining in any privately or publicly owned building on the grounds of a university or college, if the university or college has notified the person that he or she may not enter or remain in the building while carrying a firearm.253

KEY LEGISLATIVE ELEMENTS

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

  • Establish a gun-free school zone that prohibits the possession or carrying, whether openly or concealed, of any firearm within an elementary or secondary school building, on school property, or within a set distance of school property (District of Columbia)
  • Prohibit the possession or carrying, whether openly or concealed, of any firearm within a school bus or other school-provided transportation
  • Prohibit concealed weapons permit holders from possessing in school buildings, on school property, or within a set distance from school property
  • Prohibit the possession or carrying, whether open or concealed, of any firearm on public and private college or university campuses, including in campus open areas, in parking lots and vehicles on campus, in buildings and residences, and at sporting events

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/guns-in-schools/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1036

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

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 1026, February 1, 2018, Story 1: Trump Booming Economy in 2018 Continuing Into 2020? — Economic Policies Have Consequences — Boom — Bubble — Bust (2018-2022) — Videos — Story 2: Memo Madness — Waiting For House Intelligence Committee Release of FISA Memo Outlining FBI/DOJ  Plot  To Spy on American People Based On Clinton Campaign Paid For Russian Disinformation in Phony Christopher Steel Dossier — Clinton And Obama Crimes Against American People —  American People Demand The Release of Memo and Supporting Documents And Appointment of Special Counsel — Videos

Posted on February 2, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, James Comey, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Science, Social Security, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Trade Policy, Treason, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017

Story 1: Trump Booming Economy in 2018 Continuing Into 2020? — Economic Policies Have Consequences — Boom — Bubble — Bust (2018-2022) — Videos — Story 2: Memo Madness — Waiting For House Intelligence Committee Release of FISA Memo Outlining FBI/DOJ Plot To Spy on American People Based On Clinton Campaign Paid For Russian Disinformation in Phony Christopher Steel Dossier — Clinton And Obama Crimes Against American People — American People Demand The Release of Memo and Supporting Documents And Appointment of Special Counsel — Videos

See the source imageImage result for branco cartoons bubble economyImage result for branco cartoons bubble economySee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Quarter-to-Quarter Growth in Real GDP

See the source image

 

U.S. Debt Clock

Understanding the Stagnation of Modern Economies

White House’s Hassett Says 4Q GDP Data a ‘Slight Negative Surprise’

Trump Tax bill boosts bonuses sooner than expected: CEA chairma Keven Hassett

Trump takes credit for the good economy. Here’s what economists say

Obama takes credit for growing economy

Trump vs Obama: Who should get credit for improving the economy?

Fact checking the Obama economy

Keiser Report: ‘Mnuchin Massacre’ (E1184)

How Exchange Rates Work

Imports, Exports, and Exchange Rates: Crash Course Economics #15

Currency Manipulation and Its Toll on the US Economy

What is currency manipulation? | CNBC Explains

China’s Currency Manipulation

China is No Longer Manipulating its Currency

Why Trump Should Stop Accusing China of Yuan Manipulation

US GDP growth slows to 2.6 percent in fourth-quarter, missing estimates

Marc Faber – Massive Fraud In This Financial Bubble

Global Economic Outlook

Donald Trump speaks at Davos 2018

The Next Financial Crisis

The Great Recession

Jim Rogers on The Future of Money — MillionaireAsia

Jim Rogers: Worst Crisis in Our Lifetimes

Jim Rickards ‘Listen Up! The Financial Elite Will Soon Prevent You Accessing Your Own Money!’

War Is Coming To Cover Up The Economic Collapse

The Stock Market Is Going To Crash & This Is Why!

Peter Shiff 2018 Middle class will be impoverished & they’ll blame Trump

JIM ROGERS Forecasts Feb, 2018 – Central Banks, Investing & Finding Your Niche

What To Expect In 2018 – With Special Guest Gerald Celente

Jim Rogers Deutsche Bank is Broke, Derivatives Collapse Coming

Jim Rogers – Financial Crisis – Market Crash 2018 Possible

JIM ROGERS – 27 Nov 2017 – Rather Buy Japan Than The US. Bitcoin Price Looks Like A Bubble…

Special Discuss Jan 2, 2018 with MARC FABER Silver May Be More Desirable Than Gold

Keiser Report: Plan B (E1183)

On the Road with Marc Faber Full video!

The Inevitable Collapse of the U.S. Dollar. Prepare Yourself

Donald Trump’s $20 Trillion Problem

Social Security Trust Fund

The Social Security Trust Fund Is Just a Stack of IOUs in a West Virginia Filing Cabinet

Trustees Report: Social Security Reserves will be Depleted in 2034

When will Medicare, Social Security trust funds run dry?

The Future of Social Security and Medicare

 

Don’t Wait For The Trump Boom — It’s Already Here

 Rising: The economy, in case you hadn’t noticed, is surging right now as we enter 2018. It’s not an accident. Nor is it a delayed reaction to Obamanomics, as some misguided pundits would have it. It’s Trumponomics in action, and it works.

As so many others, we thought that it might take a while for President Trump’s policies to kick in. After all, there’s usually a lag time between the action (the policy) and the reaction (economic growth). But the fact is, the previous administration’s policies — trillion-dollar “stimulus,” ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, a disastrous regulatory expansion — were so growth-damaging that even the possibility that they would be reversed has brought about a welcome burst of growth.

President Trump, working fast, changed many of those economy-slowing policies by deregulating, weakening Dodd-Frank, getting rid of ObamaCare’s mandate, and cutting taxes sharply for all Americans and businesses alike, among many other things.

 

We see it now in literally dozens of economic indicators, both large and small:

  • The Dow Jones industrial average has hit record after record and just burst through 25,000 for the first time. Based on the total return on the Wilshire 5000 Total Stock Index, the stock market has created $7.1 trillion in new wealth since Trump was elected.
  • An analysis by IBD’s Jed Graham shows that, based on recent tax revenue data, hourly wages are growing faster than the tepid 2.5% pace now expected.
  • Total job openings of 6 million remains near the record high set last year. Some 2.1 million jobs were created in 2017.
  • The 4.1% civilian unemployment rate is the lowest since 2000.
  • The employment-to-population ratio, the broadest measure of labor demand, now stands at 60.1%, the highest level since President Obama’s first month in office.
  • African-American unemployment for those 16 years and over fell to 7.5%, its lowest level since December 2000; meanwhile, Hispanic unemployment dropped to 4.7%, an all-time low, in 2017.
  • New claims for unemployment insurance stood at a four-week average of 241,750 in December, close to the 44-year-low set earlier in 2017 and well below 2016’s average of 253,750.
  • ADP’s monthly job report says 250,000 new jobs were created in December, based on payroll data the firm collects.
  • The total number of food stamp recipients fell by 2 million last year.
  • Federal spending, as a share of GDP, fell from 21.1% in 2016 to an estimated 20.5% currently.
  • U.S. manufacturing grew in December at the fastest rate in three months, capping “the strongest year for factories since 2004,” according to the Institute for Supply Management.
  • Some 90 companies have already granted or promised bonuses based on Trump’s policies, in particular the December tax cuts, the nonpartisan Americans For Tax Reform reported. “Thanks to tax cuts, growing list of companies announcing bonuses, wage hikes, and charitable donations,” the group said.
  • Rising stock, home and other asset prices have helped push U.S. household wealth to a record $96.2 trillion, up from just under $55 trillion in 2009.
  • The total number of pages in the Federal Registry, the government’s regulatory bible, totaled 61,950 pages, the lowest in a quarter century and a sign that Trump’s deregulation of the U.S. economy is having a major impact.

Had enough? We could go on. The fact is, these are the most bullish economic conditions in America since the early 1980s. We know, because that’s when this newspaper first began. That was the Reagan Boom, a period that followed a near-decade of stagflation, high interest rates, job frustration and, perhaps worst of all, disco.


No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective


We could easily add dozens other items to our list of economic data and other things that have “suddenly” or “unexpectedly,” as the media like to say, gotten much better during just one year of President Trump. The list would be a long one.

No, we’re not Pollyannas. We know, of course, that markets sometimes go down; that the economy sometimes shrinks; and that people sometimes lose jobs. A policy mistake here, a foreign policy scare there, one rate-hike too many by the Fed — any of these things could take down soaring markets and the economy. So could an unforeseen financial disaster somewhere. Bitcoin? Shaky European banks? A state pension-fund bankruptcy? Who knows. It’s part of the eternal ebb and flow of a market economy.

But right now, growth-enhancing policies are in place in the U.S., and the economy looks set to grow by more than 3% for a third straight quarter and into 2018, a welcome relief from the subpar 1.5% GDP growth of the Obama years. After having their bridles reined in for nearly a decade by Big Government and high taxes, the economy’s horses are free to run. In case you missed it, don’t wait for the starting gun — the horses have already left the gate.

RELATED:

And…Presto! Tax Cuts Already Working Their Magic 

Trump’s Deregulation Binge Is Already Lightening The Economy’s Load 

Trump’s Inclusive Jobs Boom 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/dont-wait-for-the-trump-boom-its-already-here/

 

U.S. Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent

Why the Winner Is…Barack Obama

5 presidents and their debt
 (L-R) President Barack Obama and former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter attend the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center April 25, 2013 in Dallas, Texas. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

What’s the best way to determine how much each president contributed to the $20 trillion U.S. debt? The most popular method is to compare the debt level from when a president enters office to the debt level when he leaves. A good visual representation is a graph showing the percent of the debt accumulated under each president. You can also compare the debt as a percent of economic output.

But these aren’t accurate ways to measure the debt created by each president.

Why? The president doesn’t have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. That’s because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous president.

For example, President Bush took office in January 2001. He submitted his first budget in February. But that was for FY 2002, which didn’t begin until October 1. For the first nine months of his new term, Bush had to live with President Clinton’s last budget. That was FY 2001, which continued until September 30, 2001. This is why no new president is accountable for the budget deficit in his first year in office.

Yes, it’s confusing. But the federal fiscal year is set up that way to give the new president time to put together his budget during his first month in office.

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President

One way to measure the debt by president is to sum his budget deficits. That’s because the president is responsible for his budget priorities.

Each year’s deficit takes into account budgeted spending and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes. For details, see Deficit by President and Deficit by Year.

But there’s a difference between the deficit and the debt by president. That’s because all presidents can employ a sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit.

They can borrow from federal retirement funds. For example, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus since 1987. That’s because there were more working people contributing via payroll taxes than retired people withdrawing benefits. The Fund invests its surplus in U.S. Treasury notes. The president can reduce the deficit by spending these funds instead of issuing new Treasurys.

Barack Obama — Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise. He added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase, in seven years. This was the fifth-largest increase percentage-wise. Obama’s budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years.

Obama’s budget increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. But these savings didn’t show up until the later years.

George W. Bush — President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest amount.

It was the fourth-largest percentage increase. Bush increased the debt 101 percent from where it started on September 30, 2001, at $5.8 trillion. That’s the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton’s last budget. Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks.  The War on Terror included two wars. The War in Afghanistan cost $1 trillion and the Iraq War cost $807.5 billion. They increased military spending to record levels of $600 billion to $800 billion a year.

President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA. The Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis.  Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare.

Franklin D. Roosevelt  President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover. Of course, the Great Depression took an enormous bite out of revenues. The New Deal cost billions. But FDR’s major contribution to the debt was World War II spending. He added $209 billion to the debt between 1942 and 1945.

Woodrow Wilson — President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 727 percent increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. During his presidency, the Second Liberty Bond Act gave Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.

Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960:

Barack Obama:Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

  • FY 2016 – $1.423 trillion.
  • FY 2015 – $327 billion.
  • FY 2014 – $1.086 trillion.
  • FY 2013 – $672 billion.
  • FY 2012 – $1.276 trillion.
  • FY 2011 – $1.229 trillion.
  • FY 2010 – $1.652 trillion.
  • FY 2009 – $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama’s contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush:Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001.

  • FY 2009 – $1.632 trillion. (Bush’s deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
  • FY 2008 – $1.017 trillion.
  • FY 2007 – $501 billion.
  • FY 2006 – $574 billion.
  • FY 2005 – $554 billion.
  • FY 2004 – $596 billion.
  • FY 2003 – $555 billion.
  • FY 2002 – $421 billion.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

  • FY 2001 – $133 billion.
  • FY 2000 – $18 billion.
  • FY 1999 – $130 billion.
  • FY 1998 – $113 billion.
  • FY 1997 – $188 billion.
  • FY 1996 – $251 billion.
  • FY 1995 – $281 billion.
  • FY 1994 – $281 billion.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54 percent increase from the $2.8 trillion debt at the end of Reagan’s last budget, FY 1989.

  • FY 1993 – $347 billion.
  • FY 1992 – $399 billion.
  • FY 1991 – $432 billion.
  • FY 1990 – $376 billion.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981. Reaganomics didn’t work to grow the economy enough to offset tax cuts.

  • FY 1989 – $255 billion.
  • FY 1988 – $252 billion.
  • FY 1987 – $225 billion.
  • FY 1986 – $297 billion.
  • FY 1985 – $256 billion.
  • FY 1984 – $195 billion.
  • FY 1983 – $235 billion.
  • FY 1982 – $144 billion.

Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43 percent increase from the $699 billion debt at the end of  Ford’s last budget, FY 1977.

  • FY 1981 – $90 billion.
  • FY 1980 – $81 billion.
  • FY 1979 – $55 billion.
  • FY 1978 – $73 billion.

Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47 percent increase from the $475 billion debt at the end of Nixon’s last budget, FY 1974.

  • FY 1977 – $78 billion.
  • FY 1976 – $87 billion.
  • FY 1975 – $58 billion.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34 percent increase from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ’s last budget, FY 1969.

  • FY 1974 – $17 billion.
  • FY 1973 – $31 billion.
  • FY 1972 – $29 billion.
  • FY 1971 – $27 billion.
  • FY 1970 – $17 billion.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13 percent increase from the $312 billion debt at the end of JFK’s last budget, FY 1964.

  • FY 1969 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1968 – $21 billion.
  • FY 1967 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1966 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1965 – $6 billion.

John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, an 8 percent increase from the $289 billion debt at the end of Eisenhower’s last budget, FY 1961.

  • FY 1964 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1963 – $7 billion.
  • FY 1962 – $10 billion.

Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9 percent increase from the $266 billion debt at the end of Truman’s last budget, FY 1953.

  • FY 1961 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1960 – $2 billion.
  • FY 1959 – $8 billion.
  • FY 1958 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1957 – $2 billion surplus.
  • FY 1956 – $2 billion surplus.
  • FY 1955 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1954 – $5 billion.

Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3 percent increase from the $259 billion debt at the end of FDR’s last budget, FY 1945.

  • FY 1953 – $7 billion.
  • FY 1952 – $4 billion.
  • FY 1951 – $2 billion surplus.
  • FY 1950 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1949 – slight surplus.
  • FY 1948 – $6 billion surplus.
  • FY 1947 – $11 billion surplus.
  • FY 1946 – $11 billion.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt at the end of Hoover’s last budget, FY 1933.

  • FY 1945 – $58 billion.
  • FY 1944 – $64 billion.
  • FY 1943 – $64 billion.
  • FY 1942 – $23 billion.
  • FY 1941 – $6 billion.
  • FY 1940 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1939 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1938 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1937 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1936 – $5 billion.
  • FY 1935 – $2 billion.
  • FY 1934 – $5 billion.

Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33 percent increase from the $17 billion debt at the end of Coolidge’s last budget, FY 1929.

  • FY 1933 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1932 – $3 billion.
  • FY 1931 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1930 – $1 billion surplus.

Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26 percent decrease from the $21 billion debt at the end of Harding’s last budget, FY 1923.

  • FY 1929 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1928 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1927 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1926 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1925 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1924 – $1 billion surplus.

Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7 percent decrease from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson’s last budget, FY 1921.

  • FY 1923 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1922 – $1 billion surplus.

Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727 percent increase from the $2.9 billion debt at the end of Taft’s last budget, FY 1913.

  • FY 1921 – $2 billion surplus.
  • FY 1920 – $1 billion surplus.
  • FY 1919 – $13 billion.
  • FY 1918 – $9 billion.
  • FY 1917 – $2 billion.
  • FY 1916 – $1 billion.
  • FY 1915 – $0 billion (slight surplus).
  • FY 1914 – $0 billion.

FY 1789 – FY 1913: $2.9 billion debt created. (Source: Historical Tables, U.S. Treasury Department.)

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Joint Statement of Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, on Budget Results for Fiscal Year 2017


10/20/2017

Receipts by Source
Outlays by Agency

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney today released details of the fiscal year (FY) 2017 final budget results. The deficit in FY 2017 was $666 billion, $80 billion more than in the prior fiscal year, but $36 billion less than forecast in the FY 2018 Mid-Session Review (MSR). As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the deficit was 3.5 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than the previous year.[1]

Growth in spending outpaced growth in tax receipts for the second year in a row as a result of historically subpar economic growth. Rising deficits show that smart spending restraint and pursuing policies that promote economic growth, like tax reform and reductions in regulatory burden, are critically necessary to promote long-term fiscal sustainability.

“Today’s budget results underscore the importance of achieving robust and sustained economic growth. Through a combination of tax reform and regulatory relief, this country can return to higher levels of GDP growth, helping to erase our fiscal deficit,” said Secretary Mnuchin. “The Administration’s pro-growth policies will create better, higher-paying jobs, make American businesses competitive again, and bring back cash from offshore to invest here at home. This will help place the nation on a path to improved fiscal health and create prosperity for generations to come.”

“These numbers should serve as a smoke alarm for Washington, a reminder that we need to grow our economy again and get our fiscal house in order. We can do that through smart spending restraint, tax reform, and cutting red tape,” said Director Mulvaney.

Summary of Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Results

Year-end data from the September 2017 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government show that the deficit for FY 2017 was $666 billion, $80 billion higher than the prior year’s deficit. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit was 3.5 percent, an increase from 3.2 percent in FY 2016 and above the average of 3.1 percent over the last 40 years.

The FY 2017 deficit of $666 billion was $63 billion greater than the estimate in the FY 2018 Budget (Budget), and $36 billion less than estimated in the MSR, a supplemental update to the Budget published in July.

Table 1. Total Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit (in billions of dollars)
Receipts Outlays Deficit
FY 2016 Actual 3,267 3,852 -586
    Percentage of GDP 17.7% 20.9% 3.2%
FY 2017 Estimates:
    2018 Budget 3,460 4,062 -603
    2018 Mid-Session Review 3,344 4,045 -702
FY 2017 Actual 3,315 3,981 -666
    Percentage of GDP 17.3% 20.7% 3.5%
Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 

Government receipts totaled $3,315 billion in FY 2017. This was $48 billion higher than in FY 2016, an increase of 1.5 percent, below expectations from both the Budget and the MSR. As a percentage of GDP, receipts equaled 17.3 percent, 0.4 percentage point lower than in FY 2016 and 0.1 percentage point below the average over the last 40 years. The dollar increase in receipts for FY 2017 can be attributed to higher social insurance and retirement receipts and net individual income taxes, partially offset by lower deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve.

Outlays grew in FY 2017, but by less than expected in the Budget and the MSR, and decreased slightly as a percentage of GDP. Outlays were $3,981 billion, $128 billion above those in FY 2016, a 3.3 percent increase. As a percentage of GDP, outlays were 20.7 percent, 0.1 percentage point lower than in the prior year, but above the 40-year average of 20.5 percent. Contributing to the dollar increase over FY 2016 were higher outlays for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and interest on the public debt. In addition, one-time upward revisions in estimates of credit subsidy for outstanding Federal loans and loan guarantees, primarily in the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development, increased outlays relative to FY 2016 by $55 billion. Lower spectrum auction receipts and higher spending by the Federal Emergency Management Administration for hurricane relief and recovery also contributed to the increase.

Total Federal borrowing from the public increased by $498 billion during FY 2017 to $14,667 billion. The increase in borrowing included $666 billion in borrowing to finance the deficit, partly offset by $167 billion related to other transactions that on net reduced the Government’s financing requirements, such as changes in cash balances and net disbursements for Federal credit programs. As a percentage of GDP, borrowing from the public declined from 76.7 percent of GDP at the end of FY 2016 to 76.3 percent of GDP at the end of FY 2017.

Below are explanations of the differences between estimates in the MSR and the year-end actual amounts for receipts and agency outlays.

Fiscal Year 2017 Receipts

Total receipts for FY 2017 were $3,314.9 billion, $28.7 billion lower than the MSR estimate of $3,343.6 billion. This net decrease in receipts was primarily attributable to lower-than-estimated collections of deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve, other miscellaneous receipts, and corporation income tax receipts.  Table 2 displays actual receipts and estimates from the Budget and the MSR by source.

 

  • Individual income taxes were $1,587.1 billion, $3.2 billion higher than the MSR estimate. This increase is the net effect of higher withheld payments of individual income tax liability of $2.7 billion, lower nonwithheld payments of $1.7 billion, and lower-than-estimated refunds of $2.2 billion.
  • Corporation income taxes were $297.0 billion, $5.4 billion below the MSR estimate.  This difference reflects lower-than-expected payments of 2017 corporation income tax liability of $3.2 billion and higher-than-estimated refunds of $2.2 billion.
  • Social insurance and retirement receipts were $1,161.9 billion, $1.0 billion lower than the MSR estimate. This reduction is the result of lower-than-estimated deposits by States to the unemployment insurance trust fund of $1.0 billion.
  • Excise taxes were $83.8 billion, $3.7 billion below the MSR estimate.
  • Estate and gift taxes were $22.8 billion, $0.4 billion below the MSR estimate.
  • Customs duties were $34.6 billion, roughly equal to the MSR estimate.
  • Miscellaneous receipts were $127.7 billion, $21.5 billion below the MSR estimate. Lower-than-expected deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve accounted for $10.3 billion of this decrease relative to the MSR. The remaining decrease was attributable to lower-than-expected collections of various fees, penalties, forfeitures, and fines.

Fiscal Year 2017 Outlays

Total outlays were $3,980.6 billion for FY 2017, $64.7 billion below the MSR estimate. Table 3 displays actual outlays by agency and major program as well as estimates from the Budget and the MSR. The largest changes in outlays from the MSR were in the following areas:

Department of Defense — Outlays for the Department of Defense were $568.9 billion, $9.9 billion lower than the MSR estimate. This difference is mostly due to lower-than-expected outlays for operation and maintenance, which were $7.8 billion less than the MSR estimate. Operation and maintenance disbursements were less than anticipated for Army contracts from FY 2016 and prior years, reimbursements from the Coalition Support Fund, and Defense Health Program and counter-ISIL “train and equip” contracts. Additionally, outlays were lower than expected by $1.5 billion for Army military personnel, $1.4 billion for revolving and management funds due to lower-than-expected fuel costs, and $1.0 billion for disbursements against aircraft procurement contracts. These differences were partially offset by $2.2 billion of higher-than-expected outlays for research, development, test and evaluation.

Department of Education — Outlays for the Department of Education were $111.7 billion, $1.8 billion higher than the MSR estimate. This difference was driven by outlays for higher education programs. In the Pell Grant program, outlays were $0.9 billion higher than projected in the MSR, due to faster-than-expected disbursement patterns. For the Federal Direct Student Loan program, because of changes in the mix of activity in direct student loans, $0.7 billion more in positive subsidy outlays for the FY 2017 loan cohort were recorded in FY 2017 than estimated in the MSR.

Department of Health and Human Services — Outlays for the Department of Health and Human Services were $1,116.8 billion, $11.8 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Outlays for Medicaid spending were $3.8 billion less than projected at MSR, driven primarily by lower benefit expenditures than was anticipated during the second half of the year. National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s outlays were $1.5 billion lower than projected, due in part to lower-than-expected disbursement for research grants in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. The Service and Supply Fund (SSF) outlaid $0.9 billion less than expected at MSR. SSF expected higher outlays in FY 2017 mainly due to an anticipated increase in contracts serviced; however many of these contracts will be outlaid starting in FY 2018 instead. Outlays for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) were lower than expected due to procurements that occurred much later in the fiscal year than originally planned.

Department of Homeland Security — Outlays for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were $50.5 billion, $2.2 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Outlays in a number of DHS components were below the MSR estimates. Outlays for Customs and Border Protection were $1.4 billion below the MSR estimates, due to slower-than-expected spending for procurements and construction for customs enforcement and border protection infrastructure projects. Outlays for the National Protection and Programs Directorate were $1.2 billion lower than the MSR estimate, due to slower-than-expected outlays of the agency’s cyber budget. Outlays for the Transportation Security Administration were $0.9 billion lower than the MSR estimate, due to slower-than-expected outlays from obligations for airport security construction projects. Partially offsetting these decreases, outlays for the Federal Emergency Management Agency were $2.0 billion higher than the MSR estimates because of response activities related to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

Department of Justice — Outlays for the Department of Justice were $31.0 billion, $3.4 billion lower than the MSR estimate. This difference is primarily due to payments from the Assets Forfeiture Program being $2.3 billion less than estimated in the MSR. Also contributing to the overall difference was higher-than-expected receipts from fines and penalties, which were $0.7 billion higher than the MSR estimate. Outlays were $0.5 billion lower than the MSR for programs within the Office of Justice Programs partially due to pending litigation. Outlays were also lower across many other programs due to delayed action on FY 2017 appropriations.

Department of Labor — Outlays for the Department of Labor were $40.1 billion, $3.6 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Nearly $2 billion of this difference is attributable to lower-than-projected unemployment insurance benefit outlays because the actual unemployment rate was lower than assumed in the MSR economic forecast. Another $1.5 billion of the difference is attributable to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), due to both gross outlays being less than expected and offsetting receipts being greater than expected. The majority of the change in outlays is related to lower-than-expected payouts in the single employer program. PBGC also anticipated a substantial investment loss in FY 2017, but experienced a profit, leading to much higher offsetting receipts than anticipated in the MSR.

Department of State — Outlays for the Department of State were $27.1 billion, $3.0 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Outlays were lower than expected for Department of State foreign assistance programs by $1.6 billion, mostly due to lower-than-anticipated spending for Global Health Programs, which was driven primarily by a delay in lump sum payments to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The delay was necessary due to a shortfall in confirmed statutorily required matching payments from other donors. In addition, lower-than-expected outlays for capital-intensive programs such as new overseas facility construction and delayed payments for contributions to international organizations and peacekeeping were primarily responsible for the remaining difference of $1.3 billion from the MSR estimate.

Department of Transportation — Outlays for the Department of Transportation were $79.4 billion, $2.2 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Nearly $0.9 billion of this difference is due to lower-than-expected outlays for highways and transit programs. Most of the remaining difference is an accumulation of lower-than-expected spending across a number of programs.  Late-year congressional action on FY 2017 appropriations delayed grant-making and hiring activity across the agency.

Department of the Treasury — Outlays for the Department of the Treasury were $546.4 billion, $17.3 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Virtually all of the difference is due to interest on the public debt, which was $16.4 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Interest on the public debt is paid to the public and to trust funds and other Government accounts. The difference is the result of lower-than-projected interest paid to the public on inflation-indexed securities and other marketable Treasury securities, as well as lower-than-projected interest paid to Government accounts.

International Assistance Programs — Outlays for International Assistance Programs were $18.9 billion, $4.1 billion lower than the MSR estimate. This difference is largely due to net outlays for Department of State Foreign Military Sales that were more than $3 billion lower than the MSR estimate due to higher-than-anticipated receipts received from foreign governments for weapons purchases.

Social Security Administration — Outlays for the Social Security Administration were $1,000.8 billion, $1.7 billion lower than the MSR estimate. The difference, which is relatively small in comparison to total program outlays, is primarily attributable to lower-than-expected outlays for the Disability Insurance Trust Fund and Supplemental Security Income programs.

United States Postal Service — Net outlays for the United States Postal Service were -$2.2 billion, $5.5 billion lower than the MSR estimate. Outlays were lower than the MSR estimate due largely to the failure of the Postal Service to make required payments for health and pension contributions.

Railroad Retirement Board — Outlays for the Railroad Retirement Board were $5.2 billion, $1.7 billion lower than the MSR estimate, due largely to the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust’s unrealized gains and losses on investments. Actual returns to the Trust were much higher than projected in the MSR due to favorable market conditions in the last few months of FY 2017.

Undistributed Offsetting Receipts — Undistributed Offsetting Receipts were -$236.9 billion, $6.6 billion higher than the MSR estimate. Net outlays for interest received by trust funds were $3.0 billion higher than the MSR estimate (lower net collections). The difference is due largely to the interest earnings of the Military Retirement Fund, which were $4.2 billion lower than the MSR estimate, partly offset by higher-than-projected interest earnings in some other programs. This intragovernmental interest is paid out of the Department of the Treasury account for interest on the public debt and has no net impact on total Federal Government outlays. In addition, receipts for employer share, employee retirement were $2.5 billion higher than MSR estimates (lower net collections) primarily due to the failure of the Postal Service to make required accrual payments to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund.

 

___________________________

 

[1] The estimates of GDP used in the calculations of the deficit and borrowing relative to GDP reflect the revisions to historical data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in July 2017. GDP for FY 2017 is based on the economic forecast for the President’s 2018 Budget, adjusted for the BEA revisions.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0184.aspx

 

Economy to grow at 5.4% rate in first quarter, Atlanta Fed tracker shows

  • The Atlanta Fed updated its rolling look at the U.S. economy, projecting that GDP would grow 5.4 percent in the first quarter.
  • If the forecast holds, it would be the strongest quarter since the economic recovery began and would more than double the typical annualized growth during the period.

The economy is on track to put up blockbuster growth numbers in the first quarter, according to the latest forecast from the Atlanta Fed.

GDP is expected to surge 5.4 percent to start 2018, the central bank branch estimated in its latest rolling look at how the economy is progressing.

If the forecast holds, it would be the best quarter since the Great Recession ended in 2009. The previous highest was third quarter of 2014, which hit 5.2 percent.

However, the Atlanta Fed’s tracker has shown to have reliability issues in the past. In particular, the model’s sensitivity to the ISM Manufacturing Index has led the gauge astray multiple times, causing growth to be overstated.

The ISM numbers were the principle impetus for the raise in growth projections Thursday.

Real consumer spending jumped from 3.1 percent to 4 percent amid a sharp savings drawdown, and private fixed-investment growth surged from 5.2 percent to 9.2 percent.

Since 2015, ISM boosts have caused the Atlanta Fed to overstate growth by 0.8 percentage points on average, including 1.9 percent points in the fourth quarter tracking on Nov. 1, according to CNBC calculations.

That comes as jobless claims hover around generational lows and the unemployment rate is at 4.1 percent. Productivity, however, continues to be lackluster, falling 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter against an expected rise of 1 percent.

GDP for the fourth quarter came in at 2.6 percent, a disappointment caused primarily by a decline in inventories and a surge in imports, temporary setbacks expected to reverse in the quarters ahead.

President Donald Trump rode to office on promises of growth that would hit at least 3 percent and run as high as 6 percent.

The Atlanta Fed also was optimistic about the 2017 first quarter, estimating growth at one point to be 3.4 percent, where the final reading came in at 1.2 percent.

—With reporting by CNBC’s Steve Liesman.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/economy-to-grow-at-5-point-4-percent-rate-in-first-quarter-atlanta-fed-tracker-shows.html

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter and Annual 2017 (Advance Estimate)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of
2017 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the
third quarter, real GDP increased 3.2 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source
data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see "Source Data for the
Advance Estimate" on page 3). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete
data, will be released on February 28, 2018.

Real GDP: Percent Change from Preceding Quarter
The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment,
state and local government spending, and federal government spending that were partly offset by a
negative contribution from private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The deceleration in real GDP growth in the fourth quarter reflected a downturn in private inventory
investment that was partly offset by accelerations in PCE, exports, nonresidential fixed investment, state
and local government spending, and federal government spending, and an upturn in residential fixed
investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, turned up.

Current-dollar GDP increased 5.0 percent, or $238.3 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $19,738.9
billion. In the third quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 5.3 percent, or $250.6 billion (table 1 and table
3).

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.7 percent in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 2.8 percent,
compared with an increase of 1.5 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index
increased 1.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent (appendix table A).


Personal Income (table 10)

Current-dollar personal income increased $178.9 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an
increase of $112.3 billion in the third. The acceleration in personal income primarily reflected an upturn
in personal interest income and an acceleration in nonfarm proprietors’ income.

Disposable personal income increased $139.0 billion, or 3.9 percent, in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of $73.8 billion, or 2.1 percent, in the third. Real disposable personal income increased
1.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.5 percent.

Personal saving was $384.4 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $478.3 billion in the third. The
personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was 2.6 percent
in the fourth quarter, compared with 3.3 percent in the third.


2017 GDP

Real GDP increased 2.3 percent in 2017 (that is, from the 2016 annual level to the 2017 annual level),
compared with an increase of 1.5 percent in 2016 (table 1).

The increase in real GDP in 2017 primarily reflected positive contributions from PCE, nonresidential fixed
investment, and exports. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The acceleration in real GDP from 2016 to 2017 reflected upturns in nonresidential fixed investment and
in exports and a smaller decrease in private inventory investment.  These movements were partly offset
by decelerations in residential fixed investment and in state and local government spending. Imports,
which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, accelerated.

Current-dollar GDP increased 4.1 percent, or $762.3 billion, in 2017 to a level of $19,386.8 billion,
compared with an increase of 2.8 percent, or $503.8 billion, in 2016 (table 1 and table 3).

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.8 percent in 2017, compared with an increase
of 1.0 percent in 2016 (table 4). The PCE price index increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase
of 1.2 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 1.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 1.8 percent (appendix table A).

During 2017 (measured from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the fourth quarter of 2017), real GDP
increased 2.5 percent, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent during 2016.  The price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.9 percent during 2017, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent during
2016 (table 7).


Source Data for the Advance Estimate

Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data in the advance estimate is provided in
a Technical Note that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. A detailed "Key Source Data
and Assumptions" file is also posted for each release. For information on updates to GDP, see the
"Additional Information" section that follows.

                                   *          *          *
                     Next release:  February 28, 2018 at 8:30 A.M. EST
                Gross Domestic Product:  Fourth Quarter 2017 (Second Estimate)
                                   *          *          *

Additional Information

                                        Release Dates in 2018


      Estimate                   2017: IV and annual    2018: I           2018: II           2018: III
Gross Domestic Product
 Advance                         January 26             April 27          July 27            October 26
 Second                          February 28            May 30            August 29          November 28
 Third                           March 28               June 28           September 27       December 21

Corporate Profits
 Preliminary                     …                      May 30            August 29          November 28
 Revised                         March 28               June 28           September 27       December 21



                                      Additional Information

Resources

Additional resources available at www.bea.gov:
•	Stay informed about BEA developments by reading the BEA blog, signing up for BEA’s email
        subscription service, or following BEA on Twitter @BEA_News.
•	Historical time series for these estimates can be accessed in BEA’s Interactive Data Application.
•	Access BEA data by registering for BEA’s Data Application Programming Interface (API).
•	For more on BEA’s statistics, see our monthly online journal, the Survey of Current Business.
•	BEA's news release scheduleNIPA Handbook:  Concepts and Methods of the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts

Definitions

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation’s economy
less the value of the goods and services used up in production. GDP is also equal to the sum of personal
consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, net exports of goods and services, and
government consumption expenditures and gross investment.

Current-dollar estimates are valued in the prices of the period when the transactions occurred—that is,
at “market value.” Also referred to as “nominal estimates” or as “current-price estimates.”
Real values are inflation-adjusted estimates—that is, estimates that exclude the effects of price changes.
The gross domestic purchases price index measures the prices of final goods and services purchased by
U.S. residents.

The personal consumption expenditure price index measures the prices paid for the goods and services
purchased by, or on the behalf of, “persons.”

Personal income is the income received by, or on behalf of, all persons from all sources:  from
participation as laborers in production, from owning a home or business, from the ownership of
financial assets, and from government and business in the form of transfers. It includes income from
domestic sources as well as the rest of world. It does not include realized or unrealized capital gains or
losses.

Disposable personal income is the income available to persons for spending or saving. It is equal to
personal income less personal current taxes.

Personal outlays is the sum of personal consumption expenditures, personal interest payments, and
personal current transfer payments.

Personal saving is personal income less personal outlays and personal current taxes.
The personal saving rate is personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income. (For a
comparison of personal saving in BEA's national income and product accounts (NIPAs) with personal
saving in the Federal Reserve Board's financial accounts of the United States, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/nipa-frb.asp.

For more definitions, see the Glossary: National Income and Product Accounts.


Statistical conventions

Annual rates. Quarterly values are expressed at seasonally-adjusted annual rates (SAAR), unless
otherwise specified. Dollar changes are calculated as the difference between these SAAR values. For
detail, see the FAQ “Why does BEA publish estimates at annual rates?”

Percent changes in quarterly series are calculated from unrounded data and are displayed at annual
rates, unless otherwise specified. For details, see the FAQ “How is average annual growth calculated?”

Quantities and prices. Quantities, or “real” volume measures, and prices are expressed as index
numbers with a specified reference year equal to 100 (currently 2009). Quantity and price indexes are
calculated using a Fisher-chained weighted formula that incorporates weights from two adjacent
periods (quarters for quarterly data and annuals for annual data). “Real” dollar series are calculated by
multiplying the published quantity index by the current dollar value in the reference year (2009) and
then dividing by 100. Percent changes calculated from real quantity indexes and chained-dollar levels
are conceptually the same; any differences are due to rounding.

Chained-dollar values are not additive because the relative weights for a given period differ from those
of the reference year. In tables that display chained-dollar values, a “residual” line shows the difference
between the sum of detailed chained-dollar series and its corresponding aggregate.


Updates to GDP

BEA releases three vintages of the current quarterly estimate for GDP:  "Advance" estimates are
released near the end of the first month following the end of the quarter and are based on source data
that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency; “second” and “third” estimates
are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively, and are based on more detailed
and more comprehensive data as they become available.

Annual and comprehensive updates are typically released in late July. Annual updates generally cover at
least the 3 most recent calendar years (and their associated quarters) and incorporate newly available
major annual source data as well as some changes in methods and definitions to improve the accounts.
Comprehensive (or benchmark) updates are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major
periodic source data, as well as major conceptual improvements.
The table below shows the average revisions to the quarterly percent changes in real GDP between
different estimate vintages, without regard to sign.

Vintage                               Average Revision Without Regard to Sign
                                         (percentage points, annual rates)
Advance to second                                     0.5
Advance to third                                      0.6
Second to third                                       0.2
Advance to latest                                     1.3
Note - Based on estimates from 1993 through 2016. For more information on GDP
updates, see Revision Information on the BEA Web site.

The larger average revision from the advance to the latest estimate reflects the fact that periodic
comprehensive updates include major statistical and methodological improvements.

Unlike GDP, an advance current quarterly estimate of GDI is not released because data on domestic
profits and on net interest of domestic industries are not available. For fourth quarter estimates, these
data arCopy a Poste not available until the third estimate.
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2018/gdp4q17_adv.htm

A SUMMARY OF THE 2017 ANNUAL REPORTS

Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes the 2017 Annual Reports.

Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce the long-term financing shortfall of both programs. The Trustees recommend that lawmakers take action sooner rather than later to address these shortfalls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 42 percent of Federal program expenditures in fiscal year 2016. The unified budget reflects current trust fund operations. Consequently, even when there are positive trust fund balances, any drawdown of those balances, as well as general fund transfers into Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) fund and interest payments to the trust funds that are used to pay benefits, increase pressure on the unified budget. Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment. For Medicare, it is also the case that growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeds growth in per capita GDP over this time period. In later years, projected costs expressed as a share of GDP rise slowly for Medicare and are relatively flat for Social Security, reflecting very gradual population aging caused by increasing longevity and slower growth in per-beneficiary health care costs.

Social Security

The Social Security program provides workers and their families with retirement, disability, and survivors insurance benefits. Workers earn these benefits by paying into the system during their working years. Over the program’s 82-year history, it has collected roughly $19.9 trillion and paid out $17.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2016 in its two trust funds.

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which pays disability benefits, are by law separate entities. However, to summarize overall Social Security finances, the Trustees have traditionally emphasized the financial status of the hypothetical combined trust funds for OASI and DI. The combined funds-designated OASDI- satisfy the Trustees’ test of short-range (ten-year) financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined fund asset reserves at the beginning of each year will exceed that year’s projected cost through 2029. However, the funds fail the test of long-range close actuarial balance.

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which pays disability benefits, are by law separate entities. However, to summarize overall Social Security finances, the Trustees have traditionally emphasized the financial status of the hypothetical combined trust funds for OASI and DI. The combined funds-designated OASDI- satisfy the Trustees’ test of short-range (ten-year) financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined fund asset reserves at the beginning of each year will exceed that year’s projected cost through 2029. However, the funds fail the test of long-range close actuarial balance.

The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year’s report. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the OASDI Trust Funds is 2.83 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.66 percent projected in last year’s report. This deficit amounts to 1 percent of GDP over the 75-year time period, or 21 percent of program non-interest income, or 17 percent of program cost. A 0.05 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit would have been expected if nothing had changed other than the one-year shift in the valuation period from 2016 through 2090 to 2017 through 2091. The effects of recently enacted legislation, updated demographic and economic data, and improved methodologies further increased the actuarial deficit by 0.12 percent of taxable payroll.

Social Security’s total income is projected to exceed its total cost through 2021, as it has since 1982. The 2016 surplus of total income relative to cost was $35 billion. However, when interest income is excluded, Social Security’s cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income throughout the projection period, as it has since 2010. The Trustees project that this annual non-interest deficit will average about $51 billion between 2017 and 2020. It will then rise steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate as the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

After 2021, interest income and redemption of trust fund asset reserves from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual deficits until 2034, when the OASDI reserves will be depleted. Thereafter, scheduled tax income is projected to be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through the end of the projection period in 2091. The ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) peaked in 2008, declined through 2016, and is expected to decline steadily until the trust funds are depleted in 2034.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow from 13.7 percent in 2016 to roughly 17.0 percent in 2038, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2051. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 5.0 percent of GDP in 2016, and the Trustees project these costs will increase to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2037, decline to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2050, and thereafter rise slowly reaching 6.1 percent by 2091..

While the projections for the combined trust funds are somewhat less favorable than last year, the projections for the DI Trust Fund are more favorable. Provisions in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that became law in November 2015 were projected to postpone depletion of the DI Trust Fund by six years to 2022 from 2016 under the assumptions of the 2015 Trustees Report, largely by temporarily reallocating a portion of the payroll tax rate from the OASI Trust Fund to the DI Trust Fund. In last year’s report, the DI Trust Fund depletion date projection was extended one year to 2023. In this year’s report, the depletion date projection is being extended five additional years, to 2028, due to lower-than-expected recent applications for and awards of DI benefits. Nonetheless, this year’s projections for the OASI and OASDI Trust Fund depletion dates are unchanged, and the estimated magnitude of long-term financial imbalances is little changed for DI and is larger for OASDI.

Medicare

The Medicare program has two separate trust funds, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund. HI, otherwise known as Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital, home health services following hospital stays, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled. SMI consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled. Part D provides subsidized access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries, as well as premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees.

The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will be depleted in 2029, one year later than projected in last year’s report. At that time dedicated revenues will be sufficient to pay 88 percent of HI costs. The Trustees project that the share of HI cost that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 81 percent in 2041, and will then rise gradually to 88 percent in 2091. The HI fund again fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as its trust fund ratio is already below 100 percent of annual costs, and is expected to stay about unchanged to 2021 before declining in a continuous fashion until reserve depletion in 2029.

The HI Trust Fund’s projected 75-year actuarial deficit is 0.64 percent of taxable payroll, which represents 0.3 percent of GDP through 2091, or 16 percent of non-interest income, or 14 percent of program cost. This estimate is down from 0.73 percent of taxable payroll projected in last year’s report. This improvement reflects a 0.01 percentage point increase in the HI actuarial deficit that would have been expected if nothing had changed other than shifting the valuation period forward one year to 2017 through 2091, and a 0.10 percentage point decrease due to new data and changed assumptions.

For SMI, the Trustees project that both Part B and Part D will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing from general revenues and beneficiary premiums each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow steadily from 2.1 percent of GDP in 2016 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2037, and to then increase more slowly to 3.7 percent of GDP by 2091. General revenues will finance roughly three-quarters of SMI costs, and premiums paid by beneficiaries almost all of the remaining quarter. SMI also receives a small amount of financing from special payments by States, and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs.

The Trustees project that total Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2016 to 5.6 percent of GDP by 2041, and will increase gradually thereafter to about 5.9 percent of GDP by 2091.

In recent years U.S. national health expenditure (NHE) growth has slowed considerably. There is uncertainty regarding the degree to which this slowdown reflects the impacts of the recent economic downturn and other non-persistent factors, as opposed to structural changes in the health care sector that may continue to produce cost savings in the years ahead. It is possible that U.S. health care practices are becoming more efficient as new payment models develop and providers anticipate less rapid growth of reimbursement rates in both the public and private sectors than has occurred during the past several decades.

For a number of years, the methodology the Trustees have employed for projecting Medicare finances over the long term has assumed a substantial reduction in per capita health expenditure growth rates relative to historical experience. In addition, the Trustees have been revising down their projections for near-term Medicare expenditure growth in light of the recent favorable experience, in part due to effects of payment changes and delivery system reform that are changing health care practices. However, the Trustees have not assumed additional, specific cost saving arising from structural changes in the delivery system that may result from new payment mechanisms in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the cost-reduction incentives in the Affordable Care Act, or from payment reforms initiated by the private sector.

Notwithstanding the assumption of a substantial slowdown of per capita health expenditure growth, the projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that will need to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers.

Conclusion

Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

By the Trustees:

Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee
of the Trust Funds.
Thomas E. Price, M.D,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee.
R. Alexander Acosta,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee.
Nancy A.Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee.

A SUMMARY OF THE 2017 ANNUAL SOCIAL SECURITY
AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND REPORTS

In 2016, Social Security’s reserves increased by $35 billion to reach $2.8 trillion by the end of the year. Under the intermediate assumptions, the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits until 2028, five years later than projected in last year’s Social Security report. The improved outlook is due to recent declines in disability applications and lower projected disability incidence rates during the short-range period. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is able to pay full benefits until 2035, and the combined OASDI funds1 until 2034, both unchanged from last year. Over the 75-year projection period, Social Security faces an actuarial deficit of 2.83 percent of taxable payroll, up from the 2.66 percent projected last year. The actuarial deficit equals 1.0 percent of GDP through 2091.

Reserves in Medicare’s two trust funds increased by $31 billion to a total of $295 billion at the end of 2016. The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to be able to pay full benefits until 2029, one year later than indicated in last year’s Medicare report. The HI actuarial deficit is 0.64 percent of taxable payroll over the 75-year projection period, somewhat smaller than the 0.73 percent projected in last year’s report, and equivalent to 0.3 percent of GDP through 2091.

What Are the Trust Funds? Congress established trust funds managed by the Secretary of the Treasury to account for Social Security and Medicare income and disbursements. The Treasury credits Social Security and Medicare taxes, premiums, and other income to the funds. There are four separate trust funds. For Social Security, the OASI Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits and the DI Trust Fund pays disability benefits. For Medicare, the HI Trust Fund pays for inpatient hospital and related care. The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund comprises two separate accounts: Part B, which pays for physician and outpatient services, and Part D, which covers prescription drug benefits.

The only disbursements permitted from the funds are benefit payments and administrative costs. Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government which earn interest equal to rates on marketable securities with durations defined in law. The balances in the trust funds, which represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, provide automatic authority to pay benefits.

What Were the Trust Fund Operations in 2016? In 2016, 50.3 million people received OASI benefits, 10.6 million received DI benefits, and 56.8 million were covered under Medicare. A summary of Social Security and Medicare trust fund operations is shown below (Table 1). All four trust funds increased asset reserves in 2016.

TRUST FUND OPERATIONS, 2016 
(in billions)
OASI DI HI SMI
Reserves (end of 2015) $2,780.3 $32.3 $193.8 $69.5
Income during 2016 797.5 160.0 290.8 419.4
Cost during 2016 776.4 145.9 285.4 393.3
    Net change in Reserves 21.1 14.1 5.4 26.1
Reserves (end of 2016) 2,801.3 46.3 199.1 95.6

Note: Totals do not necessarily equal the sum of rounded components.

OASI and DI reserve figures for 2015 do not reflect benefit payments regularly scheduled for January 3, 2016, which were actually paid on December 31, 2015. These accelerated payments are allocated to 2016 costs. SMI reserves for 2015 do reflect premium payments and general revenue matching for SMI (Part B) regularly scheduled for January 3, 2016, which were received in 2015. Because January 3, 2016 was a Sunday, these income items moved to the next earliest date that was not a weekend or holiday.

Table 2 shows payments, by category, from each trust fund in 2016.

Table 2. Program Cost 
(in billions)
Category (in billions) OASI DI HI SMI
Benefit payments $768.6 $142.8 $280.5 $389.0
Railroad Retirement financial interchange 4.3 0.4
Administrative expenses 3.4 2.8 4.9 4.4
Total 776.4 145.9 285.4 393.3

Note: Totals do not necessarily equal the sum of rounded components.

OASI and DI cost figures for 2016 include benefit payments regularly scheduled for January 3, 2016, which were actually paid on December 31, 2015.

Trust fund income, by source, in 2016 is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Program Income 
(in billions)
Source (in billions) OASI DI HI SMI
Payroll taxes $678.8 $157.4 $253.5
Taxes on OASDI benefits 31.6 1.2 23.0
Interest earnings 87.0 1.4 7.7 $2.1
General Fund reimbursements 0.1 a 1.2 29.9
General revenues $288.1
Beneficiary premiums 3.3 85.9
Transfers from States 10.0
Other a a 2.1 3.4
Total 797.5 160.0 290.8 419.4

Note: Totals do not necessarily equal the sum of rounded components.

a Less than $50 million.In 2016, Social Security’s total income exceeded total cost by $35 billion. When interest received on trust fund assets is excluded from program income, there was a deficit of non-interest income relative to cost equal to $53 billion. The Trustees project that annual non-interest-income deficits will persist throughout the long-range period (2017-91).

In 2016, the HI Trust Fund’s total income, consisting of $283 billion in non-interest income and $8 billion in interest income (Table 3), exceeded program expenditures ($285 billion). For SMI, general revenues, which are set prospectively based on projected costs, represent the largest source of income.

What Is the Outlook for Future Social Security and Medicare Costs in Relation to GDP? One instructive way to view the projected costs of Social Security and Medicare is to compare the costs of scheduled benefits and administrative costs for the programs with the gross domestic product (GDP), the most frequently used measure of the total output of the U.S. economy (Chart A).

Chart A—Social Security and Medicare Cost as a Percentage of GDP
click on graph for underlying data

Under the intermediate assumptions employed in the reports, the costs of these programs as a percentage of GDP increase substantially through 2035 because: (1) the number of beneficiaries rises rapidly as the baby-boom generation retires; and (2) the lower birth rates that have persisted since the baby boom cause slower growth of the labor force and GDP.

Social Security’s annual cost as a percentage of GDP is projected to increase from 4.9 percent in 2017 to about 6.1 percent by 2037, then decline to 5.9 percent by 2050 before generally rising to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2091. Under the intermediate assumptions, Medicare cost rises from 3.6 percent of GDP in 2017 to 5.4 percent of GDP by 2035 due mainly to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then increases further to 5.9 percent by 2091. The growth in health care cost per beneficiary becomes the larger factor later in the valuation period, particularly in Part D.

In 2017, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs is estimated to equal 8.5 percent of GDP. The Trustees project an increase to 11.5 percent of GDP by 2035 and to 12.0 percent by 2091, with most of these increases attributable to Medicare. Medicare’s relative cost is expected to rise gradually from 74 percent of the cost of Social Security in 2017 to 96 percent by 2091.

The projected costs for OASDI and HI depicted in Chart A and elsewhere in this document reflect the full cost of scheduled current-law benefits without regard to whether the trust funds will have sufficient resources to meet these obligations. Current law precludes payment of any benefits beyond the amount that can be financed by the trust funds, that is, from annual income and trust fund reserves. In years after trust fund depletion, the amount of benefits that would be payable is lower than shown because OASDI and HI, by law, cannot borrow money or pay benefits that exceed the asset reserves in their trust funds. The projected costs assume realization of the full estimated savings of the Affordable Care Act and the physician payment rate updates specified in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. As described in the Medicare Trustees Report, the projections for HI and SMI Part B depend significantly on the sustained effectiveness of various current-law cost-saving measures, in particular, the lower increases in Medicare payment rates to most categories of health care providers.

What is the Outlook for Future Social Security and Medicare HI Costs and Income in Relation to Taxable Earnings? Because the primary source of income for OASDI and HI is the payroll tax, it is informative to express the programs’ incomes and costs as percentages of taxable payroll-that is, of the base of worker earnings taxed to support each program (Chart B).

It is important to understand that the two programs have different taxable payrolls. HI taxable payroll is about 25 percent larger than that of OASDI because the HI payroll tax is imposed on all earnings while OASDI taxes apply only to earnings up to a maximum ($127,200 in 2017), which ordinarily is adjusted each year. Thus, the percentages in Chart B are comparable within each program, but not across programs.

Chart B—OASDI and HI Income and Cost as Percentages of Their Respective Taxable Payrolls
click on graph for underlying data

Both the OASDI and HI annual cost rates rise over the long run from their 2016 levels (13.70 and 3.38 percent). Projected Social Security cost grows to 17.02 percent of taxable payroll in 2038 and to 17.80 percent of taxable payroll in 2091. The projected Medicare HI cost rate rises to 4.79 percent of taxable payroll in 2050, and thereafter increases to 4.96 percent in 2091.

The OASDI and HI income rates in Chart B include payroll taxes and taxes on OASDI benefits, but not interest payments. The projected OASDI income rate is stable at about 13 percent throughout the long-range period. The HI income rate rises gradually from 3.35 percent in 2016 to 4.36 percent in 2091 due to the Affordable Care Act’s increase in payroll tax rates for high earners that began in 2013. Individual tax return filers with earnings above $200,000, and joint return filers with earnings above $250,000, pay an additional 0.9 percent tax on earnings above these earnings thresholds. An increasing fraction of all earnings will be subject to the higher tax rate over time because the thresholds are not indexed. By 2091, an estimated 79 percent of workers would pay the higher rate.

How Will Cost Growth in the Different Parts of Medicare Change the Sources of Program Financing?As Medicare cost grows over time, general revenues and beneficiary premiums will play an increasing role in financing the program. Chart C shows scheduled cost and non-interest revenue sources under current law for HI and SMI combined as a percentage of GDP. The total cost line is the same as displayed in Chart A and shows Medicare cost rising to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2091

Chart C—Medicare Cost and Non-Interest Income by Source as a Percentage of GDP
click on graph for underlying data

Projected revenue from payroll taxes and taxes on OASDI benefits credited to the HI Trust Fund increases from 1.5 percent of GDP in 2017 to 1.8 percent in 2091 under current law, while projected general revenue transfers to the SMI Trust Fund increase from 1.5 percent of GDP in 2017 to 2.7 percent in 2091, and beneficiary premiums increase from 0.5 to 0.9 percent of GDP during the same period. Thus, the share of total non-interest Medicare income from taxes declines (from 42 percent to 33 percent) while the general revenue share rises (from 42 percent to 48 percent), as does the share of premiums (from 14 percent to 17 percent). The distribution of financing changes in large part because costs for Part B and especially Part D-the Medicare components that are financed mainly from general revenues-increase at a faster rate than Part A cost under the Trustees’ projections. The projected annual HI financial deficit beyond 2035 through 2091 averages about 0.3 percent of GDP and there is no provision under current law to finance that shortfall through general revenue transfers or any other revenue source.

The Medicare Modernization Act (2003) requires that the Board of Trustees determine each year whether the annual difference between program cost and dedicated revenues (the bottom four layers of Chart C) under current law exceeds 45 percent of total Medicare cost in any of the first seven fiscal years of the 75-year projection period, in which case the annual Trustees Report must include, as it did from 2006 through 2013, a determination of “excess general revenue Medicare funding.” Because that difference is expected to exceed the 45 percent threshold in fiscal year 2023, the Trustees are issuing a determination of projected excess general revenue Medicare funding in this year’s report.

What are the Budgetary Implications of Rising Social Security and Medicare Costs? Discussion of the long-range financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security often focuses on the depletion dates for the HI and OASDI trust funds-the times when the projected trust fund balances under current law will be insufficient to pay the full amounts of scheduled benefits. Normal operations of the trust fund also have an impact on the unified Federal budget.

Under the OASDI and HI programs, when taxes and other sources of revenue are collected in excess of immediate program costs, funds are converted to Treasury bonds and held in reserve for future periods. Accumulation of assets in the trust fund improves the unified Federal budget position. When trust fund assets are drawn down to pay scheduled benefits, bonds are redeemed and interest payments are made, creating a current-year cost to the unified Federal budget.

Unlike HI and OASDI, SMI does not have a trust fund structure with surpluses accumulated from prior years. General revenues pay for roughly 75 percent of all SMI costs and pose an immediate cost for the unified Federal budget.

Chart D shows the required SMI general revenue funding, plus the excess of scheduled costs over dedicated tax and premium income for the OASDI and HI trust funds expressed as percentages of GDP through 2040. For OASDI and HI, the difference between scheduled cost and dedicated revenues is equal to interest earnings and asset redemptions prior to trust fund depletion, and unfunded obligations after depletion. The chart assumes full benefits will be paid after trust fund depletion, even though under current law expenditures can only be made to the extent covered by current income. Such budgetary assumptions are typical of unified budget baselines, but do not reflect current law in the Social Security Act, nor do they reflect policy approaches that Congress has used in the past.

In 2017, the projected difference between Social Security’s expenditures and dedicated tax income is $27 billion. The Trustees anticipate a small surplus of $3 billion in non-interest income for the HI program.2 The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $287 billion. Thus, the total general revenue requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2017 are $311 billion, or 1.6 percent of GDP. Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and general revenue transfers provide no new net income to the Treasury. When the unified budget is not in surplus, these payments are made through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Chart D—Projected SMI General Revenue Funding
plus OASDI and HI Tax Shorfalls
[Percentage of GDP]
click on graph for underlying data

Each of these trust funds’ operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years as trust fund bonds are redeemed. Until 2029, interest earnings and asset redemptions, financed from general revenues, will cover the shortfall of HI tax and premium revenues relative to expenditures. In addition, general revenues must cover similar payments as a result of growing OASDI bond redemption and interest payments through 2034 as the trust fund is drawn down.

If full benefits are to be maintained for both Social Security and Medicare, by 2040 the combined OASDI and HI financing gap plus SMI’s projected general revenue demands will equal 4.2 percent of GDP-more than double the 2017 share.

What Is the Outlook for Short-Term Trust Fund Adequacy? The reports measure the short-range adequacy of the OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds by comparing fund asset reserves at the start of a year to projected costs for the ensuing year (the “trust fund ratio”). A trust fund ratio of 100 percent or more-that is, asset reserves at least equal to projected cost for the year-is a good indicator of a fund’s short-range adequacy. That level of projected reserves for any year suggests that even if cost exceeds income, the trust fund reserves, combined with annual tax revenues, would be sufficient to pay full benefits for several years. Chart E shows the trust fund ratios through 2040 under the intermediate assumptions.

Chart E—OASI, DI, and HI Trust Fund Ratios
[Asset reserves as a percentage of annual cost]
click on graph for underlying data

By this measure, the OASI Trust Fund is financially adequate throughout and beyond the short-range period (2017-26), but the DI Trust Fund fails the short-range test because its trust fund ratio was 31 percent at the beginning of 2017 and is not projected to reach 100 percent within 5 years. The Trustees project that the DI Trust Fund ratio will increase to 65 percent at the start of 2019, due largely to the temporary payroll tax reallocation enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, and subsequently decline until depletion of all reserves in 2028.

The HI Trust Fund does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy; its trust fund ratio was 67 percent at the beginning of 2017 based on the year’s anticipated expenditures, and the projected ratio does not rise to 100 percent within five years. Projected HI Trust Fund asset reserves become fully depleted in 2029.

The Trustees apply a less stringent annual “contingency reserve” test to SMI Part B asset reserves because (i) the financing for that account is set each year to meet expected costs, and (ii) the overwhelming portion of the financing for that account consists of general revenue transfers and beneficiary premiums, which were 75 percent and 23 percent of total Part B income in calendar year 2016. Part D premiums paid by enrollees and the required amount of general revenue financing are determined each year. Moreover, flexible appropriation authority established by lawmakers for Part D allows additional general revenue transfers if costs are higher than anticipated, limiting the need for a contingency reserve in that account.

What Are Key Dates in OASI, DI, and HI Financing? The 2017 reports project that the OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds will all be depleted within 20 years. The following table shows key dates for the respective trust funds as well as for the combined OASDI trust funds. 3

KEY DATES FOR THE TRUST FUNDS
OASI DI OASDI HI
First year cost exceeds income excluding interesta 2010 2022 2010 2021
First year cost exceeds total incomea 2022 2019 2022 2023
Year trust funds are depleted 2035 2028 2034 2029

a Dates indicate the first year a condition is projected to occur and to persist annually thereafter through 2090.

DI Trust Fund reserves will increase until 2019 and then fall steadily until they are fully depleted in 2028. Payment of full DI benefits beyond 2028, when tax income would cover only 93 percent of scheduled benefits, will require legislation to address the financial imbalance.

The OASI Trust Fund, when considered separately, has a projected reserve depletion date of 2035, the same as in last year’s report. At that time, income would be sufficient to pay 75 percent of scheduled OASI benefits.

The combined OASDI trust funds have a projected depletion date of 2034, the same as in last year’s report. After the depletion of reserves, continuing tax income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits in 2034 and 73 percent in 2091.

The OASDI reserves are projected to grow in 2017 because total income ($1,014 billion) will exceed total cost ($955 billion). This year’s report indicates that annual OASDI income, including payments of interest to the trust funds from the General Fund, will continue to exceed annual cost every year until 2022, increasing the nominal value of combined OASDI trust fund asset reserves. Social Security’s cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income by $27 billion in 2017, and annual non-interest income deficits will persist through 2091. The trust fund ratio (the ratio of projected reserves to annual cost) will continue to decline gradually (Chart E), as it has since 2008, despite this nominal balance increase. Beginning in 2022, net redemptions of trust fund asset reserves with General Fund payments will be required until projected depletion of these reserves in 2034.

The projected HI Trust Fund depletion date is 2029, one year later than in last year’s report. Under current law, scheduled HI tax and premium income would be sufficient to pay 88 percent of estimated HI cost after trust fund depletion in 2029, declining to 81 percent by 2041, and then gradually increasing to 88 percent again by 2091.

This report projects that HI Trust Fund reserve assets will increase in 2017 because total income ($306 billion) will exceed total cost ($295 billion). Beginning in 2021, projected annual HI cost exceeds non-interest HI income for the remainder of the long-range projection period. After 2022, assets will decline continuously until depletion of all reserves in 2029.

What is the Long-Range Actuarial Balance of the OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds? Another way to view the outlook for payroll tax-financed trust funds (OASI, DI, and HI) is to consider their actuarial balances for the 75-year valuation period. The actuarial balance measure includes the trust fund asset reserves at the beginning of the period, an ending fund balance equal to the 76th year’s costs, and projected costs and income during the valuation period, all expressed as a percentage of taxable payroll for the 75-year projection period. Actuarial balance is not an informative concept for the SMI program because Federal law sets premium increases and general revenue transfers at the levels necessary to bring SMI into annual balance.

The actuarial deficit represents the average amount of change in income or cost that is needed throughout the valuation period in order to achieve actuarial balance. The actuarial balance equals zero if cost for the period can be met for the period as a whole and trust fund asset reserves at the end of the period are equal to the following year’s cost. The OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds all have long-range actuarial deficits under the intermediate assumptions, as shown in the following table.

LONG-RANGE ACTUARIAL DEFICIT OF THE OASI, DI, AND HI TRUST FUNDS
[Percent of taxable payroll]
OASI DI OASDI HI
Actuarial deficit 2.59 0.24 2.83 0.64

NOTE: Totals do not necessarily equal the sums of rounded components.

The Trustees project that the annual deficits for Social Security as a whole, expressed as the difference between the cost rate and income rate for a particular year, will be smaller than the 2016 value (0.79 percent of taxable payroll) during 2017-19. The annual deficits then increase steadily to 3.77 percent in 2037. Annual deficits then decline gradually to 3.32 percent in 2051 before resuming an upward trajectory and reaching 4.48 percent of taxable payroll in 2091 (Chart B). The relatively large variation in annual deficits indicates that a single tax rate increase for all years starting in 2017 sufficient to achieve actuarial balance would result in sizable annual surpluses early in the period followed by increasing deficits in later years. Sustainable solvency would require payroll tax rate increases or benefit reductions (or a combination thereof) by the end of the period that are substantially larger than those needed on average for this report’s long-range period (2017-91).

In 2016, the HI cost rate exceeded the income rate by 0.03 percent of taxable payroll. The Trustees project that the continued recovery from the 2007-09 recession and recently enacted legislation, including the ACA, will produce small surpluses in 2017 through 2020. Deficits subsequently grow rapidly with the aging of the baby boom population through about 2045, when the annual deficit reaches a peak of 0.93 percent of taxable payroll. Annual deficits then decline gradually to 0.60 percent of taxable payroll by 2091.

The financial outlooks for both OASDI and HI depend on a number of demographic and economic assumptions. Nevertheless, the actuarial deficit in each of these programs is large enough that averting trust fund depletion under current-law financing is extremely unlikely. An analysis that allows plausible random variations around the intermediate assumptions employed in the report indicates that OASDI trust fund depletion is highly probable by mid-century.

How Has the Financial Outlook for Social Security and Medicare Changed Since Last Year? Under the intermediate assumptions, the combined OASDI trust funds have a projected 75-year actuarial deficit equal to 2.83 percent of taxable payroll, 0.17 percentage point larger than last year’s estimate. The projected depletion date for the combined asset reserves remains 2034. Advancing the valuation date by one year to include 2091, a year with a large negative balance, alone accounts for a 0.05 percentage point increase in the deficit. Changes in assumptions and projection methods account for the remaining 0.12 percentage point increase.

Medicare’s HI Trust Fund has a long-range actuarial deficit equal to 0.64 percent of taxable payroll under the intermediate assumptions, 0.09 percentage point smaller than reported last year. This change was primarily due to lower spending in 2016 than anticipated in last year’s report and lower projected utilization of inpatient hospital services than previously estimated. The anticipated date of depletion of the HI Trust Fund is now 2029, a year later than stated in last year’s report.

How Are Social Security and Medicare Financed? For OASDI and HI, the major source of financing is payroll taxes on earnings paid by employees and their employers. Self-employed workers pay the equivalent of the combined employer and employee tax rates. During 2016, an estimated 170.8 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes; for Medicare the corresponding figure was 174.8 million. Current law establishes payroll tax rates for OASDI, which apply to earnings up to an annual maximum ($127,200 in 2017) that ordinarily increases with the growth in the nationwide average wage. In contrast to OASDI, covered workers pay HI taxes on total earnings. The scheduled payroll tax rates (in percent) for 2017 are:

Table 6: 2017 PAYROLL TAX RATES
([In percents])
OASI DI OASDI HI Total
Employees 5.015 1.185 6.20 1.45 7.65
Employers 5.015 1.185 6.20 1.45 7.65
Combined total 10.030 2.370 12.40 2.90 15.30

Self-employed persons pay the combined rates. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 reallocated OASDI payroll tax rates on a temporary basis. For earnings in calendar years 2016-18, 0.57 percentage point of the 12.40 percent OASDI payroll tax rate is shifted from OASI to DI. The Affordable Care Act applies an additional HI tax equal to 0.9 percent of earnings over $200,000 for individual tax return filers, and on earnings over $250,000 for joint return filers.

Taxation of Social Security benefits is another source of income for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Beneficiaries with incomes above $25,000 for individuals (or $32,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay income taxes on up to 50 percent of their benefits, with the revenues going to the OASDI trust funds. This income from taxation of benefits made up about 3 percent of Social Security’s income in 2016. Those with incomes above $34,000 (or $44,000 for married couples filing jointly) pay income taxes on up to 85 percent of benefits, with the additional revenues going to the Medicare trust fund. This income from taxation of benefits made up about 8 percent of HI Trust Fund income in 2016.

The trust funds also receive income from interest on their accumulated reserves, which are invested in U.S. Government securities. In 2016, interest income made up 9 percent of total income to the OASDI trust funds, 3 percent for HI, and less than 1 percent for SMI.

Payments from the General Fund financed about 81 percent of SMI Part B and Part D costs in 2016, with most of the remaining costs covered by monthly premiums charged to enrollees or in the case of low-income beneficiaries, paid on their behalf by Medicaid for Part B and Medicare for Part D. Part B and Part D premium amounts are determined by methods defined in law and increase as the estimated costs of those programs rise.

In 2017, the Part B standard monthly premium is $134.00, $12.20 higher than the 2016 amount.4 There are also income-related premium surcharges for Part B beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds a specified threshold. In 2017 through 2019, the threshold is $85,000 for individual tax return filers and $170,000 for joint return filers. Income-related premiums range from $187.50 to $428.60 per month in 2017.

In 2017, the Part D “base monthly premium” is $35.63. Actual premium amounts charged to Part D beneficiaries depend on the specific plan they have selected and average around $35 for standard coverage. Part D enrollees with incomes exceeding the thresholds established for Part B must pay income-related monthly adjustment amounts in addition to their normal plan premium. For 2017, the adjustments range from $13.30 to $76.20 per month. Part D also receives payments from States that partially compensate for the Federal assumption of Medicaid responsibilities for prescription drug costs for individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. In 2017, State payments cover about 12 percent of Part D costs.

Who Are the Trustees? There are six Trustees, four of whom serve by virtue of their positions in the Federal Government: the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The other two Trustees are public representatives appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. The two Public Trustee positions are currently vacant.


1 OASDI is the designation for the two trust funds when they are considered on a hypothetical combined basis to illustrate the actuarial status of the program as whole. The OASI and DI Trust Funds are distinct legal entities which operate independently.
2 This difference is projected on a cash rather than the incurred expenditures basis applied elsewhere in the long-range projections, except where explicitly noted otherwise.
3 HI results in this section of the Summary are on a cash rather than the incurred expenditures basis.
4 Because there was a small (0.3 percent) COLA for Social Security in 2017, about 70 percent of SMI Part B enrollees have their premium increases limited to an average of about $4.00. In order to limit the premium increases for those not held harmless, the financing for 2017 was set to target a contingency reserve below the minimally acceptable level. The Trustees anticipate that for 2018 and later, financing will be adjusted to maintain an adequate contingency reserve.

A MESSAGE FROM THE PUBLIC TRUSTEES

Because the two Public Trustee positions are currently vacant, there is no Message from the Public Trustees for inclusion in the Summary of the 2017 Annual Reports.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

List of recessions in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A crowd of several tens of men tries to enter the building through a narrow door. The men wear top hats. At the foreground, a small boy sells newspapers.

Bank run on the Seamen’s Savings Bank during the panic of 1857

There have been as many as 47 recessions in the United States dating back to the Articles of Confederation, and although economists and historians dispute certain 19th-century recessions,[1] the consensus view among economists and historians is that “The cyclical volatility of GNP and unemployment was greater before the Great Depression than it has been since the end of World War II.”[2] Cycles in the country’s agricultural production, industrial production, consumption, business investment, and the health of the banking industry contribute to these declines. U.S. recessions have increasingly affected economies on a worldwide scale, especially as countries’ economies become more intertwined.

The unofficial beginning and ending dates of recessions in the United States have been defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an American private nonprofit research organization. The NBER defines a recession as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than two quarters which is 6 months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales”.[3][nb 1]

In the 19th century, recessions frequently coincided with financial crises. Determining the occurrence of pre-20th-century recessions is more difficult due to the dearth of economic statistics, so scholars rely on historical accounts of economic activity, such as contemporary newspapers or business ledgers. Although the NBER does not date recessions before 1857, economists customarily extrapolate dates of U.S. recessions back to 1790 from business annals based on various contemporary descriptions. Their work is aided by historical patterns, in that recessions often follow external shocks to the economic system such as wars and variations in the weather affecting agriculture, as well as banking crises.[5]

Major modern economic statistics, such as unemployment and GDP, were not compiled on a regular and standardized basis until after World War II. The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2001 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945, and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919.[6] Because of the great changes in the economy over the centuries, it is difficult to compare the severity of modern recessions to early recessions.[7] No recession of the post-World War II era has come anywhere near the depth of the Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 until 1941 and was caused by the 1929 crash of the stock market and other factors.

Early recessions and crises

Attempts have been made to date recessions in America beginning in 1790. These periods of recession were not identified until the 1920s. To construct the dates, researchers studied business annals during the period and constructed time series of the data. The earliest recessions for which there is the most certainty are those that coincide with major financial crises.[8][9]

Beginning in 1835, an index of business activity by the Cleveland Trust Company provides data for comparison between recessions. Beginning in 1854, the National Bureau of Economic Research dates recession peaks and troughs to the month. However, a standardized index does not exist for the earliest recessions.[8]

In 1791, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States to handle the country’s financial needs. The bank had some functions of a modern central bank, although it was responsible for only 20% of the young country’s currency. In 1811 the bank’s charter lapsed, but it was replaced by the Second Bank of the United States, which lasted from 1816–36.[9]

Name Dates[nb 2] Duration Time since previous recession Characteristics
Panic of 1785 1785–1788 ~4 years The panic of 1785, which lasted until 1788, ended the business boom that followed the American Revolution. The causes of the crisis lay in the overexpansion and debts incurred after the victory at Yorktown, a postwar deflation, competition in the manufacturing sector from Britain, and lack of adequate credit and a sound currency. The downturn was exacerbated by the absence of any significant interstate trade. Other factors were the British refusal to conclude a commercial treaty, and actual and pending defaults among debtor groups. The panic among business and propertied groups led to the demand for a stronger federal government.
Copper Panic of 1789 1789–1793 ~4 years ~0 years Loss of confidence in copper coins due to debasement and counterfeiting led to commercial freeze up that halted the economy of several northern States and was not alleviated until the introduction of new paper money to restore confidence.[11] During that same time the Panic of 1792 took place. Its causes included the extension of credit and excessive speculation. The panic that was largely solved by providing banks the necessary funds to make open market purchases.[12]
Panic of 1796–97 1796–1799 ~3 years ~4 years Just as a land speculation bubble was bursting, deflation from the Bank of England (which was facing insolvency because of the cost of Great Britain’s involvement in the French Revolutionary Wars) crossed to North America and disrupted commercial and real estate markets in the United States and the Caribbean, and caused a major financial panic.[13] Prosperity continued in the south, but economic activity was stagnant in the north for three years. The young United States engaged in the Quasi-War with France.[9]
1802–1804 recession 1802–1804 ~2 years ~3 years A boom of war-time activity led to a decline after the Peace of Amiens ended the war between the United Kingdom and France. Commodity prices fell dramatically. Trade was disrupted by pirates, leading to the First Barbary War.[9]
Depression of 1807 1807–1810 ~3 years ~3 years The Embargo Act of 1807 was passed by the United States Congress under President Thomas Jefferson as tensions increased with the United Kingdom. Along with trade restrictions imposed by the British, shipping-related industries were hard hit. The Federalists fought the embargo and allowed smuggling to take place in New England. Trade volumes, commodity prices and securities prices all began to fall. Macon’s Bill Number 2 ended the embargoes in May 1810, and a recovery started.[9]
1812 recession 1812 ~6 months ~18 months The United States entered a brief recession at the beginning of 1812. The decline was brief primarily because the United States soon increased production to fight the War of 1812, which began June 18, 1812.[14]
1815–21 depression 1815–1821 ~6 years ~3 years Shortly after the war ended on March 23, 1815, the United States entered a period of financial panic as bank notes rapidly depreciated because of inflation following the war. The 1815 panic was followed by several years of mild depression, and then a major financial crisis – the Panic of 1819, which featured widespread foreclosures, bank failures, unemployment, a collapse in real estate prices, and a slump in agriculture and manufacturing.[9]
1822–1823 recession 1822–1823 ~1 year ~1 year After only a mild recovery following the lengthy 1815–21 depression, commodity prices hit a peak in March 1822 and began to fall. Many businesses failed, unemployment rose and an increase in imports worsened the trade balance.[9]
1825–1826 recession 1825–1826 ~1 year ~2 years The Panic of 1825, a stock crash following a bubble of speculative investments in Latin America led to a decline in business activity in the United States and England. The recession coincided with a major panic, the date of which may be more easily determined than general cycle changes associated with other recessions.[8]
1828–1829 recession 1828–1829 ~1 year ~2 years In 1826, England forbade the United States to trade with English colonies, and in 1827, the United States adopted a counter-prohibition. Trade declined, just as credit became tight for manufacturers in New England.[9]
1833–34 recession 1833–1834 ~1 year ~4 years The United States’ economy declined moderately in 1833–34. News accounts of the time confirm the slowdown. The subsequent expansion was driven by land speculation.[15]

Free Banking Era to the Great Depression

Perhaps a thousand men, mostly in dark suits and bowler hats, swarm outside a building. There is a 20-foot statue of a man in front of the building and the men have crowded atop the base of the statue.

A swarm gathers on Wall Street during the Panic of 1907. Compared to today, the era from 1834 to the Great Depression was characterized by relatively severe and more frequent banking panics and recessions.

In the 1830s, U.S. President Andrew Jackson fought to end the Second Bank of the United States. Following the Bank War, the Second Bank lost its charter in 1836. From 1837 to 1862, there was no national presence in banking, but still plenty of state and even local regulation, such as laws against branch banking which prevented diversification. In 1863, in response to financing pressures of the Civil War, Congress passed the National Banking Act, creating nationally chartered banks. There was neither a central bank nor deposit insurance during this era, and thus banking panics were common. Recessions often led to bank panics and financial crises, which in turn worsened the recession.

The dating of recessions during this period is controversial. Modern economic statistics, such as gross domestic product and unemployment, were not gathered during this period. Victor Zarnowitz evaluated a variety of indices to measure the severity of these recessions. From 1834 to 1929, one measure of recessions is the Cleveland Trust Company index, which measured business activity and, beginning in 1882, an index of trade and industrial activity was available, which can be used to compare recessions.[nb 3]

US recessions, Free Banking Era to the Great Depression
Name Dates[nb 4] Duration Time since previous recession Business activity [nb 3] Trade & industrial activity[nb 3] Characteristics
1836–1838 recession ~2 years ~2 years -32.8% A sharp downturn in the American economy was caused by bank failures, lack of confidence in the paper currency, tightening of English Credit, crop failures and Jacksonian policy.[16] Speculation markets were greatly affected when American banks stopped payment in specie (gold and silver coinage).[1][17] Over 600 banks failed in this period. In the South, the cotton market completely collapsed.[9] See: Panic of 1837
late 1839–late 1843 recession ~4 years ~1 year -34.3% This was one of the longest and deepest depressions of the 19th century. It was a period of pronounced deflation and massive default on debt. The Cleveland Trust Company Index showed the economy spent 68 months below its trend and only 9 months above it. The Index declined 34.3% during this depression.[18]
1845–late 1846 recession ~1 year ~2 years −5.9% This recession was mild enough that it may have only been a slowdown in the growth cycle. One theory holds that this would have been a recession, except the United States began to gear up for the Mexican–American War, which began April 25, 1846.[15]
1847–48 recession late 1847–late 1848 ~1 year ~1 year −19.7% The Cleveland Trust Company Index declined 19.7% during 1847 and 1848. It is associated with a financial crisis in Great Britain.[18][19]
1853–54 recession 1853 –Dec 1854 ~1 year ~5 years −18.4% Interest rates rose in this period, contributing to a decrease in railroad investment. Security prices fell during this period. With the exception of falling business investment there is little evidence of contraction in this period.[1]
Panic of 1857 June 1857–Dec 1858 1 year
6 months
2 years
6 months
−23.1% Failure of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company burst a European speculative bubble in United States’ railroads and caused a loss of confidence in American banks. Over 5,000 businesses failed within the first year of the Panic, and unemployment was accompanied by protest meetings in urban areas. This is the earliest recession to which the NBER assigns specific months (rather than years) for the peak and trough.[6][8][20]
1860–61 recession Oct 1860–June 1861 8 months 1 year
10 months
−14.5% There was a recession before the American Civil War, which began April 12, 1861. Zarnowitz says the data generally show a contraction occurred in this period, but it was quite mild.[18] A financial panic was narrowly averted in 1860 by the first use of clearing house certificates between banks.[9]
1865–67 recession April 1865–Dec 1867 2 years
8 months
3 years
10 months
−23.8% The American Civil War ended in April 1865, and the country entered a lengthy period of general deflation that lasted until 1896. The United States occasionally experienced periods of recession during the Reconstruction era. Production increased in the years following the Civil War, but the country still had financial difficulties.[18] The post-war period coincided with a period of some international financial instability.
1869–70 recession June 1869–Dec 1870 1 year
6 months
1 year
6 months
−9.7% A few years after the Civil War, a short recession occurred. It was unusual since it came amid a period when railroad investment was greatly accelerating, even producing the First Transcontinental Railroad. The railroads built in this period opened up the interior of the country, giving birth to the Farmers’ movement. The recession may be explained partly by ongoing financial difficulties following the war, which discouraged businesses from building up inventories.[18] Several months into the recession, there was a major financial panic.
Panic of 1873and the Long Depression Oct 1873 –
Mar 1879
5 years
5 months
2 years
10 months
−33.6% (−27.3%) [nb 3] Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[21] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96.[22][23]
1882–85 recession Mar 1882 –
May 1885
3 years
2 months
3 years −32.8% −24.6% Like the Long Depression that preceded it, the recession of 1882–85 was more of a price depression than a production depression. From 1879 to 1882, there had been a boom in railroad construction which came to an end, resulting in a decline in both railroad construction and in related industries, particularly iron and steel.[24]A major economic event during the recession was the Panic of 1884.
1887–88 recession Mar 1887 –
April 1888
1 year
1 month
1 year
10 months
−14.6% −8.2% Investments in railroads and buildings weakened during this period. This slowdown was so mild that it is not always considered a recession. Contemporary accounts apparently indicate it was considered a slight recession.[25]
1890–91 recession July 1890 –
May 1891
10 months 1 year
5 months
−22.1% −11.7% Although shorter than the recession in 1887–88 and still modest, a slowdown in 1890–91 was somewhat more pronounced than the preceding recession. International monetary disturbances are blamed for this recession, such as the Panic of 1890 in the United Kingdom.[25]
Panic of 1893 Jan 1893 –
June 1894
1 year
5 months
1 year
8 months
−37.3% −29.7% Failure of the United States Reading Railroad and withdrawal of European investment led to a stock market and banking collapse. This Panic was also precipitated in part by a run on the gold supply. The Treasury had to issue bonds to purchase enough gold. Profits, investment and income all fell, leading to political instability, the height of the U.S. populist movement and the Free Silver movement.[26] Estimates on unemployment vary, it may have peaked anywhere from 8.2-18.4%.[27]
Panic of 1896 Dec 1895 –
June 1897
1 year
6 months
1 year
6 months
−25.2% −20.8% The period of 1893–97 is seen as a generally depressed cycle that had a short spurt of growth in the middle, following the Panic of 1893. Production shrank and deflation reigned.[25]
1899–1900 recession June 1899 –
Dec 1900
1 year
6 months
2 years −15.5% −8.8% This was a mild recession in the period of general growth beginning after 1897. Evidence for a recession in this period does not show up in some annual data series.[25]
1902–04 recession Sep 1902 –Aug 1904 1 year
11 months
1 year
9 months
−16.2% −17.1% Though not severe, this downturn lasted for nearly two years and saw a distinct decline in the national product. Industrial and commercial production both declined, albeit fairly modestly.[25] The recession came about a year after a 1901 stock crash.
Panic of 1907 May 1907 –
June 1908
1 year
1 month
2 years
9 months
−29.2% −31.0% A run on Knickerbocker Trust Company deposits on October 22, 1907, set events in motion that would lead to a severe monetary contraction. The fallout from the panic led to Congress creating the Federal Reserve System.[28]
Panic of 1910–1911 Jan 1910 –
Jan 1912
2 years 1 year
7 months
−14.7% −10.6% This was a mild but lengthy recession. The national product grew by less than 1%, and commercial activity and industrial activity declined. The period was also marked by deflation.[25]
Recession of 1913–1914 Jan 1913–Dec 1914 1 year
11 months
1 year −25.9% −19.8% Productions and real income declined during this period and were not offset until the start of World War I increased demand.[25] Incidentally, the Federal Reserve Act was signed during this recession, creating the Federal Reserve System, the culmination of a sequence of events following the Panic of 1907.[28]
Post-World War I recession Aug 1918 –
March 1919
7 months 3 years
8 months
−24.5% −14.1% Severe hyperinflation in Europe took place over production in North America. This was a brief but very sharp recession and was caused by the end of wartime production, along with an influx of labor from returning troops. This, in turn, caused high unemployment.[29]
Depression of 1920–21 Jan 1920 –
July 1921
1 year
6 months
10 months −38.1% −32.7% The 1921 recession began a mere 10 months after the post-World War I recession, as the economy continued working through the shift to a peacetime economy. The recession was short, but extremely painful. The year 1920 was the single most deflationary year in American history; production, however, did not fall as much as might be expected from the deflation. GNP may have declined between 2.5 and 7 percent, even as wholesale prices declined by 36.8%.[30] The economy had a strong recovery following the recession.[31]
1923–24 recession May 1923 –
June 1924
1 year
2 months
2 years −25.4% −22.7% From the depression of 1920–21 until the Great Depression, an era dubbed the Roaring Twenties, the economy was generally expanding. Industrial production declined in 1923–24, but on the whole this was a mild recession.[25]
1926–27 recession Oct 1926 –
Nov 1927
1 year
1 month
2 years
3 months
−12.2% −10.0% This was an unusual and mild recession, thought to be caused largely because Henry Ford closed production in his factories for six months to switch from production of the Model T to the Model ACharles P. Kindleberger says the period from 1925 to the start of the Great Depression is best thought of as a boom, and this minor recession just proof that the boom “was not general, uninterrupted or extensive”.[32]

Great Depression onward

A haggard middle-aged woman in looks plaintively into the distance. Two children bury their faces into her shoulders. The woman and children are both dressed in shabby, drab clothing.

A destitute pea picker in California in 1936. Following the severe Great Depression, the post-World War IIeconomy has seen long expansions and, for the most part, less severe recessions than in earlier American history.

Following the end of World War II and the large adjustment as the economy adjusted from wartime to peacetime in 1945, the collection of many economic indicators, such as unemployment and GDP, became standardized. Recessions after World War II may be compared to each other much more easily than previous recessions because of these available data. The listed dates and durations are from the official chronology of the National Bureau of Economic Research.[6]GDP data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, unemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (after 1948). Note that the unemployment rate often reaches a peak associated with a recession after the recession has officially ended.[33]

A graph of annualized GDP change from 1923 to 2009.

Annualized GDP change from 1923 to 2009. Data are annual from 1923 to 1946 and quarterly from 1947 to the second quarter of 2009.

No recession of the post-World War II era has come anywhere near the depth of the Great Depression. In the Great Depression, GDP fell by 27% (the deepest after demobilization is the recession beginning in December 2007, during which GDP has fallen 5.1% as of the second quarter of 2009) and unemployment rate reached 10% (the highest since was the 10.8% rate reached during the 1981–82 recession).[34]

The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[6] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[35] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion.

Name Dates Duration (months) Time since previous recession (months) Peak unemploy­ment GDP decline (peak to trough) Characteristics
Great Depression Aug 1929 – Mar 1933 3 years
7 months
1 year
9 months
21.3%(1932)[36]– 24.9%(1933)[37] −26.7% A banking panic and a collapse in the money supply took place in the United States that was exacerbated by international commitment to the gold standard.[38][39][40] Extensive new tariffs and other factors contributed to an extremely deep depression.[41] GDP, industrial production, employment, and prices fell substantially. The economy began to recover in the mid 30’s with gold inflow expanding the money supply and improving expectations but double dipped during the Recession of 1937-38. The ultimate recovery has been credited to monetary policy and monetary expansion.[42]
Recession of 1937–1938 May 1937–June 1938 1 year
1 month
4 years
2 months
17.8%[36]–19.0%(1938)[43] −18.2% The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered as causes for the recession: the tight fiscal policy resulting from an attempt to balance the budget after New Deal spending, the tight monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, and the declining profits of businesses led to a reduction in business investment.[44]
Recession of 1945 Feb–Oct 1945 8 months 6 years
8 months
5.2%[43]
(1946)
−12.7% The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy. The post-war years were unusual in a number of ways (unemployment was never high) and this era may be considered a “sui generis end-of-the-war recession”.[45][46]
Recession of 1949 Nov 1948 –
Oct 1949
11 months 3 years
1 month
7.9%
(Oct 1949)
−1.7% The 1948 recession was a brief economic downturn; forecasters of the time expected much worse, perhaps influenced by the poor economy in their recent lifetimes.[47] The recession also followed a period of monetary tightening.[34]
Recession of 1953 July 1953 –
May 1954
10 months 3 years
9 months
6.1%
(Sep 1954)
−2.6% After a post-Korean War inflationary period, more funds were transferred to national security. In 1951, the Federal Reserve reasserted its independence from the U.S. Treasury and in 1952, the Federal Reserve changed monetary policy to be more restrictive because of fears of further inflation or of a bubble forming.[34][48][49]
Recession of 1958 Aug 1957 –
April 1958
8 months 3 years
3 months
7.5%
(July 1958)
−3.7% Monetary policy was tightened during the two years preceding 1957, followed by an easing of policy at the end of 1957. The budget balance resulted in a change in budget surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 1957 to a budget deficit of 0.6% of GDP in 1958, and then to 2.6% of GDP in 1959.[34]
Recession of 1960–61 Apr 1960 –
Feb 1961
10 months 2 years 7.1%
(May 1961)
−1.6% Another primarily monetary recession occurred after the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1959. The government switched from deficit (or 2.6% in 1959) to surplus (of 0.1% in 1960). When the economy emerged from this short recession, it began the second-longest period of growth in NBER history.[34] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on Feb. 20, 1961, about 4 weeks after President Kennedy was inaugurated.
Recession of 1969–70 Dec 1969 –
Nov 1970
11 months 8 years
10 months
6.1%
(Dec 1970)
−0.6% The relatively mild 1969 recession followed a lengthy expansion. At the end of the expansion, inflation was rising, possibly a result of increased deficits. This relatively mild recession coincided with an attempt to start closing the budget deficits of the Vietnam War (fiscal tightening) and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates (monetary tightening).[34]
1973–75 recession Nov 1973 –
Mar 1975
1 year
4 months
3 years 9.0%
(May 1975)
−3.2% The 1973 oil crisis, a quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC, coupled with the 1973–1974 stock market crash led to a stagflation recession in the United States.[50][51]
1980 recession Jan–July 1980 6 months 4 years
10 months
7.8%
(July 1980)
−2.2% The NBER considers a very short recession to have occurred in 1980, followed by a short period of growth and then a deep recession. Unemployment remained relatively elevated in between recessions. The recession began as the Federal Reserve, under Paul Volcker, raised interest rates dramatically to fight the inflation of the 1970s. The early ’80s are sometimes referred to as a “double-dip” or “W-shaped” recession.[34][52]
1981–1982 recession July 1981 –
Nov 1982
1 year
4 months
1 year 10.8%
(Nov 1982)
−2.7% The Iranian Revolution sharply increased the price of oil around the world in 1979, causing the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused by the new regime in power in Iran, which exported oil at inconsistent intervals and at a lower volume, forcing prices up. Tight monetary policy in the United States to control inflation led to another recession. The changes were made largely because of inflation carried over from the previous decade because of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis.[53][54]
Early 1990s recession in the United States July 1990 –
Mar 1991
8 months 7 years
8 months
7.8%
(June 1992)
−1.4% After the lengthy peacetime expansion of the 1980s, inflation began to increase and the Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates from 1986 to 1989. This weakened but did not stop growth, but some combination of the subsequent 1990 oil price shock, the debt accumulation of the 1980s, and growing consumer pessimism combined with the weakened economy to produce a brief recession.[55][56][57]
Early 2000s recession Mar 2001–Nov 2001 8 months 10 years 6.3%
(June 2003)
−0.3% The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[58] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.[59]
Great Recession Dec 2007 – June 2009[60][61] 1 year
6 months
6 years
1 month
10.0%
(October 2009)[62]
−5.1%[63] The subprime mortgage crisis led to the collapse of the United States housing bubble. Falling housing-related assets contributed to a global financial crisis, even as oil and food prices soared. The crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States’ largest financial institutions: Bear StearnsFannie MaeFreddie MacLehman Brothers, Citi Bank and AIG, as well as a crisis in the automobile industry. The government responded with an unprecedented $700 billion bank bailout and $787 billion fiscal stimulus package. The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the end of this recession over a year after the end date.[64] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on March 9, 2009.[65]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ The rule of thumb defining recession as two quarters of negative GDP growth is not used by NBER.[4] The NBER looks for monthly dating (GDP is a quarterly figure) and GDP will sometimes be positive even in clear periods of decline, e.g. in the second quarter of 1974, GDP was slightly positive even in the middle of the severe 1973–75 recession.
  2. Jump up^ The NBER’s monthly chronology of recessions begins in 1854. In the 1920s, the economist Willard Thorp, working for the NBER, dated business cycles back to 1790 (with the first recession beginning in 1796). Thorp’s dates remain the standard for this period.[10] Thorp’s crude annual dates are not directly comparable to the NBER’s monthly dates i.e. a two-year recession from the annual dates could be many months shorter or longer than 24.
  3. Jump up to:a b c d The peak to trough decline in business activity and trade and industrial activity during a given recession. From 1834 to 1882, Zarnowitz uses the Cleveland Trust Company index. Beginning in 1873, he uses a composite of three trend-adjusted indices – the Cleveland Trust Company Index, the Persons Index which begins in 1875 and a business activity index from AT&T Corporation beginning in 1877. For the Long Depression, both the Cleveland Trust Company index, and the composite are given. The index for trade and industrial activity is the Axe and Houghton Index, beginning in February 1879. It is based on pig iron production, bank clearings (outside New York City), import volume, and the revenue per mile earned by different railroads.[1]
  4. Jump up^ The NBER’s monthly chronology of recessions begins in 1854. In the 1920s, the economist Willard Thorp, working for the NBER, dated business cycles back to 1790 (with the first recession beginning in 1796). Thorp’s dates remain the standard for this period.[10] Thorp’s crude annual dates are not directly comparable to the NBER’s monthly dates i.e. a two-year recession from the annual dates could be many months shorter or longer than 24.

References

General
Specific

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


Story 2: Memo Madness — Waiting For House Intelligence Committee Release of FISA Memo Outlining FBI/DOJ  Plot  To Spy on American People Based On Clinton Campaign Paid For Russian Disinformation in Phony Christopher Steel Dossier — Clinton And Obama Crimes Against American People —  American People Demand The Release of Memo and Supporting Documents And Appointment of Special Counsel — Videos

See the source imageSee the source image See the source image

President Trump Considers Release Of Russia Memo

Should Trump release the FISA memo?

Worse than ‘Watergate?’: Officials clash as Trump expected to release ‘shocking’ memo

Classified intel memo a criticism of FBI directors: Judge Andrew Napolitan

FBI objects to releasing FISA memo

Potential dangers in releasing the FISA memo?

The House voted to release a secret intel memo: Here’s what to expect

FBI, DOJ won’t look good in House intel memo: Judge Napolitano

01 30 18 Collins Advocates for the Release of the FISA Memo on Fox Business

Obama Administration Plot to Exonerate Hillary Clinton is Being Exposed

Devon Nunes is a hero in the FISA debate: Varney

Wray Claims Clinton Investigation Not Over As FBI Scrambles To Cover “Contamination”

Joe diGenova describes “Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton”

DiGenova: There was brazen plot to frame Trump

Former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova: FBI Politicized: Comey ‘Dirtiest Cop in America’

 

Trump to declassify surveillance memo, sources say – as Pelosi seeks Nunes ouster

By John Roberts | Fox News

President Trump is expected to swiftly declassify a controversial memo on purported surveillance abuses, sources tell Fox News, even as Democrats raise objections that edits were made to the document since it was approved for release by a key committee.

Those objections fueled a new round of partisan recriminations on Thursday, with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi firing off a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan demanding the chairman of that committee, Republican Devin Nunes, be removed.

“Chairman Nunes’ deliberately dishonest actions make him unfit to serve as Chairman, and he must be immediately removed from this position,” she wrote.

But the objections don’t appear to be halting the publication plans.

The release is likely to come Friday morning, Fox News is told.

Trump already had made clear he supports the release of the document, before the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee late Wednesday charged that Nunes made “material changes” to the memo.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who opposes the memo’s release in any form, wrote that the committee’s minority determined the letter was not “the same document” its members have been reviewing since mid-January. Nunes’ office countered that the changes were minor and blasted the complaint as a “bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo.”

Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., questions former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson as he testifies to the House Intelligence Committee task force on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, June 21, 2017, as part of the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Rep. Adam Schiff is fighting the release of the surveillance memo.  (AP)

Fox News is told that the version Trump plans to declassify contains “technical edits” made at the request of the FBI.

Sources said the edited version was shown to five FBI officials at the White House on Tuesday afternoon. Sources said the officials were satisfied that the edited memo addressed concerns they had about the earlier version they reviewed on Monday.

Yet, in a rare and surprising rebuke, an FBI statement was released on Wednesday asserting they had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

A source familiar with the memo said the edits included some addressing grammar and clarity, as well as an edit done at the request of the FBI and another at the request of committee Democrats. The source challenged Schiff’s claims, saying the edits were made before the memo went to the White House.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. is pursued by reporters as he arrives for a weekly meeting of the Republican Conference with House Speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP leadership, Tuesday, March 28, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Nunes is facing growing calls to step away from the panel's Russia investigation as revelations about a secret source meeting on White House grounds raised questions about his and the panel's independence. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Devin Nunes is at the center of a DC firestorm over the expected release of a government surveillance memo.  (AP)

The document purportedly is critical of the FBI’s use of surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said Thursday that Trump “has read the memo.”

Next steps are not yet clear, but the president may transmit the letter back to the committee with a declaration that it has been declassified. The committee would then release the memo.

Under official rules, the committee is technically able to release such information after a five-day period unless the president objects. The committee formally started that clock with a vote this past Monday.

Fox News’  Catherine Herridge, Judson Berger and Serafin Gomez contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/01/trump-to-declassify-surveillance-memo-sources-say.html

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1026

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018, Story 1: Part 2–President Trump State of The Union Address — Getting Better All The Time — United States of America — USA — USA — USA — Grand Slam Home Run — Videos

Posted on February 1, 2018. Filed under: American History, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Coal, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, Environment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, James Comey, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mexico, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Networking, News, North Korea, Nuclear, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Robert S. Mueller III, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, South Korea, Tax Policy, United States of America, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Part 2–President Trump State of The Union Address — Getting Better All The Time — United States of America — USA — USA — USA — Grand Slam Home Run — Videos

See the source image

Trump’s 2018 State of the Union in four minutes

Part 1 of President Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Address

Part 2 of President Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Address

Part 3 of President Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Address

Part 4 of President Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Address

President Trump 2018 State of the Union Address (C-SPAN)

Rep. Joe Kennedy delivers the Democratic response to SOTU

Party divided: Do Democrats have unified response to Trump?

Fact and fiction from Trump’s State of the Union address

Fact-checking the 2018 State of the Union address

Trump’s State of the Union: Not a Night for Facts: The Daily Show

Top takeaways from Trump’s State of the Union

Stephen Goes Live After Trump’s State Of The Union

Bernie Sanders’ Rebuttal To President Trump’s State Of The Union Address | TIME

Hannity ► Is this the best SOTU speech ever?

Donald Trump Jr.: SOTU was unifying speech for all Americans

Newt Gingrich: Trump needs to stay on message after SOTU

Ingraham – State of the Union 2018

Tucker: Dems aren’t ‘resisting’ Trump. It’s nihilism

Maybe the Best #StateoftheUnion Speech I’ve Ever Seen (Limbaugh about Trump’s #SOTU)

Mark Levin Show Today 01/31/2018 (Audio Rewind)

Levin Show 1/30/18 – Mark Levin Show January 30,2018 Full Podcast

Chaffetz disgusted by Dems’ behavior at State of the Union

Tucker: Dems aren’t ‘resisting’ Trump. It’s nihilism

Tucker Carlson Tonight 1/30/18 – Fox News January, 30, 2018

Ann Coulter Reacts to Trump’s State of the Union Speech

#Trump’s #SOTU Was Magnificent | #DeepState #Pelosi and Her Band of Cretins Are Ideologically AWOL

Ben Shapiro REACTS To President Trump’s State of the Union address

Ben Shapiro: The analysis of President Trump’s State of the Union address (audio from 01-31-2018)

The Left’s Rage and Trump’s Peril

The Democratic base is even worse-tempered than the president. But Mueller could still harpoon him.

President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the House of Representatives, Jan. 30, 2018.
President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the House of Representatives, Jan. 30, 2018. PHOTO: WIN MCNAMEE/ZUMA PRESS

The State of the Union speech was good—spirited, pointed, with a credible warmth for the heroes in the balcony, who were well chosen. They were beautiful human beings, and their stories were rousing—the cop and his wife who adopted the baby, the hardy North Korean defector who triumphantly waved his crutches, the mourning, dignified parents of the girls killed by MS-13. My beloved Cajun Navy.

The thing about the heroes in the balcony is it reminds you not of who the president is but of who we are. “With people like that we can’t miss.” I had that thought when Ronald Reagan gave tribute in 1985 to a young woman who as a child desperately fled Saigon as it fell. She and her family were among the boat people, spotted and saved by a U.S. ship. Reagan called her to stand, and Jean Nguyen stood—proudly, in the gleaming uniform of a West Point cadet. She would graduate within the year.

The recognition of heroes in the balcony is called a cliché. It certainly is. An inspiring and truthful one, and long may it live.

The Democrats in the chamber were slumped, glowery. They had chosen to act out unbroken disdain so as to please the rising left of their party, which was watching and would review their faces. Some of them were poorly lit and seemed not resolute but Draculaic. The women of the party mostly dressed in black, because nothing says moral seriousness like coordinating your outfits.

Here it should be said of the rising left of the Democratic Party that they are numerous, committed, and have all the energy—it’s true. But they operate at a disadvantage they cannot see, and it is that they are loveless. The social justice warriors, the advancers of identity politics and gender politics, the young who’ve just discovered socialism—they run on rage.

But rage is a poor fuel in politics. It produces a heavy, sulfurous exhaust and pollutes the air. It’s also gets few miles per gallon. It has many powers but not the power to persuade, and if anything does them in it will be that. Their temperament is no better than Mr. Trump’s . It’s worse. But yes, they are intimidating the Democratic establishment, which robs itself of its dignity trying to please them. It won’t succeed.

As for the president’s base, I am coming to a somewhat different way of thinking about it. It’s true they are a minority, true that his approval ratings are not good, are in fact historically low for a president with a good economy at the end of a first year. But Mr. Trump has just more than a solid third of the nation. They are a spirited, confident core. What other political figure in this fractured, splintered country has a reliable third of the electorate? And it’s probably somewhat more than a third, because Trump supporters know they are not and will never be respected, and just as in 2016 you have to factor in the idea of shy Trump voters.

What they are not sufficiently concerned about is that Mr. Trump has not expanded his popularity. He has kept his core but failed to reach out consistently and successfully to others. He has not created coalitions.

His position is more precarious than his people see.

He has too much relished the role of divider. When you’re running for office you are every day dividing those who support you from those who don’t, and hoping your group is bigger. But when you win you reach out to your enemies with humility, with patience—with love!—and try to drag ’em in to sup in your tent. You don’t do this because you’re a hypocrite but because you’re an adult looking to win. Or a constructive idealist. That happens sometimes.

His supporters don’t know what he doesn’t know: He must grow or die.

They are happily watching The Trump Show as he sticks it to people they hate. They don’t know Shark Week is coming.

In November he may lose the House. That’s what the generic ballot says is coming, that’s what was suggested by last year’s GOP defeats in Virginia and Alabama.

I know what Republicans are thinking. They are going to run on an economy that is expanding thanks to tax reform and deregulation. They are going to run on bigger paychecks and unexpected bonuses. They’ll run on the appointment of conservative judges to balance out Barack Obama’s liberal judges at a time when the courts have taken a more powerful role in American culture. They’ll run on We Will Stop Illegal Immigration and Give a Break to the Children of Illegal Immigrants.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are running on Trump is unpopular and so is his party, he is a fascist, and any limit on immigration is like any limit on abortion, tyrannical on its face.

Republicans are thinking nobody’s noticing but they’re in a pretty good place. I suspect they are right.

Except.

Special counsel Robert Mueller will likely, before November, report his findings to the Justice Department, and you have to assume he is going to find something because special prosecutors exist to find something. When Mr. Mueller staffed up he hired Ahabs, and Ahabs exist to get the whale. You have to assume Mr. Trump will be harpooned, and the question is whether it’s a flesh wound or goes deeper. If it goes deep the Democrats may well win the House, in which case he will be impeached.

Trump supporters don’t view this with appropriate alarm. They comfort themselves with the idea that he is playing three-dimensional chess and his opponents are too stupid to see it. That’s not true—he is more ad hoc and chaotic than they think. They should help him by trying to improve his standing, which means telling him what doesn’t work.

He thinks he rouses and amuses his supporters with feuds and wars, tweets and grievances. In reality, as Trump supporters know, it’s something they put up with. For everyone else it’s alienating, evidence of instability.

He calls out fake news and wars with the press while at the same time betraying a complete and befuddled yearning for their approval. Mr. Trump is a little like Nixon in this—embittered and vengeful at not getting the admiration of those he says he doesn’t respect.

These things don’t speak of tactical or strategic brilliance.

His supporters argue the media is against him, and this is true and should be acknowledged. But they were totally opposed to Reagan, too. They more or less admit his greatness now, or at least concede his towering adequacy, in part because Trump-shock has left them reconsidering the bogeymen of the past, in part because they like all dead Republicans.

But Reagan didn’t need the press to feel like a big man or be a success, and Mr. Trump looks unmanned to be so destabilized by their antipathy.

The president’s supporters should be frank with him about his flaws. They’re so used to defending him, they forget to help him. They should give him the compliment of candor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lefts-rage-and-trumps-peril-1517530358

 

Read the full text of President Trump’s first State of the Union address

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and my fellow Americans:

Less than 1 year has passed since I first stood at this podium, in this majestic chamber, to speak on behalf of the American People — and to address their concerns, their hopes, and their dreams.  That night, our new Administration had already taken swift action.  A new tide of optimism was already sweeping across our land.

Each day since, we have gone forward with a clear vision and a righteous mission — to make America great again for all Americans.

Over the last year, we have made incredible progress and achieved extraordinary success.  We have faced challenges we expected, and others we could never have imagined.  We have shared in the heights of victory and the pains of hardship.  We endured floods and fires and storms.  But through it all, we have seen the beauty of America’s soul, and the steel in America’s spine.

Each test has forged new American heroes to remind us who we are, and show us what we can be.

We saw the volunteers of the “Cajun Navy,” racing to the rescue with their fishing boats to save people in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane.

We saw strangers shielding strangers from a hail of gunfire on the Las Vegas strip.

We heard tales of Americans like Coast Guard Petty Officer Ashlee Leppert, who is here tonight in the gallery with Melania.  Ashlee was aboard one of the first helicopters on the scene in Houston during Hurricane Harvey.  Through 18 hours of wind and rain, Ashlee braved live power lines and deep water, to help save more than 40 lives.  Thank you, Ashlee.

We heard about Americans like firefighter David Dahlberg.  He is here with us too.  David faced down walls of flame to rescue almost 60 children trapped at a California summer camp threatened by wildfires.

To everyone still recovering in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, California, and everywhere else — we are with you, we love you, and we will pull through together.

Some trials over the past year touched this chamber very personally.  With us tonight is one of the toughest people ever to serve in this House — a guy who took a bullet, almost died, and was back to work three and a half months later:  the legend from Louisiana, Congressman Steve Scalise.

We are incredibly grateful for the heroic efforts of the Capitol Police Officers, the Alexandria Police, and the doctors, nurses, and paramedics who saved his life, and the lives of many others in this room.

In the aftermath of that terrible shooting, we came together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as representatives of the people.  But it is not enough to come together only in times of tragedy.  Tonight, I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people we were elected to serve.

Over the last year, the world has seen what we always knew:  that no people on Earth are so fearless, or daring, or determined as Americans.  If there is a mountain, we climb it.  If there is a frontier, we cross it.  If there is a challenge, we tame it.  If there is an opportunity, we seize it.

So let us begin tonight by recognizing that the state of our Union is strong because our people are strong.

And together, we are building a safe, strong, and proud America.

Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone.  After years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages.

Unemployment claims have hit a 45-year low.  African-American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded, and Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history.

Small business confidence is at an all-time high.  The stock market has smashed one record after another, gaining $8 trillion in value.  That is great news for Americans’ 401k, retirement, pension, and college savings accounts.

And just as I promised the American people from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.

Our massive tax cuts provide tremendous relief for the middle class and small businesses.

To lower tax rates for hardworking Americans, we nearly doubled the standard deduction for everyone.  Now, the first $24,000 earned by a married couple is completely tax-free.  We also doubled the child tax credit.

A typical family of four making $75,000 will see their tax bill reduced by $2,000 — slashing their tax bill in half.

This April will be the last time you ever file under the old broken system — and millions of Americans will have more take-home pay starting next month.

We eliminated an especially cruel tax that fell mostly on Americans making less than $50,000 a year — forcing them to pay tremendous penalties simply because they could not afford government-ordered health plans.  We repealed the core of disastrous Obamacare — the individual mandate is now gone.

We slashed the business tax rate from 35 percent all the way down to 21 percent, so American companies can compete and win against anyone in the world.  These changes alone are estimated to increase average family income by more than $4,000.

Small businesses have also received a massive tax cut, and can now deduct 20 percent of their business income.

Here tonight are Steve Staub and Sandy Keplinger of Staub Manufacturing — a small business in Ohio.  They have just finished the best year in their 20-year history.  Because of tax reform, they are handing out raises, hiring an additional 14 people, and expanding into the building next door.

One of Staub’s employees, Corey Adams, is also with us tonight.  Corey is an all-American worker.  He supported himself through high school, lost his job during the 2008 recession, and was later hired by Staub, where he trained to become a welder.  Like many hardworking Americans, Corey plans to invest his tax‑cut raise into his new home and his two daughters’ education.  Please join me in congratulating Corey.

Since we passed tax cuts, roughly 3 million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands of dollars per worker.  Apple has just announced it plans to invest a total of $350 billion in America, and hire another 20,000 workers.

This is our new American moment.  There has never been a better time to start living the American Dream.

So to every citizen watching at home tonight — no matter where you have been, or where you come from, this is your time.  If you work hard, if you believe in yourself, if you believe in America, then you can dream anything, you can be anything, and together, we can achieve anything.

Tonight, I want to talk about what kind of future we are going to have, and what kind of Nation we are going to be.  All of us, together, as one team, one people, and one American family.

We all share the same home, the same heart, the same destiny, and the same great American flag.

Together, we are rediscovering the American way.

In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life.  Our motto is “in God we trust.”

And we celebrate our police, our military, and our amazing veterans as heroes who deserve our total and unwavering support.

Here tonight is Preston Sharp, a 12-year-old boy from Redding, California, who noticed that veterans’ graves were not marked with flags on Veterans Day.  He decided to change that, and started a movement that has now placed 40,000 flags at the graves of our great heroes.  Preston:  a job well done.

Young patriots like Preston teach all of us about our civic duty as Americans.  Preston’s reverence for those who have served our Nation reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.

Americans love their country.  And they deserve a Government that shows them the same love and loyalty in return.

For the last year we have sought to restore the bonds of trust between our citizens and their Government.

Working with the Senate, we are appointing judges who will interpret the Constitution as written, including a great new Supreme Court Justice, and more circuit court judges than any new administration in the history of our country.

We are defending our Second Amendment, and have taken historic actions to protect religious liberty.

And we are serving our brave veterans, including giving our veterans choice in their healthcare decisions.  Last year, the Congress passed, and I signed, the landmark VA Accountability Act.  Since its passage, my Administration has already removed more than 1,500 VA employees who failed to give our veterans the care they deserve — and we are hiring talented people who love our vets as much as we do.

I will not stop until our veterans are properly taken care of, which has been my promise to them from the very beginning of this great journey.

All Americans deserve accountability and respect — and that is what we are giving them.  So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers — and to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.

In our drive to make Washington accountable, we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in history.

We have ended the war on American Energy — and we have ended the war on clean coal.  We are now an exporter of energy to the world.

In Detroit, I halted Government mandates that crippled America’s autoworkers — so we can get the Motor City revving its engines once again.

Many car companies are now building and expanding plants in the United States — something we have not seen for decades.  Chrysler is moving a major plant from Mexico to Michigan; Toyota and Mazda are opening up a plant in Alabama.  Soon, plants will be opening up all over the country.  This is all news Americans are unaccustomed to hearing — for many years, companies and jobs were only leaving us.  But now they are coming back.

Exciting progress is happening every day.

To speed access to breakthrough cures and affordable generic drugs, last year the FDA approved more new and generic drugs and medical devices than ever before in our history.

We also believe that patients with terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives.

People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure — I want to give them a chance right here at home.  It is time for the Congress to give these wonderful Americans the “right to try.”

One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.  In many other countries, these drugs cost far less than what we pay in the United States.  That is why I have directed my Administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities.  Prices will come down.

America has also finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals that sacrificed our prosperity and shipped away our companies, our jobs, and our Nation’s wealth.

The era of economic surrender is over.

From now on, we expect trading relationships to be fair and to be reciprocal.

We will work to fix bad trade deals and negotiate new ones.

And we will protect American workers and American intellectual property, through strong enforcement of our trade rules.

As we rebuild our industries, it is also time to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

America is a nation of builders.  We built the Empire State Building in just 1 year — is it not a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a permit approved for a simple road?

I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need.

Every Federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with State and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment — to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit.

Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one.

Together, we can reclaim our building heritage.  We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways across our land.  And we will do it with American heart, American hands, and American grit.

We want every American to know the dignity of a hard day’s work.  We want every child to be safe in their home at night.  And we want every citizen to be proud of this land that we love.

We can lift our citizens from welfare to work, from dependence to independence, and from poverty to prosperity.

As tax cuts create new jobs, let us invest in workforce development and job training.  Let us open great vocational schools so our future workers can learn a craft and realize their full potential.  And let us support working families by supporting paid family leave.

As America regains its strength, this opportunity must be extended to all citizens.  That is why this year we will embark on reforming our prisons to help former inmates who have served their time get a second chance.

Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will also be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families.

For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities.  They have allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans.  Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives.

Here tonight are two fathers and two mothers:  Evelyn Rodriguez, Freddy Cuevas, Elizabeth Alvarado, and Robert Mickens.  Their two teenage daughters — Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens — were close friends on Long Island.  But in September 2016, on the eve of Nisa’s 16th Birthday, neither of them came home.  These two precious girls were brutally murdered while walking together in their hometown.  Six members of the savage gang MS-13 have been charged with Kayla and Nisa’s murders.  Many of these gang members took advantage of glaring loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors ‑- and wound up in Kayla and Nisa’s high school.

Evelyn, Elizabeth, Freddy, and Robert:  Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you.  Everyone in America is grieving for you.  And 320 million hearts are breaking for you.  We cannot imagine the depth of your sorrow, but we can make sure that other families never have to endure this pain.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed MS-13, and other criminals, to break into our country.  We have proposed new legislation that will fix our immigration laws, and support our ICE and Border Patrol Agents, so that this cannot ever happen again.

The United States is a compassionate nation.  We are proud that we do more than any other country to help the needy, the struggling, and the underprivileged all over the world.  But as President of the United States, my highest loyalty, my greatest compassion, and my constant concern is for America’s children, America’s struggling workers, and America’s forgotten communities.  I want our youth to grow up to achieve great things.  I want our poor to have their chance to rise.

So tonight, I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties — Democrats and Republicans — to protect our citizens of every background, color, religion, and creed.  My duty, and the sacred duty of every elected official in this chamber, is to defend Americans — to protect their safety, their families, their communities, and their right to the American Dream.  Because Americans are dreamers too.

Here tonight is one leader in the effort to defend our country:  Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Celestino Martinez — he goes by CJ. CJ served 15 years in the Air Force before becoming an ICE agent and spending the last 15 years fighting gang violence and getting dangerous criminals off our streets.  At one point, MS-13 leaders ordered CJ’s murder.  But he did not cave to threats or fear.  Last May, he commanded an operation to track down gang members on Long Island.  His team has arrested nearly 400, including more than 220 from MS-13.

 CJ:  Great work.  Now let us get the Congress to send you some reinforcements.

Over the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be voting on an immigration reform package.

In recent months, my Administration has met extensively with both Democrats and Republicans to craft a bipartisan approach to immigration reform.  Based on these discussions, we presented the Congress with a detailed proposal that should be supported by both parties as a fair compromise — one where nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs.

Here are the four pillars of our plan:

The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration.  Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.

The second pillar fully secures the border.  That means building a wall on the Southern border, and it means hiring more heroes like CJ to keep our communities safe.  Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of “catch and release.”

The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people.  It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.

The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration.  Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.  Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.  This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.

In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration.  In the age of terrorism, these programs present risks we can no longer afford.

It is time to reform these outdated immigration rules, and finally bring our immigration system into the 21st century.

These four pillars represent a down-the-middle compromise, and one that will create a safe, modern, and lawful immigration system.

For over 30 years, Washington has tried and failed to solve this problem.  This Congress can be the one that finally makes it happen.

Most importantly, these four pillars will produce legislation that fulfills my ironclad pledge to only sign a bill that puts America first.  So let us come together, set politics aside, and finally get the job done.

These reforms will also support our response to the terrible crisis of opioid and drug addiction.

In 2016, we lost 64,000 Americans to drug overdoses:  174 deaths per day.  Seven per hour.  We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge.

My Administration is committed to fighting the drug epidemic and helping get treatment for those in need.  The struggle will be long and difficult — but, as Americans always do, we will prevail.

As we have seen tonight, the most difficult challenges bring out the best in America.

We see a vivid expression of this truth in the story of the Holets family of New Mexico.  Ryan Holets is 27 years old, and an officer with the Albuquerque Police Department.  He is here tonight with his wife Rebecca.  Last year, Ryan was on duty when he saw a pregnant, homeless woman preparing to inject heroin.  When Ryan told her she was going to harm her unborn child, she began to weep.  She told him she did not know where to turn, but badly wanted a safe home for her baby.

In that moment, Ryan said he felt God speak to him:  “You will do it — because you can.”  He took out a picture of his wife and their four kids.  Then, he went home to tell his wife Rebecca.  In an instant, she agreed to adopt.  The Holets named their new daughter Hope.

Ryan and Rebecca: You embody the goodness of our Nation.  Thank you, and congratulations.

As we rebuild America’s strength and confidence at home, we are also restoring our strength and standing abroad.

Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy, and our values.  In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense.

For this reason, I am asking the Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military.

As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.  Perhaps someday in the future there will be a magical moment when the countries of the world will get together to eliminate their nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, we are not there yet.

Last year, I also pledged that we would work with our allies to extinguish ISIS from the face of the Earth.  One year later, I am proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated almost 100 percent of the territory once held by these killers in Iraq and Syria.  But there is much more work to be done.  We will continue our fight until ISIS is defeated.

Army Staff Sergeant Justin Peck is here tonight.  Near Raqqa last November, Justin and his comrade, Chief Petty Officer Kenton Stacy, were on a mission to clear buildings that ISIS had rigged with explosives so that civilians could return to the city.

Clearing the second floor of a vital hospital, Kenton Stacy was severely wounded by an explosion.  Immediately, Justin bounded into the booby-trapped building and found Kenton in bad shape.  He applied pressure to the wound and inserted a tube to reopen an airway.  He then performed CPR for 20 straight minutes during the ground transport and maintained artificial respiration through 2 hours of emergency surgery.

Kenton Stacy would have died if not for Justin’s selfless love for a fellow warrior.  Tonight, Kenton is recovering in Texas.  Raqqa is liberated.  And Justin is wearing his new Bronze Star, with a “V” for “Valor.”  Staff Sergeant Peck:  All of America salutes you.

Terrorists who do things like place bombs in civilian hospitals are evil.  When possible, we annihilate them.  When necessary, we must be able to detain and question them.  But we must be clear:  Terrorists are not merely criminals.  They are unlawful enemy combatants.  And when captured overseas, they should be treated like the terrorists they are.

In the past, we have foolishly released hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield — including the ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi.

So today, I am keeping another promise.  I just signed an order directing Secretary Mattis to reexamine our military detention policy and to keep open the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay.

I am also asking the Congress to ensure that, in the fight against ISIS and al-Qa’ida, we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists — wherever we chase them down.

Our warriors in Afghanistan also have new rules of engagement.  Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans.

Last month, I also took an action endorsed unanimously by the Senate just months before:  I recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Shortly afterwards, dozens of countries voted in the United Nations General Assembly against America’s sovereign right to make this recognition.  American taxpayers generously send those same countries billions of dollars in aid every year.

That is why, tonight, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to help ensure American foreign-assistance dollars always serve American interests, and only go to America’s friends.

As we strengthen friendships around the world, we are also restoring clarity about our adversaries.

When the people of Iran rose up against the crimes of their corrupt dictatorship, I did not stay silent.  America stands with the people of Iran in their courageous struggle for freedom.

I am asking the Congress to address the fundamental flaws in the terrible Iran nuclear deal.

My Administration has also imposed tough sanctions on the communist and socialist dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela.

But no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea.

North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear missiles could very soon threaten our homeland.

We are waging a campaign of maximum pressure to prevent that from happening.

Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation.  I will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations that got us into this dangerous position.

We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and our allies.

Otto Warmbier was a hardworking student at the University of Virginia. On his way to study abroad in Asia, Otto joined a tour to North Korea. At its conclusion, this wonderful young man was arrested and charged with crimes against the state. After a shameful trial, the dictatorship sentenced Otto to 15 years of hard labor, before returning him to America last June — horribly injured and on the verge of death. He passed away just days after his return.

Otto’s Parents, Fred and Cindy Warmbier, are with us tonight — along with Otto’s brother and sister, Austin and Greta.  You are powerful witnesses to a menace that threatens our world, and your strength inspires us all. Tonight, we pledge to honor Otto’s memory with American resolve.

Finally, we are joined by one more witness to the ominous nature of this regime.  His name is Mr. Ji Seong-ho.

In 1996, Seong-ho was a starving boy in North Korea.  One day, he tried to steal coal from a railroad car to barter for a few scraps of food.  In the process, he passed out on the train tracks, exhausted from hunger.  He woke up as a train ran over his limbs.  He then endured multiple amputations without anything to dull the pain.  His brother and sister gave what little food they had to help him recover and ate dirt themselves — permanently stunting their own growth.  Later, he was tortured by North Korean authorities after returning from a brief visit to China.  His tormentors wanted to know if he had met any Christians.  He had — and he resolved to be free.

Seong-ho traveled thousands of miles on crutches across China and Southeast Asia to freedom.  Most of his family followed.  His father was caught trying to escape, and was tortured to death.

Today he lives in Seoul, where he rescues other defectors, and broadcasts into North Korea what the regime fears the most ‑- the truth.

Today he has a new leg, but Seong-ho, I understand you still keep those crutches as a reminder of how far you have come.  Your great sacrifice is an inspiration to us all.

Seong-ho’s story is a testament to the yearning of every human soul to live in freedom.

It was that same yearning for freedom that nearly 250 years ago gave birth to a special place called America.  It was a small cluster of colonies caught between a great ocean and a vast wilderness.  But it was home to an incredible people with a revolutionary idea:  that they could rule themselves.  That they could chart their own destiny.  And that, together, they could light up the world.

That is what our country has always been about.  That is what Americans have always stood for, always strived for, and always done.

Atop the dome of this Capitol stands the Statue of Freedom.  She stands tall and dignified among the monuments to our ancestors who fought and lived and died to protect her.

Monuments to Washington and Jefferson — to Lincoln and King.

Memorials to the heroes of Yorktown and Saratoga — to young Americans who shed their blood on the shores of Normandy, and the fields beyond.  And others, who went down in the waters of the Pacific and the skies over Asia.

And freedom stands tall over one more monument:  this one.  This Capitol.  This living monument to the American people.

A people whose heroes live not only in the past, but all around us — defending hope, pride, and the American way.

They work in every trade.  They sacrifice to raise a family.  They care for our children at home.  They defend our flag abroad.  They are strong moms and brave kids.  They are firefighters, police officers, border agents, medics, and Marines.

But above all else, they are Americans.  And this Capitol, this city, and this Nation, belong to them.

Our task is to respect them, to listen to them, to serve them, to protect them, and to always be worthy of them.

Americans fill the world with art and music.  They push the bounds of science and discovery.  And they forever remind us of what we should never forget:  The people dreamed this country. The people built this country.  And it is the people who are making America great again.

As long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will not fail.

Our families will thrive.

Our people will prosper.

And our Nation will forever be safe and strong and proud and mighty and free.

Thank you, and God bless America.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/30/state-union-read-excerpts-president-trumps-address/1080784001/

 

Trump’s Immigration Plan Receives a Chilly Reception

Republicans are banking on passing legislation on the issue to help them coast into November—and they’ll need Democratic votes to make it happen.

On Tuesday evening, in a State of the Union address billed as “optimistic, heartfelt, and bipartisan,” President Donald Trump revealed just how fractured Congress is on the issue that swept him into the White House: immigration.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been scrambling to piece together legislation that would address the fate of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, alongside other reforms dear to Trump’s heart, including curtailing chain migration and ending the visa lottery system. Last week, the White House unveiled its “four pillars” of immigration reform: a path to citizenship for 1.8 million “Dreamers” and those undocumented immigrants who would otherwise qualify for the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program; a $25 billion trust for a wall along the Mexican border; ending the visa lottery in favor of a merit-based immigration system; and limiting family reunification to sponsorships for spouses and minor children only. The plan caused a stir among hardline conservatives in the House and plenty of Democrats in both chambers. But a senior House Republican aide told me at the time, “When the bill is being ripped by the Freedom Caucus and liberals, yet it includes things both camps like, I think you’ve found the sweet spot to begin negotiating.”

Those hopes were dashed on Tuesday.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment of Trump’s speech came when he pledged to “protect the nuclear family” by ending chain migration. “In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by … chain migration,” he said. Democrats erupted in a cacophony of boos and hisses; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was forced to stand up from her chair to quiet them. “It showed there will be no DACA deal,” a senior Senate Republican aide texted me. (The staffers who spoke for this story made their comments on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.) Indeed, if the White House suggested tonight that ending chain migration was a nonnegotiable component of immigration reform, Democrats made clear that it’s not a price they’re willing to pay—even for a path to citizenship for the “Dreamers.” As if to underscore this point, when Trump summed up his proposal as a “down-the-middle compromise,” Democrats cackled.

“He could have taken a more strategic tone on immigration,” another senior Senate GOP aide lamented. “When he talks about the dangers of chain migration and open borders, even if there’s truth to what he’s saying, he plays into Democrats’ hands by making it easier for them to paint him as a fear-mongering nativist.”

Moreover, as Trump boasted that his plan would ferry “almost three times more” Dreamers into citizenship than in any other administration, House conservatives such as Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows and his predecessor, Jim Jordan, sitting side-by-side, looked sullen. In the last few days, Freedom Caucus members haven’t been shy about panning the president for revoking his “no amnesty” pledge from the campaign trail: ”If you ask voters in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that swung to Donald Trump if this amnesty plan keeps his promises,” Virginia’s Dave Brat said in a statement, “they will tell you it does not.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/trump-bets-on-immigration-in-the-state-of-the-union/551936/

 

The radical idea buried in Trump’s State of the Union

He declared a new front on his war on government. But it’s not clear how he can win it.

The lines weren’t widely noted. But in a few places, sudden alarm bells went off: “Trump looks to expand VA’s firing authority government-wide,” ran a headline in FCW, a publication on government technology. The New Yorker dangled the prospect that Trump might be hinting at firing members of the FBI. Slate bit down harder: “Donald Trump Just Asked Congress to End the Rule of Law,” blared a headline.

His plan might not be that extreme, but Trump’s words did lay down a marker that could have repercussions throughout the government—maybe even declaring a new front in what former aide Steve Bannon called “the deconstruction of the administrative state.”

“This was a quick drive-by in the speech, but it has enormous implications that are only beginning to play themselves out,” said Don Kettl, a professor at the University of Maryland who has written extensively on government management.

This new shot on the bureaucracy builds on Trump’s previous attacks on the so-called administrative state, from criticizing individual federal workers to efforts to reshape agencies altogether. He instituted a government-wide hiring freeze on his third day in office; in March, he directed federal agencies to draw up reorganization plans. He’s also installed small-government crusaders in critical White House positions who are quietly—critics say secretly—drawing up plans to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.

It’s all part of Trump’s broader promise to run the government like a business, streamlining agencies and squeezing out efficiencies that save taxpayer money. But one of the biggest obstacles to such an overhaul is the vast federal workforce of 2 million employees—workers who are, by and large, difficult to fire. While political appointees set the direction of individual agencies, these civil servants do the actual nuts-and-bolts tasks of governing, from running statistical surveys to writing regulations.

To Democrats and others worried about Trump’s agenda, government employees have come to represent a bulwark against radical change—career civil servants who can’t simply be bumped out in favor of loyalists. But to critics of the bureaucracy, those employees represent a massive impediment to change, a “deep state” that defies democracy by resisting the president’s agenda. Trump adviser Newt Gingrich, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, talked of waging a “straight-out war” against the federal bureaucracy, in part by making it easier to fire federal workers.

So far, that war hasn’t really happened: Trump’s hiring freeze slowed the influx of new workers, but he hasn’t made any appreciable effort to sweep out existing civil servants. Still, the State of the Union represent perhaps the clearest sign yet that the White House intends to focus on civil service reform in the months and years ahead—especially since his budget last year made deep cuts to federal agencies, necessitating significant reductions in the federal workforce.

How would it happen? One clue may lie in Trump’s invocation of a little-known law that made it easier for the VA to fire workers. Triggered by the scandals at VA hospitals in 2014, the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, signed last June, lowered the standard of evidence necessary for the agency to fire workers, and reduced the time for them to appeal dismissals. And the VA does appear to be firing more workers: According to data provided to POLITICO by a spokesperson at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency removed 1,737 people in the roughly six months after the law’s passage, compared with 2,001 workers in the entire year 2016.

J. David Cox, head of the American Federation of Government Employees, sharply criticized the law in an interview, saying the vast majority of those removed were lower-level workers, not the managers or senior executives most at fault for the scandal. “They are firing housekeeping aides,” he said.

Administrative experts, who have been tracking the law as something of an experiment, said the results aren’t clear, especially since the law was enacted less than a year ago. They are less focused on the number of workers removed than on the quality of service provided by VA hospitals—the ultimate goal of the reforms. “Is it easier to get an appointment?” said Kettl. “Is the quality of health care better?”

Trump hasn’t said whether he wants to extend the VA law more broadly, and it’s unclear just how he plans to tackle federal personnel laws overall. The most extreme interpretation of his comment is that he wants to abolish civil service protections altogether, a radical idea. “He wants to move from a democracy to an autocracy, without any question, where every federal employee is like-minded and votes one way,” Cox said. In the Slate piece, author Yascha Mounk, a democracy scholar, wrote that “Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers.”

Many experts were skeptical that Trump really would propose abolishing civil service protections, which were first created in 1883 to prevent incoming administrations from creating a political test for the federal workforce. But Trump’s relationship with the federal workforce has been confrontational, to say the least. He has often railed against the so-called deep state, and recently publicly attacked Andrew McCabe, the former FBI deputy director who resigned this week after the president accused him of bias over his wife’s political affiliations. Before Trump, presidents rarely, if ever, attacked federal employees by name; his treatment of McCabe was seen by some as another sign that the president wants to clear out federal workers in favor of political loyalists.

So what does Trump really want to do? Blowing up civil-service protections, or enforcing a loyalty test, are likely to be nonstarters. “In my conversations with the folks in the administration, that’s never been on the table,” said Bill Valdez, president of the Senior Executives Association. “The barriers to throwing out the civil service system are so huge.”

The House of Representatives has passed a couple of bills to make it easier for agencies to fire federal workers and reduce their appeal time, in line with the VA legislation. At the beginning of the 115th Congress, congressional Republicans also reinstated the so-called Holman Rule, which allows any legislator to add a provision to a spending bill that reduces an individual federal worker’s pay to $1. So far, the rule hasn’t been successfully used, and it doesn’t directly give any new powers to the White House.

Despite minimal traction in Congress, the White House is moving ahead with its plans. One preview of the administration’s approach could come on Feb. 12, when the White House releases its 2019 budget. It is expected to include the reorganization plans requested from agencies last year, although the extent of what will be included is unclear. Even lawmakers in Congress have had trouble learning about the agencies’ reform plans.

“The Administration is taking a targeted approach to federal workforce reform to better prepare for the future—and we plan to highlight that in the fiscal 2019 budget,” Hogan Gidley, deputy White House press secretary, said in a statement to POLITICO. “As the president indicated in the State of the Union, this would include streamlining processes for hiring and rewarding the best talent, and removing the poor performers.”

In a sense, the administration’s attempt to overhaul the government is similar to its effort to reform the regulatory system: Both are bureaucratic tasks that get relatively little attention but have huge implications for the country, and the administration is addressing them largely out of public view. On regulation, the White House has effectively shut down the pipeline of new rules and begun changing the structures of the regulatory system.

But experts said it won’t be so easy to remake the civil service system, which is guided by federal statutes that give the administration much less flexibility. “What they’ve done on the regulatory front was exercising the authority they could use unilaterally,” said Dan Blair, the former acting head of the Office of Personnel Management during the Bush administration. “When it comes to changing the civil service laws, you’ll have to have Congress involved.” That means compromising with Democrats who have expressed little interest in much of Trump’s agenda.

Trump is also lacking a key player: He doesn’t have a Senate-confirmed director of the OPM, the White House agency that oversees the federal workforce. His first nominee withdrew from consideration in August, and his replacement, whom Trump nominated in September, has yet to receive a committee vote in the Senate, leaving a crucial position unfilled.

If he perseveres, Trump will join a long line of presidents to attempt to update the government’s personnel rules, which date back more than 60 years and haven’t been overhauled since 1978. Previous attempts by both the Bush and Obama administrations failed to accomplish meaningful change, and as a result, the federal workforce continues to get older and agencies continue to struggle to bring in new workers.

Blair, who supports the idea of personnel reform, suggested that the Trump administration should focus less on the rules around firing and more on the hiring rules, where there could be more common ground. Previous administrations have tried to alter those rules to recruit younger workers, but those efforts have largely failed; the federal workforce has gotten older and older over the past few decades, a 2017 POLITICO investigation found. Blair argued that better hiring rules would lead to fewer problematic employees and less of a need to reform the rules around firing. “If you bring in quality, maybe that will negate the need for discipline in the future,” he said, adding, “It’s time that we update our laws and make it reflect 2020 rather than 1949.”

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/02/01/trump-civil-service-reform-state-of-the-union-000635

 

State of the Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State of the Union Address is an annual message[1] presented by the President of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress, except in the first year of a new president’s term. The address has been usually held on a Tuesday.[2] The message includes a budget message and an economic report of the nation, and also allows the President to outline their legislative agenda (for which the cooperation of Congress is needed) and national priorities.[3]

The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”[1]During most of the country’s first century, the President primarily only submitted a written report to Congress. After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. President, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for his agenda.[1] With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live across the country on many networks,[4] and thus is also used by the President as a platform to speak directly to the American people.[1][citation needed]

Background

The practice arises from a duty given to the president in the Constitution of the United States:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

— Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

Although the language of this Section of the Constitution is not specific, by tradition, the President makes this report annually in late January or early February. Between 1934 and 2013 the date has been as early as January 3,[5] and as late as February 12.[6]

While not required to deliver a speech, every president since Woodrow Wilson, with the notable exception of Herbert Hoover,[7] has made at least one State of the Union report as a speech delivered before a joint session of Congress. Before that time, most presidents delivered the State of the Union as a written report.[5]

Since Franklin Roosevelt, the State of the Union is given typically each January before a joint session of the United States Congress and is held in the House of Representatives chamber of the United States Capitol. Newly inaugurated presidents generally deliver an address to Congress in February of the first year of their term, but this speech is not officially considered to be a “State of the Union”.[5]

What began as a communication between president and Congress has become a communication between the president and the people of the United States. Since the advent of radio, and then television, the speech has been broadcast live on most networks, preempting scheduled programming. To reach the largest audience, the speech, once given during the day, is now typically given in the evening, after 9pm ET (UTC-5).

History

George Washington‘s handwritten notes for the first State of the Union Address, January 8, 1790. Full 7 pages.

George Washington delivered the first regular annual message before a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1790, in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchical (similar to the Speech from the Throne). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy. However, there have been exceptions to this rule. Presidents during the latter half of the 20th century[who?] have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981, after his defeat by Ronald Reagan and days before his term ended.[8]

For many years, the speech was referred to as “the President’s Annual Message to Congress”.[9] The actual term “State of the Union” first emerged in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt used the phrase, becoming its generally accepted name since 1947.[9]

Prior to 1934, the annual message was delivered at the end of the calendar year, in December. The ratification of the 20th Amendment on January 23, 1933 changed the opening of Congress from early March to early January, affecting the delivery of the annual message. Since 1934, the message or address has been delivered to Congress in January or February.

The Twentieth Amendment also established January 20 as the beginning of the presidential term. In years when a new president is inaugurated, the outgoing president may deliver a final State of the Union message, but none has done so since Jimmy Carter sent a written message in 1981. In 1953 and 1961, Congress received both a written State of the Union message from the outgoing president and a separate State of the Union speech by the incoming president. Since 1989, in recognition that the responsibility of reporting the State of the Union formally belongs to the president who held office during the past year, newly inaugurated Presidents have not officially called their first speech before Congress a “State of the Union” message.

In 1936, President Roosevelt set a precedent when he delivered the address at night. Only once before—when Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to order the U.S. into World War I—had a sitting president addressed Congress at night.[10]

The text of the first page of Ronald Reagan‘s first State of the Union Address, given January 26, 1982

Warren Harding‘s 1922 speech was the first to be broadcast on radio, albeit to a limited audience,[11] while Calvin Coolidge‘s 1923 speech was the first to be broadcast across the nation.[2] Harry S. Truman‘s 1947 address was the first to be broadcast on television. Lyndon B. Johnson‘s address in 1965 was the first delivered in the evening.[11] Three years later, in 1968, television networks in the United States, for the first time, imposed no time limit for their coverage of a State of the Union address. Delivered by Lyndon B. Johnson, this address was followed by extensive televised commentary by, among others, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Milton Friedman.[12] Ronald Reagan‘s 1986 State of the Union Address is the only one to have been postponed. He had planned to deliver it on January 28, 1986 but postponed it for a week after learning of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and instead addressed the nation on the day’s events.[13][14] Bill Clinton’s 1997 address was the first broadcast available live on the World Wide Web.[15]

Delivery of the speech

A formal invitation is made by the Speaker of the House to the President several weeks before each State of the Union Address.[16][17]

Invitations

Every member of Congress can bring one guest to the State of the Union address. The President may invite up to 24 guests with the First Lady in her box. The Speaker of the House may invite up to 24 guests in the Speaker’s box. Seating for Congress on the main floor is by a first-in, first-served basis with no reservations. The Cabinet, Supreme Court justices, members of the Diplomatic Corps, and Joint Chiefs have reserved seating.

Protocol of entry into House chamber

By approximately 8:30 pm on the night of the address, the members of the House have gathered in their seats for the joint session.[18] Then, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms addresses the Speaker and loudly announces the Vice President and members of the Senate, who enter and take the seats assigned for them.[18]

The Speaker, and then the Vice President, specify the members of the House and Senate, respectively, who will escort the President into the House chamber.[18] The Deputy Sergeant at Arms addresses the Speaker again and loudly announces, in order, the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices, and the Cabinet, each of whom enters and takes their seats when called.[18] The justices take the seats nearest to the Speaker’s rostrum and adjacent to the sections reserved for the Cabinet and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[19]

The Sergeants at Arms of the House (left) and Senate (right) wait at the doorway to the House chamber before President Barack Obama enters to deliver the 2011 State of the Union Address.

Just after 9 pm, as the President reaches the door to the chamber,[20] the House Sergeant at Arms stands just inside the doors, faces the Speaker, and waits until the President is ready to enter the chamber.[19] When the President is ready, the Sergeant at Arms always announces his entrance, loudly stating the phrase: “Mister Speaker, the President of the United States!”[20]

As applause and cheering begins, the President slowly walks toward the Speaker’s rostrum, followed by members of his Congressional escort committee.[20] The President’s approach is slowed by pausing to shake hands, hug, kiss, and autograph copies of his speech for Members of Congress.[19] After he takes his place at the House Clerk‘s desk,[20] he hands two manila envelopes, previously placed on the desk and containing copies of the speech, to the Speaker and Vice President.

After continuing applause from the attendees has diminished, the Speaker introduces the President to the Representatives and Senators, stating: “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.”[19][20] This leads to a further round of applause and, eventually, the beginning of the address by the President.[20]

At close of the ceremony, attendees leave on their own accord. The Sergeants at Arms guides the President out of the Chamber. Some politicians stay to shake hands with and congratulate the President on his way out.

Designated survivor and other logistics

Customarily, one cabinet member (the designated survivor) does not attend the speech, in order to provide continuity in the line of succession in the event that a catastrophe disables the President, the Vice President, and other succeeding officers gathered in the House chamber. Additionally, since the September 11 attacks in 2001, a few members of Congress have been asked to relocate to undisclosed locations for the duration of the speech to form a rump Congress in the event of a disaster.[21] Since 2003, each chamber of Congress has formally named a separate designated survivor.[22][23]

President George W. Bush with Senate President (U.S. Vice President) Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union address. 2007 marked the first time that a woman had occupied the Speaker of the House chair. (audio only)

Both the Speaker and the Vice President sit at the Speaker’s desk, behind the President for the duration of the speech. If either is unavailable, the next highest-ranking member of the respective house substitutes. Once the chamber settles down from the President’s arrival, the Speaker officially presents the President to the joint session of Congress. The President then delivers the speech from the podium at the front of the House Chamber.

In the State of the Union the President traditionally outlines the administration’s accomplishments over the previous year, as well as the agenda for the coming year, often in upbeat and optimistic terms.[24] Since the 1982 address, it has also become common for the President to honor special guests sitting in the gallery, such as American citizens or visiting heads of state. During that 1982 address, President Ronald Reagan acknowledged Lenny Skutnik for his act of heroism following the crash of Air Florida Flight 90.[25] Since then, the term “Lenny Skutniks” has been used to refer to individuals invited to sit in the gallery, and then cited by the President, during the State of the Union.[26][27]

State of the Union speeches usually last a little over an hour, partly because of the large amounts of applause that occur from the audience throughout. The applause is often political in tone, with many portions of the speech being applauded only by members of the President’s own party. As non-political officeholders, members of the Supreme Court or the Joint Chiefs of Staff rarely applaud in order to retain the appearance of political impartiality. In recent years, the presiding officers of the House and the Senate, the Speaker and the Vice President, respectively, have departed from the neutrality expected of presiding officers of deliberative bodies, as they, too, stand and applaud in response to the remarks of the President with which they agree.

For the 2011 address, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado proposed a break in tradition wherein all members of Congress sit together regardless of party, as well as the avoiding of standing;[28] this was in response to the 2011 Tucson Shooting in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot and wounded in an assassination attempt. This practice was also repeated during the 2012 address and every address after.[29]

Opposition response

Since 1966,[30] the speech has been followed on television by a response or rebuttal by a member of the major political party opposing the President’s party. The response is typically broadcast from a studio with no audience. In 1970, the Democratic Party put together a TV program with their speech to reply to President Nixon, as well as a televised response to Nixon’s written speech in 1973.[31] The same was done by Democrats for President Reagan’s speeches in 1982 and 1985. The response is not always produced in a studio; in 1997, the Republicans for the first time delivered the response in front of high school students.[32] In 2004, the Democratic Party‘s response was also delivered in Spanish for the first time, by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.[33] In 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann also gave a televised response for the Tea Party Express, a first for a political movement.[34]

Significance

Although much of the pomp and ceremony behind the State of the Union address is governed by tradition rather than law, in modern times, the event is seen as one of the most important in the US political calendar. It is one of the few instances when all three branches of the US government are assembled under one roof: members of both houses of Congress constituting the legislature, the President’s Cabinet constituting the executive, and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court constituting the judiciary. In addition, the military is represented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while foreign governments are represented by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps. The address has also been used as an opportunity to honor the achievements of some ordinary Americans, who are typically invited by the President to sit with the First Lady.[27]

Local versions

Certain states have a similar annual address given by the governor. For most of them, it is called the State of the State address. In Iowa, it is called the Condition of the State Address; in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the speech is called the State of the Commonwealth address. The mayor of Washington, D.C. gives a State of the District address. American Samoa has a State of the Territory address given by the governor. Puerto Rico has a State Address given by the governor.

Some cities or counties also have an annual State of the City Address given by the mayor, county commissioner or board chair, including Sonoma County, CaliforniaOrlando, FloridaCincinnati, Ohio; New Haven, ConnecticutParma, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Seattle, Washington; Birmingham, Alabama; Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Buffalo, New YorkRochester, New YorkSan Antonio, Texas; McAllen, Texas; and San Diego, California. The Mayor of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee gives a speech similar called the State of Metro Address. Some university presidents give a State of the University address at the beginning of every academic term.[35][36] Private companies usually have a “State of the Corporation” or “State of the Company” address given by the respective CEO.[37]

The State of the Union model has also been adopted by the European Union,[38] and in France since the presidency of Emmanuel Macron.

Historic speeches

File:Second Bill of Rights Speech.ogv

Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights (excerpt)

  • President James Monroe first stated the Monroe Doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress on December 2, 1823. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore RooseveltJohn F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
  • The Four Freedoms were goals first articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worshipfreedom from want, and freedom from fear.
  • During his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed the Second Bill of Rights. Roosevelt’s argument was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness“.
  • During his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson introduced legislation that would come to be known as the “War on Poverty“. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.
  • During his State of the Union address on January 15, 1975, Gerald R. Ford very bluntly stated that “the state of the Union is not good: Millions of Americans are out of work… We depend on others for essential energy. Some people question their Government’s ability to make hard decisions and stick with them; they expect Washington politics as usual.” and how he didn’t “expect much, if any, applause. The American people want action, and it will take both the Congress and the President to give them what they want. Progress and solutions can be achieved, and they will be achieved.”
MENU
0:00

George W. Bush delivers the 2002 State of the Union

  • In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush identified North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as representing significant threats to the United States. He said, “States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world”. In this speech, he would outline the objectives for the War on Terror.

TV ratings

Television ratings for recent State of the Union Addresses were:[39] [40] [41]

Date President Viewers,millions Households,millions Rating Networks
1/30/2018 Donald Trump 45.551 32.168 26.9 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESTRELLA, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, PBS
2/28/2017dagger Donald Trump 47.741 33.857 28.7 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, UNIVISION, PBS, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, NBC UNIVERSO
1/12/2016 Barack Obama 31.334 23.040 19.6 ABC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, AZTECA, CBS, CNN, FOX, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, NBC, NBC UNIVERSO, UNIVISION**
1/20/2015 Barack Obama 31.710 23.137 19.9 ABC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, AZTECA, CBS, CNN, FOX, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, MUNDOFOX, NBC, UNIVISION**
1/28/2014 Barack Obama 33.299 23.949 20.7 CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, AZTECA, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, AL JAZEERA AMERICA, GALAVISION, MUN2, UNIVISION**
2/12/2013 Barack Obama 33.497 24.767 21.8 FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, AZTECA, UNIVISION, MFX, CNBC, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, MSNBC, CURRENT, CENTRIC, GALAVISION
1/24/2012 Barack Obama 37.752 27.569 24.0 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, TF, UNIVISION, CNBC, CNN, FOX BUSINESS, FOXNC, GALAVISION, MSNBC, MUN2
1/25/2011 Barack Obama 42.789 30.871 26.6 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, CENTRIC, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/2010 Barack Obama 48.009 34.182 29.8 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION, CNN, BET, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
2/24/2009dagger Barack Obama 52.373 37.185 32.5 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION
1/28/2008 George W. Bush 37.515 27.702 24.7 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO**, UNIVISION
1/24/2007 George W. Bush 45.486 32.968 29.6 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, UNIVISION
2/01/2006 George W. Bush 43.179 30.528 31.2 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, AZTECA AMERICA, TELFUTURA
2/02/2005 George W. Bush 39.432 28.359 35.3 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, TELEMUNDO, TELEFUTURA
1/20/2004 George W. Bush 43.411 30.286 28.0 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/28/2003 George W. Bush 62.061 41.447 38.8 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/29/2002 George W. Bush 51.773 35.547 33.6 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, CNBC, FOXNC, MSNBC
2/27/2001dagger George W. Bush 39.793 28.201 27.6 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/2000 Bill Clinton 31.478 22.536 22.4 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/19/1999 Bill Clinton 43.500 30.700 31.0 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC
1/27/1998 Bill Clinton 53.077 36.513 37.2 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN, FOXNC, MSNBC, CNBC
2/04/1997 Bill Clinton 41.100 27.600 28.4 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN
1/23/1996 Bill Clinton 40.900 28.400 29.6 ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN
1/24/1995 Bill Clinton 42.200 28.100 29.5 ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
1/25/1994 Bill Clinton 45.800 31.000 32.9 ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
2/17/1993dagger Bill Clinton 66.900 41.200 44.3 ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
Notes
dagger The 1993, 2001, 2009 and 2017 addresses were not, officially, State of the Union addresses, but rather addresses to a joint session Congress because in those years the presidents were in office for only a few weeks at the time the speech was given.[2][41]

**Tape delayed[41]

See also

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c d “State of the Union Address | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives”history.house.gov. Retrieved January 28, 2018.
  2. Jump up to:a b c Diaz, Daniella (February 28, 2017). “Why Trump’s Tuesday speech isn’t a State of the Union address”CNN. Retrieved February 28, 2017.
  3. Jump up^ “Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government”United States Government Printing Office. Archived from the original on February 25, 2009.
  4. Jump up^ “31.7 Million Viewers Tune In To Watch Pres. Obama’s State of the Union Address”The Nielsen Company (Press release). January 21, 2015. On Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015, President Barack Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address. The address was carried live from 9:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on 13 networks and tape-delayed on Univision.
  5. Jump up to:a b c The President’s State of the Union Address: Tradition, Function, and Policy Implications (PDF). Congressional Research Service. January 24, 2014. p. 2.
  6. Jump up^ Jackson, David (January 11, 2013). “Obama State of the Union set for Feb. 12”USA Today.
  7. Jump up^ “State of the Union Addresses and Messages: research notes by Gerhard Peters”The American Presidency Project (APP). Retrieved 24 January 2017.
  8. Jump up^ Peters, Gerhard. “State of the Union Messages”. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved September 25, 2006.
  9. Jump up to:a b Kolakowski, Michael & Neale, Thomas H. (March 7, 2006). “The President’s State of the Union Message: Frequently Asked Questions” (PDF). Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Retrieved January 28, 2010.
  10. Jump up^ “President to Appear Before Congress: Message to be Delivered Friday night”. Fairbanks Daily News-MinerAssociated Press. January 2, 1936. p. A1.
  11. Jump up to:a b Robert Yoon, CNN Political Research Director (February 12, 2013). “State of the Union firsts”CNN. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  12. Jump up^ Kurlansky, Mark (2004). 1968: The Year That Rocked the World. New York: Ballantine. p. 44. ISBN 0-9659111-4-4.
  13. Jump up^ “Address to the nation on the Challenger disaster”. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Retrieved July 4, 2006.
  14. Jump up^ Weinraub, Bernard (January 29, 1986). “The Shuttle Explosion: Reagan Postpones State of the Union Speech”The New York Times. p. A9.
  15. Jump up^ Office of the Clerk. Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, and InaugurationsHouse History. United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on January 18, 2011.
  16. Jump up^ “Speaker Boehner Extends President Obama Formal Invitation to Deliver State of the Union Address”Speaker Boehner’s Press Office (Press release). January 11, 2011.
  17. Jump up^ “State of the Union 2015”Speaker Boehner’s Press Office(Press release). December 19, 2014.
  18. Jump up to:a b c d “Joint Session of Congress Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 228 to Receive a Message from the President” (PDF). Congressional Record: H414. January 27, 2010.
  19. Jump up to:a b c d “President Delivers State of the Union Address”(Transcript). CNN. January 28, 2008.
  20. Jump up to:a b c d e f “Joint Session of Congress Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 228 to Receive a Message from the President” (PDF). Congressional Record: H415. January 27, 2010.
  21. Jump up^ Roberts, Roxanne (September 20, 2016). “The truth behind the ‘designated survivor,’ the president of the post-apocalypse”Washington Post. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  22. Jump up^ Schultheis, Emily (February 28, 2017). “Joint session 2017: The history of the “designated survivor””. CBS News. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  23. Jump up^ Oritz, Erik (January 30, 2018). “Designated survivors recount nights as doomsday presidents”. NBC News. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  24. Jump up^ Widmer, Ted (January 31, 2006). “The State of the Union Is Unreal”The New York Times. Retrieved January 22, 2007.
  25. Jump up^ O’Keefe, Ed (January 24, 2012). “Three decades of ‘Skutniks’ began with a federal employee”Washington Post. Retrieved January 26, 2012.
  26. Jump up^ Wiggin, Addison (January 25, 2011). “Small Business Owners Should Be Obama’s Lenny Skutnik”Forbes. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
  27. Jump up to:a b Clines, Francis X. (August 24, 1996). “Bonding as New Political Theater: Bring On the Babies and Cue the Yellow Dog”The New York Times. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
  28. Jump up^ Epstein, Jennifer (January 13, 2011). “Mark Udall wants parties together at State of the Union”Politico.
  29. Jump up^ Hennessey, Kathleen (January 21, 2012). “Rival parties to mix it up – nicely – at State of the Union”Los Angeles Times.
  30. Jump up^ Office of the Clerk. “Opposition Responses to State of the Union Messages (1966–Present)”. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  31. Jump up^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The ’70s. New York: Basic Books. p. 47. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
  32. Jump up^ Sincere, Richard E., Jr. (February 1997). “O.J., J.C., and Bill: Reflections on the State of the Union”Metro Herald. Archived from the original on July 31, 2002. Retrieved January 23, 2007Watts told his audience—about 100 high school students from the CloseUp Foundation watched in person, while a smaller number watched on television at home—that he is ‘old enough to remember the Jim Crow’ laws that affected him and his family while he grew up in a black neighborhood in small-town Oklahoma.
  33. Jump up^ York, Byron (January 21, 2004). “The Democratic Response You Didn’t See”National Review. Retrieved January 23, 2007And then there was the Spanish-language response—the first ever—delivered by New Mexico governor, and former Clinton energy secretary, Bill Richardson.
  34. Jump up^ “Michele Bachmann offers Tea Party response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address”The Washington Post. January 26, 2011. Retrieved 15 January 2015.
  35. Jump up^ “UNH State of the University 2015”The University of New Hampshire (Press release). February 17, 2015.
  36. Jump up^ “State of the University 2015”Santa Clara University (Press release). February 19, 2015.
  37. Jump up^ Goldman, Jeremy (January 20, 2015). “Why Your Company Deserves a ‘State of the Union’ Address”Inc.
  38. Jump up^ “EU has survived economic crisis, Barroso says in first State of Union address”EUobserver.com. September 7, 2010.
  39. Jump up^ “2018 State of The Union Address TV Ratings”Nielsen. 2018-01-31. Retrieved 2018-01-31.
  40. Jump up^ “2017 State of The Union Address TV Ratings”Nielsen. 2017-02-28. Retrieved 2018-01-11.
  41. Jump up to:a b c “2016 State of The Union Address TV Ratings”Nielsen. 2016-01-13. Retrieved 2018-01-11.

External links

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

Grand slam (baseball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Connor, circa 1887.

In baseball, a grand slam is a home run hit with all three bases occupied by baserunners (“bases loaded”), thereby scoring four runs—the most possible in one play. According to The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, the term originated in the card game of contract bridge,[better source needed] in which a grand slam involves taking all the possible tricks. The word slam, by itself, usually is connected with a loud sound, particularly of a door being closed with excess force; thus, slamming the door on one’s opponent(s), in addition to the bat slamming the ball into a home run.

Notable highlights

Roger Connor is believed to have been the first major league player to hit a grand slam, on September 10, 1881, for the Troy Trojans. Although Charlie Gould hit one for the Boston Red Stockings (now the Atlanta Braves) in the National Association (NA) on September 5, 1871,[1] the NA is not recognized by MLB as a major league.

In 1987 Don Mattingly set the record for most grand slams in a single season with six.

Alex Rodriguez has 25 career grand slams, the most by any player in Major League Baseball history, passing Lou Gehrig‘s 23 on September 20, 2013. Don Mattingly set the one-season record with six grand slams in 1987 – remarkably, the only grand slams of his major league career. Travis Hafner tied Mattingly’s Major League record in 2006, while in 2009Albert Pujols tied the one-season National League record of five grand slams set by Ernie Banks in 1955.[2]

Several grand slams, the first being Connor’s in 1881, consisted of a player hitting a walk-off grand slam for a one-run victory; some baseball observers call this an “ultimate grand slam”.[3] Steve Pearce was the most recent to do so in an 11-10 victory by the Toronto Blue Jays over the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim on July 30, 2017. Roberto Clemente is the only player to have hit a walk-off inside-the-park grand slam in a one-run victory;[citation needed] the Pittsburgh Pirates defeated the Chicago Cubs 9–8 on July 25, 1956 at Forbes Field, a park known for its spacious outfield.

On April 10, 1980 – on Opening Day, the Milwaukee Brewers‘ Sixto Lezcano hit a walk-off Grand Slam, reportedly the first such feat on an Opening Day. (Lezcano also has the distinction of hitting a Grand Slam the previous year, also on Opening Day.)

During the 2005 major league season, grand slams accounted for 132 of the 5017 home runs hit (2.6%). On June 13–14, 2006, the Minnesota Twins hit grand slams in consecutive games against the Boston Red Sox, including a walk-off grand slam by Jason Kubel in the 12th inning on June 13.

In 2006, the Chicago White Sox hit grand slams in three consecutive games against the Houston Astros (June 23–25). Scott Podsednik hit the only grand slam of his career in the series opener. Joe Crede followed up with a slam of his own on Saturday, and Tadahito Iguchi hit a game tying grand slam in the bottom of the ninth with two outs in the series finale. (This followed a three run blast by Iguchi in the bottom of the eighth.) The White Sox became the first team to accomplish this since the Detroit Tigers in 1993. On the other hand, the 2007 Kansas City Royals surrendered grand slams in three straight games; two against the Baltimore Orioles (April 13–14) and one against the Tigers (April 16).

Also in 2006, Travis Hafner of the Cleveland Indians set a major league record by hitting five grand slams prior to the All-Star break, on his way to tying Mattingly for one season (his sixth was on August 13.) On July 16, Carlos Beltrán and Cliff Floyd of the New York Metshit grand slams during an 11-run sixth inning against the Chicago Cubs, marking the eighth time two grand slams were hit in a team’s at-bat (the fourth time in National League history).

Four players hit a grand slam in their first Major League at-bat: Bill Duggleby (1898), Jeremy Hermida (2005), Kevin Kouzmanoff (2006), and Daniel Nava (2011). Kouzmanoff, Nava, and Duggleby hit theirs on the first pitch; Hermida’s grand slam was in a pinch-hit at bat.

Fernando Tatís (pictured with the Mets) is the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning, with the Cardinals, in 1999.

Tony Cloninger is the only pitcher to hit two grand slams in one game, for the Atlanta Braves in a 1966 contest against the San Francisco Giants.

Félix Hernández of the Seattle Mariners became the first American League pitcher since the designated hitter rule went into effect in 1973 to hit a grand slam when he did so on June 23, 2008, off New York Mets ace Johan Santanain an interleague game.[4]

The only major leaguer to hit two grand slams in one inning is Fernando Tatís of the St. Louis Cardinals, on April 23, 1999 at Dodger Stadium, with both grand slams coming off Los Angeles’ Chan Ho Park in the third inning. Tatis was only the second National League player to hit two grand slams in one game, joining Cloninger. Park was only the second pitcher in major league history to give up two grand slams in one inning; Bill Phillips of the Pittsburgh Pirates did it on August 16, 1890, one to Tom Burns and one to Malachi Kittridge, but Park was the first to give up both to the same batter. Tatis had never hit a grand slam before in his career. Bill Mueller is the only player to hit grand slams from both sides of the plate in the same game, when he hit 2 on July 29, 2003 for the Boston Red Sox vs. the Texas RangersRobin Ventura is the only player to hit a grand slam in both games of a doubleheader, when he did so on May 20, 1999 for the New York Mets against the Milwaukee Brewers.

In Japan’s professional league, the feat of multiple grand slams in a single inning by a team has been accomplished three times; most recently on April 1, 2007 by José Fernández and Takeshi Yamasaki of the Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles. The Daiei Hawks accomplished the feat in 1999.[5]

On August 25, 2011, the New York Yankees, hosting the Oakland A’s, became the first team in MLB history to hit three grand slams in one game. Robinson CanóRussell Martin and Curtis Granderson took pitchers Rich HardenFautino de los Santos, and Bruce Billings deep, with each grand slam being hit in a different inning. Coming back from a 7−1 deficit, the second grand slam gave the Yankees their first lead of the game; they went on to win 22–9.[6][7][8]

On July 13, 2014, Buster Posey and batterymate Madison Bumgarner of the San Francisco Giants hit grand slams against the Arizona Diamondbacks. It marked the first time in Major League Baseball history that batterymates hit grand slams in the same game.[9]

On June 3, 2017, a record-breaking seven grand slams were hit by teams in the MLB: one for the Los Angeles Dodgers, one for the Milwaukee Brewers, one for the Atlanta Braves, one for the Colorado Rockies, one for the Chicago Cubs, one for the Seattle Mariners, and most notably, by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, as Albert Pujols hit his 600th career home run.

Notable calls

“Get out the rye bread and mustard, Grandma, it is grand salami time!”- used by longtime Seattle Mariners lead commentator Dave Niehaus from the 1995 season until his death in November 2010.[10] Currently used by Niehaus’ longtime partner Rick Rizzs.

However, archives have surfaced showing Milwaukee Brewers longtime announcer Bob Uecker using the term “Grand Salami” back in 1982, when the offense-tending team were dubbed “Harvey’s Wallbangers” (a reference to manager Harvey Kuenn, and a takeoff of the cocktail Harvey Wallbanger).

World Series

Year Game Batter Site Pitcher Inning Score after HR Final score Series standing Notes
1920 Game 5, October 10 Elmer SmithCleveland League Park Burleigh GrimesBrooklyn 1st 4–0 8–1, W 3–2 CLE The first slam in Series history, hit with none out in the 1st, is overshadowed when, in the 5th inning, Bill Wambsganss turns the only unassisted triple play ever in the Series.
1936 Game 2, October 2 Tony LazzeriNew York (AL) Polo Grounds Dick CoffmanNew York (NL) 3rd 9–1 18–4, W 1–1 With President Roosevelt in attendance, Lazzeri hits a 2–2 pitch with one out to give the Yankees a sizable lead.
1951 Game 5, October 9 Gil McDougaldNew York (AL) Polo Grounds Larry JansenNew York (NL) 3rd 5–1 13–1, W 3–2 NYY McDougald puts the Yankees up with 2 out in the 3rd. McDougald became the first rookie to get a postseason grand slam.
1953 Game 5, October 4 Mickey MantleNew York Ebbets Field Russ MeyerBrooklyn 3rd 6–1 11–7, W 3–2 NYY After a two-out error by Gil Hodges, a hit batter and a walk, Mantle hits reliever Meyer’s first pitch out of the park.
1956 Game 2, October 5 Yogi BerraNew York Ebbets Field Don NewcombeBrooklyn 2nd 6–0 13–8, L 2–0 BKN Berra’s blast with 2 out is not enough to hold off the Dodgers in what becomes, at 3 hours 26 minutes, the longest 9-inning game in Series history until 1993.
1956 Game 7, October 10 Moose SkowronNew York Ebbets Field Roger CraigBrooklyn 7th 9–0 9–0, W 4–3 NYY The Yankees score all their runs on 4 HRs to seal the Series, with Skowron’s wallop on the first pitch with none out ending the scoring.
1960 Game 3, October 8 Bobby RichardsonNew York Yankee Stadium Clem LabinePittsburgh 1st 6–0 10–0, W 2–1 NYY Richardson’s HR with 1 out in the 1st starts him toward a Series-record 6 RBI.
1962 Game 4, October 8 Chuck HillerSan Francisco Yankee Stadium Marshall BridgesNew York 7th 6–2 7–3, W 2–2 With 2 out, Hiller hits the first grand slam by a National Leaguer in the Series.
1964 Game 4, October 11 Ken BoyerSt. Louis Yankee Stadium Al DowningNew York 6th 4–3 4–3, W 2–2 With men on 1st and 2nd, Bobby Richardson’s error with 1 out while seeking a double play opens the gate for Boyer to hit his pivotal blast.
1964 Game 6, October 14 Joe PepitoneNew York Sportsman’s Park Gordie RichardsonSt. Louis 8th 8–1 8–3, W 3–3 With 2 out, Pepitone hits one onto the roof of the right field pavilion to help force Game 7.
1968 Game 6, October 9 Jim NorthrupDetroit Busch Stadium Larry JasterSt. Louis 3rd 8–0 13–1, W 3–3 Northrup’s HR with none out is the highlight of a 10-run inning which puts the Tigers ahead 12–0.
1970 Game 3, October 13 Dave McNallyBaltimore Memorial Stadium Wayne GrangerCincinnati 6th 8–1 9–3, W 3–0 Besides his 2-out HR, McNally also pitches a complete game to put Baltimore within one win of the title.
1987 Game 1, October 17 Dan GladdenMinnesota Metrodome Bob ForschSt. Louis 4th 7–1 10–1, W 1–0 MIN Gladden’s HR with none out caps a 7-run inning which ends the Cardinals’ 25-inning shutout streak.
1987 Game 6, October 24 Kent HrbekMinnesota Metrodome Ken DayleySt. Louis 6th 10–5 11–5, W 3–3 With 2 out, Hrbek hits reliever Dayley’s first pitch out of the park.
1988 Game 1, October 15 José CansecoOakland Dodger Stadium Tim BelcherLos Angeles 2nd 4–2 5–4, L 1–0 LAD With 2 out, Canseco hits his first major league grand slam on a 1–0 pitch; but Kirk Gibson‘s walk-off home run wins it for the Dodgers.
1992 Game 5, October 22 Lonnie SmithAtlanta SkyDome Jack MorrisToronto 5th 7–2 7–2, W 3–2 TOR With 2 out, Smith’s HR helps keep the Braves alive in the Series.
1998 Game 1, October 17 Tino MartinezNew York Yankee Stadium Mark LangstonSan Diego 7th 9–5 9–6, W 1–0 NYY Martinez’ 2-out HR follows Chuck Knoblauch‘s 3-run game-tying shot earlier in the inning.
2005 Game 2, October 23 Paul KonerkoChicago U.S. Cellular Field Chad QuallsHouston 7th 6–4 7–6, W 2–0 CHW Konerko’s 2-out shot to left on reliever Qualls’ first pitch gives the White Sox a 6–4 lead, but Scott Podsednik later wins it with a walk-off home run, after Houston tied it at 6 with two outs in the top of the 9th.
2016 Game 6, November 1 Addison RussellChicago Progressive Field Dan OteroCleveland 3rd 7–0 9–3, W 3–3 With the grand slam Russell tied the MLB record of 6 RBI in a World Series game, as well the most on a team facing elimination from the World Series. This is the first MLB grand slam to happen in November.[11]

Other major league postseason grand slams[edit]

Series Game Batter Site Pitcher Inning Score after HR Final score Series standing Notes
1970 ALCS Game 1, October 3 Mike CuellarBaltimore Metropolitan Stadium Jim PerryMinnesota 4th 7–2 10–6, W 1–0 BAL In the first grand slam in the history of the LCS, Cuellar, who batted only .089 in the regular season, pulls the ball down the right field line with one out; clearly foul when passing first base, the 29 mph wind carries it fair. Cuellar himself does not last through the fifth inning.
1977 NLCS Game 1, October 4 Ron CeyLos Angeles Dodger Stadium Steve CarltonPhiladelphia 7th 5–5 7–5, L 1–0 PHI With two out, Cey fouls off three full-count pitches before tying the game, but three singles and a balk in the 9th give the Phillies the win.
1977 NLCS Game 2, October 5 Dusty BakerLos Angeles Dodger Stadium Jim LonborgPhiladelphia 4th 5–1 7–1, W 1–1 After Steve Garvey is walked intentionally with one out, Baker gives the Dodgers their second grand slam in as many nights.
1982 ALCS Game 4, October 9 Don BaylorCalifornia Milwaukee County Stadium Moose HaasMilwaukee 8th 5–7 9–5, L 2–2 After Haas takes a no-hitter into the 6th in a game delayed twice by rain, Baylor brings the Angels within two runs with one out in the 8th.
1989 NLCS Game 1, October 4 Will ClarkSan Francisco Wrigley Field Greg MadduxChicago 4th 8–3 11–3, W 1–0 SF With two out, Clark hits the first pitch for his second HR of the game; he also singles, doubles and walks, picking up an NLCS-record 6 RBI.
1992 NLCS Game 2, October 7 Ron GantAtlanta Fulton County Stadium Bob WalkPittsburgh 5th 8–0 13–5, W 2–0 ATL With two out, Gant hits his first career grand slam to double the Braves’ lead.
1995 NLDS Game 3, October 6 Mark LewisCincinnati Riverfront Stadium Mark GuthrieLos Angeles 6th 7–1 10–1, W 3–0 CIN After Guthrie enters the game with none out, Lewis hits the first pinch-hit grand slam in postseason history, propelling the Reds to their eighth straight playoff victory and their eighth NLCS.
1995 ALDS Game 4, October 7 Edgar MartínezSeattle Kingdome John WettelandNew York 8th 10–6 11–8, W 2–2 After hitting a 3-run HR in the 3rd to cut NY’s lead to two runs, Martinez hits another to center field to take the lead for good, finishing with a postseason-record 7 RBI. A walk, bunt single and hit batter had loaded the bases with none out.
1996 ALDS Game 1, October 1 Bobby BonillaBaltimore Camden Yards Paul ShueyCleveland 6th 9–3 10–4, W 1–0 BAL After two walks, a single, a sacrifice fly and a hit batter, Shuey enters the game and is greeted by Bonilla’s blast with two out.
1996 ALDS Game 3, October 4 Albert BelleCleveland Jacobs Field Armando BenítezBaltimore 7th 8–4 9–4, W 2–1 BAL After Orioles starter Mike Mussina is controversially pulled after six innings, Jesse Orosco walks the bases loaded and is replaced; Belle crushes an 0–2 pitch with none out to keep the Indians alive in the series. It would be Belle’s final hit as an Indian.
1996 NLCS Game 2, October 10 Gary GaettiSt. Louis Fulton County Stadium Greg MadduxAtlanta 7th 8–3 8–3, W 1–1 In an inning featuring two walks, an error and a wild pitch, Gaetti wallops the first pitch with two out. Maddux surrenders his second grand slam in 34.2 NLCS innings after allowing only one in 2365.2 regular season innings.
1997 NLDS Game 3, October 3 Devon WhiteFlorida 3Com Park Wilson ÁlvarezSan Francisco 6th 4–1 6–2, W 3–0 FLA With two out, Florida gets a pair of singles and a walk before White hits Alvarez’ 113th pitch to left field. The Marlins advance to their first NLCS, in their fifth year of play.
1997 ALDS Game 3, October 4 Paul O’NeillNew York Jacobs Field Chad OgeaCleveland 4th 6–1 6–1, W 2–1 NYY After starter Charles Nagy walks the bases loaded, O’Neill greets Ogea with a blast to center field with two out as rain begins to fall.
1998 NLDS Game 1, September 30 Ryan KleskoAtlanta Turner Field Matt KarchnerChicago 7th 7–0 7–1, W 1–0 ATL Klesko’s homer with two out, following three walks, secures the win for the Braves.
1998 NLDS Game 3, October 3 Eddie PérezAtlanta Wrigley Field Rod BeckChicago 8th 6–0 6–2, W 3–0 ATL After Andruw Jones is walked intentionally, Pérez hits a homer with one out to wrap up the series for the Braves, sending the Cubs to their sixth straight playoff loss.
1998 NLCS Game 4, October 11 Andrés GalarragaAtlanta Qualcomm Stadium Dan MiceliSan Diego 7th 8–3 8–3, W 3–1 SD After Miceli enters the game, Galarraga caps a 6-run inning with a 459-foot blast to left-center with two out, helping to force a Game 5.
1998 ALCS Game 6, October 13 Jim ThomeCleveland Yankee Stadium David ConeNew York 5th 5–6 9–5, L 4–2 NYY Thome’s shot into the third deck with one out pulls the Indians within a run, but it isn’t enough for the defending AL champions as the Yankees advance to the World Series.
1999 NLDS Game 1, October 5 Edgardo AlfonzoNew York Bank One Ballpark Bobby ChouinardArizona 9th 8–4 8–4, W 1–0 NYM Alfonzo hits his second HR of the game inside the left field foul pole with two out, after Robin Ventura was forced out at the plate one play earlier.
1999 ALDS Game 2, October 7 Jim ThomeCleveland Jacobs Field John WasdinBoston 4th 11–1 11–1, W 2–0 CLE After a 6-run 3rd inning highlighted by Harold Baines‘ 3-run HR, Thome makes it a blowout, ending a 5-run inning with a two-out shot and becoming the first player to hit two postseason grand slams.
1999 ALDS Game 5, October 11 Troy O’LearyBoston Jacobs Field Charles NagyCleveland 3rd 7–5 12–8, W 3–2 BOS O’Leary homers with one out to give Boston the lead, and later hits a 3-run HR in the 7th to break an 8–8 tie and send the Red Sox to the ALCS; both homers come after intentional walks to Nomar Garciaparra.
1999 ALCS Game 4, October 17 Ricky LedéeNew York Fenway Park Rod BeckBoston 9th 9–2 9–2, W 3–1 NYY Ledee hits a pinch-hit HR with one out to wrap up a 6-run inning and the victory. Ledee became the second rookie to hit a postseason grand slam.
1999 NLCS Game 5, October 17 Robin VenturaNew York Shea Stadium Kevin McGlinchyAtlanta 15th 4–3 4–3, W 3–2 ATL The Mets tie the score at 3–3 with a bases-loaded walk with one out, bringing up Ventura, who with 13 career grand slams is tied for the lead among active players with Harold Baines and Mark McGwire. He comes through with the first walk-off grand slam – and the first grand slam in extra innings – in postseason history, clearing the right-center field wall, but is officially credited with only a 1-run single after being mobbed by teammates upon passing first base.
2003 NLCS Game 4, October 11 Aramis RamírezChicago Pro Player Stadium Dontrelle WillisFlorida 1st 4–0 8–3, W 3–1 CHC After Willis walks the bases loaded with one out, Ramírez gets the Cubs off to an early lead by hitting a 2–2 pitch into the left field seats. This was the first time in Cubs history, that a player hit a grand slam in the postseason
2004 ALDS Game 3, October 8 Vladimir GuerreroAnaheim Fenway Park Mike TimlinBoston 7th 6–6 8–6, L 3–0 BOS Guerrero ties the score with a two-out HR to right on a 0–1 pitch, but the Red Sox score two in the 10th to advance to the ALCS.
2004 ALCS Game 7, October 20 Johnny DamonBoston Yankee Stadium Javier VázquezNew York 2nd 6–0 10–3, W 4–3 BOS Damon homers to right on reliever Vázquez’ first pitch with one out, staking Boston to an early lead; he homers again in the 4th for an 8–1 lead as the Red Sox complete their comeback after being down 3 games to 0.
2005 NLDS Game 1, October 4 Reggie SandersSt. Louis Busch Stadium Jake PeavySan Diego 5th 8–0 8–5, W 1–0 STL With one out, Sanders homers on a 3–0 fastball from Peavy, who was unknowingly pitching with a fractured rib.
2005 NLDS Game 4, October 9 Adam LaRocheAtlanta Minute Maid Park Brandon BackeHouston 3rd 4–0 7–6, L 3–1 HOU LaRoche, battling stomach flu, homers with two out, after two walks and a hit batter, to give the Braves an early lead, but the Astros tie the game 6–6 in the 9th and win in 18 innings to advance to the NLCS.
2005 NLDS Game 4, October 9 Lance BerkmanHouston Minute Maid Park Kyle FarnsworthAtlanta 8th 5–6 7–6, W 3–1 HOU With one out, Berkman hits an opposite-field homer to left on a 2–1 pitch to bring the Astros within a run; it is the first time that two grand slams are hit in the same postseason game. After tying the game in the 9th, the Astros win the series on Chris Burke‘s walk-off homer in the 18th, making it the second longest game in postseason history.
2007 NLDS Game 2, October 4 Kaz MatsuiColorado Rockies Citizens Bank Park Kyle LohsePhiladelphia Phillies 4th 6–3 10–5, W 2–0 COL Matsui’s slam gives the Rockies a 6–3 lead on the way to winning the game 10–5 and giving Colorado a 2–0 series lead.
2007 ALCS Game 6, October 20 J. D. DrewBoston Red Sox Fenway Park Fausto CarmonaCleveland Indians 1st 4–0 12–2 W 3–3 Drew gave the Red Sox an early lead in the must-win game as the Red Sox tied the series.
2008 NLDS Game 1, October 1 James LoneyLos Angeles Dodgers Wrigley Field Ryan DempsterChicago Cubs 5th 4–2 7–2, W 1–0 LAD After Dempster walked the bases loaded, Loney hits it to center to give the Dodgers a 4–2 lead.
2008 NLDS Game 2, October 2 Shane VictorinoPhiladelphia Phillies Citizens Bank Park CC SabathiaMilwaukee Brewers 2nd 5–1 5–2, W 2–0 PHI Victorino’s slam, the first in Phillies postseason history, broke a 1–1 tie after pitcher Brett Myers drew a two-out walk in a nine-pitch at-bat.
2011 ALDS Game 1, October 1 Robinson CanóNew York Yankees Yankee Stadium Al AlburquerqueDetroit Tigers 6th 8–1 9–3, W 1–0 NYY Gardner singled, Jeter stole second, Granderson walked. After a pitching change, Robinson Canó hit a 375-foot blast to give the Yankees an 8–1 lead over the Tigers. Cano hit six RBIs this game, barely missing another homer in the previous inning. He tied the Yankees post-season single game record. This was the first home run hit off of Alburquerque this season.
2011 NLDS Game 3, October 4 Paul GoldschmidtArizona Diamondbacks Chase Field Shaun MarcumMilwaukee Brewers 5th 7–1 8–1, W 2–1 MIL Back-to-back singles to Josh Collmenter and Willie Bloomquist. Two outs later, with first base open, Marcum intentionally walked Miguel Montero, who had two RBIs to that point in the game, to get to Goldschmidt. Marcum jumped ahead of Goldschmidt, 1–2, before leaving a fastball out over the plate. Goldschmidt drove the ball the opposite way and over the wall in right to give Arizona a 7–1 lead. Goldschmidt became the third rookie to hit a postseason grand slam.
2011 NLDS Game 4, October 5 Ryan RobertsArizona Diamondbacks Chase Field Randy WolfMilwaukee Brewers 1st 4–1 10–6, W 2–2 Bloomquist singled out in centerfield. Aaron Hill fouled out to first base. Justin Upton walked, while Montero singled out in the right field. Goldschmidt, who hit a grand slam a day earlier, struck out looking. Wolf jumped behind of Roberts, 2–1, before leaving a 79 mph changeup out over the plate. Roberts drove the ball to opposite and over the wall in left to give Arizona a 4–1 lead. Moments later, Chris Young hit a home run out to centerfield.
2011 ALCS Game 2, October 10 Nelson CruzTexas Rangers Rangers Ballpark in Arlington Ryan PerryDetroit Tigers 11th 7–3 7–3, W 2–0 TEX In the 11th, after Perry came in to replace Valverde, Michael Young singles on a sharp ground ball to left fielder Ryan Raburn. Adrián Beltré singles on a line drive to center fielder Austin Jackson. Michael Young to 2nd.Coaching visit to mound. Mike Napoli singles on a fly ball to center fielder Austin Jackson, loading the bases. Nelson Cruz hits a grand slam (3) to left field. Young, Beltre, and Napoli score on the home run. First official (see Grand Slam Single) walk-off grand slam in post season history. “[12]
2012 NLDS Game 5, October 11 Buster PoseySan Francisco Giants Great American Ball Park Mat LatosCincinnati Reds 5th 6–0 6–4, W 3–2 SF After the Giants scored two runs in the inning, the bases were loaded for Posey. He hit a home run off the upper deck, giving the Giants a 6–0 lead they did not relinquish. The runs proved to be critical, as the Reds rallied to make the game close, but the Giants held on to win 6–4. The win completed the Giants’ comeback from being down 2 games to 0 in the series, the first time that happened in NL Divisional play. The Giants won all three on the road, as the series became the second five-game series to not have a single win by a home team (after the 2010 ALDS between the Rangers and Rays).
2013 ALCS Game 2, October 13 David OrtizBoston Red Sox Fenway Park Joaquín BenoitDetroit Tigers 8th 5–5 6–5, W 1–1 With the Red Sox trailing 5−1 in the bottom of the eighth, David Ortiz came up with the bases loaded and two out. Ortiz lined Benoit’s first pitch into the right field bullpen sending outfielder Torii Hunter flying over the wall, tying the game at 5. The Red Sox would go on to win the game 6−5 in the bottom of the ninth on a walk off single by Jarrod Saltalamacchia.
2013 ALCS Game 6, October 19 Shane VictorinoBoston Red Sox Fenway Park José VerasDetroit Tigers 7th 5–2 5–2, W 4–2 BOS In the bottom of the seventh inning, with the Tigers ahead 2−1 and Victorino down in the count 0–2 on well placed curve balls, he sent the third pitch (also a curve ball, but up in the zone) over the Green Monster. Victorino ended a 2 for 23 slump with this blast becoming only the second player ever, alongside Jim Thome, to have hit two post-season grand slams.
2014 NLWCG n/aOctober 1 Brandon CrawfordSan Francisco Giants PNC Park Edinson VólquezPittsburgh Pirates 4th 4–0 8-0, W n/a After singles by Pablo Sandoval and Hunter Pence and a walk to Brandon Belt, Crawford unloaded the bases with a 362-foot grand slam to right field, opening the game’s scoring. His grand slam was the first to be hit by a shortstop in postseason history.
2016 NLCS Game 1, October 15 Miguel MonteroChicago Cubs Wrigley Field Joe BlantonLos Angeles Dodgers 8th 7–3 8-4, W 1-0 CHC After the Dodgers tied it in the top of the eighth, Montero’s pinch hit grand slam breaks the tie.
2017 ALDS Game 2, October 6 Francisco LindorCleveland Indians Progressive Field Chad GreenNew York Yankees 6th 7–8 9-8, W 2-0 CLE With two outs in the 6th, Lonnie Chisenhall was grazed by a 2-strike pitch that appeared to have possibly struck the knob of his bat before landing in the catcher’s mitt for an inning-ending foul-tip strikeout. The Yankees chose not to challenge the umpire’s call that Chisenhall was hit by the pitch to load the bases. Lindor then blasted a towering fly ball high off the right field foul pole to cut the Yankees’ 5-run lead down to 1. The Indians later finished their comeback with a walk-off single by Yan Gomes in the 13th inning.
2017 NLDS Game 4, October 11 Michael A. TaylorWashington Nationals Wrigley Field Wade DavisChicago Cubs 8th 5–0 5-0, W 2-2 After inheriting Daniel Murphy on first base from Jon LesterCarl Edwards Jr. issued back-to-back 2-out walks to Anthony Rendon and Matt Wieters to load the bases. Davis was then brought in to face Taylor with the hope of holding the Nationals’ lead at 1-0. Taylor hit a 1-1 fastball from Davis into the chain link net at the top of the right center field wall to clear the bases and expand the lead to 5-0.
2017 NLCS Game 5, October 19 Kiké HernándezLos Angeles Dodgers Wrigley Field Hector RondonChicago Cubs 3rd 7-0 11-1, W 4-1 LAD Hernández’s grand slam on a fly ball to right field was the second of his three home runs on the night, which made Hernández the 10th player ever to hit 3 homers in a postseason game. In this close-out game, Hernández drove in 7 runs to tie the Major League record for RBI in a postseason game and help send the Dodgers to the World Series for the first time since 1988.

All-star game

Year Batter Date and Site Pitcher Inning Score after HR Final score Notes
1983 Fred LynnAL(California) July 6, Comiskey Park Atlee HammakerNL (San Francisco) 3rd 9–1 13–3, W In the 50th anniversary game, Lynn hits the first grand slam in All-Star history to right field on a 2–2 pitch with two out, capping a 7-run inning and virtually ensuring the AL’s first victory since 1971 and second since 1962. Just before the pitch, NBC put on-screen a graphic indicating that there had never been a grand slam hit in All-Star history.

Career grand slam leaders

Alex Rodriguez currently holds the record for most career grand slams with 25.

With 23 grand slams, Lou Gehrig held the all-time record until 2013.[13]

Players in bold are currently active (as of September 22, 2017).[14]

Alex Rodriguez 25
Lou Gehrig 23
Manny Ramírez 21
Eddie Murray 19
Willie McCovey 18 [1]
Robin Ventura 18
Carlos Lee 17
Jimmie Foxx 17
Ted Williams 17
Hank Aaron 16
Dave Kingman 16
Babe Ruth 16
*Ryan Howard 15
Ken Griffey, Jr. 15
Richie Sexson 15
Jason Giambi 14
Gil Hodges 14
Mark McGwire 14
Mike Piazza 14

1 – National League record

Single-season grand slam leaders

[citation needed]

Travis Hafner matched Mattingly’s single-season record in 2006.

Don Mattingly 6   1987 (a)
Travis Hafner 6   2006 (a)
Ernie Banks 5   1955 (n)
Jim Gentile 5   1961 (a)
Jim Northrup 5   1968 (a)
Albert Pujols 5   2009 (n)
Richie Sexson 5   2006 (a)
Albert Belle 4   1997 (a)
Ray Boone 4   1953 (a)
Robinson Canó 4   2011 (a)
Vince DiMaggio 4   1945 (n)
Lou Gehrig 4   1934 (a)
Scooter Gennett 4   2017 (n)
Jason Giambi 4   2000 (a)
Sid Gordon 4   1950 (n)
Tommy Henrich 4   1948 (a)
Ralph Kiner 4   1949 (n)
Edgar Martínez 4   2000 (a)
Phil Nevin 4   2001 (n)
Mike Piazza 4   1998 (n)
Alexei Ramírez 4   2008 (a)
Al Rosen 4   1951 (a)
Babe Ruth 4   1919 (a)
Wildfire Schulte 4   1911 (n)
Rudy York 4   1938 (a)

a – American League
n – National League

See also

References

  • Ryczek, William J. (1992). Blackguards and Red Stockings; A History of Baseball’s National Association 1871–1875. Wallingford, Connecticut: Colebrook Press. ISBN 0-9673718-0-5
  • Orem, Preston D. (1961). Baseball (1845–1881) From the Newspaper Accounts. Altadena, California: Self-published.

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Charlton, James. “The Chronology – 1871”. BaseballLibrary.com. Archived from the original on 2007-10-17. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
  2. Jump up^ http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_grsl.shtml
  3. Jump up^ “Ultimate Grand Slams”. SI.com. 2002-05-18. Retrieved 2002-07-30.
  4. Jump up^ Stone, Larry (June 24, 2008). “Notebook – Grand slam by Felix Hernandez is one for the books”The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on September 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  5. Jump up^ “Hawks pound Shimizu, Marines”. Retrieved 2007-04-02.[dead link]
  6. Jump up^ Caldwell, Dave (August 25, 2011). “On a Long and Wet Day, the Yankees Win in Grand Style”The New York Times. and Mouat, Mike (August 25, 2011). “Yankees slam Athletics in grand fashion”. Reuters.
  7. Jump up^ Slusser, Susan (August 25, 2011). “Yankees hit 3 grand slams to beat A’s 22-9”San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst. Retrieved August 25, 2011.
  8. Jump up^ Parker, Rob (August 25, 2011). “It was a grand ole day at the ballpark”ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures. Retrieved August 25, 2011.
  9. Jump up^ Pavlovic, Alex. “Giants’ battery of Bumgarner, Posey provide charge heading to All-Star break”. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 13 July 2014.
  10. Jump up^ “Audio: Relive Some Of Dave Niehaus’ Best Calls”. SBNation.com. 2010-11-11. Retrieved 2015-06-20.
  11. Jump up^ http://m.mlb.com/gameday/cubs-vs-indians/2016/11/01/487636#game=487636,game_state=live,game.tab=
  12. Jump up^ Full Nelson: Cruz belts walk-off slam in 11th” by T.R. Sullivan, MLB.com. Accessed Oct 10, 2011.
  13. Jump up^ “Lou Gehrig Grand Slams”Baseball Almanac. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  14. Jump up^ http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/higs1.shtml

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_slam_(baseball)

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1025

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018, Story 1: President Trump aka Amnesty Don Will Lose His Support Base If He Agrees To A Pathway To Citizenship For Any of The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in The United States Including Illegal Alien “Dreamers” — Do Not Reward Criminal Behavior — Do Not Repeat Reagan’s Biggest Mistake of Granting Amnesty Before Securing The Borders — Enforce Existing Immigration Law — Deport All Illegal Aliens — Trump’s Promise — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Woos World Leaders To Invest in America at World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos Global Gathering of Corporate and Political Establishment Elitists — Videos — Story 3: FBI Missing Text Messages Found and Fake Bureau of Investigation of Clinton Emails Revealed — The Fix Was In To Make Sure Hillary Clinton Was Exonerated For Massive Mishandling of Classified Information — Appoint Special Counsel and Indict Hillary Clinton — You Have Five Days Before 5 Year Statue of Limitations Runs Out! — Videos

Posted on January 25, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Israel, James Comey, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Middle East, National Interest, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1007, November 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1006, November 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1005, November 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1004, November 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1003, November 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1002, November 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1001, November 14, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

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

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: President Trump aka Amnesty Don Will Lose His Support Base If He Agrees To A Pathway To Citizenship For Any of The 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens in The United States Including Illegal Alien “Dreamers” — Do Not Reward Criminal Behavior — Do Not Repeat Reagan’s Biggest Mistake of Granting Amnesty Before Securing The Borders — Enforce Existing Immigration Law — Deport All Illegal Aliens — Trump’s Promise — Videos —

Trump immigration proposal would offer a path to citizenship

White House reveals framework of immigration proposal

Trump immigration proposal draws mixed reactions from both parties

The Ingraham Angle 1/25/18 With Laura Ingraham | The Ingraham Angle Fox News January 25, 2018

Trump will offer citizenship to 1.8 MILLION ‘Dreamers’

How DACA Hurts Americans

1995: Barbara Jordan on “Immigration Reform”

President Trump says he shares immigration views with Barbara Jordan

SHOCKER: Trump wants AMNESTY for DREAMERS – caught on tape

Tucker: Entitled Illegal Immigrants Demand Amnesty – Tucker Carlson

Rep. Bob Goodlatte on chain migration, FBI revelations

Taxpayers fund commercial flights for illegal immigrants

Illegal Aliens Quietly Being Relocated Throughout U.S. on Commercial Flights

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Inside Trump’s impromptu White House press conference

Listen: Trump says he would speak to Mueller under oath

Hear Trump’s full exchange with reporters

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Inside Trump’s impromptu White House press conference

Listen: Trump says he would speak to Mueller under oath

Hear Trump’s full exchange with reporters

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Ingraham Warns Trump Not to Renege on Immigration Promises

Tucker Carlson blasts Trump’s ‘negotiation skills’ on immigration

Tucker Carlson blasts Trump’s ‘negotiation skills’ on immigration

Trump’s immigration meeting was lowest day of presidency: Ann Coulter

Sen. Tom Cotton on chain migration, Tillerson speculation

BEST VERSION: Reagan on Amnesty & Illegal Immigration

President Reagan’s Remarks at Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act. November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

“They’re all Illegals” Adam Carolla REACTS to DACA termination by President Trump

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

‘Amnesty Don’ Trends at Number One on Twitter in Washington, D.C.

“Amnesty Don” is trending, everyone. My question: Will that change Trump’s mind by 8 am?

Trump’s biggest supporters immediately took to Twitter using the hashtag “#AmnestyDon” to blast the President for his choice to give into DACA amnesty.

DACA recipients currently hold upwards of 700,000 U.S. jobs. An ultimate end to the program – with DACA recipients not getting amnesty –would result in a 700,000 job stimulus for American workers. This would amount to nearly 30,000 new U.S. job openings for American workers every month once the program is officially phased out.

Although screening for DACA was previously touted as being sufficient in keeping criminals out, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revealed that more than 2,100 recipients had their status revoked for being criminals or gang members.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/amnesty-don-trends-at-number-one-on-twitter-in-washington-d-c/

 

Trump offers to triple Obama’s amnesty number in exchange for tougher security laws

President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File)
President Trump will submit his immigration proposal to Congress next week. (Associated Press/File) more >
 – The Washington Times – Updated: 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2018

President Trump will propose a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrant Dreamers, nearly tripling the Obama-era DACA program, the White House said Thursday.

Mr. Trump’s vision, which he will submit to Congress next week, would grant legal status to fewer than the 3 million people under the plan Senate Democrats have backed. But the number of people is far higher than the 690,000 in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

White House officials said they felt they had to go that far in order to demand major changes on the security side, including an end to catch-and-release of illegal immigrants snared at the border, faster deportations for those caught overstaying their visas inside the U.S. and $25 billion for Mr. Trump’s wall.

The president also will demand strict limits on the chain of family migration across the board — not just for newly legalized Dreamers.

He would allow immigrants to petition for spouses and minor children but would eliminate parents, siblings and adult children from chain migration. Extended family already in the backlog would be allowed to enter, but no further applications would be accepted.

The combination of legalization and security puts Mr. Trump squarely in the middle of the immigration debate, between Democrats who want a more generous amnesty and House Republicans who opposed citizenship and were instead pushing a massive package of security changes.

“As part of this effort to ensure there is full bipartisan support for this package, we believe the total number that will be able to apply for legal status … will be a population of individuals of 1.8 million people,” a senior White House official said.

The official said Mr. Trump wouldn’t agree to a deal on Dreamers without the border security, enforcement and policy changes.

“This is kind of a bottom line for the president,” another official told reporters at the White House.

The plan calls for a $25 billion trust fund to build Mr. Trump’s border wall and other infrastructure. That would ensure a future Congress couldn’t withhold the money.

Mr. Obama supported a path to citizenship for Dreamers but was unable to get that legislation through Congress, which was why his administration circumvented Capitol Hill to create the DACA program.

Begun in 2012, the program approved some 800,000 people for renewable two-year permits granting them a stay of deportation and authority to work in the U.S. Of those people, some 690,000 were still protected under DACA as of late last year.

Of the additional 1.1 million people Mr. Trump would enroll, about 600,000 were eligible for DACA but, for various reasons, didn’t apply, and 500,000 or so who would be admitted under adjusted timelines.

The White House called the 1.8 million “a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes in the Senate.”

It would take the immigrants 10 to 12 years to earn citizenship.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said the president had embraced an amnesty that even President Obama was denied.

“I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally,” he said. “All of these proposals being floated that have a path to citizenship for DACA recipients are markedly to the left of where President Obama was. DACA itself has no path to citizenship under President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.”

Democrats remained skeptical of Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship, which he announced to reporters on Wednesday.

“What he says on Tuesday is not necessarily what he says on Thursday,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Other Democrats said Mr. Trump’s calculus of a trade of Dreamers for the wall was still unacceptable.

“I do not support border wall funding,” said Sen. Cory A. Booker, New Jersey Democrat.

He said he was holding out hope that Dreamers could get citizenship without a wall.

“I’m a prisoner of hope, but that does not mean I have some Pollyannaish view that this is going to work out,” said Mr. Booker. “Hope is work, hope is sacrifice, so we are going to fight this.”

Still, Sen. Michael F. Bennet, Colorado Democrat, said the president’s move toward citizenship for Dreamers was encouraging.

“I think there is a general consensus among people working on this that a pathway has to be part of it,” he said.

The White House plan could undercut efforts by House conservatives, who back a much tougher security plan. That would grant the 690,000 people under DACA a new legal status of three-year work permits, approved by Congress, in exchange for mandatory use of E-Verify for employers to check work status, curtailing abuse of the asylum system, cracking down on sanctuary cities and punishing repeat illegal immigrants.

The White House said it envisioned Mr. Trump’s plan as the basis for Senate negotiations but expected the House to pass its own bill.

“We’re not trying to force something on the House at this point. I think the House has got its own independent process,” an adviser said.

The White House said the president’s plan would boost security at the northern border as well, which could entice senators in Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota who are calling for attention to the U.S.-Canada line.

Mr. Trump’s plan would cancel the Diversity Visa Lottery, which gives 50,000 visas per year based on chance. Those visas would be recaptured and used to reduce the backlog in merit-based migration.

The president also asked Congress to allow faster deportations for those who overstay their visitors’ visas, who could account for half of all new illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump said Congress must change the laws to help end the catch-and-release policy that applies to countries other than Mexico and Canada who cannot be quickly turned back home.

Under the current system, migrants who cannot be detained are released with the hope that they will return for their deportation hearings. They rarely do.

The White House said it had dozens of other enforcement changes it could have demanded, such as E-Verify, but it would pursue those later.

“This is the first bite,” said a White House official. “There is a second phase to this. There are 11 million people who live here illegally.”

The plan is unlikely to please activists on either side of the debate.

Indeed, immigrant rights groups were skeptical even after Mr. Trump said he would support full citizenship rights.

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, called it “a spoonful of sugar before the bitter medicine of Trump’s far-reaching nativist agenda.”

“No way. We won’t stand for it,” he said. “They don’t get to exploit a crisis they created to take a wrecking ball to the Statue of Liberty.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/trump-amnesty-cover-18-million-dreamers/

 

Trump Proposes Citizenship for Dreamers in Exchange for Wall, Other Concessions

Administration also looking to restrict family-based immigration and hiring more border agents, immigration judges and prosecutors

Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal.
Immigrant rights groups rallied on Thursday in Hartford, Conn., as lawmakers in Washington negotiated an immigration deal. PHOTO: JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, if lawmakers agree to create a $25 billion fund to expand barriers along the Mexico border and make other changes to the immigration system.

The proposal, presented to Senate leaders on Thursday, would additionally restrict family-based immigration, which is the channel by which most immigrants have come to the U.S. for the past 50 years. The White House plan also calls for an end to a lottery-type program that randomly awards 50,000 visas annually to foreigners.

Mr. Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum on Thursday. But his top aides told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the president would sign into law legislation that included these changes. The Republican leader responded that he intended to bring such a bill to a vote during the week of Feb. 5, White House officials said.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Mr. McConnell could find enough support for such a measure. Passage needs a total of 60 votes in the Senate that will require backing from Republicans, who hold 51 seats, and some Democrats.

And White House officials on Thursday acknowledged that approval was an even bigger question in the House, where a small but powerful wing of conservative Republicans can—and often do—prevent their party from acting without help from Democrats.

The biggest question Thursday was how conservatives will react to Mr. Trump’s support for citizenship for the Dreamers, who were shielded from deportation by actions taken by former President Barack Obama. About 700,000 immigrants registered for that program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Mr. Trump’s plan would protect those people, plus others who would otherwise qualify. That brings the total to about 1.8 million people who could become citizens within 10 to 12 years, White House officials said.

“This represents a dramatic concession by the White House to get to 60 votes from the Senate,” a senior administration official said, describing the bill as a “compromise on many fronts.”