Technology

The Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018, Story 1: President Trump’s Infrastructure Framework/Plan — More Federal Government Spending of $200 Billion Over Ten Years With $1.5 to $1.8 Billion From Local Public Private Partnership Poo Pourri — Unconditional Guarantee Stink Free — Videos — Story 2: President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget An American Budget — Huge Government With Massive National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities and Obligation Until Debt Bomb Blows Up — Hundreds of Trillions — The Great Default and Inflation — Videos

Posted on February 14, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Security, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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 image

Story 1: President Trump’s Infrastructure Framework/Plan — More Federal Government Spending of $200 Billion Over Ten Years With $1.5 to $1.8 Billion From Local Public Private Partnership Poo Pourri — Unconditional Guarantee Stink Free — Videos —

Girls Don’t Poop – PooPourri.com

How to Poop at a Party – PooPourri.com

Paying for Trump’s infrastructure plan

What President Donald Trump just REVEALED about his Infrastructure Plan will Shock Everyone!!

Trump is on right track with infrastructure bill: Rep. Biggs

Trump wants $1.5 tril. for infrastructure blueprint

Trump’s infrastructure plan is way too expensive: Kennedy

A $3.6 billion reconstruction project at Salt Lake City International Airport. The $200 billion infrastructure program that the White House unveiled on Monday is intended to attract a huge amount of additional money from states, localities and private investors.CreditKim Raff for The New York Times

President Trump’s $200 billion plan to rebuild America upends the criteria that have long been used to pick ambitious federal projects, putting little emphasis on how much an infrastructure proposal benefits the public and more on finding private investors and other outside sources of money.

Unveiled on Monday, the infrastructure program that Mr. Trump has championed since the campaign is intended to attract a huge amount of additional money from states, localities and private investors. The goal is to generate a total pot of $1.5 trillion to upgrade the country’s highways, airports and railroads.

Those financial priorities are crystallized in the new guidelines established by the White House. The ability to find sources of funding outside the federal government will be the most important yardstick, accounting for 70 percent of the formula for choosing infrastructure projects. How “the project will spur economic and social returns on investment” ranks at the bottom, at just 5 percent.

In this new competition for federal funds, a plan to, say, build a better access road for a luxury development — a project with the potential to bring in more dollars from private investors — could have a strong chance of getting the green light. By comparison, a critical tunnel overhaul that has trouble getting new money might not be approved.

“Instead of the public sector deciding on public needs and public priorities, the projects that are most attractive to private investors are the ones that will go to the head of the line,” said Elliott Sclar, professor of urban planning and international affairs at Columbia University. “Private investors will become the tail that will wag the dog, because they’ll want projects that will give returns.”

How Trump Plans to Turn $200 Billion Into $1.5 Trillion in Infrastructure Spending

President Trump’s long-awaited infrastructure plan proposes that the federal government put up $200 billion in incentives and investments, leaving local governments and private industry to come up with the rest.

Proposals intended to serve more impoverished communities that require more state and local money, including improving drinking water in a place like Flint, Mich., could be given short shrift. Financial investors may not see a big profit in such a project.

“A private corporation has a fiduciary obligation to make a profit. The government is supposed to be providing a public service,” Mr. Sclar said.

The president’s plan recasts the federal government as a minority stakeholder in the nation’s new infrastructure projects. Half of the $200 billion promised over 10 years will be used for incentives to spur even greater contributions from states, localities and the private sector. Mr. Trump also wants to speed up the approval process.

The White House budget, separately released on Monday, also gives federal agencies the authority to sell assets that would be better managed by state, local or private entities in cases where a sale would “optimize taxpayer value.” The budget suggests that Ronald Reagan Washington National and Dulles International Airports could be among the assets ripe for new owners.

Coming up with the $200 billion in federal funding will not be easy. Republicans have already ballooned the deficit in last week’s spending agreement and with their tax cuts. Democrats are unlikely to go along with cuts that would offset the cost of Mr. Trump’s plan.

With his infrastructure framework, the president is rethinking Washington’s role.

Economic development has been the justification for federal involvement going back to the country’s efforts in the early 1800s to improve harbors and rivers for navigation. It animated the 1902 Reclamation Act that funded irrigation projects that developed the western United States.

“National economic development benefits were the cornerstone of federal support,” said Debra Knopman, a principal researcher at the RAND Corporation. “That was the point.”

Public health, safety and national defense were added in the 20th century as core values, when the government developed the national highway system and passed the Clean Water Act.

“Now, they’re putting out incentive programs that don’t have to generate national or regional economic developments,” said Ms. Knopman, the lead author of a new 110-page RAND report on transportation and water infrastructure in the United States. “It may happen, but that’s not what they’re interested in and that’s not the way they’re screening these projects.”

The math for the infrastructure plan also relies on a lot of unknowns.

Along with private investors, cities and states are being counted on to put up significant funds. They have a need. States have been struggling for years to rejuvenate creaky roads, bridges and ports. And even if the plan appears to put much of the onus on them to finance projects, any additional federal funding is welcome.

“States won’t look down their nose at adding more money for infrastructure,” said John Hicks, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. “It’s seen primarily as a positive, because it continues to shine light on a shared need of infrastructure improvement.”

But cities and states are not necessarily flush with cash for new infrastructure projects.

Congress has thrown their finances into upheaval, with local lawmakers still trying to come to grips with the effects of the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul that was passed last year. Many states have already expressed concern that it will be hard for them to increase state and local taxes, because deductions on them have been limited.

Some are considering other ways, such as gasoline taxes, to raise funds, but it may not be enough to fund new infrastructure projects. A report released last month by Fitch, the ratings agency, found that many states could see their tax revenue fall from the changes to the individual and corporate taxation laws.

David Damschen, Utah’s treasurer, said his state faces many infrastructure challenges as it works to accommodate a growing population, expand its stock of affordable housing and improve the transportation system. He said Utah was already looking for new sources of tax revenue to fund projects because sales tax and gas tax revenue had been declining.

But Mr. Damschen also noted that public-private partnerships do not tend to work well in his state. “When things roll out, you’ll find what the market will do with these ideas,” he said. “Sometimes creative ideas don’t always have the level of acceptance in the marketplace as you hoped.”

The amount of federal funds — $20 billion a year — will be spread very thin when stretched across the entire country. It is also unclear how much new money, as opposed to repurposed funds, the federal government is actually supplying.

One analysis by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania said that other pieces of the White House budget could end up reducing federal infrastructure spending by $55 billion over 10 years — despite the president’s new plan.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and the president of the conservative American Action Forum, complimented aspects of the president’s initiative that dealt with streamlining regulations and using federal credit guarantees. But he doubted the promised total could be reached.

“It’s hard to get the $200 billion to $1.5 trillion, if you do the arithmetic,” he said.

Beyond the math, the revamped selection standards, too, are untested. The new criteria likely stemmed from the administration’s attempt to distinguish its program and try something new.

Indeed, criteria announced just last year by the Trump administration for other transportation and infrastructure grants relied on more traditional standards. One lists safety, overall condition, economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability and quality of life as “primary selection criteria.” Another cites “support for national or regional economic vitality” as the No. 1 one objective, while coming up with new money was second.

The new plan “doesn’t allocate money in terms of congestion, economic need or the public good,” said Martin Klepper, the former executive director of the Transportation Department’s Build America Bureau. “It does it mostly on the basis of the leverage issue.”

Mr. Klepper, who spent decades in the private sector developing, financing and selling large infrastructure projects, was recruited to lead the bureau in the final weeks of the Obama administration. He said he decided to take the job even after the Democrats lost, because of the new administration’s commitment to public-private partnership and Mr. Trump’s promise of a major infrastructure plan.

He resigned in November 2017.

“I left because I was pretty frustrated and disappointed with where the program was going,” Mr. Klepper said. “No one has any idea to the extent with which states and localities will be able to come up with the money to match the federal government.”

 

Trump’s infrastructure plan isn’t a plan. It’s a fantasy

Trump's infrastructure plan isn't a plan. It's a fantasy
A man works on the Southern Nevada portion of U.S. Interstate 11 near Boulder City, Nev. on May 19, 2017. (John Locher / Associated Press)

 

President Trump’s infrastructure plan isn’t a plan. It’s fantasy. The outline the administration put forth Monday is essentially this: The federal government will offer a diminished amount of money — $200 billion over 10 years — for building or repairing roads, bridges, airports, seaports, energy projects and water systems and somehow, magically, $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion in infrastructure spending will materialize.

Where would all that money come from? The president’s framework doesn’t say, but the intent is for the federal government to spend a lot less money on infrastructure and for local and state governments to spend a lot more. Oh, and private investors are expected to rain down money on infrastructure projects too.

Trump’s long-awaited plan was supposed to be an ambitious effort to build, as he put it, “the best, fastest and most reliable infrastructure in the world.” It was also a rare opportunity for bipartisan cooperation; Democrats and Republicans generally agree that crumbling roads and bridges are bad, and together they have been drawing up multibillion-dollar infrastructure spending plans for decades.

But the Trump framework is short on funding and pragmatism. The plan calls for $200 billion in federal spending over a decade, but much of that money is set aside for rural communities and loan programs. One hundred billion dollars would go to competitive grants, providing a mere $10 billion a year for roads, railroads, airports, water treatment plants, flood control systems and contaminated land cleanups.

That’s barely enough money to make a dent in the estimated $2 trillion of needed transportation, water and energy system upgrades. By way of comparison, the federal government spent $96 billion on transportation and water projects alone in 2014.

The $200 billion wouldn’t be new money. It would be paid for by cutting other infrastructure-funding programs. Trump’s budget, which was also released Monday, would slash funding for the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other agencies.

The Trump plan envisions it can do more with less by requiring localities to put up at least 80% of the required funding. Traditionally, the federal government covered 80% of major transportation projects, with locals contributing 20%.

There’s nothing wrong with requiring localities to kick in a significant portion of the bill for regional projects. A Trump aide singled out Los Angeles County’s Measure M sales tax increase as a “good case study” for how locals could help pay for public transit and road improvements.

In fact, cities, counties and states across the country are raising their gas and sales taxes and passing bonds to help tackle the massive backlog of unmet needs. But Measure M and similar efforts are supposed to complement, not replace, federal funding. Without federal money, projects will take longer to build, fewer jobs will be created and backlogs will lengthen. The federal pullback sought by Trump ignores why the federal government has been contributing so much to state and local infrastructure projects: We have a shared national interest in a country that’s safe and well-connected, and where people and goods move efficiently.

The Measure M-funded public transit building boom in L.A. County relies on federal funding that would be slashed under the president’s infrastructure and budget proposals. The Purple Line subway to Westwood was slated to receive more than $1 billion, or roughly 45% of the total cost, from the federal government. Without that money, it will be extremely difficult to complete that project, as well as others, in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

Trump’s plan isn’t all terrible. It would reserve funding specifically for rural communities and transformative but challenging projects, two areas where it can be harder to raise local and private dollars. And to usher vital infrastructure projects faster through the bureaucratic gantlet, it calls for streamlining approvals so projects can get started in two years or less. That would be a welcome change, assuming that it means reducing unnecessary delays rather than gutting safety and environmental protections.

So by all means, streamline permitting and cut bureaucracy. But it’s still going take money to build the “gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways” that Trump says he wants. So far, his plan is all gleam, no grit.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-infrastructure-20180213-story.html

Read the full text of Trump’s infrastructure plan

  • The Trump administration released the full text of its infrastructure proposal to Congress on Monday.
  • The plan includes $200 billion in federal funds that are intended to stimulate more than $1.5 trillion in spending from local and state governments and private entities over a decade.

President Donald Trump delivers a speech on tax reform after touring Sheffer Corporation in Blue Ash outside Cincinnati, Ohio February 5, 2018.

Trump talks up infrastructure plan with local and state officials  

The Trump administration released the full text of its infrastructure proposal to Congress on Monday.

The plan includes $200 billion in federal funds that are intended to stimulate more than $1.5 trillion in spending mostly from local and state governments and private entities over a decade.

In a letter addressed to Congress at the beginning of the proposal, President Donald Trump asks lawmakers to “act soon” on a bill that would:

  • Stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in new investment over the next decade;
  • Shorten the approval process for projects to two years or less;
  • Focus on infrastructure needs for rural areas;
  • Encourage training for American workers;
  • Create opportunities for state and local governments to invest in “large-scale infrastructure projects.”

Trump, who often touts his history as a real estate developer, made infrastructure one of the pillars of his presidential campaign. However, the president has indicated that he is skeptical of public-private partnerships, a key part of the White House’s plan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/read-the-full-text-of-trumps-infrastructure-plan.html

Story 2: President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget An American Budget — Huge Government Spending With Massive National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities and Obligations Until Debt Bomb Blows Up — Hundreds of Trillions — The Great Default and Inflation — Videos

 

Trump Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget

Trump’s budget: Where are the spending cuts?

Deficit from Trump’s budget plan a concern for the economy?

White House’s $4.4 trillion budget plan could hurt Americans in the future

5 takeaways from Trump’s 2019 budget plan

Trump Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget

 

Heritage Experts Analyze President Trump’s FY 2019 Budget Proposal

Feb 12, 2018

This morning, the Trump administration released its fiscal year 2019 budget proposal. This is President Trump’s second budget proposal since becoming president. Below is reaction from multiple Heritage Foundation experts on the President’s proposal.

 

Justin Bogie, Senior Policy Analyst in fiscal affairs, on the overall spending levels and fiscal sustainability of the budget proposal:

 

“The budget proposal released by President Trump this morning is a mixed bag. While it demonstrates commitments to a strong national defense, eliminating waste, and pursuing much-needed entitlement and welfare reforms, it fails as sound fiscal policy. The Trump administration, just last year, proposed balancing the federal budget within 10 years. However, this proposal would add an additional $7 trillion to the national debt – something not even a big spender like President Obama ever proposed.

 

“While the administration’s accomplishment on tax reform and pursuit of welfare and further regulatory reform are all critical for increased economic growth – this budget proposal threatens economic growth by doubling down on fiscal policies that have failed us in the past and will pass the burden on to our children, grandchildren, and beyond. The time for talking about a smaller government is over – it is time for the President and his administration to demonstrate leadership and put us on a path to fiscal sanity rather than following Congress on the path to fiscal ruin.”

 

Lindsey Burke, Director of the Center for Education Policy, on proposed changes to K-12 education funding:

 

“Overall, the President’s budget makes needed reductions in K-12 spending, taking the size and scope of the federal Department of Education in the right direction – smaller. Yet much more significant reductions are needed to begin the long-overdue process of restoring state and local control of education. Proposals for new spending on school choice programs, however, should be directed to those populations where there is a rationale for federal spending. Providing education savings accounts for children from active duty military families is a promising proposal to do just that.”

 

Marie Fishpaw, Director of Domestic Policy Studies, on health spending in the new budget proposal:

 

“Today, the White House released a budget that rightfully assumes Republican lawmakers will roll back the harmful effects of Obamacare, which drove up health costs while reducing Americans’ health choices. Repealing Obamacare and replacing the law with patient-centered reforms is an effort that lawmakers cannot abandon. However, the budget also allows for $11.5 billion in bailouts to Obamacare’s insurance companies. Advocates claim these bailouts are needed to lower health insurance premiums.This is absurd. Rather than use corporate welfare to paper over the flaws of a fundamentally broken program, Congress should return to ideas that solve the real root problems.Conservative policy leaders continue to call on Congress and the Trump administration to focus their efforts on a real plan to reduce health premiums, improve health choices and protect American taxpayers from corporate bailouts.”

 

Fred Bartels, Policy Analyst for defense budgeting, on military spending:

 

“The Trump administration’s 2019 defense budget request is a great step forward in rebuilding our military. The Heritage Foundation has recommended a defense base budget of $664 billion, a 5.5 percent increase over the 2018 budget, while the administration requested $647 billion, a 2.8 percent increase over the 2018 budget, matching the recent budget deal. The budget calls for an additional 25,900 troops in FY19, similar to Heritage’s recommendation of 25,600 personnel. This will be a substantial step in the military buildup, and will allow the military to start to change the trajectory of asking the services to do more with less. The budget misses the opportunity to call for a new round of base realignments and closure (BRAC), which the Pentagon called for the past six years. It is unfortunate that they passed on an opportunity to save $2 billion per year, but hopefully they will take this time to re-think and reform the BRAC process. Finally, our national defense rests on a solid economic foundation. This is why our government needs to get the nation’s debt and deficits under control. Financing the military through debt sets the nation up for failure and makes the buildup less sustainable.”

https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-experts-analyze-president-trumps-fy-2019-budget-proposal

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1031

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 1023, January 29, 2018, Story 1: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Steps Aside Before Retirement In Early March — Heads Will Roll At FBI and Department of Justice When Details of Plot Are Exposed In Damning Detail — Who Is Next? Bill Priestap – FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Head — and James Baker, Former FBI General Counsel — Videos — Story 2: House Intelligence Committee Votes To Release The 4-Page Memo On FBI Plot Against Candidate and President Trump — Videos

Posted on January 30, 2018. Filed under: Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Constitutional Law, Donald J. Trump, Elections, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Hillary Clinton, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, James Comey, Language, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senator Jeff Sessions, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

Scandal of The Century

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

Story 1: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Steps Aside Before Retirement In Early March — Heads Will Roll At FBI and Department of Justice When Details of Plot Are Exposed In Damning Detail — Who Is Next? Bill Priestap – FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Head — and James Baker, Former FBI General Counsel — Videos —

See the source imageSee the source image

Today’s Top Story? FBI Dep Director Forced Out! memo to Blame?

FBI’s McCabe Escorted From The Building, 2010

More on Andrew McCabe Termination

#2 FBI Man, Andrew McCabe steps down, Liberal Media GOT THAT wrong just last week

The Obama Administration’s ‘Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton’ Starting To Seep Out

Joe diGenova – Brazen Plot to Frame Trump, 1990

FBI Dep. Director McCabe stepping down

A Curious Case of Counterintelligence

FBI: Russia Interfered in Election to help Trump

What Does Russia Want? An FBI Agent Tells Congress

Sanders: Trump did not pressure McCabe to step down

Andrew McCabe, quits after Trump criticism 2018

Dan Bongino – FISA Memo will be released this week – 1/29/18

FBI deputy director McCabe to retire in 2018 Washington Post

BIG NAMES ALL ON THE RUN!! FRESH INDICTMENTS ON THE PODESTA’S,CLINTON’S & OBAMA #RUSSIA COLLUSION

 

Where is Bill Priestap – FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Head

I first came across the name Bill Priestap in early April 2017, as I was going through House Intelligence Committee testimony given by James Comey on March 20, 2017:

STEFANIK: So since, in your opening statement, you confirmed that there is a counter-intelligence investigation currently open and you also referenced that it started in July. When did you notify the DNI, the White House, or senior congressional leadership?

COMEY: It’s a good question. Congressional leadership, some time recently. They were briefed on the nature of the investigation in some detail as I said. Obviously the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along. The DNI, I don’t know what the DNI’s knowledge of it was because we didn’t have a DNI until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning in office.

Note: The DNI claim was a lie. James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

STEFANIK: So just to drill down on this, if — if the open investigation began in July and the briefing of congressional leadership only occurred recently, why was there no notification prior to the recent — to the past month?

COMEY: I think our decision was it was a matter of such sensitivity that we wouldn’t include it in the quarterly briefings.

STEFANIK: So when you state our decision is that your decision? Is that usually your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?

COMEY: No, it’s usually the decision of the head of our counter- intelligence division.

STEFANIK: And just again, to get the detailed — on the record, why was the decision made not to brief senior congressional leadership until recently when the investigation had been open since July? A very serious investigation — why was that decision to wait months?

COMEY: Because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Bill Priestap is the head of the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Division.

Priestap is not a household name, but he held a pivotal role in the FBI’s exoneration of Clinton, the subsequent Trump-Russia Investigation and surveillance of the Trump Campaign.

Per Comey’s testimony, Priestap was the individual responsible for making the decision notto inform Congressional leadership – the Gang of Eight – about the July 2016 FBI investigation.

At the time, I made the following comments:

I am almost speechless that the FBI’s Director of Counter-Intelligence, Bill Priestap, would make such a decision – or could make such a decision.

The FBI is a division of the DOJ. It is not a fourth branch of the government. Since when does an official within the FBI get to decide when information is disseminated to only certain members of the National Security Council – not all of them – while at the same time refusing to disclose to Congressional leadership?

The Gang of Eight are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the Executive Branch and are responsible for Congressional oversight of all Intelligence AgenciesThey are the “Checks and Balances” for the Intelligence aspect of our government.Anythingintelligence-related must be shown to this committee. If there is a U.S. covert operation, these members know of it and approved it.

Bill Priestap’s name would come up again – in relation to Michael Flynn. Excerpt from an earlier timeline:

December 29 2016 – General Michael Flynn speaks to the Russian Ambassador.

Jan 12 2017 –  Mike Flynn’s Dec 29 2016 call is leaked to Washington Post.

January 19 2017 – The New York Times reports that the FBI, CIA, NSA and Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties.

January 19 2017 – Obama’s top intelligence and law-enforcement deputies meet to talk about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak.

January 23 2017 – Acting Attorney General Sally Yates increases pressure on FBI Director Comey regarding Mike Flynn – telling Comey that Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail.

January 23 2017 – The FBI reports nothing unlawful in the content of Flynn’s call.

January 24 2017 – Mike Flynn is interviewed at the White House by the FBI. It is during this interview that Flynn supposedly lies to the FBI – despite having his calls already cleared by the FBI. The surprise – and unscheduled – interview is conducted by Peter Strzok.

January 25 2017 –  The Department of Justice receives a detailed briefing on Flynn’s interview from the FBI.

January 26 2017 – AG Sally Yates contacts White House Counsel McGahn who agrees to meet with Yates the same day.

January 26 2017 – Sally Yates meets with McGahn. She also brings Bill Priestap, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.

Yates later testifies the meeting surrounds General Flynn’s phone calls and his FBI Interview. She also testifies that Flynn’s call and subsequent interview “was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

Bill Priestap later presents the FBI’s contributions to the early 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA – Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections – to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 21, 2017.

Sally Yates was Deputy Attorney General prior to January 20, 2017, and Acting Attorney General from January 20, 2017, after Lynch left office upon President Trump’s inauguration.

Yates’ boss was Attorney General Loretta Lynch until Yates became Acting Attorney General. On January 30, 2017, President Trump fired Yates for refusing to enforce the Travel Ban.

Bill Priestap is Assistant Director, FBI Counter Intelligence.

Priestap’s boss is FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s boss was FBI Director James Comey.

The FBI Director (Comey) reports to the Attorney General (Lynch/Yates).

Now, consider the following timeline:

  • April 2016 – Clinton Campaign begins paying Fusion GPS.
  • April/May 2016 – Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele.
  • May 2016 – Fusion GPS hires Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ Assoc. Deputy AG Bruce Ohr,
  • May 2016 – Trump becomes presumptive GOP Nominee.
  • June 2016 – FBI Agent Peter Strzok – and possibly DOJ’s Bruce Ohr – meet with Christopher Steel.
  • Late June 2016 – First draft of Trump Dossier shared w/Fusion GPS & possibly FBI’s Strzok.
  • June/July 2016 – First FISA request made. It is denied.
  • July 2 2016 – FBI Agent Strzok interviews Hillary Clinton.
  • July 5 2016 – FBI Director Comey exonerates Clinton.
  • July 19, 2016 – Trump officially becomes GOP Nominee.
  • Late July – Second draft of Trump Dossier shared with FBI.
  • Late July 2016 – FBI begins counter-intelligence investigation into Russia and Trump.
  • August 2016 – Strzok sends “insurance policy” text referencing Deputy FBI Director McCabe (see below).
  • August/September 2016 – CIA Director Brennan meets with Gang of Eight suggesting Russia is helping Trump.
  • Late Summer/Fall 2016 – Trump Dossier shopped.
  • September 2016 – Second FISA request made. This request is granted. No evidence is found but surveillance continues – ostensibly for national security reasons.
  • October 2016 – The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using federal intelligence services.

And this (extremely) compressed summation:

Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr and FBI Agent Peter Strzok both have ties to Fusion GPS and Richard Steele. Strzok personally helps to exonerate Clinton in the email investigation. Ohr has known Steele since 2006. Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS. Ohr provides the Trump Dossier to Strzok who uses it to start the FBI Investigation into Russia and the Trump Campaign in July 2016 (per March 20, 2017 testimony by Comey). The Dossier is later used – at least in part – to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign.

The two individuals with direct supervisory authority over Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok:

Sally Yates and Bill Priestap, respectively.

Bruce Ohr reported directly to Yates. Peter Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap.

I find it implausible to believe that Yates and Priestap were unaware of the activities of Ohr and Strzok.

The timeline – and severity – of events support this contention.

To recap – Bill Priestap:

  • Was – per Comey – the individual responsible for making the decision not to inform Congressional leadership – the Gang of Eight – about the July 2016 FBI investigation.
  • Was directly involved in the surveillance and investigation of Michael Flynn.
  • Oversaw the activities of FBI Agent Strzok. Strzok was involved in all facets of the Clinton investigation and interviewed Flynn.
  • Gave approval for the use of the Trump Dossier.
  • Gave approval of background documents used in FISA warrant preparation.
  • Was responsible for preparing and presenting the FBI’s Russian Assessment.

Priestap was either directly responsible – or directly oversaw those who were responsible – for every facet of the Clinton Investigation, the Trump Dossier creation and the Trump-Russia Investigation.

Based on the magnitude of the information – and the manner in which the information was used – I find it equally implausible to believe that Yates and Priestap wouldn’t inform their bosses – Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (and almost certainly FBI Director James Comey).

Bill Priestap’s boss, FBI Deputy Director McCabe has been encountering his own series of troubles as I have noted several times.

McCabe was already under investigation relating to Conflict of Interest charges in the Clinton Email Investigation:

Virginia Governor and longtime Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe donated $467,500 to the 2015 Senate campaign of Andrew McCabe’s wife, Dr. Jill McCabe. The Virginia Democratic Party donated an additional $207,788 for a grand total of $675,288. This equated to more than a third of Dr. McCabe’s campaign funds.

McAuliffe met with the McCabe’s on March 7, 2015 – the purpose of the meeting was to convince Dr. McCabe to run for office – her first run at any public office.

Clinton’s private server was uncovered by the New York Times on March 2, 2015 – five days before McAuliffe’s first meeting with the McCabe’s.

At the time of McAuliffe’s first meeting with the McCabe’s, Andrew McCabe was running the FBI’s Washington, D.C. field office. It was McCabe’s office that provided personnel and resources to the Clinton email investigation.

Then, the discovery of a Strzok text message appeared to indicate collusion with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to alter or influence the 2016 Presidential election by utilizing the Trump Dossier:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe] office that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

Strzok’s almost certainly referencing the fabricated Trump Dossier. “It’s like an insurance policy”.

Strzok appears to be discussing a plan to use the Trump Dossier to obtain a FISA Warrant. The matter seems to have been discussed with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe – in McCabe’s office.

McCabe was a no-show for scheduled Congressional testimony.

Facing a Congressional subpoena, McCabe agreed to closed-door testimony that went on for nine hours.

McCabe was accompanied by top FBI lawyer James Baker. Baker is already under investigation for leaking classified information.

Immediately following McCabe’s testimony, Baker was “reassigned” (fired) and McCabe announced his retirement:

Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain. James Baker, who is stepping down as FBI General Counsel, served our country incredibly well for 25 years & deserves better. He is what we should all want our public servants to be.

James Baker:
Under investigation for leaking classified information.
Illegally moved Trump Dossier through McCabe’s Office.
Selected Strzok for Mueller’s Team.
Guided Strzok’s Clinton edits from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

I suspect that McCabe’s chances of maintaining employment for 90 days are…slim.

Consider the following.

Individuals directly below Priestap (Strzok) and directly above Priestap (McCabe) have been ensnared and exposed by the Inspector General’s Investigation.

Strzok is off Mueller’s team and has been demoted. He is on the verge of being subpoenaed by Congress.

McCabe is racing to retire with full benefits in 90 days. Per President Trump’s reaction, McCabe is likely to be fired imminently. McCabe is also on the verge of being subpoenaed by Congress.

So where is Bill Priestap?

And why aren’t you hearing his name daily?

Because someone has almost certainly been speaking with him.

Perhaps the Inspector General has some answers.

The good folks at theconservativetreehouse have a great thread on twitter which covers Priestap’s involvement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.6076d4c88de4

 

A Curious Case of Counterintelligence – Bill Priestap…

In the past few weeks, thanks to some revealing information amid the various investigators of the DC swamp, we have been introduced to some previously unknown people.

Names like FBI Agent Peter Strzok; his mistress FBI Attorney Lisa Page; their ideological comrade Asst FBI Director Andrew McCabe; along with DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr; and his wife, Fusion-GPS contract employee Nellie Ohr.  These are a few of the recent names that have hit the headlines as a result of ongoing investigations into the politicization of the FBI and DOJ.

But there’s one name conspicuously absent, FBI Director of Counterintelligence, Bill Priestap.

When you understand how central Bill Priestap is to the entire 2016/2017 ‘Russian Conspiracy Operation‘, the absence of his name, amid all others, creates a curiosity.  I wrote a twitter thread about him recently because it seems rather unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.

Bill Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation.  He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk’s direct boss.  If anyone in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know.

Helpful IG Releases:

♦Release #1 was the Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.

♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.

♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump;  that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.

♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump.  Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.

♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page.  The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy”against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.

In April 2016 Hillary Clinton paid Glenn Simpson with Fusion-GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.

In May 2016 Fusion GPS hired Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr, to lead the opposition research effort.  That same month, Fusion GPS contracted with retired British MI6 Agent Christopher Steele to write the ‘Trump Russia Dossier’.

In late June 2016 the first draft of the Steele Dossier was shared back with Fusion GPS and presumably Nellie Ohr was one of the recipients.   According to Robby Mook, the partial dossier information was also given to the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

In July 2016 candidate Donald Trump won the GOP nomination.  That same month the FBI Counterintelligence Division began an investigation they later described as a counterintelligence operation looking at Russian interference in the U.S. election.  However, from 10 months of researched documentation, much of it in the MSM, we now know it was an FBI counterintelligence operation against candidate Donald Trump.

Also in July 2016, immediately following candidate Donald Trump’s successful bid to win the GOP nomination, a FISA application was denied.  The timing here is far too coincidental (the later narrower version clearly evidences), the FISA application was to wiretap, monitor and conduct surveillance on candidate Trump and his campaign.

In August 2016, the lead FBI Agent in charge of that counterintelligence operation, Peter Strzok told his FBI Attorney and mistress:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

The “insurance policy” appears to be the ongoing counterintelligence operation that later utilized the Steele Dossier to get the FISA warrant and actually begin the wiretaps and surveillance.  The conversation referenced between Strzok and Page took place in FBI Assistant Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe’s office.

All of this information is really just a recap.  Everyone now sees this construct clearly.  The Timelines are brutally obvious.  Congress and DC investigators, including the years-long OIG investigation, are currently in the phase of nailing down the players and putting the final touches on the evidence.  The outline is clear as day.

However, within this brutally obvious outline there’s a name missing.  That name is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap:

FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Peter Strzok.

Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.

The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations.

FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn’t (according to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.

On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.

FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*

I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]

FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it.

Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification.  In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:

Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate.   After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.

REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th that the reason he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.

Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn’t do it.

Than again, Comey’s blame-casting there is really called creating a “fall guy”.  FBI Director James Comey is ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior).

At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see Comey was creating his own exit from getting ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of President Donald Trump.  In essence, Bill Priestap is James Comey’s shield from liability.

But more curiously for current discussion, there has been NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any of the recent revelations, despite his centrality to all of it.

Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the “Russian Dosssier”.

Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying documents that were used for both FISA applications (June/July and Sept/Oct).

Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.

Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn’t happen. Heck, James Comey’s March testimony in that regard is also evidence of Priestap’s importance.

In addition, when Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified (with James Clapper), she too spoke of the importance of Bill Priestap as her liaison and contact within the FBI on the counterintelligence operation. [Yates never mentioned Peter Strzok – not once.] Even though it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who interviewed Michael Flynn on January 24th, [link] Sally Yates never mentioned him. EVER.

However Deputy AG Sally Yates did talk about Bill Priestap during her testimony.

Yates testified she and Bill Priestap traveled together, Jan 26th, to the White House to inform Don McGhan (WH Counsel) of Michael Flynn “misleading statements” (based on Pence media reports and Flynn prior ambush interview Jan 24th).

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to White House General Counsel Don McGahn “so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.”

So we all can see that Bill Priestap is a central figure. FBI Director James Comey defers to him; Acting Attorney General Sally Yates relied on him; FBI Special Agent in Counterintelligence Peter Strzok reports to him; Yet there’s absolutely no mention of Bill Priestap in any of the explosive investigative story-lines in the past two weeks.

Why?

Bill Priestap is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence. There’s no way he hasn’t been caught inside the investigative net.

Bill Priestap’s boss, Andrew McCabe has been caught. Bill Priestap’s subordinate, Peter Strzok, has most certainly been caught. And in March 20th 2017 FBI Director Comey pushed Priestap directly in front of the congressional oversight bus.

My hunch is either Bill Priestap is going to be the attempted fall-guy for the entire scheme. -OR- Bill Priestap saw the bus coming and is assisting the swamp-draining DC investigators:

On the home-front: FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap is married to Sabina Menshell a self-employed “consultant” with a history of donations to Democrat candidates, specifically to Hillary Clinton.

Bill’s wife Sabina comes from a Goldman Sach’s connected family, which must be why Bill and Sabina can afford to live in a $3.2 million home in Washington DC.

Would be a little difficult to afford a $3,000,000.00 mortgage on a G-Man’s payroll.

Just sayin’…

A Curious Case of Counterintelligence – Bill Priestap…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/15/a-curious-case-of-counterintelligence-bill-priestap/

Who is FBI’s Bill Priestap and Why Is He Important?

Who is FBI’s Bill Priestap and Why Is He Important?

Bill Priestap, and as we have learned – it’s best to also review an individuals spouse while we’re at it.

( link )

First, Let’s get a little background information on Bill Priestap

[1]

12/2015 – FBI Director James B. Comey named E.W. “Bill” Priestap as the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, D.C. Mr. Priestap most recently served as the deputy assistant director of the Intelligence Operations Branch in the Directorate of Intelligence at FBIHQ.

6/2017 – Congress hears sinister tale of Russia election meddling

A sinister portrait of Russia’s cyberattacks on the U.S. emerged Wednesday as current and former U.S. officials told Congress that Moscow stockpiled stolen information and selectively disseminated it during the 2016 presidential campaign to undermine the American political process.

The Russians “used fake news and propaganda and they also used online amplifiers to spread the information to as many people as possible,” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s top counterintelligence official (Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division), told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

While he said the Russians had conducted covert operations targeting past American elections, the Internet “has allowed Russia to do so much more” than before. But, he added, the “scale and aggressiveness” was different this time, with the primary goal being to sow discord and aid the candidacy of Republican Donald Trump, the eventual winner.

Russia’s actions did not change the final election count, they said, but warned that Moscow’s efforts will likely continue.

“I believe the Russians will absolutely try to continue to conduct influence operations in the U.S.,” which will include cyberattacks, Priestap said. [2]

[3]

Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the “Russian Dossier”.

Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying documents that were used for both FISA applications (June/July and Sept/Oct). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation doesn’t happen. Comey’s testimony is also evidence of Priestap’s importance. In addition, when Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified (w/ James Clapper), she too spoke of the important of Priestap as her liaison and contact within the FBI on the counterintelligence operation. [Yates never mentioned Peter Strzok – not once.]


Even though it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who interviewed Michael Flynn on January 24th,  Sally Yates never mentioned him. EVER. However Deputy AG Sally Yates did talk about Bill Priestap during her testimony. Yates said she and Bill Priestap traveled together, January 26th, 2017, to the White House to inform Don McGhan (WH Counsel) of Michael Flynn “misleading statements” (based on Pence media reports and Flynn prior ambush interview Jan 24th).
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. So you can see that this man is a central figure. Comey defers to him; Yates relied on him; Strzok reports to him; etc.
Yet there’s no mention of Bill Priestap in any of the explosive investigative story-lines in the past two weeks. Why?
Bill Priestap is FBI Director of Counterintelligence. There’s no way he hasn’t been caught inside the investigative net. Priestap’s boss, Andrew McCabe has been caught. His subordinate, Peter Strzok, has most certainly been caught. And previously FBI Director Comey pushed him in front of the bus.

Either Priestap is going to be the attempted fall-guy for the entire scheme.
-OR-
Bill Priestap saw the bus coming and is assisting the scheme investigators.

Oops. We don’t want to forgot Bill’s spouse

Sabina Menschel
FBI Director of Counterintelligence is married to Sabina Menshell a self-employed “consultant” with a history of donations to Democrat candidates, specifically to Hillary Clinton.

[4]

When practiced by the former, it’s the trade of spooks and spies. In the latter, it’s the job of investigators. Forget about the godda**ed martinis and nice cars. Unless, of course, you’re compelled to look into the irregularities within the liquor and automotive markets.

Now here’s Sabina Menschel with Investigative Due Diligence: Beyond Google. A few months after joining the private investigations firm Nardello & Co., she published one of 2015’s underrated gems that explained the how to of her livelihood.  Ms. Menschel certainly knows what she’s writing about given her background.

A veteran of the top corporate intelligence firm in North America with stints in the FBI and Harvard Business School credentials, Menschel was a catch for Nardello & Co., which has offices in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and China.

What Menschel does in her short article is break down investigative work into three broad activities. These are Googling it, looking at public documents, and asking questions. [5]

[1] CNBC

[2] USAToday

[3] Bipartisan Report

[4] Nardello & Co.

[5] 21st Century Asian Arms Race

https://americandigitalnews.com/2017/12/15/fbis-bill-priestap-important/#.Wm-01K6nGUk

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe stepping down

WASHINGTON — FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has been attacked by President Donald Trump, stepped down Monday, multiple sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

McCabe will remain on the FBI payroll until he is eligible to retire with full benefits in mid-March, the sources said.

One source said McCabe was exercising his retirement eligibility and characterized his decision as “stepping aside.”

Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy Director of the FBI 2:44

McCabe has been at the center of ongoing tensions between the White House and the FBI and has reportedly been under pressure to quit from Trump, whose presidential campaign is being investigated for possible collusion with Russia.

Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he met with McCabe in the Oval Office and asked him whom he had voted for in the 2016 election.

Trump, the officials told The Post, also vented his anger at McCabe over hundreds of thousand dollars in donations that his wife, a Democrat, received for her failed 2015 Virginia state Senate bid from a political action committee controlled by a close friend of Hillary Clinton.

A long-time career servant, McCabe had served at the FBI since 1996 under former directors Robert Mueller and Comey.

Trump did not answer Monday when asked if he knew McCabe was stepping aside.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said later Monday that the White House had seen reports about McCabe’s decision, but that Trump had no involvement in it.

Trump, Sanders said, “didn’t play a role in any of that process” and she referred questions to the FBI.

In recent weeks, Trump has taken aim at McCabe, whose office first arranged the FBI’s interview with then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn was fired after just 24 days on the job and pleaded guilty last month to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with the Russia investigation.

Last week, White House spokesman Raj Shah fanned reports of pressure from the White House to fire McCabe by saying in a statement that Trump “believes politically motivated senior leaders” of the FBI “have tainted the agency’s reputation for unbiased pursuit of justice” and that the new director he appointed will “clean up the misconduct at the highest levels of the FBI.”

Trump has also repeatedly attacked McCabe on Twitter.

“How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?” Trump tweeted on Dec. 23.

“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!” he added.

In July, Trump tweeted: “Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got…….big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!”

Critics of Trump have characterized his attacks on the FBI as an effort to undermine the Russia investigation — and they began weighing in on McCabe’s departure just moments after news of it broke.

Rep. Swalwell warns Trump admin over McCabe departure 4:09

“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is, and has been, a dedicated public servant who has served this country well,” former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted Monday. “Bogus attacks on the FBI and DOJ to distract attention from a legitimate criminal inquiry does long term, unnecessary damage to these foundations of our government.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told MSNBC that if McCabe was departing “for any reason other than personal, this is going to be a problem” because of the president’s “desire to remove people who he perceives to stand in the way of him being cleared in the Russia investigation.”

Meanwhile, news of McCabe’s decision came as GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee were debating whether to make public a classified document that is believe to detail that the FBI engaged in surveillance abuses. Some Republicans want to release the memo, a move the Justice Department says would be reckless and that Democrats maintain is a stunt to undermine the Russia probe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-stepping-down-n842176

Leadership & Structure

FBI Executives

The official portrait of Christopher Wray, who became the Director of the FBI on August 2, 2017.

Director Christopher Wray

August 2, 2017 – Present

Christopher Wray became the eighth Director of the FBI on August 2, 2017.

Mr. Wray was born in New York City. He graduated from Yale University in 1989 and earned his law degree from Yale Law School in 1992. He then clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In 1993, he began working in private practice in Atlanta, Georgia.

Mr. Wray began his Department of Justice career in 1997 as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, where he prosecuted cases ranging from public corruption to gun trafficking and financial fraud. In 2001, he joined the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, where he served as associate deputy attorney general and then principal associate deputy attorney general, with oversight responsibilities spanning the full Department.

In 2003, Mr. Wray was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. In addition to overseeing criminal matters, Mr. Wray played a key role in the evolving national security mission of the Department. He also served on the President’s Corporate Fraud Task Force and supervised the Enron Task Force and other major national and international fraud investigations. At the conclusion of his tenure, Mr. Wray was awarded the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the Department of Justice’s highest award for leadership and public service.

After leaving the Department of Justice in 2005, Mr. Wray returned to private practice at the law firm King & Spalding, where he chaired the Special Matters and Government Investigations Practice Group.


Senior Staff


Office of the Director/Deputy Director/Associate Deputy Director

FBI Headquarters Building at Night

Executive Assistant Directors and Assistant Directors

National Security Branch - Eagle

National Security Branch 


National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force

Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch 


FBI Intelligence Analyst

Intelligence Branch 

  • Executive Assistant Director – Joshua D. Skule
  • Directorate of Intelligence – John S. Adams

Two Lab Technicians

Science and Technology Branch 


FBI Agent Works on Laptop in Vehicle

Information and Technology Branch 

  • Executive Assistant Director – James L. Turgal, Jr.
  • IT Applications and Data Division – Tracey North
  • IT Enterprise Services Division – Jeremy Wiltz
  • IT Infrastructure Division – W. L. Scott Bean, III

Human Resources Stock Image

Human Resources Branch 

  • Executive Assistant Director – Valerie Parlave
  • Human Resources Division – David Schlendorf
  • Security Division – Gerald “Jerry” Roberts, Jr.
  • Training Division – David Resch

Story 2: House Intelligence Committee Votes To Release The 4-Page Memo On FBI Plot Against Candidate and President Trump — Videos

Judge Nap on 4 Page Memo and Mueller-Trump Interview

Ex-Secret Service Agent Warns What Democrats Are About To Do With The FISA Memo

Fisa memo.SEE WHY OBAMA IS SCARED OF RELEASE “EX SECRET SERVICE AGENT”

YOU’RE SO DUMB!!! Tucker Carlson OBLITERATES Adam Schiff In A Heated Conversation

 

House Intel votes to release controversial surveillance memo to the public

The House Intelligence Committee on Monday evening voted to release a classified memo circulating in Congress that purportedly reveals government surveillance abuses.

The vote was announced to reporters by California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, who called it a “very sad day, I think, in the history of this committee.”

President Trump now has five days to decide whether he has any objections before the memo can be publicly released.

Last week, a top Justice Department official urged House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes not to release the memo, saying it would be “extraordinarily reckless” and could harm national security and ongoing investigations.

The four-page memo is being described by GOP lawmakers as “shocking,” “troubling” and “alarming,” with one congressman likening the details to KGB activity in Russia.

Those who have seen the document suggest it reveals what role the unverified anti-Trump “dossier” played in the application for a surveillance warrant on at least one Trump associate.

The vote came the same day that it was reported that FBI official Andrew McCabe has left his post as deputy director.

The White House seems to favor the memo’s release, but wouldn’t explicitly say whether the president will back the effort.

“We want full transparency,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday. “That’s what we have said all along.”

Sanders said they were letting the process play out before officially weighing in.

On Sunday, FBI Director Christopher Wray went to the Capitol on Sunday to view the four-page memo, sources told Fox News.

According to one source, Wray was asked to point out inaccuracies or other issues with the wording — and said he would need “his people to take a look at it.” The source said the review is ongoing.

South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, who helped write the four-page memo, said Sunday he wants it made public.

He also suggested the memo indeed addresses whether the FBI relied at least in part on the dossier — paid for partially by Democrats and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election — to apply to a secret federal court to get a surveillance warrant, purportedly on then-Trump adviser Carter Page.

“If you … want to know whether or not the dossier was used in court proceedings, whether or not it was vetted before it was used. … If you are interested in who paid for the dossier … then, yes, you’ll want the memo to come out,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday.”

The dossier was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and contained opposition research on Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Steele was hired by the U.S. firm Fusion GPS, which commissioned the research with funding from the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. At the same time, the firm was allegedly doing work to help the Russian government fight sanctions.

Requests for surveillance warrants are made through the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, also known as the FISA court, and target suspected foreign spies inside the United States.

Fox News’ Joseph Weber and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/29/house-intel-votes-to-release-controversial-surveillance-memo-to-public.html

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023

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.”

Mr. Trump’s path to citizenship would also include requirements for work, education and “good moral character,” which has long been one of the requirements for naturalization in the U.S. That status could be revoked in the case of criminal conduct, public safety concerns or dependency on the government for subsistence, such as cash assistance.

When the president suggested he would be in favor of a plan late Wednesday before leaving for Davos, the conservative website Breitbart.com ran a headline referring to Mr. Trump as “Amnesty Don.”

But Mr. Trump has long said he was open to protecting Dreamers, and the White House is betting that his supporters will overlook those concessions if he can secure funding for a border wall. While Mr. Trump promised voters he would make Mexico pay for the wall, his plan instead asks Congress to find $25 billion for a trust fund that future lawmakers couldn’t divert to other programs.

The total price tag on Mr. Trump’s plan for border security—along both the southern and northern border—would cost billions more, White House officials said. Asked if it would cost another $5 billion, one White house official said that amount was “in the ballpark.”

Additional border security measures the president is seeking include standardizing treatment of undocumented immigrants, regardless of country of origin; expediting removal of those who overstayed their visa; and hiring additional border agents, immigration judges, and prosecutors.

“A expeditious removal process is going to be a huge deterrent for new people coming in illegally, which will many, many, many lives,” a senior administration official said. “Once people see there is predictability in the system, they will stop coming in illegally.”

On family-based immigration, Mr. Trump’s plan would restrict so-called chain migration to only spouses and minor children. The administration argues that successive rounds of family-based admissions tilts the immigrant pool away from young, skilled workers best equipped to prosper and assimilate.

Those who have already applied for family-based immigration would be allowed to continue through the process, under Mr. Trump’s plan.

Some of that backlog would be cleared by using slots from the Diversity Visa Lottery. The president called for an end to the process, a marginal visa program once tied to efforts to help Irish migrants, after it was used by the man accused of driving a rented truck through a crowd of cyclists and pedestrian in New York City.

Ending the program would also free up visas to be used for skilled migrants, a White House official said.

“The president campaigned pretty hard on immigration—this is something he’s given on,” a senior White House official said, calling the proposal, “kind of a bottom line for the president.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-try-to-narrow-focus-of-an-immigration-deal-1516903971

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, met with the young unauthorized immigrants known as Dreamers and their supporters outside the Capitol last week. CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump proposed legislation on Thursday that would provide a path to citizenship for as many as 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants in exchange for an end to decades of family-based migration policies, a costly border wall and a vast crackdown on other immigrants living in the country illegally.

Describing the plan as “extremely generous” but a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, White House officials said they hoped it would be embraced by conservatives and centrists in Congress as the first step in an even broader effort to fix the nation’s immigration system.

Officials said the legislation would pave the way to citizenship not only for the 690,000 people who had signed up for protection under an Obama-era program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, but also for another 1.1 million undocumented immigrants who would have qualified for the program but never applied. Mr. Trump ended the DACA program, whose protections did not include a path to citizenship, last September.

But the new plan — drafted by Stephen Miller, the president’s hard-line domestic policy adviser, and John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff — was immediately rejected by Democrats, immigration advocates and some Republicans, with some describing it as nothing but an attempt to rid the country of immigrants and shut the nation’s borders.

Republican and Democratic senators are working on a narrower immigration plan of their own. They hope that if it can pass the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority, it will put pressure on the House — where attempts at immigration overhauls have died in recent years — to pass the legislation as well.

Senate passage of a bipartisan bill could perhaps leave Mr. Trump with the take-it-or-leave-it decision. Just over two weeks ago, in a televised negotiating session at the White House, Mr. Trump said he would sign anything that got to him.

Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — Republicans who have in the past fought against hard-line immigration policies — said the Senate was unlikely to simply accept the president’s legislation.

“We’re getting started without them,” Mr. Flake said. Mr. Graham said bluntly, “This is a negotiation.”

Members of both parties said that legislation would have a better chance of passing if it focused on legal status for DACA recipients without a dramatic crackdown on illegal immigrants or new restrictions on legal immigration for extended family members.

“If you start putting in all of these highly charged toxic issues, it’s just not going to work,” said Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida.

Anti-immigration activists also assailed the plan, though for the opposite reason. Breitbart News greeted word of the president’s plan with the headline “Amnesty Don Suggests Citizenship for Illegal Aliens.”

Under Mr. Trump’s plan, described to reporters by senior White House officials, young immigrants who were brought into the United States illegally as children would be granted legal status, would be allowed to work, and could become citizens over a 10-to-12-year period if they remained out of trouble with the law.

In exchange, Congress would have to create a $25 billion trust fund to pay for a southern border wall, dramatically increase immigration arrests, speed up deportations, crack down on people who overstay their visas, prevent citizens from bringing their parents to the United States, and end a State Department program designed to encourage migration from underrepresented countries.

White House officials said that the list of enhanced security measures — which have been on anti-immigration wish lists for decades — were nonnegotiable. They warned that if no deal is reached, DACA recipients will face deportation when the program fully expires on March 5.

One senior official said the young immigrants would not be targeted, but are “illegal immigrants” who would be processed for deportation if they came into contact with immigration officers.

Eddie Vale, a Democratic consultant working with a coalition of immigration groups, described the president’s proposal as an effort to sabotage bipartisan talks and win passage of “a white supremacist wish list.”

Officials said the president’s decision to formally present a plan to Congress was a direct response to members of Congress, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who had complained that they did not know where the president stood in the immigration debate.

“We’re basically signaling that this is the bill the president can sign,” one senior official said during the briefing.

Officials said they expected Mr. McConnell to bring the president’s plan to the Senate floor for a vote during the week of Feb. 5, just days before the Feb. 8 expiration of a short-term government spending plan.

The president’s legislative proposal is designed to exert maximum pressure on Democrats, who are desperate to protect the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, but who fiercely oppose the policies embraced by hard-liners like Mr. Miller.

The strategy would work only if the Senate fails to reach a broad bipartisan accord on an alternative: legislation that would protect the Dreamers and bolster border security, but reject the most draconian aspects of the White House’s proposal.

Mr. Trump hinted at the proposal to come on Wednesday evening in impromptu comments suggesting that he was open to allowing some of the young immigrants to become citizens in 10 to 12 years. But his comments were quickly followed on Thursday morning by a White House email warning of a flood of immigrants into the country and demanding an end to policies that allow families to sponsor the immigration of their immediate relatives.

And even as Mr. Trump was offering reassuring words to the Dreamers — “tell them not to worry,” he told reporters Wednesday evening — senior White House officials were emphasizing the more hard-line features of their forthcoming immigration proposal.

In September, Mr. Trump ended the DACA program and set it to expire at the beginning of March, when recipients would no longer be able to work legally in the United States and would once again face the threat of deportation.

Democratic lawmakers and activists say they will refuse to accept any proposal that requires them to forsake the well-being of other immigrants, including the parents of the Dreamers, to secure the fate of the young immigrants themselves.

“It is shameful that the White House is holding these youth hostage in exchange for their extreme immigration agenda,” said Kevin Appleby, the senior director of international migration policy for the Center for Migration Studies.

On Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators calling itself the Common Sense Coalition gathered in the office of Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, to discuss the immigration issue. At issue is the scope of the bill. Some senators want to draft a narrow bill that bolsters border security and codifies protections now extended to DACA recipients, which do not include a path to citizenship. Others say the legislation should take Mr. Trump up on his offer of citizenship, but to do that, lawmakers might have to take the rest of the White House’s deal.

“Do we simply codify what DACA is and extend it out over a period of time, or do we try to go farther than that as the president is suggesting?” asked Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota. “If you do that, you have to address the issue of chain migration, and that’s where it becomes a lot more complicated.”

Hard-liners, apparently led by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, say the White House’s strategy needs to be considered — and that means four elements: Dreamers; border security and a wall; chain migration; and an end to the diversity visa lottery.

“Everybody wants to alter reality in a way that sort of suits their needs,” Mr. Cornyn said. “But the reality is the president said there has to be four pillars. People just need to accept that and deal with it.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Mr. Graham have been leading bipartisan talks on immigration. Their initial proposal — which did not include the president’s more hard-line proposals — was rejected by Mr. Trump during a White House meeting in which the president used vulgarities to describe Africans.

872COMMENTS

On Wednesday night, Mr. Graham held a meeting with a far larger group of about 30 senators. They decided that Mr. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, and Mr. Cornyn would each function as a clearinghouse for ideas on immigration from their respective parties.

“We’ve got more people in the room, which is good,” Mr. Graham said. “We’re getting more input. We’ve just got to turn it into more output.”

  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-immigration-plan-white-house.html

 

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.”

Mr. Trump’s path to citizenship would also include requirements for work, education and “good moral character,” which has long been one of the requirements for naturalization in the U.S. That status could be revoked in the case of criminal conduct, public safety concerns or dependency on the government for subsistence, such as cash assistance.

When the president suggested he would be in favor of a plan late Wednesday before leaving for Davos, the conservative website Breitbart.com ran a headline referring to Mr. Trump as “Amnesty Don.”

But Mr. Trump has long said he was open to protecting Dreamers, and the White House is betting that his supporters will overlook those concessions if he can secure funding for a border wall. While Mr. Trump promised voters he would make Mexico pay for the wall, his plan instead asks Congress to find $25 billion for a trust fund that future lawmakers couldn’t divert to other programs.

The total price tag on Mr. Trump’s plan for border security—along both the southern and northern border—would cost billions more, White House officials said. Asked if it would cost another $5 billion, one White house official said that amount was “in the ballpark.”

Additional border security measures the president is seeking include standardizing treatment of undocumented immigrants, regardless of country of origin; expediting removal of those who overstayed their visa; and hiring additional border agents, immigration judges, and prosecutors.

“A expeditious removal process is going to be a huge deterrent for new people coming in illegally, which will many, many, many lives,” a senior administration official said. “Once people see there is predictability in the system, they will stop coming in illegally.”

On family-based immigration, Mr. Trump’s plan would restrict so-called chain migration to only spouses and minor children. The administration argues that successive rounds of family-based admissions tilts the immigrant pool away from young, skilled workers best equipped to prosper and assimilate.

Those who have already applied for family-based immigration would be allowed to continue through the process, under Mr. Trump’s plan.

Some of that backlog would be cleared by using slots from the Diversity Visa Lottery. The president called for an end to the process, a marginal visa program once tied to efforts to help Irish migrants, after it was used by the man accused of driving a rented truck through a crowd of cyclists and pedestrian in New York City.

Ending the program would also free up visas to be used for skilled migrants, a White House official said.

“The president campaigned pretty hard on immigration—this is something he’s given on,” a senior White House official said, calling the proposal, “kind of a bottom line for the president.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-try-to-narrow-focus-of-an-immigration-deal-1516903971

End Chain Migration

 

Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate to the United States because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to sponsor their non-nuclear family members.

It is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in the U.S. to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America’s current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, and school overcrowding that damage Americans’ quality of life.

HOW CHAIN MIGRATION WORKS

 

Chain Migration starts with a foreign citizen chosen by our government to be admitted on the basis of what he/she is supposed to offer in our national interest. The Original Immigrant is allowed to bring in his/her nuclear family consisting of a spouse and minor children. After that, the chain begins. Once the Original Immigrant and his/her spouse becomes a U.S. citizen, they can petition for their parents, adult sons/daughters and their spouses and children, and their adult siblings.

The Family-Chain categories are divided into four separate preferences:

  • 1st Preference: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 2nd Preference: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of green card holders (capped at 114,000/year)
  • 3rd Preference: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 4th Preference: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children (capped at (65,000/year)

CHAIN MIGRATION LEADS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

 

Due to Chain Migration, distant relatives of original immigrants may come to see immigration as a right or entitlement. When they realize that they may, in fact, have to wait years for a visa to become available because of annual caps and per-country limits on several of the family-based immigration categories, many decide to come illegally while they wait for their turn.

According to recent Visa Bulletins prepared by the U.S. Department of State, green cards are currently being issued to Philippino-born adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (the fourth preference under the family-sponsored categories) who first filed their green card applications in the early-1990s. While these adult family members are guaranteed green cards under current law, the wait time is so long, these family members instead choose to come to the United States and remain here illegally until their green card becomes available. In fact, the long wait times created by Chain Migration was one factor leading to Congress’ decision to increase the annual caps on legal immigration in 1990.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF CHAIN MIGRATION

 

Immigration Act of 1924 — Congress exempted spouses and unmarried adult children between 18-21 from per-country quotas

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — Congress created chain categories for parents, adult children, and adult siblings in a limited number of countries. Highly-educated or skilled immigrants, however, received priority.

Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) — Congress extended the chains to every country of the world and reversed the priority so that the chain categories had preference over skill categories.

Immigration Act of 1990 — Congress raised the caps on chain categories.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act established a four-category selection system for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere (Northern and Western Europe were heavily favored). As in the past, the Western Hemisphere was not subject to numerical limitations. The first preference, accounting for 50 percent of all green cards issues, went to skilled immigrants. The next three categories were divided among specified relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens.

  • 30 percent were made available to parents of U.S. citizens aged 21 or older.
  • 20 percent were made available to the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents.
  • Unused visas (capped at 25 percent per country) were made available to adult siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens.

From “A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy” by Joyce Vialet, Congressional Research Service, December 22, 1980:

Although U.S. immigration policy incorporated family relationships as a basis for admitting immigrants as early as the 1920s, the promotion of family reunification found in current law originated with the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, P.L. 82-414). While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924, it also established a hierarchy of family-based preferences that continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy today, including prioritizing spouses and minor children over other relatives and relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful permanent residents (LPRs).

Immigration numbers soared during the second half of the 1950s and early-1960s, with more than half of all immigration coming from the Western Hemisphere which was not subject to numerical limitations. According to the Congressional Research Service:

The gradual recognition that the national origins quota system was not functioning effectively as a means of regulating immigration was an important factor leading to the major policy revision which came in 1965.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made two significant changes that, in combination with the chain categories, doubled immigration over the next 25 years.

  • Revised the means by which immigration was regulated by replacing the national origin quotas with annual limits:
    • 170,000 annual limit for the Eastern Hemisphere
      • 20,000 per country
    • 120,000 annual limit for the Western Hemisphere
      • 20,000 per country (added in 1976)
  • Reversed the priority system for the Eastern Hemisphere so the chain categories gained preference over education and skills.
    • Amendments in 1976 applied the preference system to the Western Hemisphere as well.

In 1976, Congress amended the 1965 bill by reversing the priority system — family-sponsored then employment-based — for both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Then, In 1978, Congress ended the per-county limits and replaced them with a single worldwide cap of 290,000. Through passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress reduced the worldwide cap to 270,000, but removed Refugees as a preference.

The 1990 Immigration Act raised the annual caps on these chain categories in bold (P.L. 101-649, Section 111):

  • unlimited for parents of adult U.S. citizens
  • 23,400 for unmarried adult children of citizens
  • 114,200 for spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents; and unmarried adult children of LPRs (with 77% reserved for spouses and minor children)
  • 23,400 for married children of citizens
  • 65,000 for adult siblings of citizens age 21 and over

THE SOLUTION: RAISE ACT

 

The Immigration Act of 1990 called for a bi-partisan commission to “review and evaluate the impact of this Act and the amendments made by this Act” and to issue findings and recommendations on (among other things) the “impact of immigration…on labor needs, employment, and other economic and domestic conditions in the United States.”

The commission, chaired by Barbara Jordan, recommended the elimination of the chain migration categories.

“Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a compelling national interest, even if they are low-skilled. Reunification of adult children and siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship is not as compelling.” – Barbara Jordan, June 28, 1995

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced legislation that would end Chain Migration based on the Jordan Commission’s recommendations – the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act (S. 354). The bill would reduce legal immigration by up to 50% by ending future chain migration and the diversity visa lottery.

https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/end-chain-migration

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

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

Trump arrives in Davos

Trump meets with Theresa May in Davos

Trump threatens to cut off aid to Palestinians

INVESTING IN AMERICA: President Trump Speaks To World Leaders in Davos

President Trump has dinner with European Business Leaders. Davos. World Economic Forum. Jan 25, 2018

President Donald Trump In Davos For World Economic Forum | NBC News

Davos Notebook: Here’s why Trump is at the World Economic Forum

🔴 LIVE: President Trump at DAVOS World Economic Forum 2018 Switzerland

What is Davos?

What is Davos? | CNBC Explains

World Economic Forum opens in Davos

Who’s attending WEF 2018? | Business Today

We want peace and prosperity’ says Trump as he storms Davos with offers of better trade deals and pleas for big business to invest in America

  • President Donald Trump has arrived to Switzerland to participate in the Davos economic conference 
  • Members of his cabinet arrived in advance and joined in panels and interviews 
  • He told reporters, ‘We want great prosperity and we want great peace’
  • He will push his ‘America First’ agenda and seek more fair, reciprocal trade between the US and its allies
  • ‘America first is not America alone,’ said White House senior economic adviser Gary Cohn
  • Trump met British Prime Minister Theresa May after canceling a visit to the UK earlier this month
  • The president and Prime Minster shook hands after reaffirming the ‘Special Relationship’ between the nations
  • Trump said that he would ‘fight’ for Britain and said that any rumors of a fracture in relations were false 
  • Met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who thanked Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as capital
  • He will also attend a reception the White House has said will be held in his honor and meets with CEOs
  • Trump said before departing that he was ‘looking forward’ to speaking to special counsel Robert Mueller
  • Trump, never invited as a businessman, will be the first president to attend Davos since Bill Clinton in 2000
  • The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip on short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star

‘I think the real message is we want great prosperity and we want great peace,’ Trump said after holding back-to-back meetings with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 ‘And I think that really is the message,’ Trump told pool reporters who trailed him at each scheduled meeting at the gathering of bigwigs in the snowy Alpine town.

Trump also renewed his public pitch for investors to pour money into the U.S. ‘It’s been going really well. A lot of people are coming back to the United States. We are seeing tremendous investment,’ he said. ‘And today’s been a very exciting day, very great day and great for our country.

Trump landed on Thursday in Switzerland, where his outsized personality and determination to push an ‘America First’ agenda was upending the annual Davos conference.

To an extent, the annual confab of billionaires and CEOs was centering around Trump even before Air Force One touched down in Zurich, then flew aboard Marine One to Davos in the Swiss Alps.

President Donald Trump says he’s bringing a message of “peace and prosperity” to an annual economic summit in the Swiss Alps

The approximately 40-minute trip took Trump over a snowy countryside dotted with houses, frosted mountains and a glistening lake.

As Trump got off the helicopter in Davos, he gestured to aides who held him by the arms as he walked across the snowy landing zone to his waiting car.

‘We’re very happy to be here,’ Trump said as he arrived. ‘The United States is doing very well, and will continue to do well and this will be a very exciting two days.’

Trump waved to a bank of cameras when he arrived, before being immediately whisked away to the annual gathering of heads of state and business leaders where he had a one-on-one meeting with May.

He then had a meeting with Netanyahu, where the two reaffirmed the historic decision by the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Trump blasted Palestinian leaders for ‘disrespecting’ the U.S.

Before the arrival of Trump it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel who got most of the press as she took on isolationism and protectionism in her remarks here Wednesday, while French President Emmanuel Macron took a dig at Trump over global warming.

Trump’s advisers have said that he will give a full-throated defense of his ‘America First’ policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up.

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

While the president is expected to declare that the United States is open for business, the protectionist-leaning president’s attendance at the annual gathering for free-trade-loving political and business elites has raised eyebrows.

Security was stepped up 

A squadron of helicopters swooped out of a red morning sky and into Zurich airport on Thursday morning ahead of the arrival of President Trump, who was due to stop there before moving on to Davos

President Donald Trump landed Thursday in Switzerland, where his 'America First' agenda is already upending Davos

President Donald Trump landed Thursday in Switzerland, where his ‘America First’ agenda is already upending Davos

President Trump's helicopter touching down in Davos

President Trump leaving his Marine One helicopter in Davos

The President’s ‘Marine One’ helicopter touched down at Davos after taking him to the ski resort from Zurich airport

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

The president was not accompanied by his wife Melania, who pulled out of the trip at short notice following allegations that he had an affair with a porn star.

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport during Trump's arrival at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport during Trump’s arrival at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Marine One carrying US President Donald Trump lands at the heliport prior to the economic conference in Davos

The president's motorcade then made its way through the streets of the town after his helicopter touched down

President Donald Trump is trying to dispel the perception that he and British Prime Minister Theresa May don’t get along

His decision to sign new tariffs boosting American manufacturers this week has prompted fresh concerns about his nationalist tendencies.

Trump also seemed eager to dispel concerns about his global leadership.

‘WE LOVE YOU’: TRUMP GREETS MAY IN DAVOS

Donald Trump vowed to ‘fight for’ Britain today as he and Theresa May put on a gushing show of unity in a bid to kill concerns about the state of the Special Relationship.

The US president stressed the warmth of ties as he met the Prime Minister for talks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, saying they ‘respect each other a lot’ and were on the ‘same wavelength’.

As Mrs May nodded in agreement, Mr Trump said he wanted to correct ‘false rumours’ that they did not get on.

‘I think the feeling is mutual from the standpoint of liking each other a lot,’ he said. ‘We love your country.’

He added: ‘There is nothing that would happen to you that we wont be there to fight for you – you know that.’

Mrs May replied: ‘As you say we had a great discussion today and we continue to have that really special relationship with the United States.

‘We stand shoulder to shoulder because we face the same challenges around the world.’

The effusive praise came despite claims of rising tensions, with reports Mr Trump keeps interrupting the PM on the phone and his state visit invite has turned into a ‘nightmare’. There was an extraordinary public row last year after Mr Trump retweeted anti-Muslim posts by a British Far Right group.

As the leaders sat awkwardly next to each other for photographs this afternoon, they said they would be ‘talking about’ the state visit.

During his meeting with May, Trump said the two leaders have a ‘really great relationship, although some people don’t necessarily believe that.’ He said it was a ‘false rumor’ that the relationship was strained and that he wanted to ‘correct it.’

‘We are very much joined at the hip when it comes to the military. We have the same ideas, the same ideals, and there’s nothing that would happen to you that we won’t be there to fight for you,’ he told May. ‘You know that.’

Trump hosted May at the White House days after he took office.

But he recently canceled a planned trip to London to celebrate the opening of the new U.S. embassy.

And last year, Trump and May traded criticism over his retweets of a far-right group’s anti-Muslim videos.

Britain is eager to strike a free trade deal with the U.S. after it leaves the EU in 2019.

And during his meeting with Netanyahu, Trump said that Palestinians must return to peace talks with Israel in order to receive US aid money.

Trump’s decision last year to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital roiled Arab nations and led Palestinians to refuse to meet with Vice President Mike Pence during his visit to the Mideast this week. Palestinians also declared a new U.S.-led peace push dead, saying Washington can no longer be an honest broker.

Trump says U.S. aid to the Palestinians is ‘on the table’ but they won’t get it ‘unless they sit down and negotiate peace.’

Trump commented as he opened a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an economic summit in Davos, Switzerland.

Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday that U.S. is ready to negotiate an ‘attractive’ trade deal with Britain once the country has left the European Union.

Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda and aversion to multilateral trade agreements would seem at odds with a global summit that stresses free trade and international cooperation.

But U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin got to Davos ahead of Trump and insisted Wednesday that the United States supports free trade.

‘America First’ does mean working with the rest of the world,’ said Mnuchin, who is leading the largest U.S. delegation ever to attend the exclusive gathering. ‘It just means that President Trump is looking out for American workers and American interests, no different than he expects other leaders would look out for their own.’

No hard feelings: U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Theresa May during their meeting on Thursday in Davos

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued that new U.S. tariffs on imported solar-energy components and large washing machines are meant to deal with ‘inappropriate behavior’ by other countries and are not protectionist. Still, Ross conceded that China could respond by imposing its own tariffs on U.S. products.

As he signed the tariffs, Trump said he was heading to Davos to talk ‘about investing in the United States again.’

The president is set to address the forum Friday. He is expected to showcase the booming U.S. economy and measures like his recent tax overhaul, claiming that a thriving America benefits the world. A vocal critic of trade deals he sees as unfair to the United States, Trump will also stress the need for what he sees as fair competition.

The president has criticized global pacts, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade, demanding changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement and announcing his intent to exit the Paris climate accord.

In the lead-up to Trump’s arrival, other leaders at the meeting have argued against any drift toward protectionism in the global economy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said new barriers to trade could pose a danger on a par with climate change and extremist attacks. And Canada’s Justin Trudeau revealed that his country and the 10 remaining members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have revised their trade deal following the U.S. withdrawal.

During his stay in Switzerland, Trump is also planning to hobnob with other world leaders at a reception the White House said is being held in his honor. He’ll also court European business leaders to try to persuade them to invest in the U.S.

But it was Trump’s unexpected comments about Robert Mueller’s Russia probe that made headlines as he took off for Europe.

‘I’m looking forward to it, actually,’ Trump, told reporters in a surprise press availability in the White House. ‘I would do it under oath,’ he said.

DAVOS: WHERE THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL MEET

Every year the world’s political and business leaders are joined by a sprinkling of celebrities gather in Davos for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The Swiss resort town has become shorthand for the meeting, which grew from a small group hosted by German academic Klaus Schwab to an event attended by more than 3,000 participants.

President Donald Trump meets with British Prime Minister Theresa May at the World Economic Forum

President Donald Trump meets with British Prime Minister Theresa May at the World Economic Forum

The WEF describes itself as ‘International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation’ and was founded by economist and engineer Schwab in 1971, the year of the first Davos meeting,

Schwab’s vision was for a body that gave leaders from the world of business and government a chance bring their respective abilities together to spark ideas for solving the world’s economic and social problems.

Politicians themselves were first invited in 1974 and two years later the WEF introduced a membership system for businesses.

The WEF boasts that at Davos, Greece and Turkey held talks to avoid war, East and West Germany discussed unification and North and South Korea held their first ever ministerial meetings.

By and large, though, the summit consists of a lot of meetings where ideas are discussed, which are open to the public.

There are also meetings restricted to paying attendees and also a good deal of behind the scenes deal making.

Companies lay on plenty of food and drink laid to encourage networking among the 900 chief executives and 70 odd world leaders while bands, including in the past The Killers, are on hand to provide entertainment.

For participants, the day often starts with a breakfast invite for 7am and there are parties that last until in the early hours.

To get an invite to Davos you’ll probably have to be a world leader or chief executive and if not then running a socially minded company or NGO.

Or you can get your company to pay 27,000 Swiss francs ($29,000) plus membership of the World Economic Forum and a very expensive hotel.

Trump’s posture – wary of global pacts to fight climate change and blasting global trade deals as a ‘ripoff’ to the U.S. – as adverse to some of the overall sentiment at an event that brings celebrities, U.S. politicians and operatives from both parties, and leaders from around the world together.

The theme of the 2018 conference is ‘Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World.’

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband on the trip. Her office cited logistical issues, and Trump did not announce his own intention to visit until weeks before the event began, leaving staff scrambling to find accommodations for the president’s retinue.

Trump's advisors have forecast that he will give a full-throated defense of his 'America First' policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up 

Trump’s advisors have forecast that he will give a full-throated defense of his ‘America First’ policies in a Friday speech, at a time when the conference is wrapping up

Other than a trip to Mar-a-Lago, the first lady has not been seen with the president since a Wall Street Journal report that Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels just weeks before the 2016 campaign as part of a nondisclosure agreement. Daniels said in previous interviews that have since been published that she had a sexual affair with the president – something Trump denies.

Macron, who is getting a state visit to the U.S. in a high honor, rapped Trump in his opening remarks here.

‘When you arrive here and see the snow, it could be hard to believe in global warming,’ he joked. ‘Obviously you don’t invite anyone skeptical about global warming this year.’

Trump previewed how he would herald the U.S. in a tweet shortly before he took off.

am doing, will only get better…Our country is finally WINNING again!’ he wrote.

Trump’s Commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, has warned new U.S. trade actions could be coming.

But Alibaba CEO Jack Ma warned here: ‘Don’t use trade as a weapon.’ He added: ‘It’s so easy to launch a trade war, but it’s so difficult to stop the disaster of this war.’

Security at the secretive mountain resort of Davos was ramped up on Thursday morning ahead of the arrival of President Trump.

A tight operation was also in place in Zurich, where the President was due to stop briefly before being ferried to Davos, with heavily armoured police vehicles guarding the tarmac.

Helicopters swooped low out of a red morning sky like a scene from Vietnam war film Apocalypse Now ahead of the President’s arrival.

Trump boarded Marine One out of Washington on Wednesday evening and was expected to arrive in Zurich by mid-morning Thursday, before being ferried to Davos.

US helicopters stop to refuel at Zurich airport before escorting Trump to Davos, where he is due to spend the next two days speaking with world and business leaders

US helicopters stop to refuel at Zurich airport before escorting Trump to Davos, where he is due to spend the next two days speaking with world and business leaders

In Davos itself security was also being stepped up, with snipers positioned on rooftops around the ski resort 

A Swiss Army helicopter patrols the skies above Davos, where the World Economic Forum is being held this week

A Swiss Army helicopter patrols the skies above Davos, where the World Economic Forum is being held this week

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband to Davos, due to 'scheduling and logistical issues,' according to her office

First Lady Melania Trump did not accompany her husband to Davos, due to ‘scheduling and logistical issues,’ according to her office

He will spend two days mingling among the ‘globalists’ he spent much of the 2016 election campaign trashing, before delivering a speech on Friday.

The President is expected to push his America First agenda and seek more fair, reciprocal trade deals with allies, having bemoaned chronic trade deficits with many of them in the past.

‘America first is not America alone,’ said White House senior economic adviser Gary Cohn, who is traveling with Trump. ‘When we grow, the world grows; when the world grows, we grow. We’re part of it, and we’re part of a world economy. And the president believes that.’

Trump, never invited as a businessman, will be the first U.S. president to attend Davos since Bill Clinton in 2000.

In the run-up to his trip to Davos, Trump slapped a 30 per cent tariff on imported solar panels, among the first unilateral trade restrictions imposed by the administration as part of a broader protectionist agenda.

Then on Wednesday in Davos, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he welcomed a weakening in the dollar. Fears of protectionist trade policies by the United States had already pushed the greenback to a three-year low, and Mnuchin’s remark pushed it down further.

Trump will use his trip for some diplomacy. In addition to the meetings with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, the president will see Rwandan President Paul Kagame, current chairman of the African Union, and Swiss President Alain Berset on Friday.

Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, North Korea’s nuclear challenge and the battle against Islamic State militants figured to be prominent topics of his meetings.

French President Emmanuel Macron told RTS channel that he had ‘strongly recommended’ to Trump to attend the Davos forum during a recent phone conversation they had on Iran … ‘because I think it’s a good thing for President Trump to explain his strategy for the U.S. and the world here in Davos.

‘And that he encounters some form of confrontation and dialogue,’ Macron said.

Trump will host a small dinner for European business executives on Thursday night.

There is broad concern in European capitals that 2018 could be the year Trump’s bark on trade turns into bite, as he considers punitive measures on steel and threatens to end the 90s-era North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Trump will appeal for increased global investment in the United States to take advantage of corporate tax cuts approved by Congress late in 2017 and Trump’s deregulatory policies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5311077/Security-beefed-Davos-ahead-Trumps-arrival.html#ixzz55Foh1prV

World Economic Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Economic Forum
World Economic Forum headquarters (cropped).jpg

Headquarters in Cologny (Switzerland).
World Economic Forum logo.svg
Motto Committed to improving the state of the world
Formation 1971; 47 years ago
Founder Klaus Schwab
Type Nonprofit organization
Legal status Foundation
Purpose Economic[vague]
Headquarters Cologny, Switzerland
Region served
Worldwide
Official language
English
Klaus Schwab
Website www.weforum.org
Formerly called
European Management Forum

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss nonprofit foundation, based in ColognyGenevaSwitzerland. Recognized by the Swiss authorities as an international body,[1] its mission is cited as “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”.

The forum is best known for its annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, a mountain resort in Graubünden, in the eastern Alps region of Switzerland. The meeting brings together some 2,500 top business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to four days to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world. Often this location alone is used to identify meetings, participation, and participants with such phrases as, “a Davos panel” and “a Davos Man”.[2]

The organization also convenes some six to eight regional meetings each year in locations across Africa, East Asia, and Latin America, and holds two further annual meetings in China, India and the United Arab Emirates. Beside meetings, the foundation produces a series of research reports and engages its members in sector-specific initiatives.[3]

History

Professor Klaus Schwab opens the inaugural European Management Forum in Davos in 1971.

F. W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandelashake hands at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992

Naoto Kan, then Japanese prime minister gives a special message at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, World Economic Forum

Carlos Ghosn, the chairman and CEO of RenaultNissanRenault-Nissan Alliance and the Chairman of AvtoVAZ

The forum was founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, a German-born business professor at the University of Geneva.[4] First named the “European Management Forum”, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts.

In the summer of 1971, Schwab invited 444 executives from Western European firms to the first European Management Symposium held in the Davos Congress Centre under the patronage of the European Commission and European industrial associations, where Schwab sought to introduce European firms to American management practices. He then founded the WEF as a nonprofit organization based in Geneva and drew European business leaders to Davos for the annual meetings each January.[5]

Schwab developed the “stakeholder” management approach, which attributed corporate success to managers actively taking account of all interests: not merely shareholders, clients, and customers, but also employees and the communities within which the firm is situated, including governments.[6] Events in 1973, including the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange rate mechanism and the Arab–Israeli War, saw the annual meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues, and, for the first time political leaders were invited to the annual meeting in January 1974.[7]

Political leaders soon began to use the annual meeting as a neutral platform. The Davos Declaration was signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, helping them turn back from the brink of war. In 1992, South African President F. W. de Klerk met with Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the annual meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 annual meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO chairmanYasser Arafat reached a draft agreement on Gaza and Jericho.[8]

In late 2015, the invitation was extended to include a North Korean delegation for the 2016 forum, “in view of positive signs coming out of the country,” the WEF organizers noted. North Korea has not been attending the WEF since 1998. The invitation was accepted but after the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test on 6 January, the invitation was revoked, and the country’s delegation was made subject to “existing and possible forthcoming sanctions.”[9]Despite protests by North Korea calling the decision by the WEF managing board a “sudden and irresponsible” move, the WEF committee maintained the exclusion because “under these circumstances there would be no opportunity for international dialogue.”[10]

In 2017, the World Economic Forum in Davos attracted considerable attention when for the first time, a head of state from the People’s Republic of China was present at the alpine resort. With the backdrop of Brexit, an incoming protectionist US administration and significant pressures on free trade zones and trade agreements, President Xi Jinping defended the global economic scheme, and portrayed China as a responsible nation and a leader for environmental causes. He sharply rebuked the current populist movements that would introduce tariffs and hinder global commerce, warning that such protectionism could foster isolation and reduced economic opportunity.[11]

Organization

Headquartered in Cologny, the forum also has offices in New York, Beijing and Tokyo. On October 10, 2016, the Forum announced the opening of its new Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco. According to the Forum, the center will “serve as a platform for interaction, insight and impact on the scientific and technological changes that are changing the way we live, work and relate to one another”.[12]

The World Economic Forum strives to be impartial and is not tied to any political, partisan, or national interests. The foundation is “committed to improving the State of the World”.[13] Until 2012, it had observer status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council; it is under the supervision of the Swiss Federal Council. The foundation’s highest governance body is the foundation board.[14]

Erdoğan walks out of the session at the World Economic Forum in 2009.

During its annual meeting, more than 2,500 participants from slightly fewer than 100 countries gather in Davos. Approximately 1,500 are business leaders,[citation needed] drawn from its members, 1,000 of the world’s top companies. Besides these, participants included 219 public figures, including 40 heads of state or government, 64 cabinet ministers, 30 heads or senior officials of international organizations, and 10 ambassadors. More than 432 participants were from civil society, including 32 heads or representatives of non-governmental organizations, 225 media leaders, 149 leaders from academic institutions and think tanks, 15 religious leaders of different faiths, and 11 union leaders.[15][not in citation given]

Membership

The foundation is funded by its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by the level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises.[16] As of 2011, an annual membership costs $52,000 for an individual member, $263,000 for “Industry Partner” and $527,000 for “Strategic Partner”. An admission fee costs $19,000 per person.[17] In 2014, WEF raised annual fees by 20 percent, making the cost for “Strategic Partner” from CHF 500,000 ($523,000) to CHF 600,000 ($628,000).[18]

Activities

Annual meeting in Davos

A sports shop has turned into a temporary informal reception location “Caspian week”, WEF 2018.

The flagship event of the foundation is the invitation-only annual meeting held during the winter at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, bringing together chief executive officers from its 1,000 member companies, as well as selected politicians, representatives from academiaNGOs, religious leaders, and the media in an alpine winter environment. The town is small enough to allow participants to meet anywhere outside the sessions and allows them the greatest opportunities to attend receptions organized by companies and countries.[19] The participants are also taking part in role playing events, such as the Investment Heat Map.[20] Informal winter meetings may have led to as many ideas and solutions as the official sessions.[21] Approximately 2,200 participants gather for the five-day event and attend some of the 220 sessions in the official programme. The winter discussions focus around key issues of global concern (such as the globalization, capital markets, wealth management, international conflicts, environmental problems and their possible solutions).[3]

As many as 500 journalists from online, print, radio, and television take part, with access to all sessions in the official program, some of which are also webcast.[22] Not all the journalists are given access to all areas, however. This is reserved for white badge holders. “Davos runs an almost caste-like system of badges,” according to BBC journalist Anthony Reuben. “A white badge means you’re one of the delegates – you might be the chief executive of a company or the leader of a country (although that would also get you a little holographic sticker to add to your badge), or a senior journalist. An orange badge means you’re just a run-of-the-mill working journalist.”[23]

All plenary debates from the annual meeting also are available on YouTube,[24] with photographs at Flickr,[25][26]

Year Dates Theme
1988 The New State of the World Economy
1989 Key Developments in the 90s: Implications for Global Business
1990 Competitive Cooperation in a Decade of Turblenece
1991 The New Direction for Global Leadership
1992 Global Cooperation and Megacompetition
1993 Rallying all the forces for Global Recovery
1994 Redefining the Basic Assumptions of the World Economy
1995 Leadership for Challenges beyond Growth
1996 Sustaining Globalization
1997 Building the Network Society
1998 Managing Volatility and Priorities for the 21st Century
1999 Responsible Globality: Managing the impact of Globalization
2000 New Beginnings: Making a difference
2001 25–30 January Sustaining Growth and Bridging the Divides: A Framework for Our Global Future
2002 Leadership in Fragile Times
2003 Building Trust
2004 Partnering for Security and Prosperity
2005 26–30 January Taking Responsibility for Tough Choices
2006 25–29 January The Creative Imperative
2007 24–28 January Shaping the Global Agenda, The Shifting Power Equation
2008 23–27 January The Power of Collaborative Innovation
2009 Shaping the Post-Crisis World
2010 27–30 January Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild
2011 Shared Norms for the New Reality
2012 25–29 January The Great Transformation: Shaping New Models
2013 23–27 January Resilient Dynamism[27]
2014 22–25 January The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.
2015 21–24 January New global context
2016 20–23 January Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution
2017 17–20 January Responsive and Responsible Leadership
2018 23–26 January Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World

Participants

Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia, at the 2010 World Economic Forum

In 2011, some 250 public figures (heads of state or government, cabinet ministers, ambassadors, heads or senior officials of international organizations) attended the annual meeting, including: Felipe CalderónRobert B. ZoellickÁlvaro Uribe VélezNicolas SarkozyBan Ki-moonAngela MerkelN. Chandrababu NaiduFerenc GyurcsányFrançois FillonMorgan TsvangiraiGordon BrownDavid CameronMin ZhuPaul KagameQueen Rania of JordanDmitry MedvedevSusilo Bambang YudhoyonoKevin RuddBarney FrankKofi AnnanWerner FaymannLeonel FernándezJacob ZumaCyril RamaphosaNaoto KanJean-Claude Trichet, and Zeng Peiyan.[28]

Al GoreBill ClintonBill GatesBonoPaulo Coelho, and Tony Blair also are regular Davos attendees. Past attendees include Recep Tayyip ErdoganHenry KissingerNelson MandelaRaymond BarreJulian Lloyd WebberSandro SalsanoWences Casares, and Yasser Arafat.

Summer annual meeting[edit]

Wang Jianlin, Chairman of the Dalian Wanda Group, at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Dalian

In 2007, the foundation established the Annual Meeting of the New Champions (also called Summer Davos), held annually in China, alternating between Dalian and Tianjin, bringing together 1,500 participants from what the foundation calls Global Growth Companies, primarily from rapidly growing emerging countries such as China, India, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil, but also including quickly growing companies from developed countries. The meeting also engages with the next generation of global leaders from fast-growing regions and competitive cities, as well as technology pioneers from around the globe.[29][30] The Chinese Premier has delivered a plenary address at each annual meeting.

Regional meetings

Prithviraj Chavan, chief minister of Maharashtra India; Sudha Pilay, member secretary, planning commission, India; and Ben Verwaayen, chief executive officer, Alcatel-Lucent, France were the co-chairs of the India Economic Summit 2011 in Mumbai

Felipe Calderónpresident of Mexico, speaking during Latin America Broadens Its Horizons, a session at the 2007 annual meeting of the World Economic Forum

Every year regional meetings take place, enabling close contact among corporate business leaders, local government leaders, and NGOs. Meetings are held in Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The mix of hosting countries varies from year to year, but consistently China and India have hosted throughout the decade since 2000.[31]

Young Global Leaders

The group’s Forum of Young Global Leaders[32] consists of 800 people chosen by the forum organizers as being representative of contemporary leadership, “coming from all regions of the world and representing all stakeholders in society”, according to the organization. After five years of participation they are considered alumni.

Social Entrepreneurs

Since 2000, the WEF has been promoting models developed by those in close collaboration with the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship,[33] highlighting social entrepreneurshipas a key element to advance societies and address social problems.[34][35] Selected social entrepreneurs are invited to participate in the foundation’s regional meetings and the annual meetings where they may meet chief executives and senior government officials. At the Annual Meeting 2003, for example, Jeroo Billimoria met with Roberto Blois, deputy secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, an encounter that produced a key partnership for her organization Child helpline international.[36]

Global Shapers

In 2011, the World Economic Forum started a global network of people between the ages of 20 and 30 who have shown great potential for future leadership roles in society.[37] The Community of Global Shapers,[38] highlighting Global Shapers, is a network of self-organizing local hubs based in each major city around the world. They undertake events and activities intended by the Global Shapers to generate a positive impact within their local community.

As of 11 July 2016 there are 459 Hubs with more than 6,100 Shapers.[39]

Thirst

“Thirst” is an international non-profit organization based in Beijing, China. It was set up in 2011 through the Water Security Council of the World Economic Forum. The organization educates 14–24-year olds about the idea of embedded water, the water crisis, and sustainable water usage.[40]

Research reports

Two Academy Awardwinner, Pakistani journalist Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy at the forum in 2013

The foundation also acts as a think tank, publishing a wide range of reports. In particular, “Strategic Insight Teams” focus on producing reports of relevance in the fields of competitiveness, global risks, and scenario thinking.

Filipino businessman Zóbel de Ayala at the forum in 2009

The “Competitiveness Team”[41] produces a range of annual economic reports (first published in brackets): the Global Competitiveness Report (1979) measured competitiveness of countries and economies; The Global Information Technology Report (2001) assessed their competitiveness based on their IT readiness; the Global Gender Gap Report examined critical areas of inequality between men and women; the Global Risks Report (2006) assessed key global risks; the Global Travel and Tourism Report (2007) measured travel and tourism competitiveness; the Financial Development Report (2008)[42] aimed to provide a comprehensive means for countries to establish benchmarks for various aspects of their financial systems and establish priorities for improvement; and the Global Enabling Trade Report (2008) presented a cross-country analysis of the large number of measures facilitating trade among nations.[43]

The “Risk Response Network”[44] produces a yearly report assessing risks which are deemed to be within the scope of these teams, have cross-industry relevance, are uncertain, have the potential to cause upwards of US$10 billion in economic damage, have the potential to cause major human suffering, and which require a multi-stakeholder approach for mitigation.[45]

Initiatives

The Global Health Initiative was launched by Kofi Annan at the annual meeting in 2002. The GHI’s mission was to engage businesses in public-private partnerships to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosismalaria, and health systems.

Mohammad Khatami at Economic Forum in 2004

The Global Education Initiative (GEI), launched during the annual meeting in 2003, brought together international IT companies and governments in Jordan, Egypt, and India[46] that has resulted in new personal computer hardware being available in their classrooms and more local teachers trained in e-learning. This is having a significant effect on the lives of children.[citation needed] The GEI model, which is scalable and sustainable, now is being used as an educational blueprint in other countries including Rwanda.

The Environmental Initiative covers climate change and water issues. Under the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, the U.K. government asked the World Economic Forum at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles in 2005 to facilitate a dialogue with the business community to develop recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This set of recommendations, endorsed by a global group of CEOs, was presented to leaders ahead of the G8 Summit in Toyakoand Hokkaido held in July 2008.[47][48]

The Water Initiative brings together diverse stakeholders such as Alcan Inc., the Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationUSAID India, UNDP India, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Government of Rajasthan, and the NEPADBusiness Foundation to develop public-private partnerships on water management in South Africa and India.

In an effort to combat corruption, the Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI) was launched by CEOs from the Engineering and Construction, Energy and Metals, and Mining industries at the annual meeting in Davos during January 2004. PACI is a platform for peer exchange on practical experience and dilemma situations. Approximately 140 companies have joined the initiative.[49]

The Environment and Natural Resource Security Initiative was emphasized for the 2017 meeting to achieve inclusive economic growth and sustainable practices for global industries. With increasing limitations on world tradethrough national interests and trade barriers, the WEF has moved towards a more sensitive and socially minded approach for global businesses with a focus on the reduction of carbon emissions in China and other large industrial nations.[50]

On 19 January 2017 the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a global initiative to fight epidemics, was launched at the forum in Davos. The internationally funded initiative aims at securing vaccine supplies for global emergencies and pandemics, and to research new vaccines for tropical diseases, that are now more menacing. The project is funded by private and governmental donors, with an initial investment of US$460m from the governments of Germany, Japan and Norway, plus the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.[51]

Awards

Technology Pioneers Programme

The Technology Pioneers Programme recognizes companies that are designing and developing new technologies. The award is given to 30–50 companies each year. Since 2000, Technology Pioneers have consisted of more than 400 companies from 5 continents.

The Tech Pioneers are integrated into programme activities with the objective to identify and address future-oriented issues on the global agenda in proactive, innovative, and entrepreneurial ways. By bringing these executives together with scientists, academics, NGOs, and foundation members and partners, the foundation’s goal is to shed new light on how technologies may be used to address, for example, finding new vaccines, creating economic growth, and enhancement of global communication.[52]

Criticism

Protest march against the WEF in Basel, 2006.

The Transnational Institute describes the World Economic Forum’s main purpose as being “to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global eliteglobalization‘s “Mafiocracy” of bankersindustrialistsoligarchstechnocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.”[53]

A study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, investigated the sociological impact of the WEF. It concluded that the WEF do not solve issues such as povertyglobal warmingchronic illness, or debt. They have simply shifted the burden for the solution of these problems from governments and business to “responsible consumers subjects: the bottom-of-the-pyramid consumer, the green consumer, the health-conscious consumer, and the financially literate consumer.” They merely reframe the issues, and by so doing perpetuate them. Gore is singled out as a prime example. Gore’s speeches deliberately shift focus away from the problems of unregulated markets and corporate activities to one of moral pathologies, individual greed, etc. In doing so he is actually promoting the creation of new markets, and hence perpetuating the same old problems in a new guise. New markets will follow the same patterns as the old ones because the core problem of corporate governance is never addressed.[54]

History of criticism

During the late 1990s the foundation, along with the G7World BankWorld Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund, came under heavy criticism by anti-globalization activists who claimed that capitalism and globalization were increasing poverty and destroying the environment. Ten thousand demonstrators disrupted the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, obstructing the path of two hundred delegates to the meeting.[55] Repeatedly, demonstrations are held in Davos (see Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003) to protest against what have been called the meetings of “fat cats in the snow”, a tongue-in-cheek term used by rock singer Bono.[56]

After 2014, the protest movement against the World Economic Forum has largely died down, and Swiss police noted a significant decline in attending protesters, 20 at most during the meeting in 2016. While protesters are still more numerous in large Swiss cities, the protest movement itself has undergone significant change.[57] Around 150 Tibetans and Uighurs protested in Geneva and 400 Tibetans in Bern against the visit of the Chinese president for the 2017 meeting, with subsequent confrontations and arrests.[58]

Public cost of security

In January 2000, a thousand protesters marched through the streets of Davos and smashed the window of the local McDonald’s restaurant.[59] The tight security measures around the campus of Davos have kept demonstrators from the Alpine resort, and most demonstrations were held in ZürichBern, or Basel.[60] The costs of the security measures, which are shared by the foundation and the Swiss cantonal and national authorities, have been criticized in the Swiss national media.[61][62]

Private vs public meetings

Since the annual meeting in January 2003 in Davos, an Open Forum Davos,[63] co-organized by the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, is held concurrently with the Davos forum, opening up the debate about globalization to the general public. The Open Forum has been held in the local high school every year, featuring top politicians and business leaders. It is open to all members of the public free of charge.[64][65]

The annual meeting of the forum also has been decried as a “mix of pomp and platitude” and criticized for moving away from serious economics and accomplishing little of substance, particularly with the increasing involvement of NGOs that have little or no expertise in economics. Instead of a discussion on the world economy with knowledgeable experts alongside key business and political players, the annual meeting of the forum now features the top political topics of the day appearing in media, such as global climate change and AIDS in Africa.[66]

Influence of financial supporters

Faculty member Steven Strauss at the Harvard Kennedy School, has raised an additional concern, pointing out that many of the WEF’s strategic partners (who in return for financing the annual meeting have the ability to set the intellectual agenda for the meeting) have been convicted of serious criminal, civil, or human rights violations, raising significant issues about the forum’s legitimacy as a neutral convener on certain topics.[67]

Public Eye Awards

The Public Eye Award, a former counter-event to the WEF.

The Public Eye Awards have been held every year since 2000. It is a counter-event to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Public Eye Awards is a public competition of the worst corporations in the world. In 2011, more than 50,000 people voted for companies that acted irresponsibly. At a ceremony at a Davos hotel, the “winners” in 2011 were named as Indonesian palm oil diesel maker, Neste Oil in Finland, and mining company AngloGold Ashanti in South Africa.[68] According to Schweiz aktuell broadcast on 16 January 2015, a public presence during the WEF 2015, may not be guaranteed because the massively increased security in Davos. The Public Eye Award will be awarded for the last time in Davos: Public Eyes says Goodbye to Davos, confirmed by Rolf Marugg (now Landrats politician), by not directly engaged politicians, and by the police responsible.[69]

“Davos Man”

“Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. It is similar to the term Masters of the Universe, applied to influential financiers on Wall Street.

Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[70] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[71]

John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama‘s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man.[72]

Gender debate

Since 2011, the World Economic Forum has been addressing its very own gender quota, to introduce at least one woman for every five senior executives that attended. With apparent success, female participation increased significantly from 9% to 15% between 2001 and 2005. In 2016, 18% of the WEF attendees were female, this number increased to 21% in 2017.[73]

Stateless elitism erosion

Hernando de Soto Polar of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy attributes a similar concept to Fernand Braudel,[74] referring to it as the “bell jar”. Although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens.[75]

Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization.[76]

See also

References

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

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

DOJ Has Recovered Missing FBI Texts – Hannity

Mueller probe may blow apart thanks to recovered texts: Tom Fitton

Recovered text messages must have damaging information: Rep. Biggs

BOOM! DOJ Inspector General Strikes Fear Into Trump-Haters At The FBI With Major Discovery

DOJ office says it has found missing text messages of FBI officials

Months of missing text messages between two FBI officials have been located, according a letter obtained by The Hill.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz told Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in a letter that the messages spanning from December 2016 to May 2017, previously thought missing due to a technological glitch affecting FBI phones, have been found.

“The [Office of the Inspector General] has been investigating this matter, and, this week, succeeded in using forensic tools to recover text messages from FBI devices,” the letter read.

The messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have come under scrutiny primarily by GOP lawmakers who say that they are proof of political bias against President Trump in the Russia investigations and in the FBI overall.

The glitch that resulted in their missing messages reportedly affected thousands of FBI phones. In all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at least 50,000 messages were exchanged between Strzok and Page.

Strzok was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election meddling after anti-Trump messages between him and Page were revealed. Strzok also worked on the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Trump weighed in on the missing texts in a tweet earlier this week, calling it “one of the biggest stories in a long time.”

Some GOP lawmakers in recent days have homed in on an exchange in recently recovered texts in which Strzok and Page make reference to a “secret society.” Johnson, one of the senators who has voiced concerns about this exchange, acknowledged Thursday morning the possibility that the “secret society” reference was made in jest.

“Are you even going to give out your calendars?” Page asked Strzok in one of the messages. “Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.”

Horowitz wrote in the letter to Johnson and Grassley that his office will provide copies of the recovered texts to the Justice Department, after which leadership can decide how to proceed with distributing the information to Senate committees. Three congressional committees are investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370711-justice-department-recovers-missing-fbi-agents-text-messages

Tens of thousands of missing texts between the Trump-hating FBI lovers are FOUND by Justice Department – but they are still being kept secret

  • Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, told senior Republican senators Thursday that missing texts were found
  • Months of texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had been said to have disappeared because Samsung 5s and FBI software was not compatible
  • Horowitz made the disclosure to the senators on Thursday morning
  • Contents of the already discovered texts between the lovers have already rocked Washington
  • The lovers, who were both on the Robert Mueller probe, called Trump an ‘idiot’ and revealed bias in favor of Hillary Clinton – whose emails Strzok investigated

Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, told two senior Republican senators, Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson, about the discovery, the Washington Examiner reported.

It came after mounting pressure – including from President Donald Trump – on the FBI to find the cache of as many as 50,000 messages between the two.

The already uncovered messages have sent shockwaves through Washington, with the two calling Trump ‘an idiot’ and suggesting the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton long before the end of her secret server probe.

The contents of the new ones is not being published.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had ordered an investigation by the inspector general into the missing text messages on Tuesday.

Texts between senior counter-terrorism agent Strzok and FBI lawyer Page exchanged between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 17, 2017, had been among a broader batch of missing phone messages that the FBI says its system failed to store because of a software upgrade glitch which affected Samsung 5 cellphones it issued to staff.

The Justice Department last week revealed a critical gap in messages between Peter Strzok, a counterintelligence agent who worked on Hillary Clinton’s email case, and Lisa Page, an agent who worked with Strzok for a time on the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered officials in the Department of Justice to 'leave no stone unturned' in their search for the 50,000 missing texts between the FBI agent and his lawyer lover

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered officials in the Department of Justice to ‘leave no stone unturned’ in their search for the 50,000 missing texts between the FBI agent and his lawyer lover

President Donald Trump put the spotlight back on the FBI agents he'd previously accused of 'treason' in an early-morning tweet

President Donald Trump put the spotlight back on the FBI agents he’d previously accused of ‘treason’ in an early-morning tweet

The White House called them evidence of potential illegality at a briefing on Tuesday, and said the president believes it is of ‘great cause for concern’.

Trump earlier tweeted they were ‘one of the biggest stories in a long time’.

Republicans have said the texts, which referred to Trump as an ‘idiot’ and a ‘loathsome human,’ raise concerns the FBI is biased against Trump and may have given Hillary Clinton, his Democratic presidential rival, favorable treatment after deciding not to recommend criminal charges in connection with the investigation of her use of a private email system while she was secretary of state.

Strzok and Page were involved in that investigation and were briefly assigned to work with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Reports said the texts between them were exchanged on FBI-issued phones during the course of an alleged extramarital affair.

Mueller was appointed on May 17, the same day when some of the text messages were not properly stored.

‘We will leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced and will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source,’ Sessions said in a statement.

President Donald Trump put the spotlight back on the FBI agents he’d previously accused of ‘treason’ in an early-morning tweet.

‘In one of the biggest stories in a long time, the FBI now says it is missing five months worth of lovers Strzok-Page texts, perhaps 50,000, and all in prime time. Wow!’ he said.

His press secretary stepped up the assault later, at her daily briefing, after she was asked if the White House believes that the missing messages are part of a cover-up.

‘I think he thinks that there’s a great cause for concern that five months worth of text messages have gone missing,’ Sarah Sanders said, ‘particularly given the individual had part of that process has already been shown to be extremely biased against the president and was involved in what seems to be some very inappropriate behavior and that’s certainly a great concern.’

Sanders said it ‘looks like there could be some really inappropriate and possibly illegal behavior’ at play.

The Justice Department last week revealed a critical gap in messages between Peter Strzok, a counterintelligence agent who worked on Hillary Clinton‘s email case, and Lisa Page, an agent who worked with Strzok for a time on the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference.

Texts the pair sent each other between December 14, 2017 and May 17, 2017 are missing, the department informed Congress.

Justice has blamed a glitch in its record-keeping system for the blackout.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that Justice is taking all available actions to recover the missing messages.

Not including the missing communications, Fox News reported, the FBI has over 50,000 texts that Strzok, who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team when the original messages were unearthed, and Page, who had already left the investigation, sent to one another.

The messages are expected to be made public by Congress, CBS reported.

Previously published texts show Strzok suggesting the bureau invest in an ‘insurance policy’ in case Trump is elected.

‘I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration…that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,’ he told Page in an August 2016 text.

Lawmakers said Monday that they were shocked by the incomplete record-keeping. The messages from the period of time that was wiped covers the end of the transition to the time that Mueller was tasked with leading a special probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told Fox News yesterday evening that an exchange between Strzok and Page the day after the election said, ”Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society.”

‘So, of course I’m going to want to know: What ‘secret society’ are you talking about?’ the Republican congressman said on ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’

A letter from Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd to Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson on Friday said that the Department of Justice had learned ‘that many FBI-provided Samsung 5 mobile devices did not capture or store text messages.’

The bureau told DOJ that messages were not retained ‘due to misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.’

DOJ’s explanation of how the messages disappeared had Republican lawmakers fuming.

His press secretary stepped up the assault later, at her daily briefing, after she was asked if the White House believes that the missing messages are part of a cover-up. 'I think he thinks that there's a great cause for concern that five months worth of text messages have gone missing,' Sarah Sanders said

His press secretary stepped up the assault later, at her daily briefing, after she was asked if the White House believes that the missing messages are part of a cover-up. ‘I think he thinks that there’s a great cause for concern that five months worth of text messages have gone missing,’ Sarah Sanders said

‘Unreal. We’ve been asking for the remaining text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents (and former Mueller team members), Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The FBI now says the texts are ‘missing,’ ‘ Rep. Mark Meadows, leader of a group of conservatives known as the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted. ‘If it wasn’t already clear we need a second special counsel, it’s abundantly clear now’.

Flabbergasted, Meadows told Fox, ‘They’re supposed to be out tracking terrorism and we can’t even find our own text messages?’

Sessions told congressional committees on Friday that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General is looking into the matter.

‘[A] review is already underway to ascertain what occurred and to determine if these records can be recovered in any other way,’ he said. ‘If any wrongdoing were to be found to have caused this gap, appropriate legal disciplinary action measures will be taken.’

Prior to the revelation that the FBI was missing the large volume of communications, President Trump had attacked Strzok and Page in a Wall Street Journal interview and accused them of ‘treason’ for the way they spoke about him before the election.

‘There was no collusion on our side, the collusion was on the Democrat side with the Russians. And what went on with the FBI, where a man is tweeting to his lover that if she loses, we’ll essentially go back to the – we’ll go to the insurance policy, which is – if they lose, we’ll go to phase two, and we’ll get this guy out of office.

‘I mean, this is the FBI we’re talking about. I think that is—that is treason. See, that’s treason right there,’ he stated.

In December, after Strozk was removed from the special counsel probe because of the text messages, Trump said the FBI’s reputation was in ‘tatters’ because of mismanagement under James Comey, the former director of the bureau the president fired in May.

‘But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness,’ he pledged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5313371/Missing-texts-anti-Trump-FBI-lovers-FOUND.html#ixzz55FnRe2wy

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1021

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 1016, January 10, 2016, Story 1: Renewal of FISA’s Section 702 and Protection of Americans Privacy Rights — National Security Agency Is Spying On American People — Require NSA To Get A Warrant In Court of Law — Support U.S.A. Rights Act — Videos — Story 2: Fusion GPS Dossier and Leaking of Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson Testimony — Videos

Posted on January 10, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Law, Life, Media, National Interest, National Security Agency, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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