Thursday, January 21, 2010

First Time America Isn't Ranket #1 In Economic Freedom This Year The Democrats Took Us Down To #8

 

World Rank: 8 Regional Rank: 2 of 3

United States

Ten Economic Freedoms of United States

91.3Business FreedomAvg 64.675.0Investment FreedomAvg 49.0
86.9Trade FreedomAvg. 74.270.0Financial FreedomAvg 48.5
67.5Fiscal FreedomAvg. 75.485.0Property RightsAvg 43.8
58.0Government SpendingAvg. 65.073.0Fdm. from CorruptionAvg 40.5
78.1Monetary FreedomAvg. 70.694.8Labor FreedomAvg 62.1
Download PDF

Quick Facts

Population:
  • 304.1 million
GDP (PPP):
  • $14.2 trillion
  • 1.1% growth
  • 2.2% 5-year compound annual growth
  • $46,716 per capita
Unemployment:
  • 9.4%
Inflation (CPI):
  • 3.8%
FDI Inflow:
  • $316.1 billion
The United States’ economic freedom score is 78.0, making its economy the 8th freest in the 2010 Index. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. The United States has fallen to 2nd place out of three countries in the North America region.
The U.S. government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index.
Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced stimulus spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by “Buy American” provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Tax rates are increasingly uncompetitive, and massive stimulus spending is creating unprecedented deficits. Bailouts of financial and automotive firms have generated concerns about property rights.

Background Back to the top

The U.S. economy is the world’s largest. Services account for more than 70 percent of economic activity, but the U.S. is also the world’s largest producer of manufactured goods and fourth-largest producer of agricultural products. A federal form of government that reserves significant powers to states and localities has encouraged diverse economic policies and strategies. The national government’s role in the economy, already expanding under President George W. Bush, has grown sharply under the Administration of President Barack Obama, who took office in January 2009. Economic growth, which collapsed in 2008, had resumed by the second half of 2009, but legislative proposals for large and expensive new government programs on health care and energy use (climate change) have increased prospects for significant economic disruptions and raised concerns about the long-term health of the economy.

Business Freedom91.3 Back to the top

The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business, regulated primarily at the state level, is still strongly protected. Starting a business takes six days, compared to the world average of 35 days. Obtaining a business license takes less than the world average of 218 days. Bankruptcy proceedings are very easy and straightforward.

Trade Freedom86.9 Back to the top

The weighted average U.S. tariff rate was 1.5 percent in 2008. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties, domestic preferences in government procurement, high out-of-quota tariffs, services market access restrictions, import licensing, restrictive labeling and standards, and export-promotion programs and subsidies add to the cost of trade. Ten points were deducted from the U.S. trade freedom score to account for non-tariff barriers.

Fiscal Freedom67.5 Back to the top

U.S. tax rates are burdensome. The top income and corporate tax rates are 35 percent. Other taxes include an estate tax and excise taxes. Additional income, sales, and property taxes are assessed at the state and local levels. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 28.3 percent.

Government Spending58.0 Back to the top

Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are relatively high and rising rapidly. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 37.4 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending set for the next three years is estimated to equal 5 percent of 2009 GDP.

Monetary Freedom78.1 Back to the top

Inflation has been relatively low, averaging 3.5 percent between 2006 and 2008. The Federal Reserve cut the interest rate on federal funds to near zero in December 2008, with low rates persisting through 2009. Price controls apply to some regulated monopolies; certain states and localities control residential rents; and the government influences prices through subsidies, particularly for the agricultural sector, dairy products, and some forms of transportation. Government interventions in housing, automotive, and financial markets have substantially increased price distortions. Ten points were deducted from the U.S. monetary freedom score to account for policies that distort domestic prices.

Investment Freedom75.0 Back to the top

Foreign and domestic enterprises are legally equal, and foreign investments face federal screening only if perceived as a potential threat to national security. Foreign investment in banking, mining, defense contracting, certain energy-related industries, fishing, shipping, communications, and aviation is restricted. Regulations are generally transparent; individual states may impose additional restrictions. There are few controls on currency transfers, access to foreign exchange, or repatriation of profits. Foreign investors may own most land, subject to some restrictions.

Financial Freedom70.0 Back to the top

The U.S. financial sector has undergone drastic changes since the sub-prime mortgage crisis began in mid-2007, substantially reducing economic freedom. Mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in conservatorship. A number of prominent financial firms or banks have failed; government bailouts have kept others afloat; and the government has intruded on firms’ management in unprecedented ways (for example, by setting caps on executive compensation). Despite the turmoil, the U.S. still has one of the world’s most dynamic and developed financial markets. Foreign financial institutions and domestic banks are subject to the same restrictions. Foreign participation in equities and insurance is substantial. Concerns continue over the intrusive nature and cost of the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which increased disclosure and internal control requirements to the detriment particularly of small firms.

Property Rights85.0 Back to the top

Property rights are guaranteed. Contracts are secure, and the judiciary is independent and of high quality. A well-developed licensing system protects patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and laws protecting intellectual property rights are strictly enforced. Government interventions in financial markets and the automotive sector have raised concerns about expropriation and violation of the contractual rights of shareholders and bondholders.

Freedom From Corruption73.0 Back to the top

Corruption is perceived as minimal. The U.S. ranks 18th out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2008. The absence of transparency and accountability in the operations of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and in other “bailout” programs managed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has increased concerns about the potential for government corruption.

Labor Freedom94.8 Back to the top

The United States’ labor regulations are highly flexible. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is low, and dismissing an employee is not burdensome.

Economic Freedom Score

United States Economic Freedom Score

Country’s Score Over Time

Bar Graph of United States Economic Freedom Scores Over a Time Period

Economic Freedom vs. World Avg

Bar Graph of United States Economic Freedom Scores

Regional Ranking

RankCountryOverallChange
1Canada80.4-0.1
2United States78-2.7
View all countries »

Ten Economic Freedoms of United States

91.3Business FreedomAvg 64.675.0Investment FreedomAvg 49.0
86.9Trade FreedomAvg. 74.270.0Financial FreedomAvg 48.5
67.5Fiscal FreedomAvg. 75.485.0Property RightsAvg 43.8
58.0Government SpendingAvg. 65.073.0Fdm. from CorruptionAvg 40.5
78.1Monetary FreedomAvg. 70.694.8Labor FreedomAvg 62.1

Download PDF

Quick Facts

Population:
  • 304.1 million
GDP (PPP):
  • $14.2 trillion
  • 1.1% growth
  • 2.2% 5-year compound annual growth
  • $46,716 per capita
Unemployment:
  • 9.4%
Inflation (CPI):
  • 3.8%
FDI Inflow:
  • $316.1 billion
The United States’ economic freedom score is 78.0, making its economy the 8th freest in the 2010 Index. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. The United States has fallen to 2nd place out of three countries in the North America region.
The U.S. government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index.
Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced stimulus spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by “Buy American” provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Tax rates are increasingly uncompetitive, and massive stimulus spending is creating unprecedented deficits. Bailouts of financial and automotive firms have generated concerns about property rights.

Background Back to the top

The U.S. economy is the world’s largest. Services account for more than 70 percent of economic activity, but the U.S. is also the world’s largest producer of manufactured goods and fourth-largest producer of agricultural products. A federal form of government that reserves significant powers to states and localities has encouraged diverse economic policies and strategies. The national government’s role in the economy, already expanding under President George W. Bush, has grown sharply under the Administration of President Barack Obama, who took office in January 2009. Economic growth, which collapsed in 2008, had resumed by the second half of 2009, but legislative proposals for large and expensive new government programs on health care and energy use (climate change) have increased prospects for significant economic disruptions and raised concerns about the long-term health of the economy.

Business Freedom91.3 Back to the top

The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business, regulated primarily at the state level, is still strongly protected. Starting a business takes six days, compared to the world average of 35 days. Obtaining a business license takes less than the world average of 218 days. Bankruptcy proceedings are very easy and straightforward.

Trade Freedom86.9 Back to the top

The weighted average U.S. tariff rate was 1.5 percent in 2008. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties, domestic preferences in government procurement, high out-of-quota tariffs, services market access restrictions, import licensing, restrictive labeling and standards, and export-promotion programs and subsidies add to the cost of trade. Ten points were deducted from the U.S. trade freedom score to account for non-tariff barriers.

Fiscal Freedom67.5 Back to the top

U.S. tax rates are burdensome. The top income and corporate tax rates are 35 percent. Other taxes include an estate tax and excise taxes. Additional income, sales, and property taxes are assessed at the state and local levels. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 28.3 percent.

Government Spending58.0 Back to the top

Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are relatively high and rising rapidly. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 37.4 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending set for the next three years is estimated to equal 5 percent of 2009 GDP.

Monetary Freedom78.1 Back to the top

Inflation has been relatively low, averaging 3.5 percent between 2006 and 2008. The Federal Reserve cut the interest rate on federal funds to near zero in December 2008, with low rates persisting through 2009. Price controls apply to some regulated monopolies; certain states and localities control residential rents; and the government influences prices through subsidies, particularly for the agricultural sector, dairy products, and some forms of transportation. Government interventions in housing, automotive, and financial markets have substantially increased price distortions. Ten points were deducted from the U.S. monetary freedom score to account for policies that distort domestic prices.

Investment Freedom75.0 Back to the top

Foreign and domestic enterprises are legally equal, and foreign investments face federal screening only if perceived as a potential threat to national security. Foreign investment in banking, mining, defense contracting, certain energy-related industries, fishing, shipping, communications, and aviation is restricted. Regulations are generally transparent; individual states may impose additional restrictions. There are few controls on currency transfers, access to foreign exchange, or repatriation of profits. Foreign investors may own most land, subject to some restrictions.

Financial Freedom70.0 Back to the top

The U.S. financial sector has undergone drastic changes since the sub-prime mortgage crisis began in mid-2007, substantially reducing economic freedom. Mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in conservatorship. A number of prominent financial firms or banks have failed; government bailouts have kept others afloat; and the government has intruded on firms’ management in unprecedented ways (for example, by setting caps on executive compensation). Despite the turmoil, the U.S. still has one of the world’s most dynamic and developed financial markets. Foreign financial institutions and domestic banks are subject to the same restrictions. Foreign participation in equities and insurance is substantial. Concerns continue over the intrusive nature and cost of the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which increased disclosure and internal control requirements to the detriment particularly of small firms.

Property Rights85.0 Back to the top

Property rights are guaranteed. Contracts are secure, and the judiciary is independent and of high quality. A well-developed licensing system protects patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and laws protecting intellectual property rights are strictly enforced. Government interventions in financial markets and the automotive sector have raised concerns about expropriation and violation of the contractual rights of shareholders and bondholders.

Freedom From Corruption73.0 Back to the top

Corruption is perceived as minimal. The U.S. ranks 18th out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2008. The absence of transparency and accountability in the operations of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and in other “bailout” programs managed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has increased concerns about the potential for government corruption.

Labor Freedom94.8 Back to the top

The United States’ labor regulations are highly flexible. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is low, and dismissing an employee is not burdensome.

Economic Freedom Score

United States Economic Freedom Score

Country’s Score Over Time

Bar Graph of United States Economic Freedom Scores Over a Time Period

Economic Freedom vs. World Avg

Bar Graph of United States Economic Freedom Scores
World Rank Country Freedom Score Change from Previous   
1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 62 Portugal 64.4 -0.5 123 Côte d'Ivoire 54.1 -0.9
2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 63 Romania 64.2 +1.0 124 India 53.8 -0.6
3 Australia 82.6 0.0 64 France 64.2 +0.9 125 Moldova 53.7 -1.2
4 New Zealand 82.1 +0.1 65 Saudi Arabia 64.1 -0.2 126 Papua New Guinea 53.5 -1.3
5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 66 Thailand 64.1 +1.1 127 Tonga 53.4 -0.7
6 Switzerland 81.1 +1.7 67 Turkey 63.8 +2.2 128 Tajikistan 53.0 -1.6
7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 68 Montenegro 63.6 +5.4 129 Niger 52.9 -0.9
8 United States 78.0 -2.7 69 Madagascar 63.2 +1.0 130 Nepal 52.7 -0.5
9 Denmark 77.9 -1.7 70 Dominica 63.2 +0.6 131 Suriname 52.5 -1.6
10 Chile 77.2 -1.1 71 Poland 63.2 +2.9 132 Cameroon 52.3 -0.7
11 United Kingdom 76.5 -2.5 72 South Africa 62.8 -1.0 133 Mauritania 52.0 -1.9
12 Mauritius 76.3 +2.0 73 Greece 62.7 +1.9 134 Guinea 51.8 +0.8
13 Bahrain 76.3 +1.5 74 Italy 62.7 +1.3 135 Argentina 51.2 -1.1
14 Luxembourg 75.4 +0.2 75 Bulgaria 62.3 -2.3 136 Ethiopia 51.2 -1.8
15 The Netherlands 75.0 -2.0 76 Uganda 62.2 -1.3 137 Bangladesh 51.1 +3.6
16 Estonia 74.7 -1.7 77 Namibia 62.2 -0.2 138 Laos 51.1 +0.7
17 Finland 73.8 -0.7 78 Cape Verde 61.8 +0.5 139 Djibouti 51.0 -0.3
18 Iceland 73.7 -2.2 79 Belize 61.5 -1.5 140 China 51.0 -2.2
19 Japan 72.9 +0.1 80 Kyrgyz Republic 61.3 -0.5 141 Haiti 50.8 +0.3
20 Macau 72.5 +0.5 81 Paraguay 61.3 +0.3 142 Micronesia 50.6 -1.1
21 Sweden 72.4 +1.9 82 Kazakhstan 61.0 +0.9 143 Russia 50.3 -0.5
22 Austria 71.6 +0.4 83 Guatemala 61.0 +1.6 144 Vietnam 49.8 -1.2
23 Germany 71.1 +0.6 84 Samoa 60.4 +0.9 145 Syria 49.4 -1.9
24 Cyprus 70.9 +0.1 85 Fiji 60.3 -0.7 146 Bolivia 49.4 -4.2
25 Saint Lucia 70.5 +1.7 86 Dominican Republic 60.3 +1.1 147 Ecuador 49.3 -3.2
26 Georgia 70.4 +0.6 87 Ghana 60.2 +2.1 148 Maldives 49.0 -2.3
27 Taiwan 70.4 +0.9 88 Mongolia 60.0 -2.8 149 São Tomé and Príncipe 48.8 +5.0
28 Botswana 70.3 +0.6 89 Lebanon 59.5 +1.4 150 Belarus 48.7 +3.7
29 Lithuania 70.3 +0.3 90 Burkina Faso 59.4 -0.1 151 Equatorial Guinea 48.6 -2.7
30 Belgium 70.1 -2.0 91 Morocco 59.2 +1.5 152 Central African Republic 48.4 +0.1
31 South Korea 69.9 +1.8 92 Croatia 59.2 +4.1 153 Guyana 48.4 0.0
32 El Salvador 69.9 +0.1 93 Rwanda 59.1 +4.9 154 Angola 48.4 +1.4
33 Uruguay 69.8 +0.7 94 Egypt 59.0 +1.0 155 Lesotho 48.1 -1.6
34 Czech Republic 69.8 +0.4 95 Tunisia 58.9 +0.9 156 Seychelles 47.9 +0.1
35 Slovakia 69.7 +0.3 96 Azerbaijan 58.8 +0.8 157 Sierra Leone 47.9 +0.1
36 Spain 69.6 -0.5 97 Tanzania 58.3 0.0 158 Uzbekistan 47.5 -3.0
37 Norway 69.4 -0.8 98 Nicaragua 58.3 -1.5 159 Chad 47.5 0.0
38 Armenia 69.2 -0.7 99 Honduras 58.3 -0.4 160 Burundi 47.5 -1.3
39 Qatar 69.0 +3.2 100 Zambia 58.0 +1.4 161 Togo 47.1 -1.6
40 Barbados 68.3 -3.2 101 Kenya 57.5 -1.2 162 Ukraine 46.4 -2.4
41 Mexico 68.3 +2.5 102 Swaziland 57.4 -1.7 163 Liberia 46.2 -1.9
42 Kuwait 67.7 +2.1 103 Bhutan 57.0 -0.7 164 Timor-Leste 45.8 -4.7
43 Oman 67.7 +0.7 104 Serbia 56.9 +0.3 165 Comoros 44.9 +1.6
44 Israel 67.7 +0.1 105 Algeria 56.9 +0.3 166 Kiribati 43.7 -2.0
45 Peru 67.6 +3.0 106 Nigeria 56.8 +1.7 167 Guinea-Bissau 43.6 -1.8
46 United Arab Emirates 67.3 +2.6 107 Cambodia 56.6 0.0 168 Iran 43.4 -1.2
47 The Bahamas 67.3 -3.0 108 Vanuatu 56.4 -2.0 169 Republic of Congo 43.2 -2.2
48 Malta 67.2 +1.1 109 The Philippines 56.3 -0.5 170 Solomon Islands 42.9 -3.1
49 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 66.9 +2.6 110 Bosnia and Herzegovina 56.2 +3.1 171 Turkmenistan 42.5 -1.7
50 Latvia 66.2 -0.4 111 Mozambique 56.0 +0.3 172 Democratic Republic of Congo 41.4 -1.4
51 Hungary 66.1 -0.7 112 Mali 55.6 0.0 173 Libya 40.2 -3.3
52 Jordan 66.1 +0.7 113 Brazil 55.6 -1.1 174 Venezuela 37.1 -2.8
53 Albania 66.0 +2.3 114 Indonesia 55.5 +2.1 175 Burma 36.7 -1.0
54 Costa Rica 65.9 -0.5 115 Benin 55.4 0.0 176 Eritrea 35.3 -3.2
55 Trinidad and Tobago 65.7 -2.3 116 Gabon 55.4 +0.4 177 Cuba 26.7 -1.2
56 Macedonia 65.7 +4.5 117 Pakistan 55.2 -1.8 178 Zimbabwe 21.4 -1.3
57 Jamaica 65.5 +0.3 118 The Gambia 55.1 -0.7 179 North Korea 1.0 -1.0
58 Colombia 65.5 +3.2 119 Senegal 54.6 -1.7 N/A Afghanistan N/A N/A
59 Malaysia 64.8 +0.2 120 Sri Lanka 54.6 -1.4 N/A Iraq N/A N/A
60 Panama 64.8 +0.1 121 Yemen 54.4 -2.5 N/A Liechtenstein N/A N/A
61 Slovenia 64.7 +1.8 122 Malawi 54.1 +0.4 N/A Sudan N/A N/A

Why $ Would $ Anyone $ Lie $ About $ Global $ Warming $ What $ could $ Be $ The $ Motive $Trillions$

KUSI-TV: NASA Manipulated Climate Change Data

January 21, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
NASA allegedly manipulated climate change dataA major embarrassment may be brewing for the U.S. government as researchers have allegedly found evidence that NASA scientists manipulated data in order to claim that the year 2005 was the warmest year on record, KUSI-TV has reported.
The San Diego-based TV station presented these findings in a one-hour special that aired on Jan. 14. It told the story of how computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the government’s two primary climate centers—the National Climate Data Center in Ashville, N.C., and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York.
Smith and D’Aleo claim these centers engaged in data manipulation in order to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by reducing the number and locations of weather observation stations from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now.
"That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," D’Aleo said, with his colleague adding that comparing data from years when the figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures with those produced from a small temperature base "is like comparing apples and oranges."
The revelations follow the controversy that accompanied the recent Climate Summit in Copenhagen and which revolved around leaked emails from environmental scientists casting doubt on the validity of the data behind global warming.
Dubbed "Climategate," the issue prompted some conservative members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to call for the rescinding of the Oscar won by former Vice President Al Gore for the environmental movie An Inconvenient Truth.
When will you Conservacrats kick these Progressives out of your party? Are you going to let them destroy the party your parents voted for? If they pass this health care reform bill and Cap and Trade you will not have a Democrat party worth any value? Can't you non liberal Democrats see what they are doing to the party of JFK? That is the Democrat most Americans align themselves with.

Where Are Those Jobs You Democrats Promised??????Didn't Obama Lie About 8% or Lower Unemployment?????? I Know It's Still Bush's Fault And The Republican Minority Running The Country.



In this photo taken on Wednesday, Dec. 30,2009, Nick Ayrom, from Glendale, Calif., a former high school teacher, looks for technology related jobs on a computer terminal at the Verdugo Job Center on Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009. in Glendale, Calif. The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped unexpectedly last week, a sign the job market is healing as the economy slowly recovers.(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the first time since August, to 448,250.

The weekly claims figure is volatile and it can take time for trends to emerge. A Labor Department analyst said that much of the increase last week was due to administrative backlogs leftover from the winter holidays in the state agencies that process the claims.

Claims have dropped steadily since last fall, as companies cut fewer jobs. That has caused some economists to hope that hiring may increase soon. Initial claims have dropped by 50,000, or almost 10 percent, since late October.

Still, the economy is not consistently generating net increases in jobs. The Labor Department said earlier this month that employers cut 85,000 jobs in December, after adding only 4,000 in November. November's increase was the first in nearly two years.

Many economists say the four week average of claims will need to fall to below 425,000 to signal that the economy is close to generating net job gains.

Meanwhile, the number of people continuing to claim regular benefits dropped slightly to just under 4.6 million. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits customarily provided by states and are now receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.9 million are receiving extended benefits in the week ending Jan. 2, the latest data available, an increase of more than 600,000 from the previous week. The data for emergency benefits lags initial claims by two weeks.

The increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates that even as layoffs are declining, hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer and longer periods of time.

Among the states, California saw the largest increase in claims, with 16,160. Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Georgia saw the next largest increases. The state data lags the initial claims data by a week.

Oregon saw the biggest drop in claims, of 5,784, followed by Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan and Massachusetts.

All Talk And Nor Action Even When They Had A Filibuster.Even Maddow Is Calling The Democrats Weak POS

This ad is from a Progressive Change group. If you think Progressives wont destroy the Democrat Party as well as the Republican Party you are in Lalaland.

Using Obama's words against him is particularly effective a day after he told the Washington Post that he didn't campaign on a public plan and challenged his critics to identifyIt's now been one year since Obama took office. He promised fiscal responsibility. Then he broke lots of those promises. Here is a list of some:

Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k

“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover.

Reality: In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits.

During the campaign, he criticized John McCain for just suggesting that.

“My opponent can't make that pledge [not to raise taxes] and here’s why: for the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits," he said in the same speech.

But now it's Obama who wants to tax health plans:

“This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies,” he said in his health care address to Congress.

Promise #5: Ban Earmarks

"We are going to ban all earmarks,” Obama said at a press conference on January 6, 2009.

Reality: The first spending bill he signed had over 9,000 earmarks.

Promise #4: I Won't Force Americans To Buy Insurance

During the campaign, Obama attacked Hillary Clinton:

“She believes we have to force people who don’t have insurance,” he said in a primary debate in January 2008.

In a Feb. 2008 CNN interview, he added: “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house.”

Reality: This September, he told Congress: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.”

Promise #3: Health care negotiations will be on C-SPAN

Obama promised at least eight times that "we’re going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch.”

Reality: They haven’t been there.

Well, briefly. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb said, “The only time we’ve been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing.”

Promise #2: Putting bills online

Obama promised “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”

Reality: He broke that promise when he singed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. He's broken it since, for instance on the Credit Card Bill of Rights and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Promise #1: Cutting spending

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to cut spending several times. In the second presidential debate, he said that “actually, I am cutting more than I’m spending. So it will be a net spending cut.”

In the third debate, he reiterated: “what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”                                                                                                                                                                      With a filibuster super majority the Democrats still blame Bush for their incompatence and weakness. We the people scare the crap out of these Democrats and the Progressives within the Democrat party scare the Conservacrats. After a year in power they have proven to most Americans that they can't do what they say they could. I think Obama should think about being a pitchman for Shamwow or some other product that doesn't work the way it did on TV. I know the left think that the reason the Democrats haven't been able to  get anything done is because some how the Republicans are more powerful as a minority then when they were a majority. That is just stupid. The Conservacrats and the Progressacrats divided up the Democrat party. And that division was helped in part by the Tea Party and the Conservative movement in both parties. We scared the Conservacrats into not wantring to do what the Progrssacrats wanted to do.                                                                                                                              But they don't care what we the people think. The Progressives didn't have a problem with a suppermajority filibuster last week. But now that things have changed and we the people have made ourselves and our demands known, the Democrats now want to change the rules so only 51 votes are needed to pass a reform bill no one wants. No wonder why Congress only has an approval rating of  around 21%, the Progressive liberal fringe.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Harry Reid Has A Negro Problem

Ann Coulter
Harry Reid's Negro Problem


The recently released book Game Change reports that Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

 The book also says Bill Clinton called Sen. Ted Kennedy to ask for his endorsement of Hillary over Obama, saying of Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

 And we already knew that Obama's own vice president, Joe Biden, called Obama "articulate" and "clean" during the campaign. (So you can see why Biden got the vice presidential nod over Reid.)



 Democrats regularly say things that would end the career of any conservative who said them. And still, blacks give 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats.

 Reid apologized to President Obama, and Obama accepted the apology using his "white voice." So now all is forgiven.

 Clinton also called Obama to apologize, but ended up asking him to bring everybody some coffee.

 Now the only people waiting for an apology are the American people who want an apology from Nevada for giving us Harry Reid.

 Reid will be the guest of honor at a luncheon in Las Vegas this week hosted by a group called "African-Americans for Harry Reid." That's if you can call two people a "group."

 They used to be called "African-Americans for David Duke," but that was mostly a social thing. Now they're doing real political organizing.

 If this gets off the ground, "African-Americans for Harry Reid" will be a political juggernaut that cannot be denied. Their motto: "We Will Be Heard -- As Soon As I Get This Gentleman's Coffee."

 Reid has also picked up an endorsement from the United Light-Skinned Negro College Fund. And Tiger Woods is considering endorsing him. He is the one light-skinned half-black guy right now who's thrilled with Reid's comments.

 Reid's defenders don't have much to work with. Their best idea so far is that at least he said "Negro" and not "Nigra."

 Liberals are saying that since Reid was pointing out Obama's pale hue in support of his run for the presidency, it was OK to praise his skin color and non-Negro dialect. (Reid is denying reports that in 2007 he said to Obama: "You should run. You people are good at that.")

 In fact, Reid didn't endorse Obama until after Hillary dropped out of the race. It turns out, he also admired Hillary for her light skin and the fact that she only uses a Negro dialect when she wants to.

 In the alternative, liberals are defending Reid by claiming he said nothing that wasn't true, though he may have used "an unusual set" of words -- as light-skinned Reid-defender Harold Ford Jr. put it.

 As long as we're mulling the real meaning of Reid's words and not just gasping in awe at the sorts of things Democrats get away with saying, I think Reid owes America an apology for accusing the entire country of racism. A country, let us note, that just elected a manifestly unqualified, at least partially black man president.

 On the other hand, Reid couldn't have been expecting Republicans to vote for a Democrat, so I gather Reid was accusing only Democratic voters of being racists.

 I don't disagree with that, but I'd like to get it in writing.

 I think the Democratic platform should include a statement that the Democrats will not vote for dark-skinned blacks with a Negro dialect. Check with Harry Reid on the precise wording, but something along the lines of "no one darker than Deepak Chopra."

 The "whereas" clauses can include the Democrats' history of supporting slavery, segregation, racial preferences, George Wallace and Bull Connor -- and also a precis of their treatment of dark-skinned Clarence Thomas.

BREAKING NEWS: Hoping to curry favor with the African-American community, Sen. Reid was arrested late this afternoon after breaking into his own home.

 Democrats couldn't win an election without the black vote, but the Democratic Party keeps treating blacks like stage props, wheeling them out for photo-ops and marches now and then but almost never putting them in charge of anything important.

 President Bush appointed the first black secretary of state and then the first black female secretary of state. Meanwhile, the closest black woman to Bill Clinton was his secretary, Betty Currie.

 The one sitting black Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, was appointed by a Republican.

 The head of the Republican National Committee is black -- medium-skinned, but liberals treated Michael Steele like a dark-skinned black when they threw Oreo cookies at him during the Maryland gubernatorial campaign in 2002.

 After the 2000 election, Democrats had a chance to make one of the rare smart Democrats, Donna Brazile, head of the Democratic National Committee. Brazile had just run a perfectly respectable campaign on behalf of that bumbling buffoon Al Gore.

 She also happens to be black. Again, blacks give 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats.

 But the Democrats skipped over Brazile and handed the DNC chairmanship to the goofy white guy in lime green pants, Howard Dean.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has just apologized to the light-skinned people of Haiti for the 7.0 earthquake that hit them Tuesday afternoon.

 The single most insulting remark made about blacks in my lifetime was Bill Clinton's announcement -- after being caught in the most humiliating sex scandal in world history -- that he was "the first black president."

 He did not call himself "the first black president" when liberals were dancing and singing to Fleetwood Mac at his inauguration. He did not call himself "the first black president" when he was feeling our pain and being lionized by the media. He did not call himself "the first black president" when he was trying to socialize health care or passing welfare reform.

 Not until he became a national embarrassment did Clinton recognize that he was "the first black president."

 At least he could finally get his own coffee.