Showing posts with label Obama's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama's. Show all posts

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Obama"s income fell in election year, paid 18.4 percent tax rate



U.S. President Barack Obama walks out before he talks about the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 10, 2013. REUTERS/Larry Downing

U.S. President Barack Obama walks out before he talks about the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 10, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing






WASHINGTON | Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:55am EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama paid an effective federal tax rate of 18.4 percent in 2012 and saw income from his best-selling books drop as he ran for re-election, according to his tax returns released by the White House on Friday.


Obama and his wife Michelle had adjusted gross income of $ 608,611 last year, down from $ 789,674 in 2011, and paid $ 112,214 in total taxes, compared to $ 162,074 in 2011.


Their total income came in at $ 662,076 – down almost 22 percent from $ 844,585 the previous year.


As president, Obama is entitled to a $ 400,000 annual salary. He reported salary income in 2011 and 2012 of $ 394,800, however, after deducting pre-tax amounts he paid for his health insurance premium, according to a White House official.


The Obamas’ outside business income fell sharply as the president’s book sales declined. In 2012, the couple had business income of $ 258,772, down from $ 441,369 in 2011.


Book sales have declined dramatically since the early days of his presidency. In 2009, his business income from book sales came in around $ 5.2 million.


“Dreams From My Father,” an autobiographical look at his early life, was published in 2008, and “The Audacity of Hope,” which sketched out his policy vision, was published in 2004.


The Obamas reported giving $ 150,034 to charities, representing roughly 25 percent of their adjusted gross income. The largest gift was $ 103,871 to the Fisher House Foundation, an organization that provides housing for military families near military hospitals.


Michelle Obama has made supporting the military one of her top public causes as first lady.


The couple also gave $ 1,000 to the Palm Beach County Law Enforcement Foundation. One of its police officers was killed in September 2012 while working in the presidential motorcade.


Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, reported adjusted gross income of $ 385,072 and paid $ 87,851 in total federal taxes last year. Their charitable contributions amounted to $ 7,190, including some $ 2,000 in donated clothing and other items.


According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which tracks the non-profit world, Americans on average give about 4.7 percent of their income to charity. Those who make more than $ 200,000 annually give about 4.2 percent of their income away.


PAYING THEIR SHARE


Obama has pressed for wealthy people like himself to pay a greater share in taxes.


The issue was a sticking point in his campaign against Republican Mitt Romney, a wealthy former private equity executive who had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent in 2011.


“Under the president’s own tax proposals, including limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement.


The president’s effective tax rate in 2011 was 20.5 percent.


Effective tax rates vary wildly from one taxpayer to another because of the many tax breaks available, but counting all U.S. taxpayers, the average income tax rate in 2010 was 11.8 percent, according to the Tax Foundation, a business-oriented tax research group in Washington.


In 2011, about 46 percent of Americans paid no federal income tax, most of them because they were poor or elderly, according to the Tax Policy Center, a centrist tax think tank. Almost two-thirds of those who paid no federal income tax did pay federal employment taxes that support the Social Security pension system and the Medicare health program, the center said.


The Obamas were subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) – a parallel tax system set up to ensure the affluent do not avoid tax altogether. They paid about $ 21,220 extra in tax because the president was subject to the AMT in 2012, up from about $ 12,500 in 2011.


The 2014 White House budget released this week proposed a new type of minimum tax for the wealthy known as the Buffett Rule, named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who has complained that his tax rate is lower than that paid by his secretary.


The wealthiest taxpayers get most of their income from investments – which are taxed at about half the rate of ordinary wages. Virtually all of the Obamas’ income was subject to the top tax rate of 39.6 percent in 2012.


For 2012, the Obamas overpaid their taxes, which entitled them to a refund of $ 16,815. They chose to apply that total to their 2013 estimated tax. They made the same decision for 2011, applying their $ 24,515 refund for that year to their 2012 estimated tax.


In 2013, Obama plans to give back 5 percent of his pay in a gesture of solidarity with government workers who must take unpaid leave as a result of deep spending cuts that went into effect last month. (Additional reporting by Kim Dixon and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Eric Walsh)






Reuters: Economic News




Obama"s income fell in election year, paid 18.4 percent tax rate

Friday, April 12, 2013

Obama"s income fell in election year, paid 18.4 percent tax rate



U.S. President Barack Obama walks out before he talks about the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 10, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing




Reuters: Economic News




Obama"s income fell in election year, paid 18.4 percent tax rate

Monday, March 18, 2013

Will Obama"s second term have a greener tint?


UPDATED (8:30am EST): You’re forgiven if you think all the President does is deal with the budget, since squabbling between the White House and Congress has been much in the news lately. But the presidency is more than that. One other big issue facing the administration is energy.


On Friday afternoon, President Obama will address that at an event at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. He’ll call for $ 2 billion over 10 years to go to research on improving energy technology such as electric car batteries, biofuels and natural gas-fueled vehicles. The money will come from revenue from federal oil and gas leases on offshore drilling. It’s a bid to use the money oil exploration generates to wean cars off oil.


This latest policy push is an opportunity to look at where things stand with America’s energy situation. Observers point to a number of positive developments on both the supply and demand sides.


“We’re producing more energy and consuming less, which means imports are going down,” says Michael Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. “That improves our national security situation and our economic situation. And for the most part, the fuels are getting cleaner, so it’s good for the environment.”


The administration’s push for green energy breakthroughs is something supporters say could help the environment and create American jobs.


“The United States is falling behind other countries like China in terms of the scale to which it’s deploying renewable energy in the last few years,” says Joanna Lewis, a professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.


The Obama administration wants this new research to make America a leader in this technology. Amy Myers Jaffe, a University of California, Davis professor and energy policy expert, is all for that, as long as funds are spent wisely.


“Money is better spent in the area of R&D and fundamental science and not so profitable in supporting existing businesses,” she maintains.


As you’ll remember, one high-profile mishap in the first term was backing for Solyndra, a solar company that went bankrupt.


Latest Stories on Marketplace.org




Will Obama"s second term have a greener tint?

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Cybersecurity in Obama"s Situation Room


President Obama is meeting at the White House this morning with corporate CEO’s to talk about cybersecurity. The CEO’s and the administration will discuss sharing information about potential computer vulnerabliess and specific threats.


“There are sensitivities both ways because some of the information the government has comes from intelligence sources and that needs to be protected,” said Andrew Kaiser, who works with the National Cyber Security Alliance representing big names from the digital world, including Google and Facebook. “Going the other way, industry wants to be sure that when they give information to the government, that somehow won’t come back to haunt them.”


Some worry the government will impose technology that it wants on the private sector. 


“It may force things to be deployed which are less than optimal,” said Michael Angelo with NetIQ Corporation. “There have been instances where proposed legislation actually recommended technology, and [that] causes issues for growth.”


Today’s White House meeting comes soon after U.S. officials said they’re looking into reports that Obama’s own family, including the First Lady, has been hit by hacking.


Latest Stories on Marketplace.org




Cybersecurity in Obama"s Situation Room

Obama"s Promised Transparency: Where the Hell is It?

When president Obama took office he promised transparency and open government. The question at hand is “Where the Hell is It?

I have the answer: Obama’s transparency is Where the Sun Don’t Shine.

President Obama has failed to deliver on few promises as miserably as his vow to create a more transparent and open government. Shortly after being sworn into office, he sent a memo to federal agencies promising, “We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”

At the time, I was a staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for Republican Charles Grassley and couldn’t help but laugh. Regardless of who occupies the White House, I understand that power wants power. Scrutiny just gets in the way.

President Obama is no different. Whether it’s responding to Congress, media questions, or FOIA requests, this administration is no better than its predecessor. The big difference: Obama is a Democrat. And because he is a Democrat, he’s gotten a pass from many of the civil liberty and good-government groups who spent years watching President Bush’s every move like a hawk.

In March 2010, the Associated Press found that, under Obama, 17 major agencies were 50 percent more likely to deny FOIA requests than under Bush. The following year, the presidents of two journalism societies— Association of Health Care Journalists and Society of Professional Journalists—called out President Obama for muzzling scientists in much the same way President Bush had. Last September, Bloomberg News tested Obama’s pledge by filing FOIA requests for the 2011 travel records of top officials at 57 agencies. Only about half responded. In fact, this president has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. And an analysis released Monday by the Associated Press found that the administration censored more FOIA requests on national security grounds last year than in any other year since President Obama took office.

One of the most glaring examples of Obama’s failure on transparency is his response to the “Fast and Furious” fiasco—the botched attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to find Mexican drug lords by tracking guns smuggled from the United States into Mexico. The debacle came to light when ATF whistleblowers met with investigators working for Sen. Grassley. Grassley sent a letter to the Department of Justice demanding answers; not realizing Grassley already had documents that laid out the operation, officials at Justice responded with false and misleading information that violated federal law. When Grassley pressed the issue, the Justice Department retracted its initial response but refused to say anything more, which has resulted in multiple hearings and subpoenas.

The storyline is classic Washington: Whistleblowers run to Congress about bad behavior; Congress demands answers; the White House throws up a wall. But where is the outrage, especially from the very groups who are supposed to be holding the government accountable? It doesn’t exist.

The occasion is not yet ripe for many in Washington to admit that the Obama administration is no different from those who have come before it. But time will come when the cognitive dissonance between what Obama says and what he does will be too much.

Paul D. Thacker writing for Slate has a compelling story. I took a lengthy snip but there is much more to see. Inquiring minds will take a look.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com 

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis


Obama"s Promised Transparency: Where the Hell is It?

Monday, March 11, 2013

Investigating Obama"s Claim That Sequester Cuts Will Reduce Vaccinations For Kids

Check out this interesting video that dispels Obama hype that sequester cuts will reduce the number of vaccinations for kids.

The Blaze has a transcript in its report GOP Congressman Makes CDC Director Squirm After Confronting Him on Children’s Vaccine Cuts.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis


Investigating Obama"s Claim That Sequester Cuts Will Reduce Vaccinations For Kids

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Eating out: Obama"s new overtures to GOP lawmakers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Shifting course in the face of political gridlock, President Barack Obama is making rare overtures to rank-and-file Republicans, inviting GOP senators to dinner Wednesday, planning visits to Capitol Hill and working the phones with lawmakers.
Business Headlines

Eating out: Obama"s new overtures to GOP lawmakers

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Spending cut showdown threatens Obama"s second-term agenda

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

1 of 10. U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON | Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:51pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Just hours after across-the-board spending cuts officially took effect, President Barack Obama pressed Congress on Saturday to work with him on a compromise to halt a fiscal crisis that threatens the economy and his broader domestic policy agenda.

The failure by Obama and Republicans to agree to halt the $ 85 billion “sequester” cuts virtually guaranteed that fiscal issues would remain center stage in Washington for weeks, crowding out Obama’s proposals to reform immigration, tighten gun laws and raise the minimum wage.

The economic effects of the spending cuts may take time to kick in, but political blowback has already begun and is hitting Obama as well as congressional Republicans.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Friday showed neither Republicans nor Obama and his fellow Democrats escaping blame.

Obama’s approval rating dropped to 47 percent in a Gallup poll on Friday, down from 51 percent in the previous three-day period measured.

While most polls show voters blame Republicans primarily for the fiscal mess, Obama could see himself associated with the worst effects of sequestration like the looming furloughs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers. He signed an order on Friday night that started putting the cuts into effect.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Obama appealed for Republicans to work with Democrats on a deal, saying Americans were weary of seeing Washington “careen from one manufactured crisis to another.”

But he offered no new ideas to resolve the recurring fiscal fights, and there was no immediate sign of any negotiations.

“There’s a caucus of common sense (in Congress),” Obama said in his address. “And I’m going to keep reaching out to them to fix this for good.”

At the heart of Washington’s persistent fiscal showdowns is disagreement over how to slash the budget deficit and the $ 16 trillion national debt, bloated over the years by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and government stimulus for the ailing economy.

The president wants to close the fiscal gap with spending cuts and tax hikes, what he calls a “balanced approach.” But Republicans do not want to concede again on taxes after doing so in negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” at the end of last year.

The president offered a litany of hardships in his radio address he said would flow from the forced spending cuts.

“Beginning this week, businesses that work with the military will have to lay folks off. Communities near military bases will take a serious blow. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country – Border Patrol agents, FBI agents, civilians who work for the Defense Department – will see their wages cut and their hours reduced,” he said.

‘IT’S CALLED LEADERSHIP’

At Yellowstone National Park, a massive and costly annual operation to clear the roads of snow that was scheduled to start on Monday will be postponed due to the cuts,

Park managers have to trim $ 1.75 million from Yellowstone’s $ 35 million annual budget, which will delay the opening of most entrances to America’s first national park by two weeks.

It could mean millions of dollars in lost tourism and tax revenues for small, rural towns in Montana and Wyoming.

“I think it’s counter-productive, and I expect a lot of people to be raising hell,” said Mike Darby, whose family owns the Irma Hotel in Cody, Wyoming, at the east gate of the park.

Critics said Obama should have held meaningful talks with congressional leaders long before Friday’s last-minute meeting at the White House, which failed to prevent the automatic cuts written into law during a previous budget crisis in 2011.

“The president should call the senior representatives of the parties together to Camp David – or any place with a table, chairs and no TV cameras – for serious negotiations on replacing the sequester with firm, enforceable beginnings of a comprehensive long-term debt stabilization agreement,” former Republican Senator Pete Domenici and fiscal expert Alice Rivlin said in a statement released on Friday.

The budget veterans, who lead the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, called on Obama and congressional Republican leaders to “be willing to tell those on the polar extremes of their parties that a central majority consensus will govern. It’s called leadership.”

After months of silence on political issues, Obama’s Republican opponent in last November’s election resurfaced to take a swipe at the Democrat’s handling of the sequestration mess. “No one can think that that’s been a success for the president,” Mitt Romney said in an interview to air on “Fox News Sunday.”

The former Massachusetts governor accused Obama of “flying around the country and berating Republicans and blaming and pointing,” instead of striking a budget deal.

Twenty-eight percent of Americans blame Republicans for the lack of a deal to halt sequestration, while 22 percent hold either Obama or the Democrats in Congress responsible, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Thirty-seven percent blame them all.

The budget standstill has overshadowed Obama’s aggressive set of policy goals ranging from boosting pre-school education to fighting climate change and reforming America’s immigration system. But Obama vowed on Friday the fiscal troubles would not prevent him from advocating for those proposals.

“I think there are other areas where we can make progress even with the sequester unresolved. I will continue to push for those initiatives,” he told a news conference.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Todd Eastham)



Reuters: Economic News


Spending cut showdown threatens Obama"s second-term agenda

Spending cut showdown threatens Obama"s second-term agenda

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

1 of 10. U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

WASHINGTON | Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:51pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Just hours after across-the-board spending cuts officially took effect, President Barack Obama pressed Congress on Saturday to work with him on a compromise to halt a fiscal crisis that threatens the economy and his broader domestic policy agenda.

The failure by Obama and Republicans to agree to halt the $ 85 billion “sequester” cuts virtually guaranteed that fiscal issues would remain center stage in Washington for weeks, crowding out Obama’s proposals to reform immigration, tighten gun laws and raise the minimum wage.

The economic effects of the spending cuts may take time to kick in, but political blowback has already begun and is hitting Obama as well as congressional Republicans.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Friday showed neither Republicans nor Obama and his fellow Democrats escaping blame.

Obama’s approval rating dropped to 47 percent in a Gallup poll on Friday, down from 51 percent in the previous three-day period measured.

While most polls show voters blame Republicans primarily for the fiscal mess, Obama could see himself associated with the worst effects of sequestration like the looming furloughs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers. He signed an order on Friday night that started putting the cuts into effect.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Obama appealed for Republicans to work with Democrats on a deal, saying Americans were weary of seeing Washington “careen from one manufactured crisis to another.”

But he offered no new ideas to resolve the recurring fiscal fights, and there was no immediate sign of any negotiations.

“There’s a caucus of common sense (in Congress),” Obama said in his address. “And I’m going to keep reaching out to them to fix this for good.”

At the heart of Washington’s persistent fiscal showdowns is disagreement over how to slash the budget deficit and the $ 16 trillion national debt, bloated over the years by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and government stimulus for the ailing economy.

The president wants to close the fiscal gap with spending cuts and tax hikes, what he calls a “balanced approach.” But Republicans do not want to concede again on taxes after doing so in negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” at the end of last year.

The president offered a litany of hardships in his radio address he said would flow from the forced spending cuts.

“Beginning this week, businesses that work with the military will have to lay folks off. Communities near military bases will take a serious blow. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country – Border Patrol agents, FBI agents, civilians who work for the Defense Department – will see their wages cut and their hours reduced,” he said.

‘IT’S CALLED LEADERSHIP’

At Yellowstone National Park, a massive and costly annual operation to clear the roads of snow that was scheduled to start on Monday will be postponed due to the cuts,

Park managers have to trim $ 1.75 million from Yellowstone’s $ 35 million annual budget, which will delay the opening of most entrances to America’s first national park by two weeks.

It could mean millions of dollars in lost tourism and tax revenues for small, rural towns in Montana and Wyoming.

“I think it’s counter-productive, and I expect a lot of people to be raising hell,” said Mike Darby, whose family owns the Irma Hotel in Cody, Wyoming, at the east gate of the park.

Critics said Obama should have held meaningful talks with congressional leaders long before Friday’s last-minute meeting at the White House, which failed to prevent the automatic cuts written into law during a previous budget crisis in 2011.

“The president should call the senior representatives of the parties together to Camp David – or any place with a table, chairs and no TV cameras – for serious negotiations on replacing the sequester with firm, enforceable beginnings of a comprehensive long-term debt stabilization agreement,” former Republican Senator Pete Domenici and fiscal expert Alice Rivlin said in a statement released on Friday.

The budget veterans, who lead the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, called on Obama and congressional Republican leaders to “be willing to tell those on the polar extremes of their parties that a central majority consensus will govern. It’s called leadership.”

After months of silence on political issues, Obama’s Republican opponent in last November’s election resurfaced to take a swipe at the Democrat’s handling of the sequestration mess. “No one can think that that’s been a success for the president,” Mitt Romney said in an interview to air on “Fox News Sunday.”

The former Massachusetts governor accused Obama of “flying around the country and berating Republicans and blaming and pointing,” instead of striking a budget deal.

Twenty-eight percent of Americans blame Republicans for the lack of a deal to halt sequestration, while 22 percent hold either Obama or the Democrats in Congress responsible, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Thirty-seven percent blame them all.

The budget standstill has overshadowed Obama’s aggressive set of policy goals ranging from boosting pre-school education to fighting climate change and reforming America’s immigration system. But Obama vowed on Friday the fiscal troubles would not prevent him from advocating for those proposals.

“I think there are other areas where we can make progress even with the sequester unresolved. I will continue to push for those initiatives,” he told a news conference.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Todd Eastham)



Reuters: Business News


Spending cut showdown threatens Obama"s second-term agenda

Friday, February 22, 2013

Obama"s Infrastructure Mania; Why It"s Not Justifiable (And What To Do About It)

Inquiring minds are watching an excellent video on The Kudlow Report between Larry Kudlow and David Harkin.

Harkin is the author of a study on US infrastructure and a professor at the university of North Carolina Charlotte.

Partial Transcript

Kudlow: President Obama wants to spend another $ 50 billion on repairs to our infrastructure. Do we really need it? That would be on top of the over $ 100 billion for the nonshovel ready projects back in the 2009 stimulus. Remember that? There’s a new study that says we may not need it. Our roads and bridges are not crumbling and are much better than they were 20 years ago. How about that good news? David Harkin is the lead author of that study. David, thank you for coming on. I read the reports. Throughout the country in real terms adjusted for inflation, state control, highway spending has increased by 60%. 177% in nominal terms. 60% in real terms. They had good results.

Harkin: We were quite surprised when we looked at the numbers. The highway system has gotten better on all seven measures we looked at. Accidents rates are down. Even the pavements have been improved particularly for the interstate system. Even congestion is down too. This isn’t, I think, generally common knowledge. Most people think the infrastructure is crumbling or falling apart. We found just the opposite.

Kudlow: Why is Washington then, so manic and obsessive about pouring more and more infrastructure money? Why?

Harkin: Well, the fundamental problem here is that the states control how that money will be spent. Some of it comes from the federal government and some of it from the states. So the feeling in the states and in Washington is that we just need more and more and more. But in fact the numbers don’t support that. The numbers suggest that we’re making progress and that’s very good news for the public. So, in terms of where the issue should go here we ought to look very carefully at whether these requests are really needed.

Kudlow: David, here’s one of my big beefs. This is highway money and bridge money. Davis-Bacon, the prevailing union wick, once you use federal dollars and it’s true for these big union states like New York, New Jersey and California, Once do you that you have to pay the Davis-Bacon prevailing union wage rate which is at least a third higher than if you did it privately. That’s my biggest beef about spending all this money.

Harkin: In our study we showed the cost for doing this work are much higher in a few states compared with the rest of the country like California, New Jersey, New York are very high cost states relative to the other states. To go back to the earlier question regarding whether this is just a problem of the interstate system or whether the civil engineering report is correct, you know, let’s remember the civil engineering report looks at only one year and is based on opinions from local experts. But it doesn’t look back in time to see whether we made progress. David Harkin thank you ever so much. congratulations on your study which blows the lid off all this infrastructure money proposal coming out of Washington.

End Transcript

Davis-Bacon Background

I have discussed Davis-Bacon on many occasions. Inquiring minds interested in a background on the original purpose of the act should read My Thoughts on the Davis-Bacon Act.

… while the sponsors and supporters of the Act also intended it to disadvantage immigrant workers of other races, these thinly veiled references make it clear that the Act was primarily intended to discriminate against blacks.

The Davis-Bacon Act as amended, requires that each contract over $ 2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works shall contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. Under the provisions of the Act, contractors or their subcontractors are to pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a similar character. The Davis-Bacon Act directs the Secretary of Labor to determine such local prevailing wage rates.

There are 117 classifications of jobs for which some set of bureaucrats must determine “prevailing wages”.  Here is a partial list:

ASBE = International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers
BOIL = International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
BRXX = International Union of Bricklayers, and Allied Craftsmen
(bricklayers, cement masons, stone masons, tile, marble and terrazzo workers)
CARP = United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
ELEC = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(electricians, communication systems installers, and other low voltage specialty workers)
ELEV = International Union of Elevator Constructors
ENGI = International Union of Operating Engineers
(operators of various types of power equipment)
IRON = International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers
LABO = Laborers’ International Union of North America
PAIN = International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades
(painters, drywall finishers, glaziers, soft floor layers)
PLUM = Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada
PLAS = United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
ROOF = United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers
SHEE = Sheet Metal Workers International Association
TEAM = International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Even FDR Understood the Problem

Public unions get into bed with management and politicians and work out sweet deals for themselves at taxpayer expense. No one looks out for the taxpayer. Even FDR understood the problem.

Message From FDR

Inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

Time to Scrap Davis-Bacon, End Public Union Collective Bargaining

Before any project can be economically viable, labor costs must be addressed, and that is exactly why we need to scrap Davis-Bacon and all prevailing wage laws. We also need to eliminate collective bargaining of public unions.

Unless and until we do that, we will dramatically overpay for infrastructure projects and taxpayers will pay through the nose for them.

Government should strive to provide the most services at the least cost. Public unions strive to provide the fewest services at the most cost. Is it any wonder cities and states are broke?

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis


Obama"s Infrastructure Mania; Why It"s Not Justifiable (And What To Do About It)

Monday, February 18, 2013

Reflections on Rand Paul"s Response to Obama"s State of the Union Address

I invite you to listen to senator Rand Paul’s response to president Obama’s misguided agenda as delivered in the president’s State of the Union Address.

Specifically Rand Paul says …

  • Democrats believe that the government is the economic answer to all our economic and social ills. [Rand Paul doesn"t believe government is the answer, nor do I]
  • The debt hangs like a sword of Damocles, reminding Obama that he cannot pursue his liberal agenda without raising taxes or bankrupting the country. [Agreed]
  • We are sick and tired of hearing why a program is wanted but not how we are going to pay for it. [Agreed]
  • Even without Obamacare, Medicare and social security are threatened by the demographics of the baby boomers. Within a few years we will go from 42 million seniors to 77 million seniors in the space of a few years. [Agreed]
  • Obama by his nature is a progressive, a believer that government is the answer, that the elite few can make society better if only they had enough money. [Agreed]
  • Obama believes that stimulus would work if only government had more taxpayer money to spend. No matter that stimulus spent $ 400,000 per job created. [Agreed]
  • Let us hope the debt crisis will be managed before we destroy this great country, before we destroy our currency, before we destroy the dream we hope to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. [Agreed]

Paul concludes with a message “We believe that government is the problem and not the solution“. I endorse Rand Paul’s message 100%.

For my specific blasting of Obama’s SOTU address, please see Hot Air and No Substance; Obama’s Plan to Destroy Jobs “Won’t Cost a Dime”

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis


Reflections on Rand Paul"s Response to Obama"s State of the Union Address

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Economy to be Obama"s focus in State of the Union

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will focus his State of the Union address on boosting job creation and economic growth at a time of high unemployment, underscoring the degree to which the economy could threaten his ability to pursue second-term priorities such as gun control, immigration policy and climate change.
Business Headlines

Economy to be Obama"s focus in State of the Union

Obama"s Treasury pick Lew to be grilled on Citi bonus, U.S. debt

WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:07am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Jack Lew, President Barack Obama’s pick to be U.S. treasury secretary, is expected to come under fire for the administration’s budget policies and a nearly $ 1 million bonus he received from bailed-out bank Citigroup when he testifies on Wednesday before a Senate panel vetting him for the job.

The hearing will briefly become ground zero in the pitched political battle over the federal budget, with Republicans set to attack over what they contend is Lew’s devil-may-care attitude to reducing the U.S. budget deficit.

Republicans have signaled that Lew, Obama’s former chief of staff and budget director, will be critiqued for his role in preparing proposals that piled on deficits and probed on the president’s plans to put government-run healthcare and retirement programs on sounder footing.

“He’ll be used as a political ping-pong ball,” said Ted Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who served briefly as an adviser to Obama’s former treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner. Geithner left the administration in January.

Lew was the administration’s point person during budget talks in 2011 that ended with a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, cap discretionary spending and put in place $ 1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts over 10 years.

During those negotiations, his hard-line position in defense of government-run benefit programs angered Republicans.

Most Republicans, however, have said they will reserve judgment on Lew until after Wednesday’s hearing, and he is widely expected to win the Senate’s needed backing even if he ends up facing substantial opposition.

Republican lawmakers are expected to push Lew on his earlier resistance to proposed changes to the Medicare healthcare and Social Security retirement programs, such as using an slower growing inflation index to calculate retirement benefits.

“We need a better understanding … of what kind of plan the Obama administration has to confront our skyrocketing debt and our broken entitlement programs,” said Senator Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the finance panel.

Realistically, it does not appear Lew could win confirmation earlier than February 25. After the hearing, the former budget chief will need time to respond to any additional questions senators may have and Congress begins a one week break on Friday.

That means the Senate would not be able to confirm Lew in time for him to attend a meeting of finance chiefs from the Group of 20 nations in Moscow on Friday and Saturday.

CITIGROUP AND THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

At the hearing, Republicans plan to zero in on Lew’s short stint at Citigroup. Lew, who has publicly said that he has scant expertise in financial markets, spent two years at the bank during Wall Street’s meltdown, earning a combined $ 2.65 million in 2007 and 2008, according to a transcript of his confirmation hearing in 2009 for a State Department post.

Hired with a recommendation from then-Citi executive and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Lew became chief operating officer of Citigroup’s global wealth management division in July 2006. He later became COO for Citi Alternative Investments, a largely administrative role that was apart from investment decisions that hurt the bank.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley said he will ask Lew about a $ 940,000 bonus he was given just before the bank received a taxpayer-funded bailout. The bonus came as Lew was getting ready to serve as a State Department deputy for the Obama administration.

“The Treasury secretary can’t owe anyone on Wall Street any favors,” Grassley, a member of the Finance Committee, said in an emailed statement. “He has to be independent from special interests and put taxpayers first.”

Lew’s record at Citigroup came up during his confirmation hearing for the State Department position, but it failed to prove a stumbling block.

“This is not his first rodeo,” said Jared Bernstein, a former adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who is now with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It just doesn’t seem to me that there’s a smoking gun there.”

Republicans also want to ask Lew about a $ 56,000 investment he once had in a Citigroup venture capital fund registered in the Cayman Islands. Lew lost $ 1,582 when he had to divest his position in the fund to serve as Obama’s budget chief.

The CVCI Growth Partnership II fund’s registered office is listed as the Ugland House, according to a securities filing, a Cayman Island office building with thousands of companies registered that has become a symbol of offshore tax evasion. Ugland House was criticized by Obama when he was campaigning for president.

The White House said Lew’s investment was disclosed during both his confirmation for the State Department post and for White House budget director.

“(Lew) played no role in creating, managing or operating the fund and he sold his investment in 2010 at a net loss,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “There are no new facts that provide a basis for senators to reach a different conclusion about Mr. Lew’s nomination than they reached twice before.”

Although Democrats control the Senate 53-45, they would need at least seven Republicans to support Lew if any lawmaker decides to throw up a procedural hurdle.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, has said Lew is not fit to become treasury secretary and has threatened to make the confirmation difficult unless the White House clears up a healthcare law dispute.

Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has also said he will vote against Lew.

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and Anna Yukhananov; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Eric Beech)



Reuters: Business News


Obama"s Treasury pick Lew to be grilled on Citi bonus, U.S. debt