Currently viewing the tag: “2010”

Households across the country are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession, with unemployment falling very slowly, while foreclosures are still increasing, along with poverty rates and oil prices. Family wealth is currently down $ 12.8 trillion from its 2007 peak.

However, one group of Americans is doing very well — corporate CEOs, whose pay is returning to pre-recession levels:

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Median CEO pay last year was $ 9 million, the highest since 2007. The median CEO bonus was $ 2.2 million. These gains come as income inequality in the U.S. is already the worst its been since 1928. “We have the recipe for controversy over CEO pay: big increases in CEO pay that show up following run-ups in stock prices coupled with high unemployment rates,” said Kevin Murphy, professor of finance at the University of Southern California.

But right now the discussion on Capitol Hill is centered on how much should be cut from the non-defense discretionary portion of the budget during the remainder of 2011; these cuts will fall almost exclusively onto middle-class and low-income families. Senate Democrats have attempted to reframe the discussion to include new sources of revenue, including a tax on millionaires, but yesterday, House Republicans reiterated that taxes are off the table.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), for instance, derided the idea as a “job-crushing tax hike,” while House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that it would be “a terrible move in the current economic environment.”

But raising taxes on millionaires is not, in fact, the same as raising taxes on job creators. According to a recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans (81 percent) say that adding a surtax on millionaires is an acceptable way to reduce the budget deficit. This is far higher than than the percentage that say that would accept recent moves by the GOP like attempting to defund Planned Parenthood or cutting funding for the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) recently released a bill that would implement a graduated income tax on millionaires that would raise $ 78 billion. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $ 1 million could, in one instant, reduce eight percent of the medium-term budget deficit.

Wonk Room

Tagged with:
 

Kansas City Star
Jonathan Broxton's outing in opener stirs bad memories from 2010
SportingNews.com
LOS ANGELES—Clayton Kershaw wasn't too concerned when he was removed after seven shutout innings in his first opening-day start. The Los Angeles Dodgers had a one-run lead and had what is expected to be a strong back end of the bullpen ready.
Matt Kemp makes strides in Dodgers' win over San FranciscoLos Angeles Times
Belt shows he's Giants' next star in the makingMLB.com
Giants' success could hinge on their shaky defenseCBSSports.com
New York Times –Sports Chat Place –AHN | All Headline News
all 894 news articles »

Sports – Google News

Tagged with:
 

Households across the country are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession, with unemployment falling very slowly, while foreclosures are still increasing, along with poverty rates and oil prices. However, one group of Americans is doing very well — corporate CEOs, whose pay is returning to pre-recession levels:

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Median CEO pay last year was $ 9 million, the highest since 2007. The median CEO bonus was $ 2.2 million. Family wealth, meanwhile, is currently down $ 12.8 trillion from its 2007 peak.

ThinkProgress

Tagged with:
 

**Written by Doug Powers

Michelle’s written extensively on this subject, and here’s another one for the growing pile.

From The Hill:

Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.
[…]
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.

Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican John Buck.

House Democrats were naturally alarmed by the report and were eager to help develop a bi-partisan plan to ensure only legal US citizens are allowed to cast ballots:

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was “impossible to provide precise numbers” on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.

Did I say develop a plan to fix the problem of vote fraud? I meant pretend it doesn’t exist. Expecting congressional Dems to seriously address this problem is like waiting for Michael Moore to permanently seal off the tunnel between his basement and the fry vat at McDonalds.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Michelle Malkin

Tagged with:
 

The U.S. competitive position in the clean energy sector is deteriorating, as the country slipped to third place in terms of the amount of private investment directed to the G-20 economies, according to a new report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Until 2008, the U.S. had held the top spot, which is now firmly held by China. Globally, 2010 clean energy finance and investments grew by 30 percent to a record $ 243 billion.

That’s from the news release for new research released by The Pew Charitable Trusts.  The report, Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? 2010 Edition, uses data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Here’s more:

The United States received $ 34 billion in equity last year, a 51 percent increase from 2009. However, the gap with China, which attracted a record $ 54.4 billion, continues to widen. Germany also attracted more money than the U.S. with $ 41.2 billion, claiming the number two spot, up from third the previous year.

“The United States’ position as a leading destination for clean energy investment is declining because its policy framework is weak and uncertain,” said Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew’s Clean Energy Program. “We are at risk of losing even more financing to countries like China, Germany and India, which have adopted strong policies such as renewable energy standards, carbon reduction targets and/or incentives for investment and production. In today’s global economic race, the United States can’t afford to be to be a follower in this sector.”

That China passed us a couple of years ago should have been a wake-up call (see Steven Chu on why China’s bid for clean energy leadership should be our “Sputnik Moment”).  Dropping to third behind Germany, though, should be equally worrisome.  It means U.S. clean energy manufacturing is being squeezed from every side.

Michael Liebreich, CEO of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, added, “The United States remains the global leader in clean energy innovation, receiving 75 percent of all venture capital investment in the sector, a total of $ 6 billion in 2010, but the U.S. has not been creating demand for deployment of clean energy. As a result it is losing out on opportunities to attract investment, create manufacturing capabilities and spur job growth. For example, worldwide, China is now the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels.”

It should be clear that you’re not going to lead in clean energy job creation if you’re only the leader in venture capital investment.  That’s the tragic mistake groups like The Breakthrough Institute make when they attack those who support demand-pull efforts like clean energy standards (0r a serious carbon price) and say vast increases in clean energy R&D are the only acceptable policy for achieving clean energy leadership.

This research shows that the United States is in the middle of the pack on a variety of key clean energy indicators, including asset financing (an important barometer of clean energy deployment, manufacturing and job growth), installed renewable capacity and five-year growth rates. China led the G-20 in this type of financing with $ 47.3 billion, more than double the U.S. ($ 21 billion). China also surpassed the United States in installed renewable capacity. In addition, the United States trails leading countries in five-year rates of clean energy capacity additions, investment growth and intensity (a measure of investment dollars compared to gross domestic product).

Here are some more key findings

  • Worldwide clean energy investment and finance has grown 630 percent since 2004.
  • Regionally, Europe remained the leading recipient, attracting $ 94.4 billion, led by Germany ($ 41.2 billion) and Italy ($ 13.9 billion).
  • Italy ranked fourth, attracting $ 13.9 billion. It is the first country in the world to achieve grid parity, or cost-competitiveness, for solar energy.
  • The Asia/Oceania region, led by China, continued its sharp rise, attracting $ 82.8 billion, a 33 percent increase over the previous year.
  • The Americas also saw investment grow 35 percent, but as a region it remains a distant third, attracting $ 65.8 billion.
  • Investments in small-scale, residential solar in G-20 countries grew by 100 percent to $ 56.4 billion. Germany accounts for more than half the total, followed by Japan, France, Italy and the United States.
  • Installed generating capacity increased to 388 gigawatts from wind, small-hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal and marine, with China accounting for more than 25 percent of the global total.
  • Climate Progress

    Tagged with:
     

    The website The Religion of Peace tracks global Islamist terrorism. According to its detailed list for 2010, there were Islamist terror attacks in 47 countries around the world:

    Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Algeria Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Canada, Chechnya, China, Dagestan, DRC (Congo), Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Mogadishu, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority., Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, UK, Ukraine, USA, and Yemen.

    These Islamist terrorist attacks totaled 9,213 deaths and 17,437 injured.

    Below is a list of the how many were killed and injured by Islamist terrorists in each country.

    On Religion of Peace website, you can view the complete list of all Islamist terrorist attacks around the world during 2010-by date, along with a description of each individual attack.

    In addition, the site also features:

    Here is the list of how many were killed and injured in each country (see annotated list here)

    (It kind of makes you wonder if Islamist terrorist attacks in Thailand and the Philippines are really because of Israel-or maybe there’s another reason…)

    Totals For Islamist Terror Attacks in 2010
    Country Killed Injured
    Abkhazia 1 2
    Afghanistan 1353 1701
    Algeria 68 116
    Azerbaijan 1 1
    Bangladesh 10 205
    Bosnia 1 6
    Canada 0 1
    Chechnya 22 32
    China 7 14
    Dagestan 110 194
    DRC (Congo) 16 0
    Egypt 11 115
    Ethiopia 22 28
    France 0 2
    Germany 1 3
    India 104 184
    Indonesia 8 170
    Ingushetia 26 94
    Iran 73 163
    Iraq 3002 7436
    Israel 10 7
    Italy 1 1
    Jordan 4 5
    Kenya 7 37
    Kosovo 1 10
    Lebanon 3 0
    Liberia 4 23
    Mali 2 0
    Mogadishu 2 2
    Niger 5 0
    Nigeria 815 866
    Pakistan 2018 3500
    Pal. Auth. 1 1
    Philippines 84 121
    Russia 98 346
    Saudi Arabia 1 3
    Somalia 666 1432
    Sudan 81 95
    Sweden 0 2
    Tajikistan 38 56
    Thailand 242 263
    Turkey 4 0
    Uganda 76 65
    UK 1 1
    Ukraine 1 0
    USA 5 2
    Yemen 207 132
    Totals 9,213 17,437

    Technorati Tag: .


    Daled Amos

    Tagged with:
     

    Speaking of corporate taxes, there’s a nice article in the New York Times today detailing how General Electric managed to get its tax liability down to … zero.

    The company reported worldwide profits of $ 14.2 billion, and said $ 5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

    Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $ 3.2 billion. …

    [L]ow taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm.

    So patriotic! It really explains why President Obama tapped Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s CEO, to lead the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. If this isn’t the sort of corporate behavior America needs more of, what is?

    Update: Andrew Williams, who works in GE’s media affairs office, e-mails:

    The Times’ story missed the most important part of the story, and I wanted to make sure you have all the facts. The reality is that within the context of the 2008 financial crisis, GE Capital suffered significant losses, which impacted taxes.  Take out GECapital, and GE’s effective corporate tax rate would be 21%.  







    Ezra Klein

    Tagged with:
     

    There are wildfires west of Golden, Colorado this morning, more than 100 homes have been evacuated. Golden’s Lookout Mountain is being used by the media as a vantage point to view the blaze; I was on Lookout last summer, it’s the final resting place of Buffalo Bill Cody.

    Below you will find my post about that visit.

    Four Corners Furtherance: Buffalo Bill’s gravesite

    Technorati tags:

    Marathon Pundit

    Tagged with:
     

    Allow me to refresh his memory.

    Ed Schultz and a caller to his radio show Thursday got into a heated argument after she criticized him for suggesting last year that Democrats stay away from the polls on election day to express their anger with congressional Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits.

    Schultz not only denied what the caller said, he was unequivocal and emphatic about it. Here's how the exchange went (audio) –

    SCHULTZ: All right, let's see, let me get back to this headline here — "Obama's team seeks new ways to fire up his base." Beverly in Chicago, you're on the Ed Schultz radio show. Respond to that, thank you.

    CALLER: Do you think what you did in the midterms was right, telling folks to stay home?

    SCHULTZ: I didn't say that and I'm not going to get into that discussion. That is absolute garbage. That is right-wing crap that's going around the Internet and I'm not even going to go down that road, but I'll give you a chance to finish your phone call.

    CALLER: Whether you did or didn't …

    SCHULTZ: No, I, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not a question of whether I did or didn't. I did not. I gave my opinion. I did not tell people not to vote. Do not say that! That is not true.

    CALLER: OK, can I say something now?

    SCHULTZ: You can say something, as long as it's not accusatory.

    Don't you know I'm above criticism?! After that the call turned toxic, Schultz and the woman arguing for the next two minutes until Schultz reined in his anger and, to his credit, said he wanted to talk with the caller again after a commercial break. Later in the same hour, back on the phone with Beverly from Chicago, Schultz said this (audio) –

    Do I think the president, do I have opinions about his campaign? Absolutely. Do I have opinions about the way they're doing things? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm against him as a president? Absolutely not. Not at all! And, you know, you have to clarify exactly what you're consuming, OK? Just like when you called in and said that I was telling people not to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I was telling the 99ers (Schultz's term for the long-term unemployed, those who had received jobless benefits for nearly two years), you know, asking them the question, where do you stand now in the midterms?  They were the ones that brought it up. They said they didn't want to vote. I covered it as a story. I never said, hey yeah, you guys get together and don't vote.

    …. a claim demolished by what Schultz proclaimed to his radio audience on July 30 (audio) –

    SCHULTZ: But I'm not giving up on this (advocating for extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed). And I think the best way for the 99ers to get the attention of the Congress is to form an unemployed coalition and just flat-out tell the Democrats, we're not voting in the midterm. Look, if they don't realize the seriousness of this, then they don't deserve to be in office. It's that simple. Because they are not serving the people and they're just taking the problem and passing it to the next generation. We have got unprecedented unemployment in this country and the people have to be heard. The people have to be heard! This isn't about saving anybody's congressional ass. This is about saving lives at this point. And if Harry Reid doesn't have the guts to keep the Senate in to move on this issue, in my opinion, he should not be re-elected in Nevada. I don't care who he's going up against. We'll just have to go through this generational fight and make it a lesson for the Democrats and make sure that they know that the grass-rooters are serious, that we mean business, and you gotta do it for people and if you don't, we're not going to vote!  

    And I'm announcing today, I'm not gonna vote in the midterm. I'm not gonna do it! You can say it's un-American. No, it's rather revolutionary is what it is. I'm at that point. I'm checking out. I'm checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don't know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what  you do? You get in the driver's seat, you hit the throttle and you run over 'em. That's what you do. And the Democrats just don't have the guts to politically do that. So they have to be taught a lesson.

    Not exactly a get-out-the-vote pitch. Any of this strike a chord, Ed, in particular your own remarks?

    Schultz's mid-summer rant caught the attention of Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer,  Allahpundit at Hot Air, Kerry Picket at The Washington Times, and Joe Schoffstall at RedState, among others.

    By the way, the legislation Schultz wanted passed before the midterms, to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, was not approved until December in the compromise between President Obama and Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates.

    NewsBusters.org blogs

    Tagged with:
     

    Allow me to refresh his memory.

    Ed Schultz and a caller to his radio show Thursday got into a heated argument after she criticized him for suggesting last year that Democrats stay away from the polls on election day to express their anger with congressional Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits.

    Schultz not only denied what the caller said, he was unequivocal and emphatic about it. Here's how the exchange went (audio) –

    SCHULTZ: All right, let's see, let me get back to this headline here — "Obama's team seeks new ways to fire up his base." Beverly in Chicago, you're on the Ed Schultz radio show. Respond to that, thank you.

    CALLER: Do you think what you did in the midterms was right, telling folks to stay home?

    SCHULTZ: I didn't say that and I'm not going to get into that discussion. That is absolute garbage. That is right-wing crap that's going around the Internet and I'm not even going to go down that road, but I'll give you a chance to finish your phone call.

    CALLER: Whether you did or didn't …

    SCHULTZ: No, I, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not a question of whether I did or didn't. I did not. I gave my opinion. I did not tell people not to vote. Do not say that! That is not true.

    CALLER: OK, can I say something now?

    SCHULTZ: You can say something, as long as it's not accusatory.

    Don't you know I'm above criticism?! After that the call turned toxic, Schultz and the woman arguing for the next two minutes until Schultz reined in his anger and, to his credit, said he wanted to talk with the caller again after a commercial break. Later in the same hour, back on the phone with Beverly from Chicago, Schultz said this (audio) –

    Do I think the president, do I have opinions about his campaign? Absolutely. Do I have opinions about the way they're doing things? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm against him as a president? Absolutely not. Not at all! And, you know, you have to clarify exactly what you're consuming, OK? Just like when you called in and said that I was telling people not to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I was telling the 99ers (Schultz's term for the long-term unemployed, those who had received jobless benefits for nearly two years), you know, asking them the question, where do you stand now in the midterms?  They were the ones that brought it up. They said they didn't want to vote. I covered it as a story. I never said, hey yeah, you guys get together and don't vote.

    …. a claim demolished by what Schultz proclaimed to his radio audience on July 30 (audio) –

    SCHULTZ: But I'm not giving up on this (advocating for extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed). And I think the best way for the 99ers to get the attention of the Congress is to form an unemployed coalition and just flat-out tell the Democrats, we're not voting in the midterm. Look, if they don't realize the seriousness of this, then they don't deserve to be in office. It's that simple. Because they are not serving the people and they're just taking the problem and passing it to the next generation. We have got unprecedented unemployment in this country and the people have to be heard. The people have to be heard! This isn't about saving anybody's congressional ass. This is about saving lives at this point. And if Harry Reid doesn't have the guts to keep the Senate in to move on this issue, in my opinion, he should not be re-elected in Nevada. I don't care who he's going up against. We'll just have to go through this generational fight and make it a lesson for the Democrats and make sure that they know that the grass-rooters are serious, that we mean business, and you gotta do it for people and if you don't, we're not going to vote!  

    And I'm announcing today, I'm not gonna vote in the midterm. I'm not gonna do it! You can say it's un-American. No, it's rather revolutionary is what it is. I'm at that point. I'm checking out. I'm checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don't know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what  you do? You get in the driver's seat, you hit the throttle and you run over 'em. That's what you do. And the Democrats just don't have the guts to politically do that. So they have to be taught a lesson.

    Not exactly a get-out-the-vote pitch. Any of this strike a chord, Ed, in particular your own remarks?

    Schultz's mid-summer rant caught the attention of Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer,  Allahpundit at Hot Air, Kerry Picket at The Washington Times, and Joe Schoffstall at RedState, among others.

    By the way, the legislation Schultz wanted passed before the midterms, to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, was not approved until December in the compromise between President Obama and Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates.

    NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

    Tagged with:
     

    Stock grants make up bulk of 2010…
    B&C – Breaking News

    Tagged with:
     

    The Obama administration was playing games with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to turn over a report detailing the agency’s investigation of an illegal alien, Carlos Martinelly-Montano, who is charged with killing a Virginia nun in a drunk driving accident in August 2010.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promised a federal court it would release the report earlier this year, but then later claimed that the document was in “draft” form, and therefore would not be released. (Click here to read some of the emails back and forth we had with DHS.)

    Judicial Watch received the edited “final” report on March 3, 2011. The final report, which we were told by DHS was still being “worked on” last month, is dated November 24, 2010. This lying game shows the Obama DHS is thoroughly mendacious. The DHS report details policies and actions of the Obama administration and local governments that allowed Montano, an illegal alien who committed a series of crimes, to remain on the streets despite being subject to deportation.

    Here is a detailed chronology of events as described in the report, which we received through a FOIA lawsuit we filed on December 2, 2010. As you’ll see, even though the Obama administration scrubbed the report, there is more than enough evidence of the amnesty and sanctuary policy agenda of the federal government, local authorities and the courts:

    On December 7, 2007, Montano was convicted for driving under the influence (DUI) in Prince William County, Virginia and was sentenced to serve 30 days of incarceration. The judge in Prince William County, however, suspended all 30 days of the jail sentence with the result that Montano was not jailed for his offense. Local authorities did not seek to determine Montano’s immigration status nor did they contact ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement].…

    Almost one year later, on October 4, 2008, Montano was booked into jail in Prince William County and charged with another misdemeanor DUI. At the time of this arrest, the local authorities determined that Montano was an illegal alien. Thus, ICE lodged an immigration detainer against him. As a result of the immigration detainer, immigration officers took him into custody. On October 7, 2008, Prince William County officials released him from custody.…

    [Rather than detaining Montano,] ICE agents determined that Montano was a candidate for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program and … monitored his whereabouts using GPS technology.…

    On April 27, 2009, as a result of the October 2008 DUI arrest, the Circuit Court of Prince William County convicted Montano and sentenced him to serve 12 months and 3 days in jail. However, the judge in Prince William County suspended 11 months and 13 days of Montano’s sentence. As a result of the judge’s decision, Montano served less than two weeks in Prince William County for his second DUI conviction.…

    On May 7, 2009, after Montano served the portion of his sentence that had not been suspended, ICE took him into custody. Based on Montano’s compliance during his prior participation in the ATD program, ICE officers released Montano on the prior order of supervision (dating back to 2008) with the condition that he report to ICE on a regular basis.…

    [While awaiting his deportation hearing,] Montano was charged on March 5, 2009, in Fairfax County, Virginia, with misdemeanor failure to appear related to driving without a license. Local officials dismissed this charge against Montano on May 5, 2009. County officials did not contact ICE. On April 27, 2010, a Manassas Park police officer cited Montano for misdemeanor reckless driving. There is no record indicating that Montano was booked or fingerprinted or that Manassas Park officials contacted ICE. On June 1, 2010, Montano was convicted for reckless driving and fined $ 500. Again, ICE was not contacted following the citation or conviction.

    The documents clearly show that decisions made by the Executive Office for Immigration Review caused delays in the removal proceedings. Moreover, Montano’s immigration attorney successfully lobbied an immigration judge to delay Montano’s removal hearing on two occasions. The court ultimately scheduled Montano’s hearing for August 19, 2010, but it was too little too late. On August 1, 2010, while under the influence of alcohol, Montano was charged with crashing his car into another vehicle, killing one nun and critically injuring two others.

    So, what excuses did the Obama administration come up with to explain this catastrophe?

    The report concludes: “In 2008, when the decision was made to release Montano, fewer beds were available in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.” The report also points to government policies that allowed immigration officials “broad discretion” about how to use detention resources. The Obama administration used this discretion to release Montano in 2009, after he had served jail time for his 2008 drunken driving arrest.

    Here’s what I told the Associated Press about this excuse-making:

    “Most Americans expect illegal aliens to be caught and deported. To use the excuse that ‘We don’t have enough beds’ is so pathetic,” said Fitton, who accused the Obama administration [of having] a “neverending supply of reasons” it won’t detain illegal immigrants.

    The “report” does not mention the series of other terrible Obama administration illegal immigration policies that continue to put illegal alien criminals on the streets.

    In July 2010, the Obama administration announced it would not take legal action against “sanctuary cities” that prevent local law enforcement entities from freely communicating with federal immigration officials. In contrast, the Obama Justice Department filed a lawsuit to stop the State of Arizona from enforcing SB 1070, a get-tough illegal immigration law that mandates local law enforcement officers cooperate with federal immigration officials. The Obama administration ordered federal immigration agents to focus deportation efforts only on illegal aliens suspected of terrorist activity and those convicted of “violent” crimes.

    None of these policies are going to do anything to deter illegal alien criminals from harming American citizens. In fact, they will almost assuredly make matters much worse.

    Regarding the report, if this is the cleaned-up version, I can’t imagine what bombshells were included in the original version. Even in its edited form, this report is an embarrassment to the Obama administration and a clear indictment of Obama’s lawless approach to illegal immigration. An innocent nun lost her life because local police officers are not allowed—and Obama immigration officials couldn’t be bothered—to enforce and obey the law. This tragedy is a direct result of the Obama administration’s decision to undermine the enforcement of federal immigration laws.


    Big Government

    Tagged with:
     

    No one can fairly accuse whoever wrote the Tuesday evening report on 2010 newspaper industry revenue of looking through rose-colored glasses. The same cannot be said of John F. Sturm, President and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, whose press release today reads as follows:

    Quarter after quarter, newspaper advertising has shown signs of a continued turnaround and an essential repositioning. Buoyed by online growth and moderating print declines, these figures point to a continually improving advertising environment for newspapers, with encouraging trends as we progress further into 2011. Online revenues increased 14 percent in last year’s fourth quarter, with 12 percent of all newspaper ad revenues generated from digital platforms.

     

    Newspapers – in print and digital form – remain the largest source of original, high-quality news and information in the United States, reaching nearly two-thirds of all adult Internet users and attracting more than 164 million people who read a newspaper in print or online each and every week.

    Despite one half-decent quarter, Sturm's characterization of the "environment" as improving is deliberate, he surely can't say that total revenues are improving:

    NewspaperRevenues2000to2010

    The AP's coverage made some good points about the overall picture, but missed two important things, which I'll note after the excerpt:

    Newspaper advertising in the U.S. has sunk to a 25-year low as marketing budgets followed readers to the Internet, where advertising is far cheaper than what publishers have been able to command in print.

     

    Advertisers spent $ 25.8 billion on newspapers' print and digital editions last year, according to figures released Tuesday by the Newspaper Association of America. That's the lowest amount since 1985 when total newspaper advertising stood at $ 25.2 billion.

     

    After adjusting for inflation, newspaper advertising now stands at about the same level as nearly 50 years ago. In 1962, newspaper advertising totaled $ 3.7 billion, which translates to about $ 26 billion today.

     

    Print advertising has fallen in each of the past five years, dramatically shrinking newspaper publishers' main source of income. Even as the economy has gradually improved since 2009, newspapers are still bringing in less revenue as advertisers embrace free or cheaper Internet alternatives that aim to deliver the messages to people most likely to be interested in the products being pitched.

     

    … Many publishers are pinning their comeback hopes on delivering more news to the growing audience on mobile phones and tablet computers such as Apple Inc.'s iPad.

     

    Tablets, in particular, could create new moneymaking opportunities because early research indicates that their users tend to spend more time reading stories and watching video on those devices than they do on laptops and desktop computers. That trend could help newspapers charge higher rates for ads on their tablet editions than they do on their websites and perhaps make it easier to sell subscriptions to digital editions. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal and a few other newspapers, most publishers have given away their content on the Web – a factor that contributed to their financial woes in recent years.

     

    … Newspaper advertising totaled $ 7.3 billion in the last three months of 2010, down 5 percent from the prior year. The quarterly decreases have been getting progressively smaller since the July-September period of 2009, when newspaper ad revenue plunged 29 percent from the previous year.

    This is all pretty bad stuff, but given that revenue growth is probably going to have to come from online sources, here are a couple of items that should be considered even more troubling:

    • As seen in the graphic above, online revenue is still 4% below where it was in 2007, before considering inflation.
    • In the context of the growth of online revenue as a whole, the 2010 increase of 10.9% is less than the 13.9% growth in all online ad revenue, while the 4% decline in the past three years is clearly below overall online ad growth during the same period.

    If bias and lack of trust isn't part of the reason for the poor performance in online revenue growth compared to overall online revenues (while certain "nontraditional" news sites have achieved stellar revenue growth), what is?

    Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

    NewsBusters.org blogs

    Tagged with:
     

    Despite popularity of over-the-top content, operators add 211,000…
    B&C – Breaking News

    Tagged with:
     

    No one can fairly accuse whoever wrote the Tuesday evening report on 2010 newspaper industry revenue of looking through rose-colored glasses. The same cannot be said of John F. Sturm, President and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, whose press release today reads as follows:

    Quarter after quarter, newspaper advertising has shown signs of a continued turnaround and an essential repositioning. Buoyed by online growth and moderating print declines, these figures point to a continually improving advertising environment for newspapers, with encouraging trends as we progress further into 2011. Online revenues increased 14 percent in last year’s fourth quarter, with 12 percent of all newspaper ad revenues generated from digital platforms.

     

    Newspapers – in print and digital form – remain the largest source of original, high-quality news and information in the United States, reaching nearly two-thirds of all adult Internet users and attracting more than 164 million people who read a newspaper in print or online each and every week.

    Despite one half-decent quarter, Sturm's characterization of the "environment" as improving is deliberate, he surely can't say that total revenues are improving:

    NewspaperRevenues2000to2010

    The AP's coverage made some good points about the overall picture, but missed two important things, which I'll note after the excerpt:

    Newspaper advertising in the U.S. has sunk to a 25-year low as marketing budgets followed readers to the Internet, where advertising is far cheaper than what publishers have been able to command in print.

     

    Advertisers spent $ 25.8 billion on newspapers' print and digital editions last year, according to figures released Tuesday by the Newspaper Association of America. That's the lowest amount since 1985 when total newspaper advertising stood at $ 25.2 billion.

     

    After adjusting for inflation, newspaper advertising now stands at about the same level as nearly 50 years ago. In 1962, newspaper advertising totaled $ 3.7 billion, which translates to about $ 26 billion today.

     

    Print advertising has fallen in each of the past five years, dramatically shrinking newspaper publishers' main source of income. Even as the economy has gradually improved since 2009, newspapers are still bringing in less revenue as advertisers embrace free or cheaper Internet alternatives that aim to deliver the messages to people most likely to be interested in the products being pitched.

     

    … Many publishers are pinning their comeback hopes on delivering more news to the growing audience on mobile phones and tablet computers such as Apple Inc.'s iPad.

     

    Tablets, in particular, could create new moneymaking opportunities because early research indicates that their users tend to spend more time reading stories and watching video on those devices than they do on laptops and desktop computers. That trend could help newspapers charge higher rates for ads on their tablet editions than they do on their websites and perhaps make it easier to sell subscriptions to digital editions. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal and a few other newspapers, most publishers have given away their content on the Web – a factor that contributed to their financial woes in recent years.

     

    … Newspaper advertising totaled $ 7.3 billion in the last three months of 2010, down 5 percent from the prior year. The quarterly decreases have been getting progressively smaller since the July-September period of 2009, when newspaper ad revenue plunged 29 percent from the previous year.

    This is all pretty bad stuff, but given that revenue growth is probably going to have to come from online sources, here are a couple of items that should be considered even more troubling:

    • As seen in the graphic above, online revenue is still 4% below where it was in 2007, before considering inflation.
    • In the context of the growth of online revenue as a whole, the 2010 increase of 10.9% is less than the 13.9% growth in all online ad revenue, while the 4% decline in the past three years is clearly below overall online ad growth during the same period.

    If bias and lack of trust isn't part of the reason for the poor performance in online revenue growth compared to overall online revenues (while certain "nontraditional" news sites have achieved stellar revenue growth), what is?

    Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

    NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

    Tagged with: