State Disparities in Teenage Birth Rates in the United States
"Key findings
In 2008, state-specific teenage birth rates varied widely, from less than 25.0 per 1,000 15-19 year olds to more than 60.0.
Rates for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic teenagers were uniformly higher in the Southeast and lower in the Northeast and California.
The highest rates for non-Hispanic black teenagers were reported in the upper Midwest and in the Southeast.
The race and Hispanic origin-specific birth rates by state as well as the population composition of states by race and Hispanic origin contribute to state variations in overall teenage birth rates..."
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Addressing the Impact of the Foreclosure Crisis: Federal Reserve Mortgage Outreach and Research Efforts
"Since the start of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve System has undertaken a series of well publicized and unprecedented actions to help stabilize the mortgage and financial markets and promote economic recovery. What is less well known is that the Federal Reserve has also been working to respond to the foreclosure crisis
on “Main Street,” leveraging its research, community affairs and supervision and regulation functions to support innovative foreclosure prevention and neighborhood stabilization strategies at the local level. In the spring of 2009, the Federal Reserve’s Conference of Presidents embarked on a collaborative effort to leverage the
substantial knowledge of experts in mortgage markets across the Federal Reserve System. Under the auspices of the Mortgage Outreach and Research Efforts (MORE) initiative, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors have worked together proactively to inform and engage policymakers, community organizations, financial institutions and the public.
This publication, Addressing the Impact of the Foreclosure Crisis, highlights MORE-sponsored projects designed to communicate best practices and information about innovative programs to improve conditions in neighborhoods affected by high rates of foreclosure. It also reviews initiatives undertaken by the various Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors to respond to the foreclosure crisis. More detailed information about MORE projects, including foreclosure toolkits and other valuable information for borrowers and community organizations, can be found at the Foreclosure Resource Center of www.chicagofed.org and the other Federal Reserve Bank websites."
"Since the start of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve System has undertaken a series of well publicized and unprecedented actions to help stabilize the mortgage and financial markets and promote economic recovery. What is less well known is that the Federal Reserve has also been working to respond to the foreclosure crisis
on “Main Street,” leveraging its research, community affairs and supervision and regulation functions to support innovative foreclosure prevention and neighborhood stabilization strategies at the local level. In the spring of 2009, the Federal Reserve’s Conference of Presidents embarked on a collaborative effort to leverage the
substantial knowledge of experts in mortgage markets across the Federal Reserve System. Under the auspices of the Mortgage Outreach and Research Efforts (MORE) initiative, the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors have worked together proactively to inform and engage policymakers, community organizations, financial institutions and the public.
This publication, Addressing the Impact of the Foreclosure Crisis, highlights MORE-sponsored projects designed to communicate best practices and information about innovative programs to improve conditions in neighborhoods affected by high rates of foreclosure. It also reviews initiatives undertaken by the various Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors to respond to the foreclosure crisis. More detailed information about MORE projects, including foreclosure toolkits and other valuable information for borrowers and community organizations, can be found at the Foreclosure Resource Center of www.chicagofed.org and the other Federal Reserve Bank websites."
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: A Legal Analysis
"...In recent years, several Members of Congress have expressed interest in amending DADT. At least two bills that would repeal the law and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—H.R. 1283 and S. 3065—have been introduced in the 111th Congress. Other proposed legislation in the 111th Congress includes H.R. 4180, which would protect service members who disclose their sexual orientation to a member of Congress, and H.R. 4902, which would establish additional research, study, and reporting requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD) working group currently reviewing issues that may arise if DADT is repealed. The working group was established in February 2010 by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who simultaneously directed DOD to review regulations regarding DADT and to propose any changes that would allow DOD to “enforce the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.” Based on this review, Secretary Gates announced revisions to the DADT regulations in March 2010 that will ease certain requirements for discharging service members pursuant to DADT. More recently, both the full House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee approved amendments to the 2011 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5136; S. 3454) that would repeal DADT if certain conditions are met."
"...In recent years, several Members of Congress have expressed interest in amending DADT. At least two bills that would repeal the law and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—H.R. 1283 and S. 3065—have been introduced in the 111th Congress. Other proposed legislation in the 111th Congress includes H.R. 4180, which would protect service members who disclose their sexual orientation to a member of Congress, and H.R. 4902, which would establish additional research, study, and reporting requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD) working group currently reviewing issues that may arise if DADT is repealed. The working group was established in February 2010 by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who simultaneously directed DOD to review regulations regarding DADT and to propose any changes that would allow DOD to “enforce the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.” Based on this review, Secretary Gates announced revisions to the DADT regulations in March 2010 that will ease certain requirements for discharging service members pursuant to DADT. More recently, both the full House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee approved amendments to the 2011 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5136; S. 3454) that would repeal DADT if certain conditions are met."
The Economic Outlook and Options for Fiscal Policy
Douglas W. Elmendorf,Director presentation to the Forecasters Club, Oct., 27, 2010.
"CBO expects that the economic recovery will proceed at a modest pace, leaving the unemployment rate above 8 percent until 2012.
There are monetary and fiscal policy options that, if applied at a sufficient scale, would increase output and employment during the next few years (but not overnight).
Such options would have costs as well. Expansionary fiscal policy would increase federal debt, which is currently larger relative to the size of the economy than it has been in more than 50 years—and is headed higher..."
Douglas W. Elmendorf,Director presentation to the Forecasters Club, Oct., 27, 2010.
"CBO expects that the economic recovery will proceed at a modest pace, leaving the unemployment rate above 8 percent until 2012.
There are monetary and fiscal policy options that, if applied at a sufficient scale, would increase output and employment during the next few years (but not overnight).
Such options would have costs as well. Expansionary fiscal policy would increase federal debt, which is currently larger relative to the size of the economy than it has been in more than 50 years—and is headed higher..."
DOT, EPA Propose the Nation’s First Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Trucks and Buses
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today announced the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. This comprehensive national program is projected to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced within the program’s first five years....
EPA and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing new standards for three categories of heavy trucks: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. The categories were established to address specific challenges for manufacturers in each area. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year..."
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today announced the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. This comprehensive national program is projected to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced within the program’s first five years....
EPA and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are proposing new standards for three categories of heavy trucks: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. The categories were established to address specific challenges for manufacturers in each area. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year..."
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Industrial Revolution in the United States:Primary Source Set
Find primary source materials from the Library of Congress on the Industrial Revolution. Although directed toward teachers, it provides valuable resources for the general reader.
Find primary source materials from the Library of Congress on the Industrial Revolution. Although directed toward teachers, it provides valuable resources for the general reader.
Economic Effects of the March Health Legislation
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, presentation at the University of Southern California, October 22, 2010.
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act:
–Expansion of insurance coverage.
–Changes in Medicare.
–Revenue increases.
■The economic effects of the legislation can be divided into two pieces:
–The effects on the five-sixths of the economy outside the health sector.
–The effects on the health sector itself.
The most significant effects will be through the labor market—but those effects will probably be small.
■The legislation will affect some individuals’ decisions about whether and how much to work, and some employers’ decisions about hiring workers. We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply..."
Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, presentation at the University of Southern California, October 22, 2010.
"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act:
–Expansion of insurance coverage.
–Changes in Medicare.
–Revenue increases.
■The economic effects of the legislation can be divided into two pieces:
–The effects on the five-sixths of the economy outside the health sector.
–The effects on the health sector itself.
The most significant effects will be through the labor market—but those effects will probably be small.
■The legislation will affect some individuals’ decisions about whether and how much to work, and some employers’ decisions about hiring workers. We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply..."
Bedbugs
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention site that provides descriptive information on bedbugs along with information on their life life cycle.
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention site that provides descriptive information on bedbugs along with information on their life life cycle.
FTC Issues Enforcement Policy Statement on New Debt Relief Rule
"Enforcement Deferred for Tax Debt Relief Services, but Most Companies Are Now Prohibited From Collecting Advance Fees
The Federal Trade Commission has issued an enforcement policy statement on a new FTC rule that protects consumers by barring debt relief firms from collecting up-front fees. In its statement, the FTC says that while most companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone are now prohibited from charging fees before settling or reducing a consumer’s credit card or other unsecured debt, it will defer enforcement of the new rule for tax debt relief services.
The ban on advance fees reflects changes that the FTC made to its Telemarketing Sales Rule last July. These change take effect today. During the FTC’s education and outreach efforts earlier this month, some tax debt relief companies expressed uncertainty about whether the Rule applied to them. Specifically, they questioned whether tax debts are “unsecured,” which would make them subject to the Rule. The FTC currently is considering these concerns, and until further notice, will defer enforcing the Rule with respect to “services that represent, directly or by implication, to renegotiate settle, or alter the terms of obligation between a person and a taxing entity (tax debt relief services).”,,,"
"Enforcement Deferred for Tax Debt Relief Services, but Most Companies Are Now Prohibited From Collecting Advance Fees
The Federal Trade Commission has issued an enforcement policy statement on a new FTC rule that protects consumers by barring debt relief firms from collecting up-front fees. In its statement, the FTC says that while most companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone are now prohibited from charging fees before settling or reducing a consumer’s credit card or other unsecured debt, it will defer enforcement of the new rule for tax debt relief services.
The ban on advance fees reflects changes that the FTC made to its Telemarketing Sales Rule last July. These change take effect today. During the FTC’s education and outreach efforts earlier this month, some tax debt relief companies expressed uncertainty about whether the Rule applied to them. Specifically, they questioned whether tax debts are “unsecured,” which would make them subject to the Rule. The FTC currently is considering these concerns, and until further notice, will defer enforcing the Rule with respect to “services that represent, directly or by implication, to renegotiate settle, or alter the terms of obligation between a person and a taxing entity (tax debt relief services).”,,,"
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview
"Zacarias Moussaoui, members of the Colombian drug cartels, members of organized crime, and
some of the former Enron executives have at least one thing in common: they all have federal
conspiracy convictions. The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to
engage in some form of prohibited misconduct. The crime is complete upon agreement, although
some statutes require prosecutors to show that at least one of the conspirators has taken some
concrete step or committed some overt act in furtherance of the scheme. There are dozens of
federal conspiracy statutes. One, 18 U.S.C. 371, outlaws conspiracy to commit some other federal
crime. The others outlaw conspiracy to engage in various specific forms of proscribed conduct.
General Section 371 conspiracies are punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years;
drug trafficking, terrorist, and racketeering conspiracies all carry the same penalties as their
underlying substantive offenses, and thus are punished more severely than are Section 371
conspiracies. All are subject to fines of not more than $250,000 (not more than $500,000 for
organizations), most may serve as the basis for a restitution order, and some for a forfeiture order..."
"Zacarias Moussaoui, members of the Colombian drug cartels, members of organized crime, and
some of the former Enron executives have at least one thing in common: they all have federal
conspiracy convictions. The essence of conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to
engage in some form of prohibited misconduct. The crime is complete upon agreement, although
some statutes require prosecutors to show that at least one of the conspirators has taken some
concrete step or committed some overt act in furtherance of the scheme. There are dozens of
federal conspiracy statutes. One, 18 U.S.C. 371, outlaws conspiracy to commit some other federal
crime. The others outlaw conspiracy to engage in various specific forms of proscribed conduct.
General Section 371 conspiracies are punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years;
drug trafficking, terrorist, and racketeering conspiracies all carry the same penalties as their
underlying substantive offenses, and thus are punished more severely than are Section 371
conspiracies. All are subject to fines of not more than $250,000 (not more than $500,000 for
organizations), most may serve as the basis for a restitution order, and some for a forfeiture order..."
Venezuela: Issues in the 111th Congress
"The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil, but there has been friction in relations for almost a decade under the government of populist President Hugo Chávez. U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases, its relations with Cuba and Iran, and its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries. Declining cooperation on anti-drug and antiterrorism efforts has also been a concern. In September 2008, bilateral relations worsened when President Chávez expelled the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, and the United States responded in kind. Under the Obama Administration, Venezuela and the United States reached an agreement
for the return of respective ambassadors in July 2009. While some observers were hopeful that
the return of ambassadors would mark an improvement in relations, this has not been the case.
The United States has continued to express concerns about the Venezuelan government’s
treatment of the news media and political opposition and about interference in the affairs
of other countries in the region.
Under the rule of President Chávez, first elected in 1998 and re-elected to a six-year term in
December 2006, Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution
and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela. Human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of
democratic institutions and threats to freedom of expression under President Chávez. The
government benefitted from the rise in world oil prices, which sparked an economic boom and
allowed Chávez to increase expenditures on social programs associated with his populist agenda.
These programs have helped reduce poverty levels significantly, but the Venezuelan economy has
been hit hard by the global financial crisis and economic downturn..."
"The United States traditionally has had close relations with Venezuela, a major supplier of foreign oil, but there has been friction in relations for almost a decade under the government of populist President Hugo Chávez. U.S. officials have expressed concerns about human rights, Venezuela’s military arms purchases, its relations with Cuba and Iran, and its efforts to export its brand of populism to other Latin American countries. Declining cooperation on anti-drug and antiterrorism efforts has also been a concern. In September 2008, bilateral relations worsened when President Chávez expelled the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, and the United States responded in kind. Under the Obama Administration, Venezuela and the United States reached an agreement
for the return of respective ambassadors in July 2009. While some observers were hopeful that
the return of ambassadors would mark an improvement in relations, this has not been the case.
The United States has continued to express concerns about the Venezuelan government’s
treatment of the news media and political opposition and about interference in the affairs
of other countries in the region.
Under the rule of President Chávez, first elected in 1998 and re-elected to a six-year term in
December 2006, Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution
and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela. Human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of
democratic institutions and threats to freedom of expression under President Chávez. The
government benefitted from the rise in world oil prices, which sparked an economic boom and
allowed Chávez to increase expenditures on social programs associated with his populist agenda.
These programs have helped reduce poverty levels significantly, but the Venezuelan economy has
been hit hard by the global financial crisis and economic downturn..."
Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion
"The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the shifting
of profits and income into low-tax countries, often referred to as tax havens. The revenue losses
from this tax avoidance and evasion are difficult to estimate, but some have suggested that the
annual cost of offshore tax abuses may be around $100 billion per year. International tax
avoidance can arise from large multinational corporations who shift profits into low-tax foreign
subsidiaries or wealthy individual investors who set up secret bank accounts in tax haven
countries.
Recent actions by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the
G-20 industrialized nations have targeted tax haven countries, focusing primarily on evasion
issues. The recently adopted HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) included a number of anti-evasion
provisions, and P.L. 111-226 included foreign tax credit provisions. Some of these proposals, and
some not adopted, are in the American Jobs and Closing Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213); the Stop Tax
Haven Abuse Act (S. 506, H.R. 1265); draft proposals by the Senate Finance Committee; two
other related bills, S. 386 and S. 569; the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act (S.
3018); and proposals by President Obama..."
"The federal government loses both individual and corporate income tax revenue from the shifting
of profits and income into low-tax countries, often referred to as tax havens. The revenue losses
from this tax avoidance and evasion are difficult to estimate, but some have suggested that the
annual cost of offshore tax abuses may be around $100 billion per year. International tax
avoidance can arise from large multinational corporations who shift profits into low-tax foreign
subsidiaries or wealthy individual investors who set up secret bank accounts in tax haven
countries.
Recent actions by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the
G-20 industrialized nations have targeted tax haven countries, focusing primarily on evasion
issues. The recently adopted HIRE Act (P.L. 111-147) included a number of anti-evasion
provisions, and P.L. 111-226 included foreign tax credit provisions. Some of these proposals, and
some not adopted, are in the American Jobs and Closing Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213); the Stop Tax
Haven Abuse Act (S. 506, H.R. 1265); draft proposals by the Senate Finance Committee; two
other related bills, S. 386 and S. 569; the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act (S.
3018); and proposals by President Obama..."
The “Deeming Resolution”: A Budget Enforcement Tool
"Summary
“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation deemed to serve as an annual budget
resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget levels for a budget cycle. A deeming
resolution is used when the House and Senate are late in reaching final agreement on a budget
resolution or fail to reach agreement altogether.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the annual adoption of a budget resolution
establishing aggregate levels of revenues, spending, the debt limit, and the surplus or deficit, as well as allocations of spending. Enforcement of the budget resolution relies primarily upon points of order and reconciliation procedures. With regard to the enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations, the major points of order are found in Sections 311 and 302 of
the act, respectively.
The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor is there any specific statute or rule
authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of a deeming resolution simply represents the House
and Senate employing regular legislative procedures to deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis..."
"Summary
“Deeming resolution” is a term that refers to legislation deemed to serve as an annual budget
resolution for purposes of establishing enforceable budget levels for a budget cycle. A deeming
resolution is used when the House and Senate are late in reaching final agreement on a budget
resolution or fail to reach agreement altogether.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the annual adoption of a budget resolution
establishing aggregate levels of revenues, spending, the debt limit, and the surplus or deficit, as well as allocations of spending. Enforcement of the budget resolution relies primarily upon points of order and reconciliation procedures. With regard to the enforcement of budget aggregates and committee spending allocations, the major points of order are found in Sections 311 and 302 of
the act, respectively.
The term “deeming resolution” is not officially defined, nor is there any specific statute or rule
authorizing such legislation. Instead, the use of a deeming resolution simply represents the House
and Senate employing regular legislative procedures to deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis..."
CBO’s Projections of Federal Receipts and Expenditures in the Framework of the National Income and Product Accounts
"The fiscal transactions of the federal government are recorded in two major sets of accounts. One is The Budget of the United States Government, which is prepared by the
Office of Management and Budget and is the framework generally used by executive branch agencies and the Congress and typically discussed in the press. The other set of accounts is the national income and product accounts (NIPAs), which are produced by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.1
The purposes served by the budget and the NIPA accounting frameworks, the conceptual differences, and the relationship between those two sets of data are examined
briefly below and more thoroughly in previous publications by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In August, CBO reported its latest baseline projections
of federal revenues and outlays in the standard structure for budget accounting.3 This report presents those projections in the NIPA framework (see Tables 1 and 2)..".
"The fiscal transactions of the federal government are recorded in two major sets of accounts. One is The Budget of the United States Government, which is prepared by the
Office of Management and Budget and is the framework generally used by executive branch agencies and the Congress and typically discussed in the press. The other set of accounts is the national income and product accounts (NIPAs), which are produced by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.1
The purposes served by the budget and the NIPA accounting frameworks, the conceptual differences, and the relationship between those two sets of data are examined
briefly below and more thoroughly in previous publications by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In August, CBO reported its latest baseline projections
of federal revenues and outlays in the standard structure for budget accounting.3 This report presents those projections in the NIPA framework (see Tables 1 and 2)..".
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Number of Americans with Diabetes Projected to Double or Triple by 2050
"As many as 1 in 3 U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
One in 10 U.S. adults has diabetes now. The prevalence is expected to rise sharply over the next 40 years due to an aging population more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, increases in minority groups that are at high risk for type 2 diabetes, and people with diabetes living longer, according to CDC projections published in the journal Population Health Metrics. Because the study factored in aging, minority populations and lifespan, the projections are higher than previous estimates.
The report predicts that the number of new diabetes cases each year will increase from 8 per 1,000 people in 2008, to 15 per 1,000 in 2050.
The report estimates that the number of Americans with diabetes will range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 by 2050. That range reflects differing assumptions about how many people will develop diabetes, and how long they will live after developing the disease..."
"As many as 1 in 3 U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050 if current trends continue, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
One in 10 U.S. adults has diabetes now. The prevalence is expected to rise sharply over the next 40 years due to an aging population more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, increases in minority groups that are at high risk for type 2 diabetes, and people with diabetes living longer, according to CDC projections published in the journal Population Health Metrics. Because the study factored in aging, minority populations and lifespan, the projections are higher than previous estimates.
The report predicts that the number of new diabetes cases each year will increase from 8 per 1,000 people in 2008, to 15 per 1,000 in 2050.
The report estimates that the number of Americans with diabetes will range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 by 2050. That range reflects differing assumptions about how many people will develop diabetes, and how long they will live after developing the disease..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
