http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/mexico-asks-u-s-stop-deporting-serious-criminals
Mexico Asks U.S. To Stop Deporting Serious Criminals
Last Updated: Mon, 09/27/2010 - 11:14am
In a flabbergasting request, a coalition of Mexican lawmakers
has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants
who have been convicted of serious crimes in American courts.
The preposterous demand was made at a recent southern
California conference in which the mayors of four Mexican cities
that border the U.S. gathered to discuss cross-border issues. The
only American mayor who attended the biannual event was San
Diego’s Jerry Sanders, evidently because his city hosted it this
year at a fancy downtown hotel.
Among the cross-border topics that were addressed at the
conference was the deportation of Mexican citizens who have
committed violent crimes in the U.S. The felons are persona
non grata in their communities, say the mayors of Tijuana,
Ciudad Juarez, Nogales and Nuevo Laredo. They want U.S.
officials to stem the deportation of such convicts to their cities,
according to a local newspaper report that covered the conference.
To support the request, the mayor (Jose Reyes Ferriz) of Mexico’s
most violent city, Ciudad Juarez, pointed out that of 80,000
people deported to his community in the past three years nearly
30,000 had committed serious crimes in the U.S. Around 7,000
had served sentences for rape and 2,000 for murder. The criminal
deportees have contributed to the escalating drug-cartel violence
in his city, Mayor Ferriz said, so he wants the U.S. to make other
arrangements when prison sentences are completed.
If this seems unbelievable, consider that a few years ago Mexico’s
government formally complained that too many Mexicans had
been repatriated from the U.S. and that the entire country was
overwhelmed with demands for housing, jobs and schools.
Various Mexican legislators publicly chastised the U.S. for
sending illegal immigrants back, explaining that the country
could not accommodate the “repatriated.”
The Obama Administration seems to be heeding to Mexico’s
request by openly halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands
of illegal immigrants. Additionally, the administration has a “backdoor
amnesty” plan to legalize millions of undocumented aliens in case
Congress doesn’t pass legislation to do it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
.22 Long Rifle
The .22 Long Rifle: one of our oldest calibers
continuously improves
Guns Magazine, March, 2005 by Charles E. Petty
There are so many choices in factory ammo for
today's shooter that it is almost impossible to keep
them straight. So let's begin where almost all of us
did with the .22 Long Rifle. Even though some folks
look down on it, the undeniable fact is that more
.22 ammo is consumed in this country than all the
other choices combined. Billions--several of them--
annually. More than 50 percent of the total U.S.
output of ammo is rimfire and the overwhelming
majority of that is the .22 Long Rifle.
Of course, the entire rimfire family is much larger
with CBs, BBs, shorts and longs, extra longs, WRFs,
Magnums and now the .17s. Even the Long Rifle is
subdivided into at least four categories: match,
standard velocity, high velocity and hyper velocity.
At first there was only standard, but somewhere
in the teens high-speed ammo came along. Today,
high velocity is most common and where .22 Shorts
used to be my favorite because they only cost half
as much, nowadays you pay extra for everything
other than high speed.
The normal .22 Long Rifle is a 40-grain lead bullet
at 1,255 fps. Hollowpoints usually weigh 36 grains
and go 1,280 fps. Standard velocity is around 1,070.
In order to get it to go lots faster--hypervelocity
in other words--bullet weights are reduced to 32
or 33 grains and the speed winner--CCI Stinger is
listed at 1,640 fps. The standard test barrel length
is 24" and this brings us to a difficult situation. Very
few .22s these days have 24" barrels and an awful
lot of ammo goes through handguns. Winchester
does show velocities for 6" barrels in their catalog,
but you don't see herds of those either. So what I
did was go find as many different barrel lengths
as I could and shoot them all with the same ammo.
I chose CCI as representative and used standard,
MiniMag and Stinger amino to cover the basic
velocity groups. Match ammo is customarily
loaded to standard velocities, so I didn't use a
separate category although we do need to know
that different manufacturers may have slightly
different specifications. All were chronographed
with a new PACT Professional Chronograph with
the screens 15' from the muzzle. I also recorded
standard deviation, but there wasn't two cents
worth of difference so that was not included in
the table. Here's what I found:
It is interesting to note that velocities seem to
increase in line with barrel length until we get
to 24" where the velocities take a marked drop.
Of course this means that we have gotten all the
acceleration possible from the powder by 20"--
probably even less--and friction is taking over
and slowing things down. The two autoloaders
do seem to benefit a little by not having a
barrel/cylinder gap but we really can't say
that is a rule. I've also seen cases where a
revolver gave higher velocities than a pistol
with the same length barrel.
The .22 Long Rifle remains one of shooting's
greatest bargains. In my childhood I measured
my wealth by how many I had and one of my
most treasured birthday and Christmas presents
was a whole brick of ammo. The amazing thing
is that you can still buy .22s for a couple of
pennies a round or you can pay a whole lot
more. The big box stores brought about the
bulk package of 500 to 550 cartridges and I
daresay that these account for a substantial
chunk of the total.
But today's shooter has a lot more choices than
I did as a kid. Back then the color of the box was
the major decision. Now we have an enormous
variety of both domestic and imported brands
from which to choose and how we make that
decision is not always easy. Many, many
shooters only want the most bang for the buck
and theirs is the easy choice because price alone
is easy to see. But if our requirements expand a
bit to include accuracy, life just got a lot more
complicated. There aren't too many laws
concerning the behavior of guns, but one of
the very stubborn rules is that .22's rarely
follow one another around and just because
something shot well in this gun is no reason
to even think it will shoot in that one. One
generalization that seem to hold true is that
accuracy decreases as velocity increases. There
are exceptions, but standard velocity is almost
always more accurate than high speed. But we
need to be sure to define the type of accuracy
we need. If the target is a soda can at a matter
of a few yards match-grade accuracy is not
required so even though our gun might shoot
better with it we simply don't need it.
Once upon a time I did a serious accuracy test
with dozens of different .22 loads and came to
two conclusions: one I've already stated is that
standard velocity is almost always more accurate
and the other was that the only way to find out
was shoot it. So my suggestion is to define your
needs and buy the cheapest stuff that meets them.
BARREL
FIREARM LENGTH VELOCITY AMMUNITION
(MAKE) (INCHES) (FPS) (BRAND)
CCI CCI CCI
STANDARD MINIMAG STINGER
S&W317 3" 843 923 1,138
S&W 34 4" 872 980 1,154
Kimber 1911 5" 910 1,037 1,264
S&W K-22 6" 897 1,023 1,232
S&W 41 7" 959 1,125 1,422
Remington 504 20" 1,100 1,266 1,576
Remington 12-C 24" 1,005 1,150 1,506
COPYRIGHT 2005 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
continuously improves
Guns Magazine, March, 2005 by Charles E. Petty
There are so many choices in factory ammo for
today's shooter that it is almost impossible to keep
them straight. So let's begin where almost all of us
did with the .22 Long Rifle. Even though some folks
look down on it, the undeniable fact is that more
.22 ammo is consumed in this country than all the
other choices combined. Billions--several of them--
annually. More than 50 percent of the total U.S.
output of ammo is rimfire and the overwhelming
majority of that is the .22 Long Rifle.
Of course, the entire rimfire family is much larger
with CBs, BBs, shorts and longs, extra longs, WRFs,
Magnums and now the .17s. Even the Long Rifle is
subdivided into at least four categories: match,
standard velocity, high velocity and hyper velocity.
At first there was only standard, but somewhere
in the teens high-speed ammo came along. Today,
high velocity is most common and where .22 Shorts
used to be my favorite because they only cost half
as much, nowadays you pay extra for everything
other than high speed.
The normal .22 Long Rifle is a 40-grain lead bullet
at 1,255 fps. Hollowpoints usually weigh 36 grains
and go 1,280 fps. Standard velocity is around 1,070.
In order to get it to go lots faster--hypervelocity
in other words--bullet weights are reduced to 32
or 33 grains and the speed winner--CCI Stinger is
listed at 1,640 fps. The standard test barrel length
is 24" and this brings us to a difficult situation. Very
few .22s these days have 24" barrels and an awful
lot of ammo goes through handguns. Winchester
does show velocities for 6" barrels in their catalog,
but you don't see herds of those either. So what I
did was go find as many different barrel lengths
as I could and shoot them all with the same ammo.
I chose CCI as representative and used standard,
MiniMag and Stinger amino to cover the basic
velocity groups. Match ammo is customarily
loaded to standard velocities, so I didn't use a
separate category although we do need to know
that different manufacturers may have slightly
different specifications. All were chronographed
with a new PACT Professional Chronograph with
the screens 15' from the muzzle. I also recorded
standard deviation, but there wasn't two cents
worth of difference so that was not included in
the table. Here's what I found:
It is interesting to note that velocities seem to
increase in line with barrel length until we get
to 24" where the velocities take a marked drop.
Of course this means that we have gotten all the
acceleration possible from the powder by 20"--
probably even less--and friction is taking over
and slowing things down. The two autoloaders
do seem to benefit a little by not having a
barrel/cylinder gap but we really can't say
that is a rule. I've also seen cases where a
revolver gave higher velocities than a pistol
with the same length barrel.
The .22 Long Rifle remains one of shooting's
greatest bargains. In my childhood I measured
my wealth by how many I had and one of my
most treasured birthday and Christmas presents
was a whole brick of ammo. The amazing thing
is that you can still buy .22s for a couple of
pennies a round or you can pay a whole lot
more. The big box stores brought about the
bulk package of 500 to 550 cartridges and I
daresay that these account for a substantial
chunk of the total.
But today's shooter has a lot more choices than
I did as a kid. Back then the color of the box was
the major decision. Now we have an enormous
variety of both domestic and imported brands
from which to choose and how we make that
decision is not always easy. Many, many
shooters only want the most bang for the buck
and theirs is the easy choice because price alone
is easy to see. But if our requirements expand a
bit to include accuracy, life just got a lot more
complicated. There aren't too many laws
concerning the behavior of guns, but one of
the very stubborn rules is that .22's rarely
follow one another around and just because
something shot well in this gun is no reason
to even think it will shoot in that one. One
generalization that seem to hold true is that
accuracy decreases as velocity increases. There
are exceptions, but standard velocity is almost
always more accurate than high speed. But we
need to be sure to define the type of accuracy
we need. If the target is a soda can at a matter
of a few yards match-grade accuracy is not
required so even though our gun might shoot
better with it we simply don't need it.
Once upon a time I did a serious accuracy test
with dozens of different .22 loads and came to
two conclusions: one I've already stated is that
standard velocity is almost always more accurate
and the other was that the only way to find out
was shoot it. So my suggestion is to define your
needs and buy the cheapest stuff that meets them.
BARREL
FIREARM LENGTH VELOCITY AMMUNITION
(MAKE) (INCHES) (FPS) (BRAND)
CCI CCI CCI
STANDARD MINIMAG STINGER
S&W317 3" 843 923 1,138
S&W 34 4" 872 980 1,154
Kimber 1911 5" 910 1,037 1,264
S&W K-22 6" 897 1,023 1,232
S&W 41 7" 959 1,125 1,422
Remington 504 20" 1,100 1,266 1,576
Remington 12-C 24" 1,005 1,150 1,506
COPYRIGHT 2005 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Genetically modified foods to avoid
http://www.drmercola.info/
7 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid
Posted by natural health guru | Friday, September 3, 2010
Genetically modified crops were first introduced in the early 1990s. That was two decades after the technology to insert the genes of one species into the DNA of an unrelated species was developed.
Tampering with DNA is never a good idea. The process of creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can cause all sorts of side effects. Dr. Mercola explains that inserting foreign genes into a plant can create proteins that confer new traits such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production could yield proteins that have never been in the food supply.
GMOs can be engineered with genes from animals, bacteria, viruses, or even humans. This is what makes GM food potentially dangerous to your health. They can be allergenic, carcinogenic, and toxic, Dr. Mercola warns.
The U.S. does not require companies to reveal the type of food used on their labels, so you could be eating GMOs without you knowing it!
Dr. Mercola enumerates the seven major genetically modified (GM) food crops available on the market and the problems they pose:
1. Soy
GM soy is highly allergenic and accounts for about 90 percent of soybeans planted in the U.S. It is present in about 70 percent of all food products found in American supermarkets. Rats fed GM soy had increased mortality, lower birth weight, and damaged sperm and reproductive ability.
2. Corn
Rats fed GM corn approved for human consumption developed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. In Germany and the Philippines, GM corn was blamed for the deaths of buffaloes, cows, horses, and poultry.
3. Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
Sheep that grazed on GM cotton eventually died after developing severe irritation and black patches in their intestines, and enlarged bile ducts.
4. Canola
Three different mutant weeds resistant to three common herbicides – Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty – were produced when Canadian farmers began planting GM canola seeds.
5. Sugar from sugar beets
Sugar beets easily cross pollinate, meaning GM beets could “infect” organic varieties and destroy their value.
6. Hawaiian papaya
GM papaya was introduced in 1998. After six years, a test was conducted on 20,000 papaya seeds. Eighty percent were taken from organic farms. Half of the seeds were found to be genetically modified! This means that it’s virtually impossible to safeguard non-GM crops from GM crops.
7. Zucchini and yellow squash
GM squash contains 68 times less beta-carotene and four times more sodium than non-GM varieties.
Dr. Mercola strongly believes that we should take a cue from animals, as they virtually will never willingly eat GM food if conventional food is available. They will avoid GM food to the point of starvation – a clear sign that they have an intuitive sense of the danger inherent with this food.
7 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid
Posted by natural health guru | Friday, September 3, 2010
Genetically modified crops were first introduced in the early 1990s. That was two decades after the technology to insert the genes of one species into the DNA of an unrelated species was developed.
Tampering with DNA is never a good idea. The process of creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can cause all sorts of side effects. Dr. Mercola explains that inserting foreign genes into a plant can create proteins that confer new traits such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production could yield proteins that have never been in the food supply.
GMOs can be engineered with genes from animals, bacteria, viruses, or even humans. This is what makes GM food potentially dangerous to your health. They can be allergenic, carcinogenic, and toxic, Dr. Mercola warns.
The U.S. does not require companies to reveal the type of food used on their labels, so you could be eating GMOs without you knowing it!
Dr. Mercola enumerates the seven major genetically modified (GM) food crops available on the market and the problems they pose:
1. Soy
GM soy is highly allergenic and accounts for about 90 percent of soybeans planted in the U.S. It is present in about 70 percent of all food products found in American supermarkets. Rats fed GM soy had increased mortality, lower birth weight, and damaged sperm and reproductive ability.
2. Corn
Rats fed GM corn approved for human consumption developed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. In Germany and the Philippines, GM corn was blamed for the deaths of buffaloes, cows, horses, and poultry.
3. Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils)
Sheep that grazed on GM cotton eventually died after developing severe irritation and black patches in their intestines, and enlarged bile ducts.
4. Canola
Three different mutant weeds resistant to three common herbicides – Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty – were produced when Canadian farmers began planting GM canola seeds.
5. Sugar from sugar beets
Sugar beets easily cross pollinate, meaning GM beets could “infect” organic varieties and destroy their value.
6. Hawaiian papaya
GM papaya was introduced in 1998. After six years, a test was conducted on 20,000 papaya seeds. Eighty percent were taken from organic farms. Half of the seeds were found to be genetically modified! This means that it’s virtually impossible to safeguard non-GM crops from GM crops.
7. Zucchini and yellow squash
GM squash contains 68 times less beta-carotene and four times more sodium than non-GM varieties.
Dr. Mercola strongly believes that we should take a cue from animals, as they virtually will never willingly eat GM food if conventional food is available. They will avoid GM food to the point of starvation – a clear sign that they have an intuitive sense of the danger inherent with this food.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
You will need a federal license to sell your house
http://tinyurl.com/2ehwcp8
The Federal Observer
04.19.10 UPDATE:
Thinking about selling your house? - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
rear_window_blog1This is unbelievable! Only the beginning… ..
Editor’s Note - 04.19.10: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID, OR WHAT??? READERS - NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THIS ISSUE YOU STAND ON - YOU MUST ALL BE THICK! FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION DURING THE 2009 CONGRESSIONAL YEAR HELLO! THIS IS 2010.
I DO NOT UPDATE EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE, WHICH I HAVE EVER POSTED IN 9 YEARS. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED OCTOBER 1, 2009.
THE LANGUAGE IN ALL BILLS IS CHANGES AS IT GOES ALONG. WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED, WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
If you are unable to understand this after numerous comments left by me on the column, and emails sent to a large number of brain-dead individuals - then you never will.
I grow weary of people who can not understand this.
WAKE THE HELL UP - AND GET A LIFE!!!!!
END OF DESCUSSION!!!!!! (JB)
Editor’s Note - 04.09.10: For those of you, who feel that we are stumping for the Republicans in the 2010 election cycle - not a Republican nor Democrat supporter am I.
What becomes most interesting about all of this, is that no one is going after the original source:
www.govtrack.us
I realize that much writing out there - no matter from which side, leads to much interpretation, and subsequently - the range of differing comments and opinions on this column.
Now, see the following, as updated comments continue to come in….
CAP’N TRADE IS GOING BACK TO 1984 (JB)
Wow! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.
Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house.
Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that within five years, 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Tags:
This entry was posted by The Publisher on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 10:59 PM and is filed under • Rear Window.
The Federal Observer
04.19.10 UPDATE:
Thinking about selling your house? - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
rear_window_blog1This is unbelievable! Only the beginning… ..
Editor’s Note - 04.19.10: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID, OR WHAT??? READERS - NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THIS ISSUE YOU STAND ON - YOU MUST ALL BE THICK! FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION DURING THE 2009 CONGRESSIONAL YEAR HELLO! THIS IS 2010.
I DO NOT UPDATE EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE, WHICH I HAVE EVER POSTED IN 9 YEARS. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED OCTOBER 1, 2009.
THE LANGUAGE IN ALL BILLS IS CHANGES AS IT GOES ALONG. WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED, WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
If you are unable to understand this after numerous comments left by me on the column, and emails sent to a large number of brain-dead individuals - then you never will.
I grow weary of people who can not understand this.
WAKE THE HELL UP - AND GET A LIFE!!!!!
END OF DESCUSSION!!!!!! (JB)
Editor’s Note - 04.09.10: For those of you, who feel that we are stumping for the Republicans in the 2010 election cycle - not a Republican nor Democrat supporter am I.
What becomes most interesting about all of this, is that no one is going after the original source:
www.govtrack.us
I realize that much writing out there - no matter from which side, leads to much interpretation, and subsequently - the range of differing comments and opinions on this column.
Now, see the following, as updated comments continue to come in….
CAP’N TRADE IS GOING BACK TO 1984 (JB)
Wow! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!!! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it.
Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house.
Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that within five years, 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year. Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Tags:
This entry was posted by The Publisher on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 10:59 PM and is filed under • Rear Window.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The NRA, shit creek, and a missing paddle
The NRA, Poop Creek and A Missing Paddle
August 20th, 2010 by J.J. Jackson
The National Rifle Association is not getting a lot of rave reviews from its members lately. In fact, by the looks of things the NRA is willfully taking a long trip up poop creek and doing so without a paddle in hand. What is the whole kerfuffle that has led to this ill advised journey? Well it revolves around Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Harry Reid is in a not so surprising fight for his political future in Nevada. The incumbent Senator is in a statistical dead heat with challenger Sharron Angle. It is a fight that Mr. Reid does not believe he should be in and that he cannot understand. He thinks the people should adore him. If they are foolish enough not to blindly love him then at least he thinks they should show him some respect as a long term representative of theirs in Washington and simply reelect him. Whether or not Mr. Reid deserves such respect after years of trashing individual liberties and our Constitution is of secondary importance. For you see, Harry Reid is a member of the ruling class and he is entitled.
Like most liberals, Harry Reid is a walking gaffe machine. And when he speaks his lack of substance becomes regularly apparent. So it would be a surprise for most to learn that the NRA is actually considering endorsing this man in the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, you heard right, the NRA is actually considering endorsing a man who has been a leader in our charge off the cliff and into the abyss.
The NRA’s excuse? They claim Harry Reid has been a champion of gun rights. On top of that they opine that if Harry Reid is defeated and the Democrats retain control of the Senate someone unkind to gun rights might take his place as Majority Leader.
The NRA further defends this excuse by saying they are a single issue group and that the only important issue to them is the second amendment. What they fail to understand is that for the vast majority of their members other issues are important too. You know, like upholding and defending the Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution? That is something Harry Reid has never done in his entire career in national politics.
The NRA’s support for the Second Amendment is admirable. But if there is no Constitution left because it has been torn apart by liberals like Mr. Reid how far does such support go? It harkens back to the silly slogan of leftists with regards to how they said that they support the troops but not their mission. The NRA is just as goofily saying that they are prepared to support Harry Reid but not his goal of a socialist America.
Sharron Angle on the other hand, as much as disgruntled Republicans in Nevada who are upset that their candidate did not win the primary and even Harry Reid himself hate to admit, has a much firmer grasp of reality. That includes her understanding of the Second Amendment. For example, Sharron Angle once correctly noted why we have a Second Amendment. She stated that it was to allow the people to protect themselves against government tyranny and perform the role the altering or abolishing government unkind to individual liberties. This is what the founders discussed in our Declaration of Independence. She said, with regards to the continual usurpation of individual liberties and state’s rights by those in Washington, Harry Reid included, that, “If Congress keeps going the way it is, people are already looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”
Pretty straightforward right? Pretty much in line with the Founding Fathers right? The Reid Campaigns response? To call such talk, “crazy” and denounce her in a campaign ad.
So the fact that the NRA is even thinking about endorsing Reid is perplexing to many. And based on what I hear, it is perplexing to the NRA members too. What I am being told, and my email box is filled daily with notes from Americans discussing their dismay over this, is that the NRA is being inundated with angry responses from their members. These members are threatening to never again support the organization if they choose to endorse Harry Reid. The potential loss of revenue alone would be enough to make a sane person stop and take notice.
I am one of those angry souls who have told the NRA in no uncertain terms that there will be not one solitary penny more coming from me until they stop this insanity. Despite the repeated, and weekly, requests for donations I have not opened my checkbook to them because they have not agreed to not support Harry Reid. The latest request, which I think belies the trouble they are having, even included a $400 credit that I could use towards becoming a life member. This life membership is usually a $1,000 cost. So the markdown to $600 is significant and not something a group having no trouble at all raising funds would be doing. That is, if you ask me any way.
The leaders of the National Rifle Association must be daft to even be considering an endorsement of Harry Reid. They must be even dafter to even make this consideration public knowledge. The smart thing to have done, and it would have only taken someone of marginal intelligence to come up with, was to punt on the Reid and Angle race and endorse neither candidate if they really had their heart set on a liberal like Harry Reid returning to office.
The really smart thing to do in the Nevada race? That would be to endorse Sharron Angle.
And this would have only take someone of slightly higher than marginal intelligence to come up with.
But as it stands right now the NRA is already too far up Poop Creek and missing that ever crucial paddle required to save itself. The cat is out of the bag with regards to how idiotic the NRA’s leadership is. The outrage is swirling among the membership and donations are already being withheld. Sure the NRA is no doubt getting a lot of money thrown their way in a critical election year by people either unaware of their possible support for Harry Reid or people just willing to look the other way. But many loyal members are sitting with scissors in hand waiting for the NRA to commit to Harry Reid so that they can officially cut up their membership cards.
Even if now some semblance of rational thought enters into the brains of those at the NRA and the organization decides to not endorse either candidate or endorse the obvious choice of Sharron Angle, members will forever be wary of the intelligence of those at the helm. If the NRA wants to be a “single issue” organization and support a candidate now or in the future that has shown a willingness to throw out the rest of the Constitution on a whim and even one who calls an accurate and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment “crazy” then I say let them. It is their right to be stupid. And it will be their right to spend oodles of dollars begging all of us that have supported them over the years to support them again. Those dollars however will be wasted and in vain. Because, mark my words, if the NRA endorses Harry Reid officially or unofficially in November there will never be another check from my pocket going into their coffers.
That is my line in the sand. And judging by the looks of things a lot of my fellow Americans are going to proudly stand with me behind that line and tell the NRA to piss off.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2010/08/20/the-nra-poop-creek-and-a-missing-paddle/
August 20th, 2010 by J.J. Jackson
The National Rifle Association is not getting a lot of rave reviews from its members lately. In fact, by the looks of things the NRA is willfully taking a long trip up poop creek and doing so without a paddle in hand. What is the whole kerfuffle that has led to this ill advised journey? Well it revolves around Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Harry Reid is in a not so surprising fight for his political future in Nevada. The incumbent Senator is in a statistical dead heat with challenger Sharron Angle. It is a fight that Mr. Reid does not believe he should be in and that he cannot understand. He thinks the people should adore him. If they are foolish enough not to blindly love him then at least he thinks they should show him some respect as a long term representative of theirs in Washington and simply reelect him. Whether or not Mr. Reid deserves such respect after years of trashing individual liberties and our Constitution is of secondary importance. For you see, Harry Reid is a member of the ruling class and he is entitled.
Like most liberals, Harry Reid is a walking gaffe machine. And when he speaks his lack of substance becomes regularly apparent. So it would be a surprise for most to learn that the NRA is actually considering endorsing this man in the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, you heard right, the NRA is actually considering endorsing a man who has been a leader in our charge off the cliff and into the abyss.
The NRA’s excuse? They claim Harry Reid has been a champion of gun rights. On top of that they opine that if Harry Reid is defeated and the Democrats retain control of the Senate someone unkind to gun rights might take his place as Majority Leader.
The NRA further defends this excuse by saying they are a single issue group and that the only important issue to them is the second amendment. What they fail to understand is that for the vast majority of their members other issues are important too. You know, like upholding and defending the Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution? That is something Harry Reid has never done in his entire career in national politics.
The NRA’s support for the Second Amendment is admirable. But if there is no Constitution left because it has been torn apart by liberals like Mr. Reid how far does such support go? It harkens back to the silly slogan of leftists with regards to how they said that they support the troops but not their mission. The NRA is just as goofily saying that they are prepared to support Harry Reid but not his goal of a socialist America.
Sharron Angle on the other hand, as much as disgruntled Republicans in Nevada who are upset that their candidate did not win the primary and even Harry Reid himself hate to admit, has a much firmer grasp of reality. That includes her understanding of the Second Amendment. For example, Sharron Angle once correctly noted why we have a Second Amendment. She stated that it was to allow the people to protect themselves against government tyranny and perform the role the altering or abolishing government unkind to individual liberties. This is what the founders discussed in our Declaration of Independence. She said, with regards to the continual usurpation of individual liberties and state’s rights by those in Washington, Harry Reid included, that, “If Congress keeps going the way it is, people are already looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”
Pretty straightforward right? Pretty much in line with the Founding Fathers right? The Reid Campaigns response? To call such talk, “crazy” and denounce her in a campaign ad.
So the fact that the NRA is even thinking about endorsing Reid is perplexing to many. And based on what I hear, it is perplexing to the NRA members too. What I am being told, and my email box is filled daily with notes from Americans discussing their dismay over this, is that the NRA is being inundated with angry responses from their members. These members are threatening to never again support the organization if they choose to endorse Harry Reid. The potential loss of revenue alone would be enough to make a sane person stop and take notice.
I am one of those angry souls who have told the NRA in no uncertain terms that there will be not one solitary penny more coming from me until they stop this insanity. Despite the repeated, and weekly, requests for donations I have not opened my checkbook to them because they have not agreed to not support Harry Reid. The latest request, which I think belies the trouble they are having, even included a $400 credit that I could use towards becoming a life member. This life membership is usually a $1,000 cost. So the markdown to $600 is significant and not something a group having no trouble at all raising funds would be doing. That is, if you ask me any way.
The leaders of the National Rifle Association must be daft to even be considering an endorsement of Harry Reid. They must be even dafter to even make this consideration public knowledge. The smart thing to have done, and it would have only taken someone of marginal intelligence to come up with, was to punt on the Reid and Angle race and endorse neither candidate if they really had their heart set on a liberal like Harry Reid returning to office.
The really smart thing to do in the Nevada race? That would be to endorse Sharron Angle.
And this would have only take someone of slightly higher than marginal intelligence to come up with.
But as it stands right now the NRA is already too far up Poop Creek and missing that ever crucial paddle required to save itself. The cat is out of the bag with regards to how idiotic the NRA’s leadership is. The outrage is swirling among the membership and donations are already being withheld. Sure the NRA is no doubt getting a lot of money thrown their way in a critical election year by people either unaware of their possible support for Harry Reid or people just willing to look the other way. But many loyal members are sitting with scissors in hand waiting for the NRA to commit to Harry Reid so that they can officially cut up their membership cards.
Even if now some semblance of rational thought enters into the brains of those at the NRA and the organization decides to not endorse either candidate or endorse the obvious choice of Sharron Angle, members will forever be wary of the intelligence of those at the helm. If the NRA wants to be a “single issue” organization and support a candidate now or in the future that has shown a willingness to throw out the rest of the Constitution on a whim and even one who calls an accurate and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment “crazy” then I say let them. It is their right to be stupid. And it will be their right to spend oodles of dollars begging all of us that have supported them over the years to support them again. Those dollars however will be wasted and in vain. Because, mark my words, if the NRA endorses Harry Reid officially or unofficially in November there will never be another check from my pocket going into their coffers.
That is my line in the sand. And judging by the looks of things a lot of my fellow Americans are going to proudly stand with me behind that line and tell the NRA to piss off.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2010/08/20/the-nra-poop-creek-and-a-missing-paddle/
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=574#more-574
Vin Suprynowicz
The political silly season and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’
In politics, symbolism is often an easier sell than substance.
So no one should be surprised that a proposal to build a Muslim mosque and community center within blocks of the former site of the World Trade Center — blown up by a gang of vicious Muslim thugs and murderers on Sept. 11, 2001 as a largely symbolic attack on the United States (if 3,000 murders can be reduced to a “symbol”) — has become a political hot-button issue.
First, let’s be clear: The organizer of this project is not some clueless cleric, taken completely by surprise by the furor. No, the project was initially named the “Ground Zero Mosque” not by opponents but by the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself, and his new and supposedly less offensive moniker, the “Cordoba Center,” honors the location in Spain where the conquering Muslims built a huge mosque on the site of the demolished Christian Basilica of St. Vincent the Martyr, launching an era of persecution of the local Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius.
Get it?
There are already scores of mosques standing peacefully in New York City and environs — whether New Yorkers will permit Muslims to live and worship peacefully in their midst has never been at issue. New York Gov. David Paterson even offered the mosque-builders free state land if they’d agree to build in a less provocative location. They said “No thanks.”
The goal here is an in-your-face declaration the militant Islam is still at war with America. Allow the construction, and its proponents figure it will stand as a monument to the fact that they’re winning, while their opponents are too weak-willed even to prevent their erecting a monument neat the site of their murderous “victory.” Turn it down, on the other hand, and the radicals will have further proof that America’s claims of tolerance and pluralism are all lies, at least when it comes to the Mohammedan faith.
That Democrats — led (off and on — can’t quite make up his mind) by our first anti-American president, Barack Hussein Obama, who as a child attended prayers at the local mosque with his stepfather in Indonesia (www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam) — take the side of the Muslim provocateurs is predictable enough. On this rare occasion, they do happen to be correct: Once someone buys a piece of land and proposes to use it in a manner consistent with minimal, reasonable local planning and zoning standards, no government agency in a free country should stand in their way. It is not the job of municipal governments to prevent anyone going ahead with a construction project just because it’s in excruciatingly bad taste. Else, where would Chuck E. Cheese be?
That said, only three more comments are really called for: First, it’s wonderful to see these leftists re-discover the bedrock Constitutional principle of property rights: Wal-Mart should quickly file applications to build stores in all their favorite upscale neighborhoods before they again change their minds.
Second, if religious freedom truly trumps city zoning concerns, why have the members of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which stood directly across the street from the World Trade Center and was completely obliterated in the 9/11 attacks, been snarled for nine years in municipal red tape frustrating their efforts to rebuild their church; why haven’t our brave liberals spoken up for them?
And third, simply in the interest of confirming imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s sincerity on all this “demonstrating that we can live in peaceful tolerance side-by-side” business, the local Zoning Commission should promptly approve a gay bar and exotic dance club next door to the Ground Zero Mosque — as proposed by TV host Greg Gutfield — and might also ask the imam to promptly begin the process of applying for permission to build a Christian church in Mecca, updating us all regularly on how that’s working out.
Vin Suprynowicz
The political silly season and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’
In politics, symbolism is often an easier sell than substance.
So no one should be surprised that a proposal to build a Muslim mosque and community center within blocks of the former site of the World Trade Center — blown up by a gang of vicious Muslim thugs and murderers on Sept. 11, 2001 as a largely symbolic attack on the United States (if 3,000 murders can be reduced to a “symbol”) — has become a political hot-button issue.
First, let’s be clear: The organizer of this project is not some clueless cleric, taken completely by surprise by the furor. No, the project was initially named the “Ground Zero Mosque” not by opponents but by the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself, and his new and supposedly less offensive moniker, the “Cordoba Center,” honors the location in Spain where the conquering Muslims built a huge mosque on the site of the demolished Christian Basilica of St. Vincent the Martyr, launching an era of persecution of the local Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius.
Get it?
There are already scores of mosques standing peacefully in New York City and environs — whether New Yorkers will permit Muslims to live and worship peacefully in their midst has never been at issue. New York Gov. David Paterson even offered the mosque-builders free state land if they’d agree to build in a less provocative location. They said “No thanks.”
The goal here is an in-your-face declaration the militant Islam is still at war with America. Allow the construction, and its proponents figure it will stand as a monument to the fact that they’re winning, while their opponents are too weak-willed even to prevent their erecting a monument neat the site of their murderous “victory.” Turn it down, on the other hand, and the radicals will have further proof that America’s claims of tolerance and pluralism are all lies, at least when it comes to the Mohammedan faith.
That Democrats — led (off and on — can’t quite make up his mind) by our first anti-American president, Barack Hussein Obama, who as a child attended prayers at the local mosque with his stepfather in Indonesia (www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam) — take the side of the Muslim provocateurs is predictable enough. On this rare occasion, they do happen to be correct: Once someone buys a piece of land and proposes to use it in a manner consistent with minimal, reasonable local planning and zoning standards, no government agency in a free country should stand in their way. It is not the job of municipal governments to prevent anyone going ahead with a construction project just because it’s in excruciatingly bad taste. Else, where would Chuck E. Cheese be?
That said, only three more comments are really called for: First, it’s wonderful to see these leftists re-discover the bedrock Constitutional principle of property rights: Wal-Mart should quickly file applications to build stores in all their favorite upscale neighborhoods before they again change their minds.
Second, if religious freedom truly trumps city zoning concerns, why have the members of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which stood directly across the street from the World Trade Center and was completely obliterated in the 9/11 attacks, been snarled for nine years in municipal red tape frustrating their efforts to rebuild their church; why haven’t our brave liberals spoken up for them?
And third, simply in the interest of confirming imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s sincerity on all this “demonstrating that we can live in peaceful tolerance side-by-side” business, the local Zoning Commission should promptly approve a gay bar and exotic dance club next door to the Ground Zero Mosque — as proposed by TV host Greg Gutfield — and might also ask the imam to promptly begin the process of applying for permission to build a Christian church in Mecca, updating us all regularly on how that’s working out.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Are you poor?
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010903.html
Monday September 3, 2001
The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services both record poverty statistics for the country, but they each have their own calculations for the poverty income level. The Census Bureau numbers are used to estimate the number of Americans living in poverty, while the Department of Health and Human Services numbers are used to determine financial eligibility for many federal programs. However, the two sets of numbers don't differ dramatically.
The Census Bureau determines poverty by looking at money income, plus family size and composition. "Money income" is income before taxes and doesn't include capital gains and non-cash benefits (like food stamps). The bureau does not take geography into account, but it does consider annual inflation levels.
Here are selections from the latest data online for the Census Bureau's poverty thresholds for 2000:
* One person, under 65 years -- $8,959
* One person, 65 years and over -- $8,259
* Two people, householder under 65 years, including one child under 18 years -- $11,869
* Four people, including two children under 18 years -- $17,463
The Department of Health and Human Services doesn't make distinctions based on age, but it does separate Alaska and Hawaii because the cost of living in those two states is "traditionally believed to be significantly higher than in other states."
Here are some highlights of the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2001:
* One person in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $8,590
* One person in Alaska -- $9,890
* One person in Hawaii -- $10,730
* Two people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $11,610
* Four people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $17,650
As you can see, the numbers from the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services are pretty close. Basically, if an individual makes less than $9,000 per year and a family of four makes less than $18,000 per year, they're earning below the poverty income level in the United States.
Monday September 3, 2001
The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services both record poverty statistics for the country, but they each have their own calculations for the poverty income level. The Census Bureau numbers are used to estimate the number of Americans living in poverty, while the Department of Health and Human Services numbers are used to determine financial eligibility for many federal programs. However, the two sets of numbers don't differ dramatically.
The Census Bureau determines poverty by looking at money income, plus family size and composition. "Money income" is income before taxes and doesn't include capital gains and non-cash benefits (like food stamps). The bureau does not take geography into account, but it does consider annual inflation levels.
Here are selections from the latest data online for the Census Bureau's poverty thresholds for 2000:
* One person, under 65 years -- $8,959
* One person, 65 years and over -- $8,259
* Two people, householder under 65 years, including one child under 18 years -- $11,869
* Four people, including two children under 18 years -- $17,463
The Department of Health and Human Services doesn't make distinctions based on age, but it does separate Alaska and Hawaii because the cost of living in those two states is "traditionally believed to be significantly higher than in other states."
Here are some highlights of the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2001:
* One person in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $8,590
* One person in Alaska -- $9,890
* One person in Hawaii -- $10,730
* Two people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $11,610
* Four people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $17,650
As you can see, the numbers from the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services are pretty close. Basically, if an individual makes less than $9,000 per year and a family of four makes less than $18,000 per year, they're earning below the poverty income level in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)