In the 60s, only half of people completed high school. Less than 20% of today's high schoolers fail to graduate.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
American Test Scores Up since 1971
Question:
What are the long-term trends in student achievement in reading and mathematics?
Response:
Long-term trend data have shown improvements in achievement in a number of areas. Reported on a scale of 0 to 500, NAEP long-term trend results in reading are available for 12 assessment years going back to the first in 1971. The average reading score for 9-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years, increasing 4 points since 2004 and 12 points in comparison to 1971. While the average score for 13-year-olds in 2008 was higher than in both 2004 and 1971, it was not significantly different from the scores in some assessment years in between. The average reading score for 17-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in 2004 but was not significantly different from the score in 1971. White, Black, and Hispanic 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds all had higher average reading scores in 2008 than they did in the first assessment year (which is 1975 for Hispanic students because separate data for Hispanics were not collected in 1971). In 2008, female students continued to have higher average reading scores than male students at all three ages.
NAEP long-term trend mathematics results, reported on a scale of 0 to 500, are available for 11 assessment years, going back to the first in 1973. Average mathematics scores for 9- and 13-year-olds were higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years. The average score for 9- year-olds in 2008 was 4 points higher than in 2004 and 24 points higher than in 1973. For 13-year-olds, the average score in 2008 was 3 points higher than in 2004 (based on unrounded scores) and 15 points higher than in 1973. In contrast, the average score for 17-year-olds in 2008 was not significantly different from the scores in 2004 and 1973. White, Black, and Hispanic 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds all had higher average mathematics scores in 2008 than in 1973. While there was no significant difference between the average mathematics scores of male and female 9-year-olds in 2008, male students did score higher than female students at ages 13 and 17.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013), Chapter 2.
Taxes in '09 as cheap as the good old days
| Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 |
| Updated 5/12/2010 5:16 PM |
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY LINK
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year sinceHarry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberalCenter for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.
Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.
This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.
Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.
Why the tax bite has eased:
• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.
The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to
Friday, March 25, 2011
GE makes billions, contributes nothing to fed
General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010
White House Takes Heat for GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt's Advisory Role
BY JAKE TAPPER
THE WHITE HOUSE, March 25, 2011 LINK
The top tax bracket for U.S. corporations stands at 35 percent, one of the highest rates in the world. So how is it possible that a giant of American business, General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes last year, even as it made billions in profit?
And should the CEO of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, be advising the president on business?
For two years, President Obama has been talking about the need for corporate tax reform, declaring that the system is too complicated and that companies pay too much.
"Simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly," Obama said in February.
For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
"Two things are disconcerting. One is, there's disproportionate amount of profits being reported offshore. And then, even for the profits that are reported onshore, they're paying less than 35 percent," said Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor for Tax Analysts.
2010 was the second year in a row that GE recorded billions in profits and paid no taxes.
During that same period, Immelt has been a close advisor to the president on the business community, a relationship that rubs some the wrong way. Immelt serves as the chairman of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
In a statement, General Electric said that it "pays what it owes under the law and is scrupulous about its compliance with tax obligations in all jurisdictions." The company claims that its zero-dollar tax bill is largely a result of losses at its financial arm, GE Capital, due to the Wall Street meltdown.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president is "bothered" by the idea that a U.S. company could pay no taxes, but he wouldn't talk about GE specifically. Carney was also quick to say that Immelt's council advises the president on job growth and not on tax policy.
"It is part of the problem of the corporate tax structure that companies hire, you know, armies of tax lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that exist, that are legal in order to reduce their tax burden," Carney said.
When President Obama announced his decision to appoint Immelt to the unpaid advisory role on job creation in January, some critics wondered whether the move was appropriate. Under his leadership, GE laid off 21,000 American workers and closed 20 factories between 2007 and 2009. More than half of GE's workforce is now outside the United States.
HCR not raising health costs
‘Obamacare’ and the myth of rising cost estimates
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (Melina Mara - The Washington Post)
“Obamacare Price Tag Spikes by 54%”
— Headline on a news release by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued March 21, 2011
“Unhappy Anniversary: ObamaCare's cost jumps 8.6%”
— Headline on Wall Street Journal editorial, March 23, 2011
The venerable Congressional Budget Office issued an updated budget projection last week, and critics of the new health care law pounced.
In a news release, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), declared that “according to CBO’s latest estimates, the cost of Obamacare has increased by $500 billion. Meaning, in only one year, the cost has increased from an already staggering $938 billion price tag to $1.445 trillion.” The news release then cheekingly noted what a half-trillion dollars could buy. “1,002,004,008 iPad 2s,” for instance. Or “a Ford F-150 for every resident in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio and Omaha.”
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal had some different math in a March 23 editorial, saying: “Obamacare will be far more expensive than advertised. To wit, CBO says the entitlement's health insurance subsidies will cost $1.13 trillion between 2012 and 2021, not $1.04 trillion, the prior estimate. . . . CBO is conceding that it significantly underestimated the bill's cost.”
Talk about fuzzy math! Did the price of the health care law go up 54 percent, 8.6 percent, or what? Let’s look at the numbers.
The Facts
The cost of the health-care law has been one of its most contentious issues. President Obama had said it would cost less than $1 trillion over 10 years, and promised it would reduce the deficit in that period. The law, as scored by the CBO, met those benchmarks, but critics have charged the bill was deliberately structured to reach that result. (We have addressed those concerns previously.)
Last week was the third time that CBO has provided an estimate for the cost of the health care bill. Each time, the number has been a little different because of various technical factors, and also because different budget windows are being used, such as 2010-2019, 2012-2019 or 2012-2021. The longer the budget window, the bigger the costs and the revenues, in part because the population is getting larger and the gross domestic product is expected to increase.
The Energy and Commerce Committee came up with its increase by mixing apples and oranges. It compared the gross cost of insurance coverage provisions calculated for 2010-2019 (that’s the $938 billion number) with new figures for a different budget window, 2012-2021 (that’s the $1.445 trillion figure.) That’s kind of like saying the cost of pizza went up by comparing last year’s price for a 12-inch pie with this year’s price for a 16-inch pie.
Debbee Keller, a spokeswoman for the committee, defended the committee’s math, saying, “The legislation was written to hide the true costs of the law — it delayed much of the spending, providing about six years of spending and ten years of ‘pay fors.’ ” The new estimate, she said, shows “about eight years of benefits and ten years of ‘pay fors.’ ” — and she said the price tag will get only bigger as time goes on. “We predict the full cost will actually exceed $2 trillion” once the bill is fully implemented over 10 years.
We do not find this argument compelling. Yes, certain provisions do not kick in immediately, but neither do many of the new taxes. The revenue estimate by the Joint Tax Committee shows that $58 billion of revenue is raised in the first four years, compared to $380 billion over the last six years. As mentioned before, the cost numbers also get larger in later years because of population and GDP growth.
The Wall Street Journal came up with its increase by comparing a different set of numbers: the net cost (which strikes us as more reasonable than the gross cost used by the House committee) for the same time period, 2012-2021, as estimated in February 2011 and March 2011. But the Journal failed to note that the CBO cost estimate in February was actually lower than its initial estimate last year, so the overall effect from last year to this year is minimal.
The CBO generally remains aloof from the political back-and-forth over its numbers. But late Wednesday, the CBO addressed this question in its Director’s Blog. It lined up the numbers for all three of its estimates and then made the following point, underlying it for emphasis:
“Over the eight-year period that is common to all three analyses (2012 through 2019), the latest estimate of the net cost of the coverage provisions ($794 billion) differs by only about 2 percent from the original estimate ($778 billion); the projected gross costs . . . differ by only about 4 percent over that period.”
In budget terms over such a long period of time, these differences amount to rounding errors.
As the CBO put it, again underlining its point: “The evolution of the estimates does not reflect any substantial change in the estimation of the overall effects of [the health care law] from what was projected in March 2010.”
The Pinocchio Test
Critics of the health care bill need to recheck their math. The CBO’s new numbers do not suggest any noticeable increase in the cost estimates.
The Energy and Commerce Committee in particular used different time frames to come up with a wildly inflated number, and thus earns Three Pinocchios.
Follow the Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook
By | 06:00 AM ET, 03/25/2011
Richer get Richer...
Corporate Profits At All-Time High As Recovery Stumbles
By: Yepoka Yeebo
NEW YORK -- Despite high unemployment and a largely languishing real estate market, U.S. businesses are more profitable than ever, according to federal figures released on Friday.
U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show. Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.
Many of the nation's preeminent companies have posted massive increases in profits this year. General Electric posted worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, while profits at JPMorgan Chase were up 47 percent to $4.8 billion.
Corporate profits steadily increased last year as companies continued holding onto record amounts of cash and other liquid assets while cutting costs, laying off workers and wringing more productivity -- defined as the amount of output that comes from an hour of work -- from remaining staff, even as the recession eased.
To put that in perspective, said Lynn Reaser, the chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, it's important to note that companies were able to bring production back up to pre-recession levels without hiring any more workers.
"We have now recovered all of the output lost in the recession, but we are still down by 7.5 million workers," she said.
In addition to layoffs, some companies continued to cut wages and benefits last year. Sub-Zero, the freezer and refrigerator manufacturer, told workers last year that factories in Wisconsin would have to be shut down, with 500 employees losing their jobs, unless staff took a 20 percent pay cut, The New York Times reported.
Workers were expected to put in more hours without overtime pay, while staff facing fewer hours of work due to furloughs were expected to do as much as they would have in a full workday, according to NPR.
But, economists said, companies may have squeezed as much as they can out of workers, with a decline in profits for non-financial companies in the fourth quarter of last year suggesting that to improve production, companies will have to start hiring seriously again.
On the whole, Reaser said, corporations have significantly improved their balance sheets since the financial crisis. "It's helped pave the way for a significant gain for corporate capital spending, dividend payouts and corporate buybacks, as well as the significant rise in stock prices," she said.
But while the financial sector continued to recover from its 2008 meltdown -- with profits jumping some $51 billion in the fourth quarter, a gain of 51 percent over the previous quarter -- non-financial firms actually saw profits fall by roughly $10 billion, according to the BEA figures.
Part of the reason, said Reaser, was that although high productivity drove down labor costs, persistent unemployment and pinched consumers left companies unable to charge the higher prices needed to boost profits. More companies will start pushing more aggressively to improve profit margins this year, she said.
In order for those efforts to pay off, she said, many companies will have to start hiring -- and keep hiring.
Until the end of last year, companies were able to boost productivity by squeezing their remaining workers, who were eager to prove they were worth their paychecks. "But," said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics, "you can't keep getting more out of workers quarter after quarter after quarter."
To ramp up production this year, Ashworth said, companies have already started hiring modestly. Federal figures show the economy added total of 192,000 jobs in February, the most in nearly a year. The unemployment rate fell to 8.9 percent last month, the lowest since April 2009.
Economic growth figures released on Friday also suggested firms were slowly stepping up production. The Commerce Department revised upwards its projections for gross domestic product growth in the fourth quarter of 2010, to 3.1 percent from 2.8 percent.
The new projection, BMO Capital Markets senior economist Sal Guatieri said, is "consistent with an economy growing fast enough to gradually reduce the unemployment rate." But, he said, most of the increase was in business inventories -- companies producing and stockpiling more -- rather than consumer confidence.
Despite positive signs, economists warned that economic growth could be hit by the twin shocks of high gas prices and the impact of events in Japan, which has hampered auto and electronic supply chains. "There are mild headwinds that will slow growth a little bit," said Nariman Behravesh, an economist at IHS Global Insight, an economic and financial analysis firm. "They're not going to derail the recovery, and we're guessing they'll be temporary."
U.S. consumers appear to be growing nervous, thanks to events in Japan, fears over nuclear power, and unrest in the Middle East and north Africa. That anxiety could take an economic toll, with consumer sentiment falling this month to its lowest level since November 2009, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan index.
"The sharp drop in consumer confidence and Japan-related supply chain bottlenecks will likely translate into real GDP growth of only around 2.4 percent in the first quarter, with a bounce back to the 3.5 percent to 4 percent range in the second quarter," Behravesh said, revising his quarterly GDP growth estimate down from 4.2 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
First Posted: 03/25/11 04:29 PM Updated: 03/25/11 07:31 PM LINK