Jim Rogers: "We're All Going To Pay A Horrible Price For This…"

By Money Morning Staff Reports

As the Fed gets ready to launch quantitative easing, dubbed QE3 or QE Forever -- legendary investor Jim Rogers is shaking his head.

In fact, Rogers, a long-time critic of the Feds policies of money printing, said repeating the same program the Fed has already attempted will make policymakers "look like fools again."

Any relief will be temporary, warned Rogers in a gripping interview on CNBC.

The iconic financier also lashed out at the new developments in Europe, implying that their latest plan to save the euro amounts to nothing more than governments abusing their license to print money.

On Europe's move to implement a euro version of QE, Rogers said it affords the Western world "unanimity towards mutual destruction."

"We're all going to pay a horrible price for this in a year or two or three," he said.

How horrible? Worse than Rogers predicts, according to a new investigation.

READ MORE:  http://moneymorning.com/ob/jim-rogers-were-all-going-to-pay-a-horrible-price-for-this/?utm_expid=5485297-10&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fpaid.outbrain.com%2Fnetwork%2Fredir%3Fkey%3Dae10ebcd61a0c5723bc5fbb0d0cf7282%26rdid%3D399602692%26type%3DPLD_d%2Fg2_prd%26in-site%3Dfalse%26pos%3D4%26pc_id%3D10081501%26req_id%3D20fe635b76097535cf74050e6bf278f1%26agent%3Dblog_JS_rec%26recMode%3D11%26reqType%3D1%26wid%3D124%26imgType%3D2%26adsCats%3D1205%2C-1%2C-1%26refPub%3D368%26prs%3Dtrue%26scp%3Dfalse%26fcapElementId%3D7348

Why 'Fiscal Cliff' May Be Bigger Threat Than You Think

As the deadline for fiscal peril in the U.S. nears, Wall Street is worried that the impact could be much worse than anyone thought—while investors remain nearly oblivious to the danger.

Colin Anderson | Photographer's Choice | Getty Images

Looming tax increases and spending cuts — which Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has labeled the "fiscal cliff" — would send the economy into a deeper recession than many have predicted, according to economists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

At the same time, fund managers the firm surveyed believe investors are far too optimistic that warring Washington factions can get together to take the steps necessary to prevent the economy from going over the cliff—at least temporarily.

Some 72 percent of respondents believe investors have yet to price in the ramifications—a view that is spreading across Wall Street as time winds down for a solution.

READ MORE:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/49478505

Greece, Spain 'in depression': Nobel winner Stiglitz

AFP - Greece and Spain are in "depression, not recession", Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Wednesday, blaming tough austerity measures for their downward economic spiral.

Stiglitz also maintained that the International Monetary Fund was "a little too optimistic" in its forecast last week that the eurozone economy would shrink by 0.4 percent in 2012 and rise by 0.2 percent next year.

"I'm more pessimistic than they are (about growth)... I see significant risk of continuing turmoil," he said in New Delhi on the sidelines of a conference held by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

READ MORE:  http://www.france24.com/en/20121017-greece-spain-depression-nobel-winner-stiglitz

French business erupts in fury against "disastrous" François Hollande

France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown “hurricane” as investors flee rocketing tax rates, the country’s business federation has warned. 

 

“The situation is very serious. Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic,” said Laurence Parisot, head of employers’ group MEDEF.

“The pace of bankruptcies has accelerated over the summer. We are seeing a general loss of confidence by investors. Large foreign investors are shunning France altogether. It’s becoming really dramatic.”

MEDEF, France’s equivalent of the CBI, said the threat has risen from “a storm warning to a hurricane warning”, adding that the Socialist government of François Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the crisis.

The immediate bone of contention is Article 6 of the new tax law, which raises the top rate of capital gains tax from 34.5pc to 62.2pc. This compares with 21pc in Spain, 26.4pc in Germany and 28pc in Britain.

“Let’s be clear, Article 6 is not acceptable, even if modified. We will not be complicit in a disastrous economic mistake,” Mrs Parisot told Le Figaro.


READ MORE:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9610717/French-business-erupts-in-fury-against-disastrous-Francois-Hollande.html

 

Alarm on Wall Street Grows as 'Fiscal Cliff' Nears

The sluggish U.S. economy has been relatively kind to Wall Street’s banks, many of which are flush with profits and stand to gain from the Federal Reserve’s new bond-buying effort.

Photo: Larry Grant | Getty Images

Yet these same financial titans are warning that the government’s inaction in the face of the approaching "fiscal cliff" poses real risks to an economy already saddled by stunted growth and a burgeoning debt load. 

Many Wall Street banks hold interest-rate sensitive products on their books, and stand to lose big if a debt crisis sends safe-haven Treasury yields spiking. 

Thus far, investors have been most preoccupied by the unfolding financial catastrophe in Europe, where debate rages about whether Spain will finally throw in the towel and accept an international bailout. 

READ MORE:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/49392277

Coming Soon From Obamacare: A Single-Payer Nightmare For Delaware

Government provided and controlled health care and punitive taxation on people earning any amount more than the average Congressional representative are obsessions of many modern American liberals, and the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Obamacare seems likely only to push them toward even more extreme measures.  For those who were wondering what liberals might do now that Obamacare is the law, they only need to look at my home, the small state of Delaware.

Like much of America, Delaware has been battered by the long recession.  The state’s unemployment rate is twice that of the early 2000’s.  Family income has declined since 2008, while the value of household assets has plummeted over the same period.  What Delaware needs more than anything else is new, high-paying, private sector jobs.  What a group of liberal Democrats is trying to foist on the state, by contrast, is a complete state takeover of healthcare that will be financed by back-breaking new taxes—taxes that will kill economic growth and drive employers out.
 

On June 14, this group filed Delaware House Bill 392, The Delaware Health Security Act, which would require the State to assume control of all health care spending in Delaware. The creation of this so-called “single-payer” (i.e. government-controlled) system has been a long-time dream of the political left.  The bill’s details, though, make it clear that their dream would become Delaware’s nightmare:

·          Health insurance will be banned. Most people like their health insurance, but liberals know better. Under HB 392, a new state agency with the Orwellian name of the “Authority” will be handling all healthcare spending, and insurers will beforbidden from providing insurance for anything covered by the Authority.  Healthcare will be run by the government, just like the IRS, our state’s department of motor vehicles, and the TSA.  The sponsors apparently look at those and other agencies as unalloyed success stories.

·          The Authority will be a monopoly. Healthcare providers are out of luck, too.  The Authority will pay providers only what it wants to pay them, no competition will be allowed, and if a doctor accepts payment from the Authority, he won’t be allowed to receive payment by any other means.  The Authority must approve all capital expenditures made by healthcare providers that exceed $500,000. Expect hospitals to close and doctors and nurses to leave Delaware in droves.

·          The payroll tax on business will be staggering.Supersized government takes supersized taxes.  Under the bill, employers with fewer than ten employees will pay an additional payroll tax of 4 percent, while those with more than 50 will pay 9 percent.  I run a global service business, and this tax alone will double our company’s healthcare costs.  Delaware is a small state, and few regions are more than 25 miles from the state’s borders.  My own company’s headquarters is located two miles from Pennsylvania.  How many companies are going to put up with healthcare costs doubling when they can simply move a few miles and avoid the whole problem?  Apparently, though, the fog of liberal obsession has rendered the sponsors unable to even ask such obvious questions.

·          The individual taxes are worse. As hefty as those taxes are, they aren’t nearly punitive enough for die-hard liberals, and so tax-paying Delawareans will be hit with eye-popping tax increases on all their taxable income, including capital gains, dividends and interest. People who earn less than $60,000 per year will see their state income taxes increase from between 45 percent and 100 percent, while those earning from $60,000-$250,000 will face a 36 percent increase.  Those who earn over $250,000 per year (the figure at which American liberals seem convinced that people are “millionaires”) will have their Delaware tax rates almost double to close to 12 percent of marginal income—one of the highest rates in the nation.

·          Small businesses will be hammered. Most small businesses are organized as limited liability companies, partnerships and subchapter S corporations.  That means their owners get taxed on “income” that they never see because it has to be reinvested in the business.  With the Authority’s new taxes, many small business owners will find that their taxes come close to or exceed their actual cash income—in other words, they will get to take home nothing for themselves.  Once that starts, we will see a wave of businesses closing up shop and moving elsewhere.

·          But worst of all, our healthcare will no longer be in our control. The Orwellian and non-elected “Authority” will dictate what kind of care Delawareans can and cannot have. Supplemental insurance, which we provide to our employees in other single-payer jurisdictions (i.e. Sweden and the UK), is outlawed by the bill. My employees, mostly medical scientists, will not settle for single-payer care. They will move or commute to a neighboring state to get the best healthcare for their families. Further, employers like me who must compete for the best employees will be forced to move our operations out of the state just to provide healthcare choice for those employees.

·          Supporters will be rewarded. One group will be rewarded, though.  HB 392 specifically pays-off left-wing activists by reserving 1/3 of the seats on the board that runs the Authority to members of “groups . . . that have endorsed a single-payer healthcare system. . .”  Other seats are filled by the Democratic governor and the Democrats in control of the General Assembly. Thus, those who think that the law will be a disaster will be in the distinct minority in the Authority.

This bill is so bad for Delaware that it reads like a parody. The few large corporations that make Delaware their home will be forced out as their employees insist on real insurance. Why would anyone support HB 392 when it would kill job creation in Delaware, penalize all those who work or pay taxes, and take away existing health insurance from most Delawareans?

The answer seems to be that many American liberals are so committed to their dogma that they are unable to see that Delaware’s economic success depends not on big government and punitive taxation but on the energy and creativity of its private sector, or that people in the private sector can and will move to other states if huge new taxes and a colossal state-run health-care system are jammed down their throats. Delaware, like our nation, needs policies that will help jump-start a free economy, not sky-high taxes and government-controlled health-care.

The sponsors withdrew the bill at the end of the session and plan to reintroduce it in January 2013. Representative Jaques stated “a piece of complex legislation dealing with such a complex issue deserves to be thoroughly scrutinized and examined by the public, our colleagues and all with a vested interest in controlling medical costs in an efficient way…so that in January we will be prepared to move forward responsibly and rapidly.” Perhaps we would be forgiven for thinking that the sponsors preferred to run the bill after the election.

But why is single-payer healthcare premiering in Delaware? Delaware’s demographics, voting patterns, and electoral composition are nearly identical to other Northeastern blue states. Given these similarities and its small size, Delaware is the perfect laboratory for liberal projects. A successful pilot program for the government takeover of healthcare in Delaware offers a replicable model for use in New Jersey, New York, and other liberal strongholds in the Northeast. If HB 392 passes in Delaware, look for a similar bill to come to a state near you.

Ellen Barrosse is on the board of American Principles Project and CEO of Synchrogenix, a global group of regulatory services firms.

PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation Read more: PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore has just come out with a new book titled Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America and he reveals some interesting information about how much the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. The National Tax Foundation created the chart below to which Moore explains:

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)." 

Read more:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/9/picket-new-book-shows-us-top-earners-pay-larger-sh/#ixzz29NBu8RxT

Proposal for Higher Workers' Compensation Rates Sparking Concern, Controversy

A proposed hike in workers' compensation insurance rates is generating fear among small business owners.

Workers' compensation insurance is intended to safeguard employees that suffer an injury or illness resulting from their job-related duties.  Coverage includes medical and rehabilitation costs and lost wages for employees injured on-the-job.  Businesses in Delaware must buy the insurance.

The Delaware Compensation Rating Bureau (DCRB) filed papers with the Delaware Department of Insurance in August requesting a rate hike for workers' compensation coverage.  If approved in its current form, rates would increase by about 40-percent for nearly all businesses starting December 1st.

On Tuesday, Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart issued a terse press release indicating her agency will hold a public hearing on the request the Friday before the general election in which she is seeking a second term.

At a press conference the following day, Stewart's opponent, Republican Insurance Commissioner candidate Ben Mobley, had sharp words of criticism for his rival.  "I am disappointed in our current Insurance Commissioner's apparent lack of commitment to taking control of the situation and helping to resolve this issue for the sake of our small businesses," he said.  "It wasn't until after I notified the press on Monday about today's media briefing that we heard anything from the Insurance Commissioner's office on this issue.  Her one-page press release setting the date for a November 2nd public hearing on the proposed rate hike falls terribly short."

Workers' compensation insurance rates vary by occupation, with higher rates charged for those workers deemed to be performing tasks that place them at higher risk of injury.  For instance, rates paid by an employer for a clerical staffer would be less than those paid for an electrician or a maintenance worker.

For many small business owners, the proposed rate increase represents a troubling threat to their viability.  "This wave of unexpected costs 60 days from now will cost jobs," said Carrie Leishman, executive director of the Delaware Restaurant Association.  "A business now paying ... $70,000 will be paying over $100,000.  Companies, including the hundreds of restaurants I represent in Delaware, will either have to make the hard decision to ... not fill positions or, worse yet, lay off employees."

Mr. Mobley said he wants the Insurance Commissioner to delay the rate filing until more facts can be gathered on the impact the increase could have on Delaware's state and local economies.          

The Department of Insurance hearing on the filing is currently set for November 2nd at 10:00 a.m. at the Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, 6th Floor in Wilmington.

“Social Security is structurally sound.”

I have a lot of problems with the current state of Presidential debates, including the fact that other parties’ legitimate candidates are effectively barred from stirring the pot.

Because let’s be honest — these events are really just a chance for the candidates to look good, repeat rehearsed sound bites, and continually redirect to their major talking points no matter what question was originally asked.

Still, I like to watch because you just never know what might be said. Take President Obama’s response to Jim Lehrer’s question on Social Security, which went like this …

“You know, I suspect that on Social Security, [Mitt Romney and I have] a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound. 

READ MORE:  http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/social-security-is-structurally-sound-50659?FIELD9=1

You are not allowed to know where your tax dollars are going

You are not allowed to know where your tax dollars are going

9/28/2012

 

As a public service and to boost government transparency, the Caesar Rodney website includes payroll data for every state government employee and all vendor transactions. While recently updating this information through June of 2011, CRI ran into a roadblock with regard to adding pension data for retired state workers.

 

The general assembly has written a statute into the state code that requires all pension data on individuals to be kept confidential (29 Del C &8308 (d)). In other words, the taxpayers of Delaware are not allowed to know where their contributions to the pension pot are going.

 

Is this a problem? Yes.

 

First, under Governor Markell the state pension fund has gone from being 103% funded to only 94% funded currently. The “urban legend” is that 80% funded is a sufficient standard. 80% fully funded is like owning a $400,000 house with a $500,000 mortgage. Your balance sheet is upside down and you can only continue to live in the house as long as you keep making the monthly payments. To survive recessions a pension fund should be 125% funded. Anything less leaves the taxpayers on the hook.

 

Second, neither the politicians nor the unions are willing to take serious remedial action. Our elected officials and the unions, together with pension fund trustees and accountants, have been giving away benefits while passing the buck to future generations. They used unrealistic double digit returns on assets; allowed retroactive pension increases; multiple promotions just prior to retirement; amortized unfunded liabilities; and, shifted toward ever riskier investments.

 

While the majority of Delaware’s pension fund consists of contributions directly from state employees, it is not sufficient to cover all that is promised, especially the unfunded $5.7 billion of retiree health care liabilities. The Administration, General Assembly and unions are willing to dance at the fringes by changing the rules for new hires, but real change must involve incumbent employees.

 

Third, public pensions are very generous compared to private pensions and publication of the data will result in considerable outrage among taxpayers. As an example, the average pension for state of California 30-year service retirees is $68,000.  Currently, over 4% of California state retirees receive pensions of $100,000 or more. When adjusted for inflation, the present value of these pensions makes the recipients millionaires.

 

Although our elected official have been unwilling to  seriously address the liabilities to state retirees,  the publication of the individual pension data would provide a rallying point for taxpayers…allowing all of us to see that we have been allowing our public service retirees to “live large” beyond the taxpayer’s ability to  sustain this practice into the future.

 

Hopefully, access to the pension records can be achieved without litigation. Please contact your state senator and representative if you believe taxpayers have the right to know where their money is going and to what future liabilities they are being obligated.

 

 

Dr. John E. Stapleford, Director

Center for Economic Policy and Analysis

 

http://www.caesarrodney.org/pdfs/Pension_data.pdf

Why is the State stonewalling on pension data?

Why is the State stonewalling on pension data?

10/2/2012

 

When the Caesar Rodney Institute launched its Transparent Delaware website in March of this year, the intent was to include with the individual state payroll and vendor data, the most recent state pension data. The request for the pension data was denied on the basis of statute 29 Del c 8308 (d). That statute requires that all records relating to pensions and other post-employment benefits “shall be confidential.”

 

Although this statute is unlikely to withstand a court challenge, CRI simply requested the most recent pension data without the names of individuals. After a long pause, the state again denied the request because it “may be possible to identify an individual from the data requested.”

 

After being forthcoming with individual payroll and vendor data, why is the state stonewalling on pension data? There are three obvious reasons.

 

First, as clearly shown by analysis of the payroll data, all state employees are clearly not equal. In the case of supplemental pay (overtime and “other” pay) 40% of state employees receive no supplemental pay while 10% receive over half of all the supplemental pay. Either there are substantial differences in job requirements, or some state employees know how to “game” the supplemental pay system.

 

In every state where transparency websites have been established, it is the disparities and extremes in the pension data that have fueled public outrage. Certainly, based upon the 2010 payroll data, this would also be the case in Delaware.

 

Orlando George, for example, the highest paid state employee in 2010, would have received an annual pension of $273,000 if he had 30 years of state employment (including time in the legislature) and retired in 2011. This compares to an average annual pension for retirees with 30 to almost 35 years of employment of $31,632 in 2011. The pensions received by the top 10% of state employees by payroll, again assuming 30 years of employment, would equal 63% of all the pension benefits paid in 2011.  

 

Second, many workers in the private sector would have been stunned by the size of the pensions for longer serving state employees. The pension of state employees retired with 30-34 years of service as of 2011 averaged 60% of their final salaries. For state employees retired with 35 years of service or more, it jumped to 66% of their final salaries.

 

Finally, it behooves the state to not have the spotlight put on its retirement pension system. Using data from the pension system’s annual reports, the trends of the last ten years appear unsustainable. From 2001 through 2011 the total pension benefit payments increased 133%. Simultaneously, the value of the pension fund’s investment portfolio rose only 34%.

Over the same time period, the number of persons receiving state pension benefits increased 41% while the number of active employees rose only 18%.

 

To compound matters, the state has been short-changing the fund with respect to the required annual employer’s contribution. The unfunded liability has gone from a surplus of $527 million in 2001 to a deficit of at least $456 million in 2011. The 2011 deficit will be substantially larger if the fund doesn’t earn the assumed return on assets of 7.5% per annum.

 

The burning question is when are state employees going to wake up? The state government has been short changing the pension fund in order to sustain government spending without raising taxes. Clearly, a day of reckoning will come…especially considering that private pension funds assume a return on assets of just 3.5% per annum (the 10 year Treasury bond rate).

 

State employees have consistently met 100% of their necessary obligation to the pension fund each year. They should ask themselves that when push comes to shove, will the politicians increase taxes to make the pension solvent, or will they reduce pension benefits?

 

Dr. John E. Stapleford, Director

Center for Economic Policy & Analysis

Montana governor sees big savings with new state health clinic

* State to save $20 million over five years - governor
* Aim is to reduce duplicate testing for patients
* Doctors paid by the hour rather than by procedure
* Employees pay neither a co-pay nor a deductible

HELENA, Mont., Sept 29 (Reuters) - Montana, looking to cut down on state healthcare costs, has opened the nation's first government-run clinic for state employees in a program the Rocky Mountain state's governor says could ultimately cover a much broader range of people.

Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer says the primary care clinic in the state capital Helena will keep the area's 11,000 state workers and their dependents healthier while saving the state $20 million over five years.
The move coincides with a national debate over the role of government in healthcare and over President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, under which more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or get coverage through Medicaid, the government program for the poor, in 2014.

Republican opponents of that law better known to the public as "Obamacare," which also requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance, say it amounts to government intrusion in the private lives of individuals.   

READ MORE:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/29/usa-montana-health-idUSL2E8K59RF20120929

US Crude Tumbles Below $90 as Europe Spooks Market

Crude oil prices fell on Wednesday as the euro zone debt crisis escalated and reinforced concerns about slowing economic growth, while U.S. gasoline futures jumped more than 3 percent due to depressed inventories and supply uncertainty.

The continuing dispute between the West and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program limited losses for Brent crude, which is more sensitive to supply disruptions in the Middle East and Africa. 

Europe's debt problems deepened as Spain's economy slowed further and anti-austerity demonstrators and police clashed in Athens and Madrid. The euro [EUR=  1.2984    0.008  (+0.62%)   ] slumped to a two-week low against the dollar and the dollar index [.DXY  79.56    -0.41  (-0.51%)   ] strengthened, pressuring dollar-denominated industrial commodities like oil and copper.

"It is 'risk off' today," said Olivier Jakob, energy analyst at Petromatrix in Zug, Switzerland. "The Greek strike and Spanish demonstrations are getting a lot of coverage." 

READ MORE:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/49172775

Low-wage work force grows 30% as the number of jobs shrinks

Low-wage workers in Chicago are better educated, older and rely more on that income these days to meet basic needs than 10 years ago.

And there are substantially more of them. 

That’s according to a new report released by Chicago-based Women Employed and Action Now Institute that shows nearly one in six low-wage workers here last year held a college degree.

The report, authored by Marc Doussard, assistant professor in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning, defines low-wage workers as those making $12 an hour or less.

The report revealed the share of payroll employees ages 18 to 64 working in low-wage jobs rose from 23.8 percent in 2001 to 31.2 percent last year. That’s a more than a 30 percent rise in the proportion of such workers.

Meanwhile the share of households with a low-wage earner that got all income from low-wage earnings rose from 45.7 percent to 56.7 percent. That’s evidence more people are relying more on those dollars to meet basic needs rather than for disposable income.  READ MORE:  http://www.suntimes.com/15379932-761/low-wage-work-force-grows-30-as-the-number-of-jobs-shrinks.html

Americans’ Incomes Have Fallen $3,040 During the Obama ‘Recovery’

Americans must be wondering how much more of this “recovery” they can afford.  New figures from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research, show that the typical American household’s real (inflation-adjusted) income has actually dropped 5.7 percent during the Obama “recovery.”  Using constant 2012 dollars (to adjust for inflation), the median annual income of American households was $53,718 as of June 2009, the last month of the recession.  Now, after 38 months of this “recovery,” it has fallen to $50,678 — a drop of $3,040 per household.

Yet it gets worse.  Amazingly, incomes have dropped even more during the “recovery” than they did during the recession.  In fact, they’ve dropped more than twice as much as they did during the recession.  From the start to the end of the recession, the real median income of American households fell $1,413, or 2.6 percent.  From the end of the recession to the present day, it has dropped $3,040, or 5.7 percent.  This begs the question:  What kind of “recovery” compares unfavorably with the recession from which it’s ostensibly recovering?

READ MORE: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/americans-incomes-have-fallen-3040-during-obama-recovery_653116.html