House's Gutted USA FREEDOM Act

May 20, 2014 | By Mark Jaycox and Nadia Kayyali and Lee Tien


EFF and Other Civil Liberties Organizations Call on Congress to Support Uncompromising Reform

Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans' calling records. Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn't achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate's bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.

Passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote on the House floor is an important sign that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and other leaders of the House are engaging in a conversation over NSA reform. We are glad that the House added a clause to the bill clarifying the content of communications cannot be obtained with Section 215. Unfortunately, the bill's changed definitions, the lack of substantial reform to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and the inability to introduce a special advocate in the FISA Court severely weakens the bill.

In particular, we are concerned with the new definition of "specific selection term," which describes and limits who or what the NSA is allowed to surveil. The new definition is incredibly more expansive than previous definitions. Less than a week ago, the definition was simply "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account.” While that definition was imperfect, the new version is far broader.1 The new version not only adds the undefined words "address" and "device," but makes the list of potential selection terms open-ended by using the term "such as." Congress has been clear that it wishes to end bulk collection, but given the government's history of twisted legal interpretations, this language can't be relied on to protect our freedoms.

Further, the bill does not sufficiently address Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. We are specifically concerned that the new language references "about" searches, which collect and review messages of users who do not even communicate with surveillance targets.Congress must include reforming Section 702 in any NSA reform. This includes stopping the NSA from searching illegally collected Americans' communications, stopping the suspicionless "about" surveillance, and ensuring companies can report on the exact number of orders they receive and the number of users affected.

We are encouraged by Senator Leahy's commitment to continue with the more comprehensive version of the USA FREEDOM Act over the summer and look forward to working towards NSA reform in the Senate.
1. The bill reads “(2) Specific selection term.—The term ‘specific selection term’ means a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device, used by the Government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible things to the Government.

Real ID Online? New Federal Online Identity Plan Raises Privacy and Free Speech Concerns

Coauthored by Seth Schoen

The White House recently released a draft of a troubling plan titled "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" (NSTIC). In previous iterations, the project was known as the "National Strategy for Secure Online Transactions" and emphasized, reasonably, the private sector's development of technologies to secure sensitive online transactions. But the recent shift to "Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" reflects a radical — and concerning — expansion of the project’s scope.

The draft NSTIC now calls for pervasive, authenticated digital IDs and makes scant mention of the unprecedented threat such a scheme would pose to privacy and free speech online. And while the draft NSTIC "does not advocate for the establishment of a national identification card" (p. 6), it’s far from clear that it won’t take us dangerously far down that road. Because the draft NSTIC is vague about many basic points, the White House must proceed with caution and avoid rushing past the risks that lay ahead. Here are some of our concerns.

Is authentication really the answer?

Probably the biggest conceptual problem is that the draft NSTIC seems to place unquestioning faith in authentication — a system of proving one's identity — as an approach to solving Internet security problems. Even leaving aside the civil liberties risks of pervasive online authentication, computer security experts question this emphasis. As prominent researcher Steven Bellovin notes:


The biggest problem [for Internet security] was and is buggy code. All the authentication in the world won't stop a bad guy who goes around the authentication system, either by finding bugs exploitable before authentication is performed, finding bugs in the authentication system itself, or by hijacking your system and abusing the authenticated connection set up by the legitimate user. All of these attacks have been known for years.

A Real ID Society?

The draft NSTIC says that, instead of a national ID card, it "seeks to establish an ecosystem of interoperable identity service providers and relying parties where individuals have the choice of different credentials or a single credential for different types of online transactions," which can be obtained "from either public or private sector identity providers." (p. 6) In other words, the governments want a lot of different companies or organizations to be able to do the task of confirming that a person on the Internet is who he or she claims to be.

Decentralized or federated ID management systems are possible, but like all ID systems, they definitely pose significant privacy issues. 1 There’s little discussion of these issues, and in particular, there’s no attention to how multiple ID's might be linked together under a single umbrella credential. A National Academies study, Who Goes There?: Authentication Through the Lens of Privacy, warned that multiple, separate, unlinkable credentials are better for both security and privacy (pp. 125-132). Yet the draft NSTIC doesn’t discuss in any depth how to prevent or minimize linkage of our online IDs, which would seem much easier online than offline, and fails to discuss or refer to academic work on unlinkable credentials (such as that of Stefan Brands, or Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya).

Providing a uniform online ID system could pressure providers to require more ID than necessary. The video game company Blizzard, for example, recently indicated it would implement a verified ID requirement for its forums before walking back the proposal only after widespread, outspoken criticism from users.

Pervasive online ID could likewise encourage lawmakers to enact access restrictions for online services, from paying taxes to using libraries and beyond. Website operators have argued persuasively that they cannot be expected to tell exactly who is visiting their sites, but that could change with a new online ID mechanism. Massachusetts recently adopted an overly broad online obscenity law; it takes little imagination to believe states would require NSTIC implementation individuals to be able to access content somehow deemed to be "objectionable."

Anonymity

The draft NSTIC "envisions" that a blogger will use "a smart identity card from her home state" to "authenticate herself for . . . [a]nonymously posting blog entries." (p. 4) But how is her blog anonymous when it’s directly associated with a state-issued ID card?

The proposal mistakenly conflates trusting a third party to not reveal your identity with actual anonymity — where third parties don’t know your identity. When Thomas Paine anonymously published Common Sense in 1776, he didn’t secretly register with the British Crown.

Indeed, the draft NSTIC barely recognizes the value of anonymous speech, whether in public postings or private email, or anonymous browsing via systems like Tor. Nor does it address issues about re-identification, e.g. the ability to take different sets of de-identified data and link them so as to re-identify individuals.

Bellovin credits the draft NSTIC for suggesting the use of attribute credentials rather than identity credentials — that is, using credentials that could establish that you're authorized to do something without saying who you are. But, as he puts it, "We need ways to discourage collection of identity information unless identity is actually needed to deliver the requested service," and the draft NSTIC doesn't seem to address this.
Privacy, Identity Theft and Surveillance

The draft NSTIC seems to presuppose widespread use of smart ID cards. In one example, it envisions that an individual will use "a smart identity card from her home state" to "authenticate herself for a variety of online services," presumably modeled upon driver’s licenses. (p. 4)

One major concern, acknowledged briefly in the draft, is whether people's computers can really be secure enough to be used for these purposes — smart ID cards or no smart ID cards. As noted above, the vast majority of privacy and authentication vulnerabilities stem from buggy software, and when a computer is trivial to compromise, its users’ credentials are easy to steal. The NSTIC proposal could, in fact, decrease user privacy and enable identity theft: once a user’s digital ID is stolen, it could be used to both pose as the user and access all the user’s accounts and data.

Consider, for example, the proposal to use a state digital ID card to access health records and online banking. What happens next time you lose your wallet?

Furthermore, by consolidating your credentials, the NSTIC plan may provide the government with a centralized means of surveilling your online accounts. And if the government issues your digital ID itself, it won’t even need to approach a third party with any kind of legal process before surveilling you.

The draft NSTIC also mentions the development of a public-key infrastructure (PKI). (pp. 15, 27) We support good, widespread encryption, which could allow people to get correct public keys reliably and possibly cut down on phishing, spam, fraud, and pretexting. But as Bruce Schneier and Carl Ellison have explained, doing PKI properly isn’t easy.2 All of their concerns apply, in some form, to the NSTIC proposal.

Another concern that’s emerged recently is whether governments could coerce certificate authorities in a PKI to issue false credentials in order to facilitate surveillance. Chris Soghoian and Sid Stamm have reported on an industry claim that governments could get "court orders" giving them access to falsified cryptographic credentials. This threat seems greater if the government itself is running the PKI.

Much more could be said. The NSTIC is only a draft, and the Department of Homeland Security and the White House sought public input online through July 19th. Because of the importance of this issue, EFF has joined with a coalition of concerned civil liberties group to ask the Administrations for a longer comment period and a way to submit more detailed comments. We hope and expect that this will be only the beginning of a public debate about ID management online.

1. See, e.g., Susan Landau et al., Achieving Privacy in a Federated Identity Management System.
2. See Ten Risks of PKI: What You're Not Being Told about Public Key Infrastructure

US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'

from the seizing-the-(wrong)-moment dept

An idea the government has been kicking around since 2011 is finally making its debut. Calling this move ill-timed would be the most gracious way of putting it.

A few years back, the White House had a brilliant idea: Why not create a single, secure online ID that Americans could use to verify their identity across multiple websites, starting with local government services. The New York Times described it at the time as a "driver's license for the internet."

Sound convenient? It is. Sound scary? It is.

Next month, a pilot program of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" will begin in government agencies in two US states, to test out whether the pros of a federally verified cyber ID outweigh the cons.

The NSTIC program has been in (slow) motion for nearly three years, but now, at a time when the public's trust in government is at an all time low, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST -- itself still reeling a bit from NSA-related blowback) is testing the program in Michigan and Pennsylvania. The first tests appear to be exclusively aimed at accessing public programs, like government assistance. The government believes this ID system will help reduce fraud and overhead, by eliminating duplicated ID efforts across multiple agencies.

But the program isn't strictly limited to government use. The ultimate goal is a replacement of many logins and passwords people maintain to access content and participate in comment threads and forums. This "solution," while somewhat practical, also raises considerable privacy concerns.

[T]he Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately pointed out the red flags, arguing that the right to anonymous speech in the digital realm is protected under the First Amendment. It called the program "radical," "concerning," and pointed out that the plan "makes scant mention of the unprecedented threat such a scheme would pose to privacy and free speech online."

And the keepers of the identity credentials wouldn't be the government itself, but a third party organization. When the program was introduced in 2011, banks, technology companies or cellphone service providers were suggested for the role, so theoretically Google or Verizon could have access to a comprehensive profile of who you are that's shared with every site you visit, as mandated by the government.

Beyond the privacy issues (and the hints of government being unduly interested in your online activities), there are the security issues. This collected information would be housed centrally, possibly by corporate third parties. When hackers can find a wealth of information at one location, it presents a very enticing target. The government's track record on protecting confidential information is hardly encouraging.

The problem is, ultimately, that this is the government rolling this out. Unlike corporations, citizens won't be allowed the luxury of opting out. This "internet driver's license" may be the only option the public has to do things like renew actual driver's licenses or file taxes or complete paperwork that keeps them on the right side of federal law. Whether or not you believe the government's assurances that it will keep your data safe from hackers, keep it out of the hands of law enforcement (without a warrant), or simply not look at it just because it's there, matters very little. If the government decides the positives outweigh the negatives, you'll have no choice but to participate.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1153382/nsticstrategy-041511.pdf

The Ultimate Guide to the Invisible Web

Search engines are, in a sense, the heartbeat of the internet; “googling” has become a part of everyday speech and is even recognized by Merriam-Webster as a grammatically correct verb. It’s a common misconception, however, that googling a search term will reveal every site out there that addresses your search. In fact, typical search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Bing actually access only a tiny fraction – estimated at 0.03% – of the internet. The sites that traditional searches yield are part of what’s known as the Surface Web, which is comprised of indexed pages that a search engine’s web crawlers are programmed to retrieve.

So where’s the rest? The vast majority of the Internet lies in the Deep Web, sometimes referred to as the Invisible Web. The actual size of the Deep Web is impossible to measure, but many experts estimate it is about 500 times the size of the web as we know it.

Deep Web pages operate just like any other site online, but they are constructed so that their existence is invisible to Web crawlers. While recent news, such as the bust of the infamous Silk Road drug-dealing site and Edward Snowden’s NSA shenanigans, have spotlighted the Deep Web’s existence, it’s still largely misunderstood.

Search Engines and the Surface Web

Understanding how surface Web pages are indexed by search engines can help you understand what the Deep Web is all about. In the early days, computing power and storage space was at such a premium that search engines indexed a minimal number of pages, often storing only partial content. The methodology behind searching reflected users’ intentions; early Internet users generally sought research, so the first search engines indexed simple queries that students or other researchers were likely to make. Search results consisted of actual content that a search engine had stored.

Over time, advancing technology made it profitable for search engines to do a more thorough job of indexing site content. Today’s Web crawlers, or spiders, use sophisticated algorithms to collect page data from hyperlinked pages. These robots maneuver their way through all linked data on the Internet, earning their spidery nickname. Every surface site is indexed by metadata that crawlers collect. This metadata, consisting of elements such as page title, page location (URL) and repeated keywords used in text, takes up much less space than actual page content. Instead of the cached content dump of old, today’s search engines speedily and efficiently direct users to websites that are relevant to their queries.

To get a sense of how search engines have improved over time, Google’s interactive breakdown “How Search Works” details all the factors at play in every Google search. In a similar vein, Moz.com’s timeline of Google’s search engine algorithm will give you an idea of how nonstop the efforts have been to refine searches. How these efforts impact the Deep Web is not exactly clear. But it’s reasonable to assume that if major search engines keep improving, ordinary web users will be less likely to seek out arcane Deep Web searches.

How is the Deep Web Invisible to Search Engines?

Search engines like Google are extremely powerful and effective at distilling up-to-the-moment Web content. What they lack, however, is the ability to index the vast amount of data that isn’t hyperlinked and therefore immediately accessible to a Web crawler. This may or may not be intentional; for example, content behind a paywall or a blog post that’s written but not yet published both technically reside in the Deep Web.
Some examples of other Deep Web content include:

• Data that needs to be accessed by a search interface
• Results of database queries
• Subscription-only information and other password-protected data
• Pages that are not linked to by any other page
• Technically limited content, such as that requiring CAPTCHA technology
• Text content that exists outside of conventional http:// or https:// protocols

While the scale and diversity of the Deep Web are staggering, it’s notoriety – and appeal – comes from the fact that users are anonymous on the Deep Web, and so are their Deep Web activities. Because of this, it’s been an important tool for governments; the U.S. Naval research laboratory first launched intelligence tools for Deep Web use in 2003.

Unfortunately, this anonymity has created a breeding ground for criminal elements who take advantage of the opportunity to hide illegal activities. Illegal pornography, drugs, weapons and passports are just a few of the items available for purchase on the Deep Web. However, the existence of sites like these doesn’t mean that the Deep Web is inherently evil; anonymity has its value, and many users prefer to operate within an untraceable system on principle.

Just as Deep Web content can’t be traced by Web crawlers, it can’t be accessed by conventional means. The same Naval research group to develop intelligence-gathering tools created The Onion Router Project, now known by its acronym TOR. Onion routing refers to the process of removing encryption layers from Internet communications, similar to peeling back the layers of an onion. TOR users’ identities and network activities are concealed by this software. TOR, and other software like it, offers an anonymous connection to the Deep Web. It is, in effect, your Deep Web search engine.

But in spite of its back-alley reputation there are plenty of legitimate reasons to use TOR. For one, TOR lets users avoid “traffic analysis” or the monitoring tools used by commercial sites, for one, to determine web users’ location and the network they are connecting through. These businesses can then use this information to adjust pricing, or even what products and services they make available.

According to the Tor Project site, the program also allows people to, “[...] Set up a website where people publish material without worrying about censorship.” While this is by no means a clear good or bad thing, the tension between censorship and free speech is felt the world over; the Deep Web. The Deep Web furthers that debate by demonstrating what people can and will do to overcome political and social censorship.

Reasons a Page is Invisible

When an ordinary search engine query comes back with no results, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is nothing to be found. An “invisible” page isn’t necessarily inaccessible; it’s simply not indexed by a search engine. There are several reasons why a page may be invisible. Keep in mind that some pages are only temporarily invisible, possibly slated to be indexed at a later date.

• Engines have traditionally ignored any Web pages whose URLs have a long string of parameters and equal signs and question marks, on the off chance that they’ll duplicate what’s in their database – or worse – the spider will somehow go around in circles. Known as the “Shallow Web,” a number of workarounds have been developed to help you access this content.
• Form-controlled entry that’s not password-protected. In this case, page content only gets displayed when a human applies a set of actions, mostly entering data into a form (specific query information, such as job criteria for a job search engine). This typically includes databases that generate pages on demand. Applicable content includes travel industry data (flight info, hotel availability), job listings, product databases, patents, publicly-accessible government information, dictionary definitions, laws, stock market data, phone books and professional directories.
• Passworded access, subscription or non subscription. This includes VPN (virtual private networks) and any website where pages require a username and password. Access may or may not be by paid subscription. Applicable content includes academic and corporate databases, newspaper or journal content, and academic library subscriptions.
• Timed access. On some sites, like major news sources such as the New York Times, free content becomes inaccessible after a certain number of pageviews. Search engines retain the URL, but the page generates a sign-up form, and the content is moved to a new URL that requires a password.
• Robots exclusion. The robots.txt file, which usually lives in the main directory of a site, tells search robots which files and directories should not be indexed. Hence its name “robots exclusion file.” If this file is set up, it will block certain pages from being indexed, which will then be invisible to searchers. Blog platforms commonly offer this feature.
• Hidden pages. There is simply no sequence of hyperlink clicks that could take you to such a page. The pages are accessible, but only to people who know of their existence.

Ways to Make Content More Visible

We have discussed what type of content is invisible and where we might find such information. Alternatively, the idea of making content more visible spawned the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) industry. Some ways to improve your search optimization include:

• Categorize your database. If you have a database of products, you could publish select information to static category and overview pages, thereby making content available without form-based or query-generated access. This works best for information that does not become outdated, like job postings.
• Build links within your website, interlinking between your own pages. Each hyperlink will be indexed by spiders, making your site more visible.
• Publish a sitemap. It is crucial to publish a serially linked, current sitemap to your site. It’s no longer considered a best practice to publicize it to your viewers, but publish it and keep it up to date so that spiders can make the best assessment of your site’s content.
• Write about it elsewhere. One of the easiest forms of Search Enging Optimization (SEO) is to find ways to publish links to your site on other webpages. This will help make it more visible.
• Use social media to promote your site. Link to your site on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or any other social media platform that suits you. You’ll drive traffic to your site and increase the number of links on the Internet.
• Remove access restrictions. Avoid login or time-limit requirements unless you are soliciting subscriptions.
• Write clean code. Even if you use a pre-packaged website template without customizing the code, validate your site’s code so that spiders can navigate it easily.
• Match your site’s page titles and link names to other text within the site, and pay attention to keywords that are relevant to your content.

How to Access and Search for Invisible Content

If a site is inaccessible by conventional means, there are still ways to access the content, if not the actual pages. Aside from software like TOR, there are a number of entities who do make it possible to view Deep Web content, like universities and research facilities. For invisible content that cannot or should not be visible, there are still a number of ways to get access:

• Join a professional or research association that provides access to records, research and peer-reviewed journals.
• Access a virtual private network via an employer.
• Request access; this could be as simple as a free registration.
• Pay for a subscription.
• Use a suitable resource. Use an invisible Web directory, portal or specialized search engine such as Google Book Search, Librarian’s Internet Index, or BrightPlanet’s Complete Planet.

Invisible Web Search Tools

Here is a small sampling of invisible web search tools (directories, portals, engines) to help you find invisible content. To see more like these, please look at our Research Beyond Google article.

• A List of Deep Web Search Engines – Purdue Owl’s Resources to Search the Invisible Web
• Art – Musie du Louvre
• Books Online – The Online Books Page
• Economic and Job Data – FreeLunch.com
• Finance and Investing – Bankrate.com
• General Research – GPO’s Catalog of US Government Publications
• Government Data – Copyright Records (LOCIS)
• International – International Data Base (IDB)
• Law and Politics – THOMAS (Library of Congress)
• Library of Congress – Library of Congress
• Medical and Health – PubMed
• Transportation – FAA Flight Delay Information

Obama Is Negotiating the Biggest Trade Deal in Human History - It Would Gouge the American Economy

AlterNet/ By Thom Hartmann
May 12, 2014 |

Right now - the Obama administration is negotiating the biggest trade deal in human history.

If approved - The Trans-Pacific Partnership - or TPP for short - would create a whole new set of rules regulating the economies of twelve countries on four different continents bordering the Pacific Ocean. While TPP is its official acronym, because it's a deal that involves Southern Hemisphere Asian countries as well as us and others, I prefer, instead of TPP, to call it the "Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement" or SHAFTA.

Because SHAFTA or the TPP is being negotiated almost entirely in secret - we don’t know a lot about it - and what we do know comes almost entirely from leaks. And according to those leaks - the TPP/SHAFTA would give big pharmaceutical companies virtual monopoly patent power - it would let corporations sue countries in international courts over regulations that those corporations don’t like - and and it would gut American environmental and financial rules. The TPP/SHAFTA is a huge deal - the type of story about which the media should be informing the American people. But here’s the problem: almost no one in the mainstream media is talking about it.

According to Media Matters for America - during one six month period between August 2013 and February 2014 - only one nightly network news show - The PBS Newshour - mentioned the trade deal - and they only mentioned it once.

And that one mention occurred essentially as a plug for the TPP/SHAFTA, when a scholar from a right-wing DC think tank said that signing on to the TPP was essential for “improving relations with Asian nations."

Cable news did a little better when it comes to TPP coverage. While Fox So-Called News had no mentions - CNN talked about it once and MSNBC talked about it thirty-two times. But those thirty-two mentions were mostly on one show - “The Ed Show” - and because MSNBC is only available by premium subscription - there’s a very good chance most Americans never watched Ed talk about the TPP/SHAFTA.

Of course - the only thing worse than not talking about the TPP/SHAFTA - like TV news networks have been doing - is talking about it in a misleading way.

And that’s exactly what most mainstream newspapers have been doing. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting recently looked into TPP/SHAFTA coverage at two of the country’s most influential newspapers - the New York Times and the Washington Post - and found that “…on the rare occasions the papers covered TPP/SHAFTA over the last year, the sources they quoted tilted heavily in favor of the treaty.”

The total media blackout on actually critical coverage of the TPP/SHAFTA is a story in and of itself. Here we are, about to enter an once-in-a-generation economy-changing free trade deal, and the people who are supposed to be telling us the truth are either silent or on the side of giant multinational corporations.

Americans deserve to know what their government and big business are doing together behind closed doors.

And it’s outrageous that the mainstream media doesn’t seem think this is true when it comes to the TPP.

How Parasite Corporations Like Pfizer are Chucking U.S. Citizenship to Escape from Taxes

AlterNet / By Lynn Stuart Parramore
May 11, 2014 |


Let’s say you’re a giant American corporation like Pfizer, founded in Brooklyn way back in 1849. The fact that you exist and make a profit is largely due to the generous support of U.S. taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers, after all, who pony up for the National Institutes of Health, which does the basic research you rely on to develop drugs on which you make gigantic sums. And it’s the taxpayers who shell out large amounts of money to protect your patents, broker trade treaties in your favor, and protect your interests around the world in international negotiations. The same ones who pay for the public education of your employees and the costly infrastructure—the highways, airports, etc.—needed to move your products. The very folks who pay the billions in federal contracts you receive.

So what do you do? Do you pay your share of taxes to return some of this largesse?

Oh, no. You vigorously lobby for lower taxes and leave no loophole unexploited. You are not satisfied to have received $2.2 billion in federal tax refunds from 2010-2012 while raking in $43 billion worldwide even though 40 percent of your sales are in America. You’re not ashamed in the least that in 2012, you stashed $73 billion in profits offshore on which you paid zilch in U.S. income taxes.

Your greed and irresponsibility demand still more. So you decide to get out of paying a single nickel to the country that feeds you. You rig up an overseas purchase so you can “officially” relocate to a place with a lower tax rate and in doing so deliver a giant middle finger to your fellow Americans.

Last week, New York-based drugmaker Pfizer finally admitted why it wants to buy British drugmaker AstraZeneca, which is based in London. Sure, it will get some experimental drugs out of the deal, but that’s not what it’s really after. What Pfizer wants is to cheat American taxpayers.
Ian Read, CEO Hall of Shame

Pfizer is willing to shell out $100 billion for AstraZeneca so it can get a new tax home and lower its tax rate from the roughly 27 percent it paid last year, to the UK tax rate, which is now 21 percent and will drop down to 20 percent in 2015.

Let’s pause for a moment to consider the CEO of Pfizer, Ian Read, who is orchestrating this move. According to Forbes , he is a poster boy for grossly overblown executive salaries, hauling in almost $19 million bucks last year. Read looted the company for this obscene amount of money, despite the fact that under his leadership, profits actually declined in 2013. So instead of trying to make money by doing productive things, like, for example, investing in research and development for new products, Read is looking for shortcuts that are less about doing anything useful for society and more about plain destroying it.

Fiduciary Duty to Cheat?

Right on cue, Read trotted out the predictable nonsense that he has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize value for Pfizer shareholders, and therefore must make the tax-dodging move.

Actually, that is baloney, as economist William Lazonick has repeatedly pointed out.

Shareholder value ideology is merely an absurdity that has been spread through American business schools since the go-go 1980s — a specious justification that allows executives to turn corporations into predatory extraction machines at the expense of stakeholders like workers and taxpayers. The fiduciary-duty-to-shareholders argument would be laughed out of court in nearly all circumstances (such as the exceptional case when a company is going to be sold). The reason for this is simple. Any idiot can figure out that sometimes a company must take short-term profit hits in order to do things that are in the long-term interest of the company.

Shareholder value ideology is only about boosting stock prices in the short-term, which often depends on moves that decrease the company’s value over the longer time horizon,as Lazonick has tirelessly pointed out. So Read is utterly full of it. But things have gotten so out of hand in corporate America that executives now actually believe, as hedge fund legend Jim Chanos has observed, that they have a fiduciary duty to cheat .

There was a time when an American CEO would not dare to officially state the kind of complete disregard for the public that Read is expressing. We shouldn't underestimate the importance of shaming such anti-social CEOs for daring to do so now. Social norms matter for things like executive compensation and the consideration of stakeholders rather than just shareholders (people who own stock). Read should be made to feel that there is nothing normal, or acceptable, about his twisted logic.

A Modest Proposal

Read said that Pfizer would keep its corporate headquarters in the U.S. (a very swanky affair on 42nd Street in Manhattan) and keep its listing on the New York Stock Exchange. Which essentially means that his company will still be located in the place where it will not be paying any taxes. Which would make Pfizer a giant, blood-sucking parasite.

Of course, part of the problem is that mega-companies in other industries, like Boeing, actually pay no taxes at all, and that makes the Pfizers very upset. If other multinationals get off scott-free, why can’t they?

H. David Rosenbloom, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington and director of the international tax program at New York University's law school, explained his view of Pfizer’s plans to Bloomberg: "This is basically an opportunity to go outside the U.S. and still sell in the U.S. and strip the tax base…If we ever had a legislature in the United States, we could do something about this, but I don't expect to live that long."

Which brings us to the question of what can be done about this looting. Some Democrats, like Sen. Carl Levin, are making noises about curbing offshore tax moves in the wake of Pfizer’s announcement. Will anything happen? Doubtful. Passing any meaningful legislation on international tax policy, as Rosenbloom points out, is all but impossible in a deadlocked Congress.

Since countries around the world are basically in a race to the bottom to lower corporate tax rates, causing companies to shift their tax burden by pretending to set up shop in places like Ireland, Switzerland and Bermuda, it may be that trying to collect corporate taxes is going to be a futile exercise in the future. Perhaps a better way, as Thomas Piketty suggests in his recent book, Capital in the 21st Century, is simply to tax individual income and wealth. We could start with Ian Read ( and don’t tell me he’s Scottish)— he’s living in the U.S. and doing his business here, so he should be paying taxes.

Here’s another idea, just for the heck of it: How about if the citizens simply occupy Pfizer’s headquarters in New York? Let us not forget that in 2010, after receiving millions of tax breaks to create jobs in New York City, Pfizer turned around and pinkslipped hundreds of employees . If Pfizer doesn’t want to pay any taxes in the U.S., then let's reclaim all the stuff we paid for, and consider Pfizer headquarters to be stolen goods. The fancy artwork in the company gallery would fetch a nice price at auction, and the office space could rent at a premium. An effort to pay back companies like Pfizer in their own coin might remind them that they can’t simply go on looting indefinitely. At some point, the looters may get looted.

Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop So Much?

by Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal

The U.S. unemployment rate tumbled to 6.3% in April as the overall labor force posted its biggest decline since October. The question for the health of the labor market: Why did all those people drop out?

The jobless rate is calculated by taking the total number of unemployed people and dividing it by everyone in the U.S. who is working or looking for work — what the Labor Department calls the labor force. When both of those numbers decline, even if fewer people got jobs in the month, the unemployment rate falls. Both of those numbers can fall for many reasons, and they’re worrisome to different degrees.

The one that raises the biggest concern is when unemployed people get discouraged with the job market and give up looking for work. Once someone leaves the labor force, it’s much harder for them to eventually find work. Many never return. That was at least part of the reason for the decline in April. The number of workers who said they weren’t looking for work because they were discouraged over job prospects ticked higher. But the number remained below the average for all of last year, and doesn’t come close to accounting for the big drop in the labor force. Meanwhile, the total number of people who moved from unemployed out of the labor force also ticked up last month, but it was very close to the average for 2013, indicating no acceleration.

Another way to look to see if people are giving up is by looking at a broader measure of unemployment, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department. That rate includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find. The rate was 12.3% in April, falling the same 0.4 percentage point that the headline rate declined. When the U-6 is steady and the main rate is falling, it can suggest an underlying weak labor market. But when both are dropping together, it suggests that there might be other broader trends.

So if the labor force didn’t drop this month because of people giving up, what’s going on? One trend weighing on the labor force is people with jobs retiring, and last month there was an increase in the number of employed people who were no longer working or looking for work. That flow was at its highest level since October and the third highest since before the recession.

But that doesn’t explain why there are fewer unemployed people. The number of unemployed can fall because people got jobs, because they dropped out of the labor force, or it can fall just because fewer people decided to start looking for work. In April, one of the reasons the number of unemployed fell is because fewer people came off the sidelines to look for work. The number of people flowing from out of the labor force to unemployed was at its lowest level since 2008. Lots more people than usual decided to stay on the sidelines.

That isn’t a hopeful sign for the economy, as people who otherwise might want work aren’t encouraged enough to come off the sidelines. But it’s also less worrying than people giving up looking for work. Many new entrants to the labor force are younger people who will eventually come in, and are on the sidelines because they can be.

No one should read too much into one month’s moves in the labor force. Much of this month’s changes could be recalibrating after a couple of months of increases in the labor force participation rate, and some of it could be reversed next month. Meanwhile, while the details suggest the trend is worth watching, it’s not likely that this month represents a return to discouraged workers giving up and dropping out of the labor market.

Our irrational, harmful bias against the unemployed

By Peter Cappelli, Washingon Post

The persistent high level of unemployment in the six years since the Great Recession began is fast becoming the defining theme of this generation — and a leadership imperative that can no longer be ignored.

Friday’s news on job growth is good: an increase of 288,000 jobs this past month, bringing the unemployment rate to 6.3 percent, well down from its 30-year peak of 10 percent. The number of discouraged workers who want a job but have given up trying to find one is unchanged, however. When we include those in the mix, we’re still left with about three available candidates for every job vacancy out there.

The three and a half million people who remain “long-term unemployed” — that is, who have been out of work for more than six months — represent more than a third of unemployed workers. This is the highest it’s been since the Great Depression. Being out of work that long creates many problems, such as a loss of housing or health care, that not only cause hardship for individuals and their families, but also place even more burdens on public and private support systems.

Yet the tools for addressing the long-term unemployment problem are within our grasp. And chief among them is for employers to move past the stigma that the unemployed are somehow less qualified to hold a job. That bias persists in corporate human resources departments, but it is unsupported by evidence.

It’s maddening to see such imaginary fears become real barriers to solving our employment crisis. A field study by Northeastern University economics Ph.D. candidate Rand Ghayad and another led by Kory Kroft at University of Toronto sent out fake resumes to employers. The studies found strong evidence that employers’ willingness to consider applicants dropped like a stone after the candidates had been unemployed for six months. The companies actually preferred candidates with no relevant experience to those with a background in the field but who’d been out of work for a stretch.

Corporate leaders haven’t always viewed unemployment this way. Traditionally when the economy improved and created new jobs, businesses would look to the ranks of the unemployed to fill them. Until the mid-1980s, the term “layoff” actually referred to a temporary job loss — and employers were expected to rehire these workers as soon as the economy turned up again.

But by the 1990s, that stopped happening, and the term became a euphemism for permanent job losses instead. This coincided with the “jobless recoveries” that have accompanied every recession since then.

So if employers are not rehiring from the ranks of the unemployed now, how do they fill new jobs? By hiring from each other. This nonsensical game of musical chairs (I hire your workers, you hire someone else’s, and then they try to hire mine) would seem to be unsustainable. Sooner or later, one might think, employers will start to see the unemployed as a valuable alternative.

But in fact, they haven’t. Vacancies are simply staying open longer as employers wait to find individuals who are willing to move from other companies. And it has become so prevalent for employers to reject unemployed job candidates outright that last year the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission threatened to start investigating these cases.

Why won’t employers take long-term unemployed candidates more seriously? The reason has much to do with simple bias, and little to do with hard evidence.

One myth about the unemployed is that something must be wrong with a person who lost his or her job. The economists Bob Gibbons and Larry Katz found evidence of this when they studied how people who were laid off because their plant closed — an event that clearly wasn’t their fault. They had an easier time getting rehired than those who were laid-off for other reasons.

Meanwhile, the most intense bias against the long-term unemployed seems to be the result of yet another myth: If they were good, someone else would have hired them by now. All it takes is for enough hiring managers to think this same way, and no one would ever get a job.

The final reason for bias against the long-term unemployed is the notion that their skills must have gotten out of date by not working. That might be true for surgeons, whose manual dexterity can decline quickly, or maybe in tech fields where software has advanced to a new generation.

But few jobs are like that. Studies have found that the performance of new hires who had been unemployed for a long time was no different than that of new hires who came directly from jobs elsewhere. In fact, most jobs are so routine that taking a break from them — a sabbatical — is actually a good thing for improving work performance. Ironically, so few employees learn new skills on the job these days that it's much more likely that an unemployed person might have expanded his or her skill set, either by taking classes, mastering new software or learning new marketing techniques in the course of extended unemployment.

Ruling out job candidates because they have been unemployed imposes big costs on both citizens, who remain without jobs and income, and on the economy — not to mention on employers who are losing out on an entire population of talented candidates. There is no justification for doing it. In fact, it’s a form of discrimination.

Responsible business leaders should, at the very minimum, tell their human resource departments to update their hiring policies so they don’t filter applicants based on current employment status. The biggest problem is likely to be overcoming the prejudices of hiring managers, who often have little information about the real predictors of job performance and so rely on these false assumptions that unemployed candidates probably aren't good performers. A simple statement from leadership that this is not the case is often enough to change their approach.

Moreover, corporate leaders should support policy changes that provide tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed. The credits would incentivize employers to look past their own biases, and would cost the government nothing unless an eligible candidate is hired. I reviewed the research for a group called the National Employer Opportunities Network, and we found that such tax credits are a cheap and ultimately beneficial way to move people off government programs.

Plus, in the process, it may actually increase total employment — and help stop the pointless game of musical chairs that hurts rather than helps everyone.

An overview of the April 2014 jobs report

May 2, 2014


The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on May 2, 2014 that the official seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3 percent, down from 6.7 percent in March and February, and from 7.5 percent in April 2013.

Total non-farm employment increased by 288,000 during the month of April with seasonal adjustment, but increased by 1,152,000 during the month of April without seasonal adjustment.

The seasonally adjusted total non-farm job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 203,000 from 192,000, and the seasonally adjusted total non-farm job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 222,000 from 197,000. The unadjusted total non-farm job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 944,000 from 941,000, and the unadjusted total non-farm job creation figure for February 2014 was revised downward to 741,000 from 743,000.

Breaking these figures down further, with seasonal adjustment, private sector employment increased by 273,000 during the month of April while government employment increased by 15,000. Without seasonal adjustment, private sector employment increased by 1,109,000 during the month of April while government employment increased by 43,000.

The seasonally adjusted private sector job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 202,000 from 192,000, and the seasonally adjusted private sector job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 201,000 from 188,000. The unadjusted private sector job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 834,000 from 831,000, and the unadjusted private sector job creation figure for February 2014 was revised downward to 307,000 from 315,000.

The seasonally adjusted government job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 1,000 from 0, and the seasonally adjusted government job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 21,000 from 9,000. The unadjusted government job creation figure for March 2014 was not revised from 110,000, and the unadjusted government job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 434,000 from 428,000.

The BLS keeps track of six unemployment rates, which are defined as follows and given without seasonal adjustments:

• U1: Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This rate is 3.3 percent for April 2014, down from 3.7 percent for March, 3.6 percent for February, and 4.3 percent for April 2013.
• U2: Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This rate is 3.2 percent for April 2014, down from 3.7 percent for March, 3.9 percent for February, and 3.9 percent for April 2013.
• U3: Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate). This rate is 5.9 percent for April 2014, down from 6.8 percent for March, 7.0 percent for February, and 7.1 percent for April 2013.
• U4: U3 plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. “Discouraged workers” are those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no jobs are available. This rate is 6.3 percent for April 2014, down from 7.2 percent for March, 7.5 percent for February, and 7.6 percent for April 2013.
• U5: U4 plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. “Marginally attached” workers are those who would like and are able to work, but have not looked for a job recently. This rate is 7.2 percent for April 2014, down from 8.1 percent for March, 8.4 percent for February, and 8.5 percent for April 2013.
• U6: U5 plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. This rate is 11.8 percent for April 2014, down from 12.8 percent for March, 13.1 percent for February, and 13.4 percent for April 2013.

As people who are employed part-time typically work about half as much as people who work full-time, it is useful to consider a "U5½," defined as the arithmetic mean of the U5 and U6 numbers. This measure would thus count people who work part-time but wish to work full-time as "half-employed." This rate is 9.5 percent for April 2014, down from 10.45 percent for March, 10.75 percent for February, and 10.95 percent for April 2013.

The BLS revised the Current Population Survey, which gathers the data needed to determine these rates, in 1994. Among the changes made, the U3 rate was named the new "official" unemployment rate, instead of the U5 rate. This revision also defined "long-term discouraged workers" out of official existence. With the inclusion of long-term discouraged workers, the SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate, which might be considered a "U7" rate, exceeds 23 percent.

The use of the U3 as the official definition exposes some holes in the BLS's thinking, because according to them, the following are true:

• A person who loses a full-time job but spends one hour each week mowing a lawn for pay is considered employed.
• A person who simply expresses interest in having a job is classified as unemployed.
• "Discouraged workers" are not classified as unemployed or even as part of the labor force.
• A sharp decrease in a worker's wages when forced to change jobs is not accounted for.

What this means is that the official unemployment rate can fluctuate because discouraged workers (who are not considered to be part of the labor force in the U3 measurement) who re-enter the labor force will cause the U3 rate to spike. The U3 rate can also dip temporarily when such people find temporary jobs and then lose them a month or two later. It also means that the U3 rate will go down when people give up looking for jobs, as 806,000 people did in April 2014. The labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent for April 2014, down from 63.2 percent for March, 63.0 percent for February, and 63.3 percent for April 2013.

Given the problems with the BLS unemployment rates, are they a useful measurement of how well the economy is performing, a wild guess that cannot be accurate despite the BLS's best efforts, or a deliberate fraud by the government? I report, you decide.

Discouraged Worker Dropouts Rise 783k, 80% Higher Than Nonfarm Payroll Jobs Added

Anthony B. Sanders – George Mason University

 

I was at Cornell University in Ithaca New York giving a presentation on mortgages on Friday when the jobs report was released, so I had to wait to read the report in its entirety. Here is my after-seminar report from Friday while waiting to go to dinner.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 9.75 million Americans that are “unemployed” and there are 92.02 million Americans that are “not in the labor force” for a grand total of 101.77 million working age Americans that do not have a job. Back in April 2000, only 5.48 million Americans were unemployed and only 69.27 million Americans were “not in the labor force” for a grand total of 74.75 million Americans without a job. That means that the number of working age Americans without a job has risen by 27 million since the year 2000.
 
However, the banner headline in the media was “288,000 Jobs Added!!” What was NOT in the headlines was that the number of people in the labor force fell by 806,000. In other words, 518,000 more workers LEFT the labor force than joined it in April.

In addition, the Number Of Workers Discouraged Not in Labor Force Searched For Work rose by 783,000 in April. That figure is back to the alleged “end” of the recession (according to the NBER). So, does this mean that the U.S. can announced that the Labor Market’s recession has ended?

No. The following economic indicators have declined since the end of 2008: real median household income, hourly wage growth (YoY), labor force participation rate, and M2 Money Velocity.

The Federal Reserve has attempted to depress interest rates with quantitative easing (balance sheet purchases and zero-interest rate policy), but the labor market is only back to end of recession levels.

According to the Taylor Rule, The Fed should be raising the Fed Funds Rate Target (should be 1.52%, but Fed Funds Target still at 0.25%). The point is for mortgage lenders is that the number of qualified borrowers have been reduced because of the recession and bubble burst and small increases in interest rates are unlikely to have an effect.

And lastly, of course, mortgage purchase applications remain lower than at the “end” of the recession in June 2009. Mortgage borrowers are as discouraged as unemployed workers.

Note: My colleague at University of South Carolina, Jean Helwege, wrote me and said “Maybe it is because of the run-up in the stock market and people can now stop looking for work.” Possibly, but BLS doesn’t ask those questions. What we do know if the mortgage purchase applications and originations remain depressed after the housing and credit bubble burst, and that is correlated with declining wages, real income and the number of discouraged workers.

Anecdotal evidence? I know two kids from Columbus OH whose grandfather gave them both large Trust Funds. They are in their 20s and one doesn’t work and the other dabbles in low paying jobs (part-time). But we don’t know how pervasive that is across the country.

Real jobless rate hits 12.4%, 800,000 leave labor force

Jerome R. Corsi , WND

 

NEW YORK – The Bureau of Labor Statistics announcement that unemployment has dropped from 6.7 percent in March to 6.3 percent in April was partly attributed to some 800,000 workers dropping out of the labor force last month, reducing the labor participation rate to 62.8 percent, a new low for the Obama administration.

After adjusting the BLS unemployment number to what is known as “U-6” – a measure that includes total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total part-time employed for economic reasons – unemployment in April was 12.3 percent.

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month. In March, 91,630,000 Americans were not in the labor force, which includes an aging population that is continuing to head into retirement.

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, drops in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually meaningless.

“The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,” Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. “The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

Williams recreates a ShadowStats alternative unemployment rate reflecting methodology that includes “long-term discouraged workers.” In 1994 under the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics removed that category from those considered “unemployed” in any of the government’s unemployment measures.

The BLS publishes six levels of unemployment, but only the headline U3 unemployment rate gets the press. The headline number does not count as unemployed the “discouraged” workers who have not looked for work in the past four weeks because they believed no jobs were available.

Discouraged workers

Williams has demonstrated that it takes an expert to truly decipher BLS unemployment statistics.

The U6 unemployment rate is the BLS’s broadest measure. It includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the “under-employed” – those who have accepted part-time jobs though they are looking for full-time employment. Also included are short-term discouraged workers who have not looked for work in the last year because there are no jobs to be found.

Since 1994, however, the long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year, have been excluded from all government data.

Williams calculates his “ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding to the BLS U6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers.

He argues that his ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment measure most closely mirrors common experience.

“If you were to survey everyone in the country as to whether they were employed or unemployed, without qualification as to when they last looked for a job, the resulting unemployment rate would be close to the ShadowStats estimate,” Williams told WND.

The headline BLS unemployment rate has stayed relatively low because it excludes all discouraged workers, Williams argues.

As the unemployed first become discouraged and then disappear into the long-term discouraged category, they also vanish from inclusion in the headline labor force numbers. Those workers, however, are ready to take a job if one becomes available. They are unemployed and consider themselves to be unemployed, but the government’s popularly followed unemployment reporting ignores them completely.

Below is a more complete unemployment table that includes the seasonally adjusted unemployment percentages for U3 unemployment as well as the same for U6 unemployment, followed by the ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment rate, comparing April 2013 for March and April 2014.

Economy of part-time jobs

In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven out of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees.

“The headlines citing last week’s jobs report as the lowest unemployment rate in years may have been technically accurate, but they are also reminders that looks can be deceiving,” the House Ways and Means report noted at the time.

“The reality, as you dig into the latest jobs data, reveals that few are finding the full-time work they want and need, and many are forced to accept part-time employment.”

To support the argument, the House Ways and Means Committee produced the following table drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The House Ways and Means Committee linked to an article Associated Press published Aug. 4, 2013, that stated: “So far this year, low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of he nation’s job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers analyzed by Moody’s Analytics.”

AP economics writer Paul Wiseman noted part-time work had made up more than 77 percent of the job growth so far that year, with part-time work defined as being less than 25 hours a week.

Appearing on PBS’s “McLaughlin Group” in October 2013, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman said that “88 percent of the jobs that have been created this year (2013) are part-time jobs.”

Jobs increase by 288,000 in April. Unemployment rate falls to 6.3%. But labor force falls sharply

by Meteor Blades for Daily Kos Labor

Calculated Risk

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the economy created a seasonally adjusted 273,000 new private jobs in April, and 15,000 new jobs in the public sector, the best overall gain since January 2012. The consensus of experts surveyed by Bloomberg earlier in the week had put expected new job creation at 215,000. Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the total. The official unemployment rate fell to 6.3 percent, the lowest level since September 2008.

There were a couple of clouds over these significantly improved figures, however. The civilian labor force shed 806,000 people in April, a massive drop after rises in the three-month January-March period of 1.26 million. The employment-population ratio remained steady 58.9 percent. But the labor force participation rate fell to 62.8 percent, a 0.4 percent drop that returned it to its lowest level in 37 years.

The bureau's report always includes an alternative measure, U6. This calculation covers not just Americans with no job, but also those working part time who want full-time positions—the underemployed who are called "part time for economic reasons"—and workers who have looked for jobs in the past 12 months but not in the past four weeks. U6 fell from 12.7 percent in March to 12.3 percent in April. U6 does not include people who have not looked for work in the past 12 months.

Revisions changed the job numbers for February from 197,000 to 222,000 and for March from 192,000 to 203,000. That produced a three-month average of 238,000. At that rate, according to the Hamilton Project's Job Gap calculator, it would take until December 2017 to return to pre-recession employment levels at the same time as absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.

The number of long-term unemployed who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more, fell to 3.5 million, 35.3 percent of all those accounted for who have no work.

The number of officially unemployed Americans fell sharply to 9.8 million. But there are the millions of discouraged workers not included in that count because they have left the workforce.

The payroll services company Automatic Data Processing had reported on Wednesday a seasonally adjusted gain of 220,000 private-sector jobs for April. ADP does not report on public-sector jobs and its estimated growth figures, despite a change in methodology in 2012, frequently aren't a close match with the BLS private-job figures.

Among other news in the April job report:

Demographic breakdown of official (U3) seasonally adjusted jobless rate:

• African American: 11.6 percent
• Latino: 7.3 percent
• Asian (not seasonally adjusted): 5.7 percent
• American Indian (data not collected on monthly basis)
• White: 5.3 percent
• Adult women (20 and older): 5.7 percent
• Adult Men (20 and older): 5.9 percent
• Teenagers (16-19): 19.1 percent

Duration of unemployment:

• Less than five weeks: 2.45 million
• 5 to 14 weeks: 2.35 million
• 15 to 26 weeks: 1.53 million
• 27 weeks and more:  3.45 million

Job gains and losses in selected categories:

• Professional services: + 75,000
• Transportation and warehousing : + 11,300
• Leisure & hospitality: + 28,000
• Information: - 3,000
• Health care: + 27,900
• Retail trade: + 34,500
• Construction: + 32,000
• Manufacturing: + 12,000
• Average weekly manufacturing hours fell 0.2 hours to 40.8 hours.
• Average work week for all employees on non-farm payrolls remained at 34.5 hours.
• Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at $24.31.

Here's what the seasonally adjusted job growth numbers have looked like in March for the previous 10 years.

April 2004: + 249,000
April 2005: + 363,000
April 2006: + 182,000
April 2007: +   78,000
April 2008: -  214,000
April 2009: -  684,000
April 2010: + 251,000
April 2011: + 322,000
April 2012: +   96,000
April 2013: + 203,000
April 2014: + 288,000

For some time now, the Economic Policy Institute has been keeping track of "missing workers." These people "who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate."

EPI says there are currently 6.2 million of these missing workers. Here are two charts showing its findings:

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of more than 410,000 business establishments called Current Employment Statistics, and one called the Current Population Survey, which questions 60,000 householders each month. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added. It is always calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis determined by a frequently tweaked formula. The BLS report only provides a snapshot of what's happening at a single point in time.

It's important to understand that the jobs-created-last-month-numbers that it reports are not "real." Not because of a conspiracy, but because statisticians apply formulas to the raw data, estimate the number of jobs created by the "birth" and "death" of businesses, and use other filters to fine-tune the numbers. And, always good to remember, in the fine print, they tell us that the actual number of newly created jobs reported is actually plus or minus 100,000.

Privatization Is A Ramp For Corruption and Insouciance Is a Ramp for War

Privatization Is A Ramp For Corruption and Insouciance Is a Ramp for War 
The New York Times has acquired a new Judith Miller

Paul Craig Roberts

Libertarian ideology favors privatization. However, in practice privatization is usually very different in result than libertarian ideology postulates. Almost always, privatization becomes a way for well-connected private interests to loot both the public purse and the general welfare.

Most privatizations, such as those that have occurred in France and UK during the neoliberal era, and in Greece today and Ukraine tomorrow, are lootings of public assets by politically-connected private interests.
Another form of privatization is to turn traditional government functions, such as prison operation and many supply functions of the armed services, such as feeding the troops, over to private companies at a large increase in cost to the public. Essentially, the libertarian ideology is used to provide lucrative public contracts to a few favored persons who then reward the politicians. This is called “free enterprise.”

The privatization of prisons in the US is an example of the extraordinary cost and injustice of privatization. Privatization of prisons requires ever higher rates of incarceration in order to build profitability. The US, supposedly “a land of liberty” has by far the highest incarceration rates of all countries. The “free” US has not only the highest percentage of its population in prison but also the highest absolute number. “Authoritarian” China with four times the US population has fewer citizens in prison.

This article shows how well prison privatization works for well-connected private interests: http://www.globalresearch.ca/privatization-of-the-us-prison-system/5377824

It also shows the extraordinary shame, corruption, and discredit that prison privatization has brought to the US.

A few years ago I wrote about the conviction of two judges who were paid by privatized juvenile detention facilities to sentence kids to their facilities.

As Alain of Lille and later Karl Marx said, “Money is all.” In America money is all that is
important to the political system and to the bulk of the population. Essentially, America has no other values.

Another great libertarian fantasy is Wall Street. In the libertarian mythology Wall Street is the mother of entrepreneurs and of the start-up companies that blossom into industrial, manufacturing, and commercial giants. In actual fact, Wall Street is the mother of enormous corruption. As Nomi Prins shows in All The President’s Bankers, it has always been the case.

Recently, there has been a spate of Wall Street whistleblowers. Many are reported by Pam Martens on her site, Wall Street On Parade, http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/04/insiders-tell-all-both-the-stock-market-and-the-sec-are-rigged/

Unlike libertarian ideologues, Prins and Martens are former Wall Street insiders and know what they are talking about.

All US financial markets are rigged for the benefit of a few. We have had the exposure of high frequency trading front-running buy and sell orders. We have had the exposure of the big banks rigging the LIBOR interest rate and the London gold price fix. We have had the exposure of the Federal Reserve rigging via its dependent bullion banks the price of gold in the futures market. We have had the exposure in Congressional hearings of the rigging of metal and commodity prices. The dollar’s exchange value is rigged. And so forth. Yet no heads have rolled. Recently a SEC prosecuting attorney, James Kidney, retired. Upon his retirement, he proclaimed that his cases against the criminal big banks have been suppressed by SEC higher ups who have their eyes fixed on big jobs with the banks they are protecting while in government service.

So there you have it. The United States government is so overwhelmingly corrupt that even the financial regulatory agencies have been corrupted by the money of the private capitalists they are supposed to regulate.

America the corrupted. That is what we have become.

Not even Vladimir Putin understands how totally corrupt and insensitive to humanity Washington is.

Putin’s response to the Ukraine crisis created by Washington’s coup in Kiev is to rely on
“Russia’s Western partners,” the UN, the Obama regime, John Kerry, etc., to work out a reasonable solution to the crisis.

Putin’s hope for a diplomatic solution is unrealistic. The NATO governments are bought-and-paid-for by Washington. For example, Germany is not a country. Germany is a mere piece of Washington’s empire. The German government will do as Washington says.The German government represents Washington’s agenda. The European governments to whom Putin is speaking are not listening.

Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative who as Deputy Secretary of Defense presided over the orchestration of the false evidence used by the Bush regime to launch Washington’s wars in the Middle East, declared the minimization of Russian power as the “first objective” of US foreign and military policy:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

What Wolfowitz means by “hostile power” is any power independent of Washington’s hegemony.

Washington overthrew the elected Ukraine government in order to orchestrate a crisis that would distract Russia from Washington’s adventures in Syria and Iran and in order to demonize Russia as an invader rebuilding an empire that is a danger to Europe. Washington will use this demonization in order to break-up growing economic relationships between Russia and Europe. The purpose of sanctions is not to punish Russia, but to break up economic relationships.

Washington’s strategy is audacious and brings risk of war. If the West had an independent media, Washington’s plan would fail. But instead of a media, the West has a Ministry of Propaganda. The New York Times has even found a replacement for Judith Miller. As you might have forgot or never known, Judith Miller was the New York Times reporter who filled the Times with Bush regime neoconservative lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Instead of examining and exposing the Bush regime’s false claims, the New York Times bolstered the regime’s case for war by using the newspaper’s credibility to advance the neoconservative war agenda.

The new Judith Miller is David M. Herszenhorn, with accomplices Andrew Roth, Noah Sneider, and Andrew Higgins. Herszenhorn dismisses the totality of Russian media accounts of events in Ukraine as “an extraordinary propaganda campaign” designed to hide the fact from the Russian population that the entire Ukraine crisis is the fault of the Russian government: “And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/world/europe/russia-is-quick-to-bend-truth-about-ukraine.html?ref=davidmherszenhorn&_r=0

I have never read a more blatant piece of propaganda than Herszenhorn’s. He bases his report on two “authorities,” Lilia Shevtsova of the American-funded Carnegie Moscow Center, and Mark Galeotti, a NYU professor.

According to Herszenhorn, the widespread protests in eastern Ukraine are entirely the fault of the protesters who are putting on a show for propaganda purposes. The protests are not a response to words and deeds of the Washington-installed stooge government in Kiev. Herszenhorn dismisses reports of extreme nationalist neo-nazi Russophobia as “sinister claims” and regards the Washington-imposed unelected government in Kiev as legal. However, Herszenhorn regards governments formed as a result of referendums to be illegal unless approved by Washington.

If you place your faith in Herszenhorn, you will dismiss all reports such as those below as lies and propaganda:

http://rt.com/news/eu-no-russian-interference-ukraine-844/
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/15/poland-nato-must-ignore-russia-send-ground-troops/print/
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/15/eastern-offensive-ukraine-pounds-kramatorsk-killing-four/print/
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/15/white-house-endorses-ukraine-crackdown-on-protesters/
http://rt.com/news/ukrainian-tanks-kramatorsk-civilians-840/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-pet-nazis-savage-ukrainian-presidential-candidate/5377948
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-troops-withdraw-slavyansk-940/

The Western World is the World of the Matrix protected by the Ministry of Propaganda. Western populations are removed from reality. They live in a world of propaganda and disinformation. The actual situation is far worse than the “Big Brother” reality described by George Orwell in his book, 1984.

The ideology known as neoconservatism, which has controlled US governments since Clinton’s second term, has the world set on a path to war and destruction. Instead of raising questions about this path, the Western media hurries the world down the path. Read what medical doctors report will be the result of the neoconservative Obama regime’s belief that nuclear war can be won: http://original.antiwar.com/lawrence-wittner/2014/04/14/your-doctors-are-worried/

The Chinese government has called for “de-americanizing the world.” The Russian legislature understands that being part of the dollar payments system is a Russian subsidy to American Imperialism. The Russian legislator, Mikhail Degtyaryov told Izvestia that “The dollar is evil. It is a dirty green paper stained with blood of hundreds of thousands of civilian citizens of Japan, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Korea and Vietnam.” http://rt.com/politics/russian-dollar-abandon-parliament-085/

However, Russian industry spokesmen, possibly on Washington’s payroll but likely just people without a clue, said that Russia was bound by contracts to the dollar system and that perhaps in 10 or 15 years Russia could take a more intelligent approach. That is assuming that Russia would still be capable of acting in its own interests after suffering 10 or 15 years more of US financial imperialism.


Every country that wishes to have an independent existence without living under Washington’s thumb should immediately depart the dollar payment system, which is a form of US control over other countries. That is the only purpose that the dollar system serves.

Many countries are afflicted by economists trained in the US in the neoliberal tradition. Their US education is a form of brainwashing that ensures that their advice renders their governments impotent against Washington’s imperialism.

Despite the obvious threats that Washington poses, many do not recognize the threats because of Washington’s pose as “the greatest democracy.” However, scholars looking for this democracy cannot find it in the US. The evidence is that the US is an oligarchy, not a democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-is-an-oligarchy/5377765

An oligarchy is a country that is run for private interests. These private interests–Wall Street, the military/security complex, oil and natural gas, and agribusiness–seek domination, a goal well served by the neoconservative ideology of US hegemony.

The American Oligarchs win even when they lose. Finally, Washington’s notorious torture prison, Abu Ghraib, has been closed. But not by Washington. The Iraqi city fell last week to “defeated” al-Qaeda. Remember, we won the war in Iraq. $3 trillion wasted, but that’s not the way the military/security complex sees it. The war was a great victory for profits. http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/15/after-al-qaeda-expansion-iraqs-infamous-abu-ghraib-finally-closes/

How much longer will dumbshit americans fall for the flag-waving deception?

The Republicans used the wars in order to create huge budget deficits and national debt that are now being used to dismantle the social safety net, including Social Security and Medicare. There’s talk of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. More profits for Oligarchs in the offering. The gullibility of the American population is really without compare.

The gullibility of the American public will doom the world to extinction.