Footnotes: Research from TV 1/6/2011

San Fran Happy Meal Ban

  • They have banned the Happy Meal in San Francisco
  • The ban is scheduled to take effect December 2011—restaurants in the city would be allowed to distribute toys with meals only if they contained fewer than 600 calories and less than 640 mg of sodium.  Less than 35% of calories in the meals could come from fat (less than 10 percent from saturated fat).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20021754-10391704.html

November 4, 2010 9:42 AM

Happy Meal Ban in San Francisco: Food Police or Fat Fighter?

Posted by David W Freeman 63 comments

(CBS) If Ronald McDonald is looking a bit glum these days, there's a reason:

They've banned the Happy Meal in San Francisco.

Actually, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to ban restaurants from handing out toys with meals that fail to meet basic nutritional standards for fat, calories, and sodium. That would include the Happy Meal, which has been a fat-packed fave of hungry children for decades.

Backers of the bill said it would help promote healthy eating habits and help in the fight against childhood obesity, which has tripled in the past 30 years, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Our children are sick," Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, told Reuters. "Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color. This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment."

Mar may not be exaggerating. Up to 30 percent of the city's fifth-graders are overweight, the New York Times reported.

Under the ban - scheduled to take effect December 2011 - restaurants in the Golden Gate City would be allowed to distribute toys with meals only if they contained fewer than 600 calories and less than 640 mg of sodium, according to Canadian broadcaster CTV. In addition, less than 35 percent of calories in the meals could come from fat (less than 10 percent from saturated fat).

Sound reasonable? Marisa Sherry, a registered dietitian in New York City, certainly thinks so. "Whatever it takes to get restaurants to help fight childhood obesity is a great thing," she told CBS News.

But McDonald's isn't so happy about the happy meal ban.

"We are extremely disappointed with today's decision," company spokesman Danya Proud said in a statement, according to Reuters. "It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

Of course, there are other things McDonald's customers haven't requested.

Like getting fat.

Congress reading the Constitution

Urgent: House leaving out portions of the Constitution

Per Pergram-Capitol Hill

The House is leaving out reading portions of the Constitution that have been amended.

In other words, portions of the Constitution are never DELETED. Just amended. Yet, Republicans are LEAVING OUT portions of the Constitution that no longer have power. But are STILL THERE in the Constitution. For instance, the part about counting slaves and Native Americans as 3/5ths of a person, et al.

But they are skipping over some of these sections or parts which are antiquated or in some cases, perhaps offensive.

For instance, they did not read the 18th Amendment which imposed prohibition in 1919. However, they did read the 21st Amedment which repealed prohibition in 1933.

This is why Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) and even Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) raised hackles on the floor.

Now here's the inherit issue with reading the Constitution this way.

Congress's own Joint Committee on Printing (which is an official committee, not an ad hoc organization)...has printed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of copies of the U.S. Constitution which they shop around the Hill. They are in numerous Congressional offices for constituents and passersby to pick up, et al.

ALL of those copies of the Constitution...which Congress itself has authorized to print and distribute...contain the original language and the amendments. Yet that is not what is being read today.

I should point out however that the Joint Committee on Printing that authorized the printings of those Constitutions...came under Democratic control. The Chair and vice chairs were Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Others on the committee includes Reps. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Susan Davis (D-CA), then-Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). The Senate members include President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), then-Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

Something to watch: What will those copies of the Constitution contain once the new Joint Committee on Printing is consituted?

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/45645-upcoming-newsouth-huck-finn-eliminates-the-n-word.html

Home -> Industry News -> Publisher News

Upcoming NewSouth 'Huck Finn' Eliminates the 'N' Word

By Marc Schultz

Jan 03, 2011

ShareThis | | Reader Comments (69)

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic by most any measure—T.S. Eliot called it a masterpiece, and Ernest Hemingway pronounced it the source of "all modern American literature." Yet, for decades, it has been disappearing from grade school curricula across the country, relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright, appearing again and again on lists of the nation's most challenged books, and all for its repeated use of a single, singularly offensive word: "nigger."

Twain himself defined a "classic" as "a book which people praise and don't read." Rather than see Twain's most important work succumb to that fate, Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the "n" word (as well as the "in" word, "Injun") by replacing it with the word "slave."

"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind," said Gribben, speaking from his office at Auburn University at Montgomery, where he's spent most of the past 20 years heading the English department. "Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."

The idea of a more politically correct Finn came to the 69-year-old English professor over years of teaching and outreach, during which he habitually replaced the word with "slave" when reading aloud. Gribben grew up without ever hearing the "n" word ("My mother said it's only useful to identify [those who use it as] the wrong kind of people") and became increasingly aware of its jarring effect as he moved South and started a family. "My daughter went to a magnet school and one of her best friends was an African-American girl. She loathed the book, could barely read it."

Including the table of contents, the slur appears 219 times in Finn. What finally convinced Gribben to turn his back on grad school training and academic tradition, in which allegiance to the author's intent is sacrosanct, was his involvement with the National Endowment for the Arts' Big Read Alabama.

Tom Sawyer was selected for 2009's Big Read Alabama, and the NEA tapped NewSouth, in Montgomery, to produce an edition for the project. NewSouth contracted Gribben to write the introduction, which led him to reading and speaking engagements at libraries across the state. Each reading brought groups of 80 to 100 people "eager to read, eager to talk," but "a different kind of audience than a professor usually encounters; what we always called ‘the general reader.'

"After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach this novel, and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can't do it anymore. In the new classroom, it's really not acceptable." Gribben became determined to offer an alternative for grade school classrooms and "general readers" that would allow them to appreciate and enjoy all the book has to offer. "For a single word to form a barrier, it seems such an unnecessary state of affairs," he said.

Gribben has no illusions about the new edition's potential for controversy. "I'm hoping that people will welcome this new option, but I suspect that textual purists will be horrified," he said. "Already, one professor told me that he is very disappointed that I was involved in this." Indeed, Twain scholar Thomas Wortham, at UCLA, compared Gribben to Thomas Bowdler (who published expurgated versions of Shakespeare for family reading), telling PW that "a book like Professor Gribben has imagined doesn't challenge children [and their teachers] to ask, ‘Why would a child like Huck use such reprehensible language?' "

Of course, others have been much more enthusiastic—including the cofounders of NewSouth, publisher Suzanne La Rosa and editor-in-chief Randall Williams. In addition to the mutual success of their Tom Sawyer collaboration, Gribben thought NewSouth's reputation for publishing challenging books on Southern culture made them the ideal—perhaps the only—house he could approach with his radical idea.

"What he suggested," said La Rosa, "was that there was a market for a book in which the n-word was switched out for something less hurtful, less controversial. We recognized that some people would say that this was censorship of a kind, but our feeling is that there are plenty of other books out there—all of them, in fact—that faithfully replicate the text, and that this was simply an option for those who were increasingly uncomfortable, as he put it, insisting students read a text which was so incredibly hurtful."

La Rosa and Williams committed to a short turnaround, looking to get the finished product on shelves by February. Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn: The NewSouth Edition will be a $24.95 hardcover, with a 7,500 first printing. In the meantime, Gribben has gone back to the original holographs to craft his edition, which is also unusual in combining the two "boy books," as he calls them, into a single volume. But the heart of the matter is opening up the novels to a much broader, younger, and less experienced reading audience: "Dr. Gribben recognizes that he's putting his reputation at stake as a Twain scholar," said La Rosa. "But he's so compassionate, and so believes in the value of teaching Twain, that he's committed to this major departure. I almost don't want to acknowledge this, but it feels like he's saving the books. His willingness to take this chance—I was very touched."

B BLOCK- E2 E3

YOU HAVE TO EMPOWER YOURSELF. AND EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU CANT LOOK AT THE STORIES OF THE FISH,  YOU HAVE TO GO GOOGLE AND SEARCH THIS YOURSELF- QUESTION EVERYTHING- AND YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO TEACH YOUR KIDS HOW TO DO IT, NO ONE ELSE WILL. THEY ARE TEACHING WHAT THEY ANSWERS ARE IN SCHOOL- THEY TEACH WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK- AND YOU MUST REVERSE THAT PROCESS

GO BACK TO THE PAPER-

THIS ECON STORY MAKES IT SEEM LIKE EVERYTHING IS GOOD..

BUT GAS PRICES AND ICE CREAM MAKE ME THINK OTHERWISE

LEMME SHOW YOU THE PUZZLE..(SHOW B-BOARD AND TABLE TOP PUZZLE)

WHEN YOU PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER, IT ALL MAKES SENSE

/////////////

GLENN SOT – January 21, 2009

You know man, I'm just like you. I watch the news and I see it and I'm like, wait a minute, that's not a separate story. These stories are all connected. The media never puts them together like a puzzle, but that's really what the news is.

2 PUZZLES

Image of a riot with the followings words over it: RADICALS, UNIONS, FOOD PRICES, GAS PRICES, FRANCES FOX PIVEN, VAN JONES

CONTRADICTORY ECONOMIC HEADLINES

GOOD – 1/6/11

  • WSJ: “Private Sector See Hiring Surge”
  • WSJ: “The Dollar Leaves Rivals In Its Wake”
  • WSJ: “Stocks Continue to Roll, Adding 31.71 Points”
  • USA Today: “Gold investors get glittering returns”
  • USA Today: “Real estate funds defy forecasts”
  • USA Today: “Hiring report pushes stocks higher”
  • FT: “Jobs data increase confidence in recovery”

BAD – 1/6/11

  • WSJ: “Food Prices Surge, Lifting Unrest Fears”
  • WSJ: “Option for Failing Banks: Chapter 11”
  • USA Today: “Liens for unpaid tax bills hits nearly 2-decade high”
  • FT: “Food price shock threat as commodities soar”

TRACKING FOOD PRICES

The 9/12 super seniors

http://www.912superseniors.org/cola-project/cola-project-results/

  • Whole milk in Coldwater, Michigan Walmart was 4.57/ gal the other day.
  • We are empty nesters and do not spend a lot on food, however, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that the price for a pound of Land of Lakes butter was $4.49, and the store was displaying it as if was on sale. My fear is that it might be a good price a couple of weeks from now.

Barbara Samuells, 9/12 Super Seniors

  • Before Christmas we weren’t seeing much, if anything, stagnant. Now, wow! Right after Christmas, prices are skyrocketing.
  • Buying the same product, but its smaller packaging, quantity. Seniors who are watching and tracking. Smaller product and price increase. Lot of comments about that!
  • Emails from seniors who are living on social security and now in real trouble. Gas gone up so much and the groceries going up so much. Increases in home heating oil. New property tax bills with increases. 2 people in danger of losing homes that they worked to pay off. It doesn’t take much….10% here and there. A lot of people don’t have flexibility. They planned as carefully as they could.
  • Some people have told me they’re going to the store with magnifying glass and handheld calculator to figure out the small changes.

As A Mom

http://www.asamom.org/

Lori Parker, As A Mom

  • meat product – beef, roast, chicken – up
  • dairy – eggs, butter, cheese - up
  • staples – white rice, pasta, cheerios and Quaker Oats, toilet paper - up

Inflation Study, December 1 - 7, 2010

  • The survey results for the week of December 1 - 7, 2010 contain 223 respondents

representing 42 states.

  • Prices observed are REGULAR PRICES for the week indicated
  • 24 of the 37 items tracked in the survey (65%) had increases in average price over

the previous week.

DRUDGE REPORT MAP OF ANIMAL DEATHS

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=201817256339889828327.0004991bca25af104a22b

HERITAGE FOUNDATION ARTICLE

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=49134

Morning Bell: Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump

Posted By Rory Cooper On December 29, 2010 @ 8:45 am In Energy and Environment81 Comments

“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference [1] in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.

In May 2004, The New York Times reported [2] that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated [3]: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed [4]: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled…They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.

In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted [5]” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked [6] the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said [7] gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.”

You get the point. Yet, at the end of President Bush’s presidency, gas prices were 9% lower than when he took office [8] (adjusted for inflation). So where have these outspoken critics been since Bush left office?

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, gas prices have been on the steady rise [9], as have home energy prices. During his tenure, he presided over arguably the worst federal response to an oil spill in our nation’s history, and has pressed legislation on Capitol Hill that would, in his own words, cause electricity prices to “skyrocket [10].” Yet there has been almost nothing said by the media as consumers face $3/gallon gasoline at the pump in December for the first time in U.S. history [11] and see their home heating bills soar in the winter months.

Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012 [12]. Investment banks are predicting a return to$100/barrel oil [13], and OPEC is refusing to raise production [13]. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.

Just last week (as frigid temperatures and blizzards blasted Europe and the U.S.), the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries [14] in an attempt to curb global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced [14] that the Bureau of Land Management would issue new rules making it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. These measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.

But none of these actions compare to the brazen way President Obama has unilaterally declared the U.S. oil industry dead. During the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly declared a moratorium on deepwater and shallow water drilling [15], since no White House advisers apparently could draw a distinction between the two. After two federal courts said the moratorium was illegal, the Obama administration instead moved to a de facto moratorium [15], by issuing no permits, while speeding up the permitting process for wind farms. [16]

In October, President Obama “lifted” the moratorium, but since then has issued almost no new permits. In late November, his administration effectively issued a seven-year ban on drilling [17] in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We’re not even talking about ANWR anymore; these are publicly and politically accepted areas of drilling. These actions, of course, increase our reliance on foreign oil, which as OPEC points out, will only become more expensive in the near future.

Finally, this all spells disaster for the jobs market. Higher energy prices translate into higher costs for small businesses, which cause less hiring. Energy producers are moving platforms out [18] of U.S. waters rather than have multi-million dollar assets sit idle as the president destroys an industry. And local businesses and retailers who service this industry along the coast are losing money and employees, if not entirely shutting down [18].

President Obama knows energy prices are skyrocketing. The liberal mantra has long been to disincentivize Americans from purchasing cheap fossil fuels, by driving costs up. Because the only way consumers will choose the vastly-more-expensive wind and solar alternatives is if all prices are high, rather than wait for the market to bring alternative prices down. This is a reckless and devastating way to make a point about global warming at the expense of American families.

Nearly no questions [15] have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding [19]: 1) his bungled response to the oil spill; 2) his unilateral policies that are creating higher home energy prices; 3) rising gas and oil prices; or 4) the de facto moratorium on domestic oil exploration. It’s time to start asking the White House some tough questions [19]. A two year moratorium on accountability is long enough.

Quick Hits:

  • Home prices across 20 major metropolitan areas fell 1.3% [20] in October from September, the third straight month-over-month drop.
  • Japan has abandoned their global warming regulation scheme [21] due to expected job losses.
  • On January 2nd, the Obama administration will officially start regulating [22] greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The Chamber of Commerce is allying with Big Labor [23] to oppose a House Republican rule change designed to cut federal government spending.
  • According to Rasmussen Reports [24], only 21% of voters support the FCC’s push to begin regulating the internet.


Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/29/morning-bell-obama-wants-you-to-pay-more-at-the-pump/

URLs in this post:

[1] at a press conference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100469.html

[2] The New York Times reported: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/business/18reserve.html

[3] stated: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/29bush_transcript_web.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=

[4] exclaimed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602307.html

[5] blasted: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6250899

[6] ABC News asked: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/07/15/liveblog-president-bushs-july-15-news-conference

[7] said: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90041712

[8] gas prices were 9% lower than when he took office: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/06/price-dip-adjusts-bushs-gas-legacy/

[9] gas prices have been on the steady rise: http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

[10] skyrocket: 

[11] $3/gallon gasoline at the pump in December for the first time in U.S. history: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/traffic/national-gas-prices-averaging-3-a-gallon-for-the-first-time-at-christmas-122210

[12] $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/markets/oil_commodities/index.htm

[13] $100/barrel oil: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Oil-holds-at-91-per-apf-34009732.html?x=0

[14] regulating power plants and oil refineries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122305477.html

[15] Obama needlessly declared a moratorium on deepwater and shallow water drilling: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/30/landrieu-begs-obama-to-stop-killing-jobs-and-end-the-moratorium/

[16] speeding up the permitting process for wind farms.: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/government-speeds-permitting-for-wind-farms-as-gulf-drilling-continues-to-lag/

[17] effectively issued a seven-year ban on drilling: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/seven-years-of-bad-policy-government-maintains-offshore-drilling-ban/

[18] moving platforms out: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/23/obamas-war-on-gulf-drilling-sends-american-jobs-overseas/

[19] have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/16/did-you-feel-the-earthquake-mr-president-and-10-questions-he-wasnt-asked/

[20] fell 1.3%: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576047491075731426.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

[21] abandoned their global warming regulation scheme: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BR06120101228

[22] officially start regulating: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/environment/2010-12-29-Obamaclimatefull29_ST_N.htm

[23] Chamber of Commerce is allying with Big Labor: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/135325-business-groups-unions-unite-to-oppose-gop-transport-rules-change

[24] Rasmussen Reports:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda

Click here to print.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.