Category Archives: economy

Open letter to the Beavercreek City Council, November 12, 2012

My name is John Mitchel. I live on Maple Grove Lane. I oppose the Beavercreek city income tax, but I want to make it perfectly clear I do not mind paying taxes… concern is lack of accountability from our elected officials in local, state and federal governments who irresponsibly launder our tax dollars to their friends in the private sector who in turn keep the campaign cash flowing to allow their surrogates to remain in office. Here are three examples.

The first is the Beavercreek Golf Course, which is costing Beavercreek taxpayers $845,000 a year to service the debt. We suffer those consequences while the politicians who passed the enabling legislation continue to receive campaign contributions from private developers who have made millions from taxpayer subsidized investments.

The second is The Greene at I-675 and Indian Ripple. It’s bad enough that Beavercreek City Council conspired to keep a voter initiative off the ballot that would have offered an up or down choice by the citizens, but while we were debating that, I asked Yaromir Steiner, the private developer, if he would make the investment without the $14.8 million from Greene County taxpayers and $2.7 million from a Dave Hobson-sponsored earmark. His tortured response was “No.” To put this in perspective, Mr. Steiner is on record as saying he would not invest his private wealth in The Greene without taxpayer subsidies in excess of $17 million.

Finally, I will address the 2003-2006 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Initiative Agreement where our Greene County Commissioners, enthusiastically supported by Rick Perales, former member of the Beavercreek City Council, sent $1.9 million dollars to the Dayton Development Coalition, a private, not-for-profit organization. Once it arrived there, the Coalition divided it up by paying their CEO $285,000 in 2005 and paying Washington lobbying firm, The PMA Group, $560,000 during the period of performance of the BRAC Initiative Agreement. It’s important to note that $285,000 paid to the Coalition CEO* is about double what the governor of Ohio earns, and more than the Vice-president of the United States. Furthermore, it’s important you know that PMA’s founder and President is now in federal prison for illegally bundling campaign contributions, some of which went to Dave Hobson and Steve Austria. Unlike dozens of other members of Congress who returned the illegal contributions, there’s no evidence to indicate that Mr. Hobson or Mr. Austria did so**.

To summarize, our elected officials have not been good stewards of our tax dollars, and there’s no evidence they will do so in the future. The only way we can fix our local, state and federal governments if we stop electing these so-called public servants who are consumed by power enabled by a career in politics. In the meantime, our only choice is to stop sending our tax dollars until those that are in office can prove they will be accountable for their spending when those who do not have a voice continue to struggle in this anemic economy.

* Source: Dayton Development Coalition’s 2005 IRS Form 990

** Source:

Passing the Xenia Schools 6.5 Mill Emergency Property Tax Levy: The Bottom Line (corrected)

by Daniel Downs

Since the Xenia City School District attempted to pass a 1.5 earned income tax levy in August, not much has changed. The economic situation is still uncertain. Employment is still near 8%, and growth is still very slow. The Congressional Budget Office estimates remain the same as is the outlook of economists like Nouriel Roubini and financial experts like John Mauldin. (see Passing Xenia Schools Income Tax Replacement Levy)

Also unchanged is the claim by Xenia School officials of a huge deficit looming over the election season horizon. On November 6, Xenia Community School officials want voters to agree that there is a dire need for landowners whose property value is $100,000 to pay an additional $200 per year in taxes. That is on top of the bond issue tax, the half-percent income tax, three or more previously renewed property taxes, Greene County Career Center taxes, city taxes, county taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, utility usage taxes including electricity, gas and communication taxes, sales taxes, business taxes, and many other taxes.

Why do school officials need more money? Past budget cuts made by the school district was due to rising costs of health insurance, utilities and diesel fuel costs, according to a recent Xenia Daily Gazette article. A Dayton Daily News article claims passing the emergency property tax levy will alleviate the looming budget deficit. Of course, giving Xenia schools $200 dollars more of your hard earned income each year will meet the most important need of all, benefiting student learning.

Will it not also assure administrators and teachers that they will continue getting union determined pay raises, health insurance that is continuing to rise, retirement, and other benefits?

We can thank our union President Barak Obama and congressional Democrats for rising health costs, and Capitol Hill bureaucrats and oil cartels for rising gas and utility pricing, part of which is funding research and development of new energy technologies.

But, what about the budget deficit? Here I want to make several observations based on the school district’s current 5 year budget forecast. The estimates assume a continual decline of daily attendance, which also means less revenue. The amount of taxes dollars returned to our school district by the state is determined by the number of students enrolled and attending. The forecast estimates that there will be 200 fewer students attending Xenia schools in five years. If we begin with 2012, the estimated decrease in the number of students attending our schools adds up to 430.

In a presentation to the Ohio School Boards Association, Randy Overbeck said, “the district enrollment has been fairly consistent over the past 15 years. ADM (average daily attendance) has remained around 4800-5100.” The school district estimated attendance to be 5,028 in 2012, 4,748 by 2013 and 4,548 by 2017, which figures are historically unprecedented.

The school’s 5 year budget forecast also assumes property and income tax revenue growth without a new levy. Actual property tax revenue was $17,092,007 in 2012. By 2017, property tax revenue is estimated to be $18,687,908. Income tax revenue estimates follows a similar trend. It grows from $3,197,402 to $3,239,094. While personal property taxes are still being phased out, the state was still reimbursing our school district over $2.9 million in 2012. It is estimated that the state will continue compensating our school district with over $1.8 million for the next 5 years. With the amount of personal property taxes still being collected, our school will continue receiving over $3 million, according to the budget forecast.

Of course, Xenia School District payroll expenses will continue to grow by 41.4 percent over 5 years. That is an annual increase of 8.3 percent, 90% of which covers insurance and retirement benefits. When the contracted services are included, payroll expenses increase to 54 percent, an annual increase of 10.8 percent.

Consequently, while the number of students served by Xenia Schools is estimated to significantly decline, Xenia taxpayers are expected to increase their tax burden to cover the presumed loss. If the decline turns out to be real, the school district revenue will certainly decrease because the state funding is based on daily average attendance.

There is a problem with Xenia school officials blaming the state funding formula for declining school attendance. It is even worse when they assume voters are dumb enough to believe that the nearly $4 million going to charter, STEM, and other nearby school districts is a real expense. It is not a real loss because the school district received revenue for those students to give to the school public school of their parents’ choice. How terrible it must be for families to have the freedom to choose how and where their children will be educated. Yet, the same school officials fail to inform the public about how much they receive from students from other districts enrolling and attending Xenia schools.

Xenia school officials are not loosing tax revenues because it was never theirs. Unlike county and state governments redistributing local tax money, it is unfortunate that Ohio law mandates the primary local school district to distribute tax dollars to other public schools like charters, STEM school, and now other nearby school districts.

Whether the estimated decrease of 200-430 students over the next 5 years is the supposed to be the result of families moving out of Xenia or attending other nearby schools is a question that is anyone’s guess.

What is not unknown is the ultimate goal of the proposed emergency property tax levy. That goal is same as identified in my last post about the school’s earned income tax levy. It is to increase cash flow so that school officials have an on-going year-end surplus of $5-6 million. The budget forecast estimates a $2 million surplus at the end of 2013 and $700,000 at the end of 2014. By that time, Romney may have been able to move the economy forward to a growing economy and 6% or less unemployment. Many more taxpayers would be making more money and would be able to afford giving schools $200 or more for five years and thereafter.

In the final analysis, Xenia School officials estimate a steady decline in student population, steady income revenue, and significantly rising costs. Most of the increased costs are due to above inflation employee benefits. Unless taxpayer annual income increases about 10-12 percent, Xenia taxpayers will not be able to afford the emergency property tax levy or any additional taxes. Based on the school’s estimates, the budget forecast is unsustainable. That is the bottom line.

The Biden and Ryan Debate: Energy and Taxes

by Raymond J. Keating

The vice presidential debate between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden was a lively affair. Though it often was difficult getting by the many interruptions served up by Biden, and Martha Raddatz’s bias as a moderator, in order to get at the substance.

But some clear themes did emerge that warrant the attention of entrepreneurs and small businesses.

First, this was a debate overwhelmingly about foreign policy, in particular about the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and the rest of the general region rank as the immediate hotspots in terms of U.S. national security. And given the role played in oil markets, it’s a huge economic factor.

In the end, given the Obama administration’s mixed messages and general pulling back from the region, Congressman Ryan was justified in hitting the White House hard on their strategy, or lack thereof. There is no doubt that tumult and uncertainty in the region, including the role of the U.S., has been one of the key reasons for oil prices remaining high.

It also should be pointed out that Ryan mentioned greater North American energy independence. To the degree that is achieved will depend on U.S. policymaking, such as the extent of U.S. domestic exploration and production, as well as moving ahead with projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been hostile to carbon-based energy in general, raised barriers to domestic production, and blocked the Keystone XL pipeline.

Second, a big difference emerged on the tax front.

Vice President Biden was unrelenting in pushing a class warfare agenda. He spoke of a fictional tax cut for the “middle class.” In fact, the Obama agenda offers no tax relief for middle-income earners. Rather, it proposes leaving today’s tax policies in effect for middle and low-income earners, while jacking up taxes on everyone else.

Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan pointed out that the Obama tax plan rests on a major tax hike on “successful small businesses.” He contrasted the Obama plan with the Romney plan by noting that the top income tax rate on small businesses would be nearly 45 percent under Obama, while it would be 28 percent under Romney. That’s a profound and economically substantive difference on tax rates.

Ryan also pointed out that 53 percent of small business income would be hit by the Obama tax increases.

For good measure, Ryan noted that this top Obama tax rate would make U.S. businesses far less competitive internationally. That’s very important. While President Obama, to his credit, has called for reducing the corporate income tax rate, he has pushed and pushed to increase the personal income tax rate, without mentioning that some 93 percent of businesses pay personal, rather than corporate, income taxes.

In the end, it needs to be understood that any kind of tax increase, especially in a tough economy, makes no sense whatsoever. No economists – no matter what school of economic thought they belong to – would advocate tax increases in this environment. Their reasoning surely would differ, but not their bottom line conclusion. And any economist pushing for a tax increase right now is playing politics, and not thinking as an economist.

And make no mistake, economics makes clear that tax increases on upper incomes – as included in ObamaCare and in terms of the additional hikes advocated by Obama – will hurt everyone, not just higher income earners. Biden asserted that the, as he put it, “super wealthy” can afford to pay more in taxes. What Biden misses in his class warfare hysteria is that the Obama-Biden tax increases mean reduced incentives and resources for entrepreneurship and investment. That means bad news throughout the economy – for everyone.

If we want to get economic growth back on track, experience rising incomes, and create more jobs, then taxes cannot be increased on the entrepreneurs and investors that are critical to making this happen.

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His article was first published by the SBE Council, 12 October, 2012,

Paul Ryan on the Economy


Clinton/Obama and Updated Bush/Obama First Terms “By the Numbers” Released

The Alabama Policy Institute (API) has released a new infographic in its By the Numbers series that presents side-by-side statistics from comparable time periods during the first terms in office of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as an updated infographic comparing the first terms in office of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The one-page Clinton/Obama Presidents’ First Terms By the Numbers and the Bush/Obama Presidents’ First Terms By the Numbers infographics cover a variety of key issues including the cost of health insurance and a gallon of gas, as well as federal regulations implemented, length of unemployment, job creation and loss, per capita income, national debt, approval ratings, change in the S&P 500, number of federal employees, Americans on food stamps and others.

The infographics, in which all dollars have been adjusted for inflation to provide realistic comparisons, can be found in their entirety on the By the Numbers page at

According to API Policy Director and General Counsel Cameron Smith, API was vigilant in gathering truly comparable statistics.

“It was important to API that we provide an apples-to-apples comparison,” Smith said. “Since President Obama’s first term is not over, we did not pair statistics of his incomplete term with those of President Clinton’s or President Bush’s full term. If data was only available for the first three years of Mr. Obama’s administration for a particular statistic, we compared that figure to the same information from the first three years of the Bush and Clinton administrations.”

“An informed electorate is a powerful force, and we hope our By the Numbers series provides a basic, easy-to-comprehend snapshot that will educate Americans on the issues that matter most.”

By the Numbers</em. complements API's studies, white papers, issue briefs, editorials and other resources available at Other topics addressed in the By the Numbers series include Energy, K-12 Education and Medicaid.

Achieving Revenue Neutrality with Romney’s Tax Plan

by Richard Morrison
The Tax Foundation

Mitt Romney’s proposal to cap itemized deductions on federal income tax returns would significantly reduce the tax cut that high earning households would otherwise receive under his tax plan and would eliminate the presumption that taxes would increase on middle-income filers, according to a new analysis by the Tax Foundation.

“Governor Romney’s suggestion of a $17,000 cap for deductions should finally relieve concerns, largely unfounded to begin with, that the plan would turn out to be insufficiently progressive or end up raising taxes on middle income families,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge.

Model scenarios found that the reduction in revenue from cutting individual tax rates would be substantially offset by dynamic effects of his other policy proposals. The proposed reduction in the corporate income tax rate, and lower taxes on capital gains, dividends, and estates would contribute to job growth and federal revenues, reducing the cost of the total package.

“The combination of the additional revenue from economic growth and the limitation on itemized deductions comes very close to making the plan revenue neutral,” said Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Stephen Entin. “For example, the cap on deductions reduces the plan’s static revenue losses from $338 billion to around $206 billion. The economic growth generated by the plan further reduces the revenue losses to under $14 billion. By Washington standards, this is well within the margin of error.”

While the Tax Foundation’s analysis illustrates that the tax package can indeed be made to work without raising taxes on middle income families, the limitation on deductions is a blunt tool for tax reform which does not address the merits or demerits of the different types of deductions. It is also not clear whether Congress will go along with major reductions in some types of the deductions involved. A series of spending reductions in the least valuable or most wasteful federal spending programs might be a better way to proceed.

See also
See also

Private Sector Job Growth Stalls, Labor Force Shrinks

The August 2012 Ohio by the Numbers report hows that several recent months of solid private sector job growth hit a snag in August. According to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Ohio’s private sector lost 2,900 jobs, freezing the state’s ranking at 13 for the fastest growing private sector since January 2010.

Overall, 2012 has seen reasonable private sector job growth numbers with nearly 96,000 created since January.

Ohio’s unemployment rate remained at 7.2 percent in August, which is nearly a full percent below the national average of 8.1 percent. However, the fact that Ohio’s labor force shrunk by 19,100 in August constitutes a significant cause for concern. This represents the third month in a row that the labor force has gotten smaller in Ohio. In fact, it has shrunk by 59,900 since May while the total number of private sector jobs created over that time span was only 34,800.

Overall highlights from the report:
  • Ohio lost 2,900 private sector jobs in June while gaining 900 government jobs;
  • Ohio remains 13th nationally in terms of private sector job growth since January 2010, growing at a 4.7 percent rate;
  • Ohio currently ranks 46th for private sector job growth since January of 1990, growing at 7.3 percent (top ranked Nevada grew 83.5 percent over the same time span).
  • Within individual industry sectors, Leisure and Hospitality finally joined Professional and Business Services and Education and Health Services as the only sectors to have more people employed in them today than in either 1990 or 2000.

    The report shows that Forced Union states (which includes Ohio and most of its neighbors with the recent exception of Indiana, which became a worker freedom state in February) had a private sector growth rate far below Worker Freedom states. Since 1990, Worker Freedom states’ private sector jobs grew at a 36 percent rate vs. only 13 percent for Forced Union states (12.3 million vs. 7.8 million).

    Even during the decade from 2000-2010, which included the tech bubble burst of 2000 and the “Great Recession” of 2008-2009, Worker Freedom states gained jobs for a minimal growth of around 0.1 percent while Forced Union states lost 5 percent. Since 2010, Worker Freedom states also outperformed Forced Union states, growing at a 4.6 percent rate vs. 3.8 percent.

    To view the full report, please click here.

    Ohio by the Numbers compares Ohio to other states in overall private sector job growth over several distinct time spans. The periods analyzed are: from 1990 until the present day, from peak employment in 2000 through the present day and from the beginning of the current decade to the present day.

    The obamanation about the jobs

    by Daniel Downs

    Last week, the media prophets of the left attempted to make the Obamanable economy look better than it actually is. They used the opening paragraph of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s monthly jobs situation report out of context. Like all proof-texting, they lifted the “good news” out-of-context in order to proclaim Obama’s stimulating policies were at last working.

    Here is the opening statement of the BLS jobs report:

    “The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000.”

    The unemployment rate in August was 8.1 percent resulting in a 0.3% decrease, and number of unemployed persons decreased 456,000 to 12.1 million. The number job losers and persons unemployed more than 5 months also decreased.

    All good news for the economy, right?

    Well, let’s look at the above total nonfarm employment increase figure of 114,000. The BLS jobs report showed job creation declined 41% from July to August. New jobs were added at a modest rated of 7% between August and September. The opposite was the case for government jobs. From July to August, the growth of government jobs increased 250 percent, but the rated decreased to 78% from August to September.

    The Obamaites might have reason to celebrate the growth jobs, especially government jobs.

    However, their rejoicing will not last long.

    The problem is with part-time jobs. Part-time employment increased by 7 percent, the same rate as new private sector jobs.

    Although employment is growing some, job growth under the Obamaite administration is still not all that great.

    Ohio Minimum Wage Workers Get A Raise

    Ohio’s minimum wage is scheduled to increase on January 1, 2013 to $7.85 per hour for non-tipped employees and to $3.93 per hour for tipped employees, plus tips.

    The 2012 Ohio minimum wage is $7.70 per hour for non-tipped employees and $3.85 for tipped employees, plus tips.

    On January 1, 2013, the increased minimum wage will apply to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $288,000 per year. The 2012 Ohio minimum wage applies to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $283,000 per year.

    The Constitutional Amendment passed by Ohio voters in November 2006 states that Ohio’s minimum wage shall increase on January 1 of each year by the rate of inflation. The state minimum wage is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the 12-month period prior to September. This CPI index rose 1.7 percent from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. The Amendment also states that the wage rate for non-tipped employees shall be rounded to the nearest five cents.

    How will this raise effect the economic well-being of minimum wage workers? A full-time employee working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year made a whopping $16,016 before taxes. This same Ohioan will make an earth-shaking $312 a year more with the upcoming raise. Let’s assume this same employee is a single parent raising one child.
    Before the proposed raise, this single parent’s after-tax income is $11,797 and with the raise, it will be $12,046. Our single parent has reason to celebrate because he/she will have $249 more spending money. Right? Well, not exactly. Before we can determine how much spending money our single parent actual has, we have to deduct the social security and Medicare deductions. Therefore, our single parent’s yearly take-home pay before the proposed raise actually is $10,564, and after the raise, it will be $10,789. Now, our single only has $225 more for consumption. Just for perspective, the poverty line for our single parent is $15,130. Even if our hypothetical single parent get all income tax dollars back at the end of the year, he or she will still be living in poverty throughout most of the year.

    Consequently, minimum wage is not a minimal living income. It is a pay scale to enhance welfare benefits to a livable standard.

    It only gets worse for employees at smaller companies (with annual gross receipts of $283,000 or less per year in 2012 or $288,000 or less per year after January 1, 2013) and for 14- and 15-year-olds, the state minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. For those employees, the state wage is tied to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour which requires an act of Congress and the President’s signature to change.

    Quantitative Easing (QE3): An Analysis

    By Alabama Policy Institute

    Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy tool employed by central banks in many countries; the Federal Reserve (the Fed) is the central bank of the United States. QE is designed to stimulate the economy by injecting a predetermined amount of cash into the monetary market. Through QE, the Fed electronically creates new money and uses it to purchase financial assets from banks and deposits this new money on the banks’ balance sheets.1 Although many refer to this as “printing money,” new, physical money is rarely created as a result of the Fed’s actions. Because this new virtual money is created by the Federal Reserve, the only approved source of currency in the country, it is accepted as legal tender. However, the responsibility of printing physical money is still in the hands of the Treasury Department.2

    By significantly increasing the volume of available dollars, the Fed anticipates that banks will increase the number of loans they make and consequently move more money into the market, prompting economic growth.

    The Fed has already implemented QE twice since the beginning of the financial collapse in 2007. QE1 lasted from November 2008 to the first quarter of 2010. During this period, the Fed initiated purchases of $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities, and $175 billion of government agency debt.3 In November of 2010, the Fed announced QE2, during which the Fed began the purchase of $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities in addition to continuing to reinvest payments on securities purchased during QE1.4

    The Fed announced on September 13th that it was dissatisfied with the economy’s rate of recovery, specifically the slow rate at which unemployment levels are returning to a more normal range5, and would attempt to remedy the stagnated growth by beginning QE3. In this round of quantitative easing, the Fed will purchase $40 billion a month in Mortgage Backed Securities, as well as continue the program dubbed “Operation Twist,” with the purchase of longer-termed securities.6 QE3 is open-ended. In a press release, the Fed stated that it would continue to purchase securities at this rate until it saw the desired results.7

    Policy Considerations

    Under the right circumstances, increasing the supply of money can spur economic growth, but it can also introduce the risk of devaluation of the currency8. QE can mean higher commodity prices and higher inflation. Esther George, president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, has raised concerns that QE3 has “the potential for igniting inflation.”9 Inflation essentially makes each dollar worth less, and in an economy where wage rates are stagnant, the consequences could be dire10.

    Another concern is that the intended goal of QE to increase the amount of money available to lenders and, ultimately, the marketplace has not been entirely successful. The reason may lie, at least partially, in another program implemented by the Fed. In October 2008, in an effort to deter the fears of depositors, the Fed began paying interest to banks for the funds they keep in reserves.11 While all banks within the Federal Reserve System are required to maintain a certain level of reserves available for depositors who may want to withdraw their cash, they are deterred from keeping excess reserves by other market forces. Absent the Fed paying them interest on all reserves, including excess reserves, banks would be more inclined to loan money in order to increase income from interest payments. The rate of interest paid on bank reserves is currently 0.25 percent.12 That may not sound like much, but the daily federal funds rate has been held between 0 and 0.25 percent for the last several years13. When accounting for inflation, real interest rates are hovering near zero14, so a risk-free 0.25 percent return is actually a bargain for banks. As of August 2012, banks that deposit with the Fed are holding nearly $1.5 trillion in excess reserves, up from close to zero historically.15

    In short, the Fed is incentivizing banks to keep the excess money they receive from QE programs in their reserves in order to collect the interest paid by the Fed. While mortgage rates did decline after QEs 1 and 2, even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calculated that, as of July 2012, there was “very little impact on the economy”, adding that he was “very surprised at the data.”16 Former Chairman Greenspan also commented that the effect of the untold trillions of government and Fed spending actually may have had a negative impact on the health of the economy. He posits that the rash of deficit spending and manipulation of the interest rate is crowding out private investments.17


    If the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has doubts that quantitative easing efforts have brought about the promised economic stimulus, why is the Fed proceeding with the same old bag of economic tricks? As API has discussed before, there are multiple places where the Fed’s missions and actions are in direct conflict with one another; attempting to push “created” money into the marketplace while simultaneously incentivizing banks not to lend money is yet another conflict that must be seriously reevaluated.

    1 Quantitative Easing, FINANCIAL TIMES LEXICON,
    2 Kimberly Amadeo, Federal Reserve is Printing Money,
    3 Polyana da Costa, QE1: financial crisis timeline,
    4 Polyana da Costa, QE2: financial crisis timeline,
    5 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (September 13, 2012)
    6 Id.
    7 Id.
    8 Jeffry Rubin, Quantitative Easing is Just Devaluation,
    9 Don Mecoy, Federal Reserve Official Disagrees with Monetary Policy Decisions, (September 19, 2012),
    10 Wage Growth in the U.S. Will Feel Effects of Great Recession for Years to Come, (April 26, 2012),
    11 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (October 6th, 2008)
    12 Interest on Balances Maintained to Satisfy Reserve Balance Requirements and Excess Balances, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
    13 Federal Funds Data Historical Search, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, (July 1, 2010-July 31,2012),
    14 Rodney Sullivan, Negative Real Interest Rates: The Conundrum for Investment and Spending Policies,
    15 Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS,
    16 Bruno J. Navarro, Alan Greenspan Sees ‘Two Separate Economies’, (July 12,2012),
    17 Id.