Non-White babies set to become majority in 2010

March 10, 2010

Year could be tipping point when non-white newborns outnumber white.

WASHINGTON – Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the “tipping point” when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years.

Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

“Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century. For America’s children, the future is now,” said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday.

Waiting to have children

Johnson explained there are now more Hispanic women of prime childbearing age who tend to have more children than women of other races.

More white women are waiting until they are older to have children, but it is not yet known whether that will have a noticeable effect on the current trend of increasing minority newborns.

The numbers highlight the nation’s growing racial and age divide, seen in pockets of communities across the U.S., which could heighten tensions in current policy debates from immigration reform and education to health care and Social Security.

There are also strong implications for the 2010 population count, which begins in earnest next week, when more than 120 million U.S. households receive their census forms in the mail.

The Census Bureau is running public service announcements this week to improve its tally of young children, particularly minorities, who are most often missed in the once-a-decade head count.

The campaign features Nickelodeon’s Dora the Explorer, the English- and Spanish-speaking Nickelodeon cartoon character who helps “mommy fill out our census form.”

The population figures are used to distribute federal aid and redraw legislative boundaries with racial and ethnic balance, as required by federal law.

“The adults among themselves sometimes forget the census is about everyone, and kids should be counted,” said Census Bureau director Robert Groves.

“If we fail to count a newborn that is born this month, that newborn misses all the benefits of the census for 10 years.”

Two-thirds of population is white

Whites currently make up two-thirds of the total U.S. population and recent census estimates suggest the number of minorities may not overtake the number of whites until 2050.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent.

But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two.

The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S.

And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

For example:

  • In Gwinnett County, Ga., an Atlanta suburb, the population has shifted from 16 percent minority in 1990 to 58 percent minority in 2008. The number of blacks and Hispanics nearly doubled, while the number of white young people stayed roughly the same.
  • The population of Dakota County, Neb., increased from 15 percent minority in 1990 to 54 percent in 2008, due largely to an influx of Hispanics who came looking for work in meatpacking and other labor.
  • In Lake County, Ind., a suburb of Chicago, the minority population grew from 43 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 2008 as the number of white children declined, the number of blacks stayed stable and the number of Hispanics increased.

The 2008 census estimates used local records of births and deaths, tax records of people moving within the U.S., and census statistics on immigrants. The figures for “white” refer to those whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: MSNBC.

Something very strange is happening with U.S. treasuries

February 25, 2010

There are times in life when one witnesses something so outside the scope of normal experience, that at first you don’t see it.

Captain Cook’s diaries tell us that upon first seeing his ships offshore in Australia, the aborigines expressed “neither surprise nor concern.” Cook notes that it was not until he and his men approached the shore in smaller, more familiar vessels that the villagers reacted, arming themselves as “the sight of men in small boats was comprehensible to them: it meant invasion.”

Well, I had a similar experience during yesterday’s bond auction. Before going into the details, we need to fully explain how a Treasury Auction works.

First the Treasury issues a press release saying just how much debt is being issued (sold) during a given auction. This release also says how much of the Treasuries currently owned by the Federal Reserve are coming due that day, the implication being that the Fed will likely use the funds from their maturing Treasuries to buy some of the new debt issuance.

When it comes time for the auction, investors can either bid non-competitively (meaning they’ll take whatever yield is available based on demand) or competitively (meaning they have a minimum yield requirement and won’t buy the debt if it yields less). Non-compete bids are accepted first. After them comes the competitive bids until the total debt issuance is complete.

So let’s say the Treasury is issuing $10 billion in ten-year notes. On the day of the auction, the lowest competitive bid states it won’t accept anything under a 3% yield. So, the Treasury starts filling non-competitive bids at 3%. Once all the non-competes are filled, the Treasury starts filling the competitive bids in the order of increasing yields (so those competitive orders requiring a 3% yield are filled before those requiring a 3.5% yield) until the total debt issuance is met.

Once the Treasury auction is complete, the Treasury issues a press release stating the highest accepted yield and the amount of Treasuries sold to non-competitive bidders. The Treasury also reveals what percentage of competitive bids occurred with each of the three bidders. These are:

1) Primary Dealers: those banks/ financial institutions that trade directly with the Federal Reserve bank of NY (and so HAVE to buy Treasuries at auction)

2) Direct bidders: those investors who place their bids directly with the Treasury (also the easily track-able orders)

3) Indirect bidders: those investors who place their orders through direct bidders (untraceable orders or orders made by buyers that cannot be tracked)

I realize this sounds complicated. The main issues are that the Treasury issues debt. Some folks take it at whatever price they can. Some folks buy it only if it yields as much as they want.

The Treasury first sells the debt to those who don’t care what it yields (at the lowest yield the folks who DO care what it yields are willing to accept) and then issues the remaining debt to those who DO care what it yields first at the lowest yield accepted and then at higher yields.

Finally, of the folks who buy, some buy right from the Treasury (directs), others buy through intermediaries (indirects). And if there aren’t enough of either, the Primary Dealers step in and buy the rest.

Ok, now onto yesterday’s auction.

Yesterday the Treasury issued $37 billion worth of four-week notes (meaning debt that comes due in four weeks). The lowest yield accepted was 0.0000% (literally NO yield) and the highest yield accepted was 0.055% (virtually nothing).

Roughly, 27% of the auction took place at the highest rate. This means nearly one third of the demand from competitive bidders (those who care about yield) came at the HIGHEST yield that was accepted. In plain terms, this alone tells you that investors want higher yields from Treasuries since nearly a full third of the debt issuance took place at the highest REQUIRED yield.

As you would expect, there were few non-competitive bids (who in their right mind is willing to buy US debt without caring about the yield?): non-competes only made up less than 1% of the bids. In contrast competitive bids made up 97% of the demand.

Now here’s where things get odd.

Of the competitive bids (meaning those bids coming from folks who care about yield), roughly 70% went to Primary Dealers (investors who HAVE to buy the debt and who usually turn around and try to sell it afterwards). To put this number into perspective here is the percentage of competitive purchases made by Primary Dealers in the last four 4-week Treasury issuances: Date of 4-Week Treasury Auction

Primary Dealers as % of Competitive Buys

January 5 2010


January 12 2010


January 20 2010


January 26 2010


February 2 2010


February 9 2010


February 17 2010


February 23 2010 (yesterday)


You’ll note that during the stock market correction that took place during the end of January/ beginning of February, Primary Dealers didn’t need to buy many Treasuries since investors were fleeing stocks and buying short-term Treasury debt as a safe haven.

You’ll also notice that yesterday’s auction featured MORE buys from Primary Dealers than almost any of those occurring in 2010. Remember, Primary Dealers HAVE to buy Treasuries. So to see them buying a high percentage of Treasuries at debt auctions means that few investors who can pick and choose what to buy are actually looking to buy US debt.

In plain terms, a debt auction that features a high percentage of competitive buys coming from Primary Dealers is BAD NEWS. It means investors generally aren’t buying US debt. It also means that foreign governments (those who have funded US debt auctions for decades) aren’t buying much anymore either.

So the fact we’ve have three short-term auctions in which more than two thirds of competitive buys came from Primary Dealers is worrisome to see the least.

Now here’s where it gets even worse.

Of the remaining competitive buys (about $8.86 billion), only 32% came from Direct Bidders or those who bought debt directly from the Treasury: orders that can easily be tracked. The other 68% ($5.9 billion) came from Indirect Bidders: folks who we cannot track.

Even more bizarre, only $5.9 billion in Indirect Bidder competitive buys were ACTUALLY OFFERED. So we had a 100% acceptance rate for Indirect Bidder competitive buys.

Let’s put this in perspective:

Date of 4-Week Treasury Auction

Indirect Bidder Acceptance Rate

January 5 2010


January 12 2010


January 20 2010


January 26 2010


February 2 2010


February 9 2010


February 17 2010


February 23 2010 (yesterday)


This means that the Treasury took up EVERY single cent of competitive bids coming from indirect buyers. Remember, indirect buyers are usually assumed to be foreign governments (even the Treasury website admits this).

If this was the case yesterday, then foreign governments barely bought much of anything in yesterday’s auction (only 19% of total debt issued). Moreover, it implies that Primary Dealers (those having to buy) had to gorge on the auction to make up for the fact that few if any foreign governments are interested in buying our debt anymore (including even short-term debt).


One could potentially argue that this indirect buying came from the Fed covertly buying under the guise of an indirect bidder (the Treasury recently changed the definition of what qualifies for an indirect bidder to make it more vague). It IS rather odd that every single cent of competitive bidding coming from indirect buyers was filled. It’s almost as if the indirect buyers knew precisely WHAT yield to accept… OR were simply trying to take up the slack in what was already a VERY weak auction.

I cannot tell you which of the above is true. Heck, neither of them could be and something completely different could be happening. But regardless, something very, VERY strange is going on in US debt auctions.

I wrote earlier this year that bonds, not stocks, would be the big story of 2010. We’re only into February and there are already some very unusual things happening on both the long (30 year) and the short (4 week) ends of the Treasury curve. And with the Fed’s Quantitative Easing Program scheduled to end in March, things are about to get a whole lot more interesting (barring of course an extension of the QE or QE 2.0).

Keep your eye on US Treasuries. Stocks, despite being so popular with investors are usually the LAST to get what’s coming down the pike. And investors just parked $30 billion for a month with Uncle Sam at virtually NO YIELD yesterday.

Put another way, someone(s) is/are willing to not make money just for the sake of insuring return OF capital (the US can always print money to return it) rather than any return ON capital.

See also AAII: Sentiment Points to a Flat Market on

By Graham Summers

Source: NASDAQ.

Peter Schaenk Announcement

April 1, 2009

We regret to announce that Peter Schaenk and Voice of Reason Broadcast Network have reached an agreement to part ways.

You can contact Peter at or his War of Perception Web site.

We are grateful for the months of hard work and professionalism that Peter has contributed to VoR, in an effort to get us off the ground in our first year. We wish him the very best of luck and success in all future endeavors.  The archives of Peter’s VoR broadcasts can be found here.

Alex Jones Threatens Jeff Rense With “Destruction”

March 31, 2009

U.S. Officials Confirm Israel Air Force Bombed Sudan Convoy

March 27, 2009

Brown vs. Board, Govt. vs. People: The Curious Course Of The Desegregation Wars

March 26, 2009

Reparations Bill Introduced In Congress

March 24, 2009

Plan to Solve Crisis: Let Immigrants Buy Houses

March 20, 2009

Meet Maria Sergeyeva

March 18, 2009

Alleged Nazi Camp Guard Charged 29,000 Times

March 12, 2009

When Economy Bottoms Out, How Will We Know?

March 7, 2009

Peter Schaenk interviews Merlin Miller, Mar. 11, 2009

March 7, 2009

Update: The interview is now available here.

This Wednesday, VoR radio host Peter Schaenk interviews filmmaker Merlin Miller. Topics discussed:

  • Jewish involvement in Hollywood.
  • How the MPA is used to keep independent filmmakers out of the mainstream.
  • Merlin’s involvement with survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty.
  • All this and more!

About Merlin Miller

Merlin Miller

Merlin Miller was born and raised in Des Moines, Iowa, and graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY in 1974. He served several years in the U.S. Army where he commanded two units and then worked as an Industrial Engineering Manager for Michelin Tire Company. In 1983, he was accepted into the University of Southern California’s “Peter Stark Motion Picture Producing Program,” graduating in 1985 with an MFA degree in Cinema/Television. Merlin has since been an independent screenwriter, motion picture producer/director, and media instructor.

Merlin’s award winning films include; “A Place to Grow” starring Gary Morris, Tracy Kristofferson, John Beck and Wilford Brimley, and “Jericho” starring Mark Valley, Leon Coffee, Lisa Stewart, R. Lee Ermey and Buck Taylor. His vision is to build a viable and far-reaching alternative to Hollywood… one that can help shape a more positive destiny for the marginalized, yet traditionally valued American majority.

Americana Pictures

Jericho (2002): Director, Producer
A Place to Grow (1994): Director

Vatican: Bishop’s Apology On Holocaust Not Enough

February 27, 2009

Abraham Lincoln’s “Bank War”

February 27, 2009

Abraham Lincoln’s “Bank War”

February 27, 2009

A Brief For Whitey

February 25, 2009

The Self-Chosen Vulturecrats

February 25, 2009

Please Welcome VoR’s New Program Director…Peter Schaenk!

February 24, 2009

Bishop Richard Williamson Ordered To Leave Argentina

February 21, 2009

Bishop Richard Williamson Ordered To Leave Argentina

February 21, 2009