Personal income drops in January by largest monthly amount in 20 years

posted at 11:21 am on March 1, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Today’s economic report has good and bad news, and both are tempered by the effects of government intervention.  The Commerce Department reports that personal income dropped 3.6% in January, the worst such monthly decline in exactly 20 years, but that consumer spending seems unaffected:

Personal income decreased $505.5 billion, or 3.6 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) decreased $491.4 billion, or 4.0 percent, in January, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $18.2 billion, or 0.2 percent. In December, personal income increased $353.4 billion, or 2.6 percent, DPI increased $325.7 billion, or 2.7 percent, and PCE increased $14.8 billion, or 0.1 percent, based on revised estimates.

Real disposable income decreased 4.0 percent in January, in contrast to an increase of 2.7 percent in December. Real PCE increased 0.1 percent, the same increase as in December.

Before we pull this apart, let’s take a look at the AP’s analysis of the report:

The Commerce Department says consumer spending rose 0.2 percent in January. The gain was driven by an increase in spending on services, primarily reflecting higher heating bills. Spending on durable goods such as cars and non-durable goods such as clothing actually fell.

Income growth fell 3.6 percent in January, the biggest drop since January 1993. But it followed a hefty 2.6 percent rise in December. The December gain reflected a rush by companies to pay dividends and bonuses before income taxes increased on top earners.

Analysts surveyed by Reuters forecast income fell by 2.2 percent in January after rising 2.6 percent in December, while spending increased for a second consecutive month by 0.2 percent.

In other words, this was a big miss by Reuters’ analysts.  The December increase in dividend payments was an artificial distortion of the market because of the fiscal-cliff standoff, which by that time seemed certain to raise tax rates.  If that’s all it was, though, then Reuters’ expectation should have been right in the ballpark.  Instead, income dropped by a significantly larger amount than it rose the previous month, which would indicate that real damage has been done by the change in economic policy, at least in the short term, as well as by the general lack of interest in economic growth by this administration in its progressive second-term agenda.

Consumer spending rose, however, which means that the potential for economic growth remains — if we tool our policies to encourage it.  This also shows that the mini-apocalypse predicted because of the expiration of the payroll-tax holiday was nonsense.  Personal consumption expenditures hit their highest mark (in annual rates, in chained 2005 dollars) in at least seven months, the length of time shown in the tables at the end of the report.  By the same measure, January outpaced all four quarters of 2012.  The supposed stimulus of the PTR was vaporware, as was the anti-stimulus of its expiration.

The real problem is still stagnant job creation caused by increasing government hostility toward capital and investment.  Until we solve that, wages will not rise as labor remains a buyer’s market, and consumer spending won’t continue to improve for long in this environment.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wow. Here we follow the trajectory of post war Britain. They gave up on coal and capitalism, too.

IlikedAUH2O on March 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Consumer spending rose, however, which means that the potential for economic growth remains — if we tool our policies to encourage it.

The quote before this pointed out that the increase was driven primarily by services spending, like higher heating bills.

So… we want to encourage higher heating bills, because… that’s good for economic growth, what?

Midas on March 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM

The real problem is still stagnant job creation caused by increasing government hostility toward capital and investment. Until we solve that

Its only a problem to us, not to the Statists in power. For them it is the plan yet completed.

We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Moving Forward to living in mud huts, cooking on dung fires and wiping our rears with our hands.

acyl72 on March 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Do we know if Employment is up?

Bmore on March 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM

FORWARD!

Good Lt on March 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM

It dropped……except probably in DC

MAC1000 on March 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Wow. Here we follow the trajectory of post war Britain. They gave up on coal and capitalism, too.

And on sovereignty too, kowtowing to the growing and bullying muslim population there.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The real problem is still stagnant job creation caused by increasing government hostility toward capital and investment.

Hey! Let’s raise the minimum wage!

That’s the ticket.

BacaDog on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Obama has the Minus Touch.

beatcanvas on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Consumer spending increased because the cost of
gas, food, and other essentials increased in price.

Amjean on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

The Commerce Department says consumer spending rose 0.2 percent in January. The gain was driven by an increase in spending on services, primarily reflecting higher heating bills. Spending on durable goods such as cars and non-durable goods such as clothing actually fell.

This is the key to the whole thing. Income fell and so did spending on actual consumer products. Consumer spending rose because people sacrificed their income to keep warm. So not only did their incomes fall because of the Obama Administration, their heating bills went up because of the Obama Administration. You know what they say, the people voted and now they must be punished.

JoeShmoe99 on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Moving Forward to living in mud huts, cooking on dung fires and wiping our rears with our hands.

And you be rewarded with the mud huts and dung fires only if you, as an obedient servant of the state, constantly meet your personal goal in the 5-year plan. Exceed that goal and you get a ration of mystery meat for cooking over the fire.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Midas on March 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM

That’s what I thought I read, too. If spending went up because fuel prices increased but spending on cars and clothes decreased, I’m not seeing a silver lining here.

BKeyser on March 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

How do we know the increase in consumer spending wasn’t due to the spike in food and gas prices? The rapid jump in the cost of a gallon of gas since January has been insane.

Doughboy on March 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I’m not seeing a silver lining here.

The only possible silver lining to be seen here, is from the statists POV. Their plans are working well.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Obama has the Minus Touch.

Exactly why he was selected for his position.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $18.2 billion, or 0.2 percent. In December, personal income increased $353.4 billion, or 2.6 percent, DPI increased $325.7 billion, or 2.7 percent, and PCE increased $14.8 billion, or 0.1 percent, based on revised estimates.

Inflation anyone.

chemman on March 1, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Personal income decreased $505.5 billion, or 3.6 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) decreased $491.4 billion, or 4.0 percent, in January, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

This means that those higher tax rates that Obama absolutely had to have to make the rich “pay their fair share” aren’t going to be generating the expected revenue. Strange. The lower income could not possibly have anything to do with the higher tax rates could it? The static analysis of the impact of the tax rates told us this couldn’t happen.

weaselyone on March 1, 2013 at 11:35 AM

bayam! Come out and play…

Del Dolemonte on March 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

That’s what I thought I read, too. If spending went up because fuel prices increased but spending on cars and clothes decreased, I’m not seeing a silver lining here.

BKeyser on March 1, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Granted, but the overall effect was increased PCEs. If the payroll tax expiration really had an anti-stimulus effect, then the increased prices of fuel would have pushed other purchases down even further. What this describes is a normal prioritization of spending.

Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

bayam! Come out and play…

Del Dolemonte on March 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

You shouldn’t be a bully. :)

chemman on March 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM

My personal income has remained unchanged, but so has my tax rate from last year (with the exception of the payroll tax). I am assuming this is also true for 98% of Americans.

The income reduction is more than likely coming from the top 2% of earners. It’s almost as if this could have been predictable.

weaselyone on March 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Keep voting democrat!

tom daschle concerned on March 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM

It just means people spent in January that extra dividend income they received in December. This report says that Feb. consumer spending will be in the toilet and so far WalMart and JC Penny numbers back that up. WalMart numbers were in the toilet for January, which isn’t surprising. Most WalMart shoppers don’t get their income from dividends.

crosspatch on March 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM

This means that those higher tax rates that Obama absolutely had to have to make the rich “pay their fair share” aren’t going to be generating the expected revenue.

That “fair share” was never were expected to generate that revenue, only seize the wealth of the producers. Barry played to the envious Gimmiecrates on the wealth created and earned by our nation’s producers, so it could be taken and redistributed by Barry and Co. for votes and favors.

hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Consumer spending rose, however, which means that the potential for economic growth remains — if we tool our policies to encourage it.

Did you miss this?

The gain was driven by an increase in spending on services, primarily reflecting higher heating bills. Spending on durable goods such as cars and non-durable goods such as clothing actually fell.

In other words, the increase was due to heating bills (and skyrocketing energy costs), not discretionary consumer spending.

People weren’t on the car lots buying cars or shopping for clothes at the mall, and the decrease in income – especially disposable income – suggests this “gain” was temporary at best.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM

The plan is working…it is all about control.

d1carter on March 1, 2013 at 11:43 AM

“Green shoots!”

- David Axelrod

Robert_Paulson on March 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The Commerce Department says consumer spending rose 0.2 percent in January. The gain was driven by an increase in spending on services, primarily reflecting higher heating bills. Spending on durable goods such as cars and non-durable goods such as clothing actually fell.

This is the key to the whole thing. Income fell and so did spending on actual consumer products. Consumer spending rose because people sacrificed their income to keep warm. So not only did their incomes fall because of the Obama Administration, their heating bills went up because of the Obama Administration. You know what they say, the people voted and now they must be punished.

JoeShmoe99 on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM


… and one other missed by the media and Ed:

Consumer spending has been boosted in January since the advent of gift cards over regular presents. The most recent number Google turned up was $ 26+ billion given in gift cards and that number is from a few years ago.

As a general note:

The RINO approach of “finding a silver lining so the Dims can’t complain about us wanting the economy to fail” is reprehensible.

If you know anything about markets, economies or just plain old being a grown up, you know we are being flown into a canyon wall aboard an ACME rocket the wily SCOAMF who KNOWS if the government just spends more money the economy will be going faster than the roadrunner.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM

No wonder why Teh SCOAMT wants to raise the minimum wage to an inflation-adjusted $9/hour.

A couple of stats of note, going back to 1959:

- The 3.62% December-to-January drop in personal income is only the 4th time it dropped going into a new year (1993, 1994 and 2009 were the other 3, with only 1993′s 3.67% drop worse).
- The 2.22% year-over-year January increase is the 5th-worst on record, with only 1/2001-1/2002′s +1.58%, 1/2002-1/2003′s +2.14%, 1/2008-1/2009′s -2.39% and 1/2009-1/2010′s -0.03% worse.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM

When your consumer spending growth is driven by increased heating costs, that’s not a plus for the economy.

hawksruleva on March 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM

The quote before this pointed out that the increase was driven primarily by services spending, like higher heating bills.

So… we want to encourage higher heating bills, because… that’s good for economic growth, what?

Midas on March 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM

If memory serves, Teh SCOAMT said during the campaign that the reason why gas prices were so cheap just before he was sworn in the first time was because the economy was tanking.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Obama’s income stayed the same.
Exempt from reality.

Electrongod on March 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM

No wonder why Teh SCOAMT wants to raise the minimum wage to an inflation-adjusted $9/hour.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Yeah, it’s a CYA move by Obama and the Dems to make up for the disastrous effects of their economic policies. Stagnant wages and a declining dollar will not be cured by raising the minimum wage. If anything, it’ll bring on a new recession once small businesses lay off employees or shut down altogether.

Doughboy on March 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM

beatcanvas on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Nice!!!!

Cindy Munford on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Yeah, it’s a CYA move by Obama and the Dems to make up for the disastrous effects of their economic policies. Stagnant wages and a declining dollar will not be cured by raising the minimum wage. If anything, it’ll bring on a new recession once small businesses lay off employees or shut down altogether.

Doughboy on March 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Hey, in the ObamiNation and under PlaceboCare, 29 is the new 40. It matters not whether one is considering hours worked or age.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Is anybody else listening to this crap that obambi is spewing?

VegasRick on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Granted, but the overall effect was increased PCEs. If the payroll tax expiration really had an anti-stimulus effect, then the increased prices of fuel would have pushed other purchases down even further. What this describes is a normal prioritization of spending.

Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

So we should see an upswing in other purchases once the weather gets warmer, right? Except then the excuse will become high energy costs from air conditioning or whatever.

With the pay roll tax expiration, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher health care premiums – with lower personal income tossed in for good measure – I don’t see how retailers can expect a good year.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Consumer spending has been boosted in January since the advent of gift cards over regular presents. The most recent number Google turned up was $ 26+ billion given in gift cards and that number is from a few years ago.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Wouldn’t that count as November/December spending, when people actually paid for the gift cards?

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Perhaps the increase in consumer spending is simply the American people buying into the Obama meme that you can spend your way out of debt.

Deano1952 on March 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Granted, but the overall effect was increased PCEs. If the payroll tax expiration really had an anti-stimulus effect, then the increased prices of fuel would have pushed other purchases down even further. What this describes is a normal prioritization of spending.

Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

There’s your problem.

The PCE is the new unicorn dust – made up to measure against a price baseline of 100 for 2005 while ignoring changes in unit packaging (i.e. a slightly higher price for a lot fewer Corn Flakes, etc), useable density (e.g. dilution of active ingredients – Maker’s Mark got slammed for their attempt but most manufacturers slip it under the radar) or any one of one hundred other scams.

Who does the shopping in your house, Ed?

If it is your lovely wife, ask her if she is seeing 2% inflation per year or something more like 8 – 10% when you take into acount smaller packages, etc.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM

The first politician to unambiguously state, in the open, that helping the “underprivileged minorities” should *not* be the first economic priority will have both my undivided attention and access to my wallet.

Archivarix on March 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM

The Lilliputian is on – he makes Urkel appear very smart.

This is no doubt a Child in Chief.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM

The love fest by the wh press corp during this presser is nauseating

He won’t take responsibility and just trashing the gop

cmsinaz on March 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Wouldn’t that count as November/December spending, when people actually paid for the gift cards?

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM

.
No, the government counts the gift cards TWICE. Once when sold. Once when used.

FYI, roughly 30% of gift cards are NEVER used. The retailers LOVE gift cards.

People would be much bettter off just giving cash as the gift.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM

With the pay roll tax expiration, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher health care premiums – with lower personal income tossed in for good measure – I don’t see how retailers can expect a good year.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

.
A very good point!

Most of Obamacare’s IMPACT is going to come in the last quarter and it is going to SLAM the average household in a variety of ways.

We may see the largest drop YoY in Christmas spending as people figure out how much less money they will have thanks to the SCOAMF and his ilk.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM

People weren’t on the car lots buying cars or shopping for clothes at the mall, and the decrease in income – especially disposable income – suggests this “gain” was temporary at best.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Thanks for reminding me about disposable income. Continuing the historical comparison started above after noting that there was also a drop between 12/2004 and 1/2005 (damn bifocals line got in the way of that one :-) :

- The 3.96% December-to-January disposable personal income drop is the 6th drop going into a new year (1962, 1973, 1993, 1994 and 2005 were the others), and easily the worst drop of the 6.
- The 1.83% year-over-year January disposable personal income gain was the third-worst year recorded, with only 1/2008-1/2009 and 1/2009 and 1/2010 worse.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM

The shrinking packaging trick only works if one doesn’t buy more packages to compensate. It does work with individual-serving items like frozen chicken cordon bleu (which have shrank to 5 oz from 6), but it doesn’t work so much with bulk items such as cereal.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I really need to proofread (that, or HA needs an “edit comment” button). The last sentence of the 12:09 comment should read:

- The 1.83% year-over-year January disposable personal income gain was the third-worst year recorded, with only 1/2008-1/2009 and 1/2009-1/2010 worse.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Barky just said unemployment won’t drop as fast because of the sequester. As fast as what? As it did in his first four years? What a lying jackass.

He’s also said children of our military will suffer because of the sequester. Teachers will be laid off, who will care for the poor children, blah, blah, blah.

Nothing but scare tactics.

fogw on March 1, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Moving Forward to living in mud huts, cooking on dung fires and wiping our rears with our hands.

And you be rewarded with the mud huts and dung fires only if you, as an obedient servant of the state, constantly meet your personal goal in the 5-year plan. Exceed that goal and you get a ration of mystery meat for cooking over the fire.
hawkeye54 on March 1, 2013 at 11:31 AM

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
PETA is strangely unconcerned…

Marcola on March 1, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Consumer spending rose, however, which means that the potential for economic growth remains — if we tool our policies to encourage it. This also shows that the mini-apocalypse predicted because of the expiration of the payroll-tax holiday was nonsense.

It’s too early too say we avoided a mini-apocolypse. It’ll take a few months for folks to readjust their spending habits for their lower incomes. 1Q 2013 will be weak.

Deafdog on March 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM

The shrinking packaging trick only works if one doesn’t buy more packages to compensate. It does work with individual-serving items like frozen chicken cordon bleu (which have shrank to 5 oz from 6), but it doesn’t work so much with bulk items such as cereal.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM

.
One of us is missing something …

If the manufacturer increases the cost per ounce for Corn Flakes (higher cost/smaller package – which is not tracked by the PCE) haven’t they inflated their margin?

This applies across the board on things like kitty litter, dog food, etc.

Another thing IGNORED by the PCE’s – the increase in the cost of the gas IS tracked. The increase in government taxes levied as a percentage of the cost of the gas IS NOT.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Dear leader looked awesome at the presser….he won on sequestration
-lsm

cmsinaz on March 1, 2013 at 12:23 PM

The shrinking packaging trick only works if one doesn’t buy more packages to compensate. It does work with individual-serving items like frozen chicken cordon bleu (which have shrank to 5 oz from 6), but it doesn’t work so much with bulk items such as cereal.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:13 PM


?????

So people feed their children less cereal ???

“Sorry, honey. I know you’re a growing child but General Mills has increased the cost of Corn Flakes by 8% so you have to eat 8% less so we can stay on budget.”

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Wouldn’t that count as November/December spending, when people actually paid for the gift cards?

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:58 AM

No, when the gift cards are sold, they become a liability on the company’s books. That’s why companies have started to expire gift cards over time to remove those commitments from the books. When the card is used, the liability is removed from the books and the income is recognized. The expiring gift cards are pure profit to the company since no product cost is incurred.

AZfederalist on March 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM

One of us is missing something …

If the manufacturer increases the cost per ounce for Corn Flakes (higher cost/smaller package – which is not tracked by the PCE) haven’t they inflated their margin?

This applies across the board on things like kitty litter, dog food, etc.

Another thing IGNORED by the PCE’s – the increase in the cost of the gas IS tracked. The increase in government taxes levied as a percentage of the cost of the gas IS NOT.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 12:23 PM

I think we’re whistling over the difference between the consumer spending and PCE.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM

This also shows that the mini-apocalypse predicted because of the expiration of the payroll-tax holiday was nonsense.

Um, ya, if you consider a drastic drop in savings rates a good thing.

MNHawk on March 1, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Is anybody else listening to this crap that obambi is spewing?

VegasRick on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

sorry dude, can’t stand the sight or sound of it…

RedInMD on March 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM

With the pay roll tax expiration, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher health care premiums – with lower personal income tossed in for good measure – I don’t see how retailers can expect a good year.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Unless they are in the business of supplying prepper goods, firearms, or ammo.

Midas on March 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Income drops, prices and taxes are increasing. Seems to me I remember some quote or other about that sort of thing. Something about crushing the middle class or something.

Yesterday’s unemployment news ( inaccurate and much to high for the 70th or 80th week in a row (I lost count) ) wasn’t exactly peachy, but the SRM (state run media) says that shows stregthening in the job market.

Would that be the market for hack writers of econobabble?

dogsoldier on March 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM

This is a month to month number, and income surged in December due to year-end dividend payments, etc. A little larger drop than expected, but nothing to panic about …. will we break through today? Dow is teasing …

TouchdownBuddha on March 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

This is a month to month number, and income surged in December due to year-end dividend payments, etc. A little larger drop than expected, but nothing to panic about …. will we break through today? Dow is teasing …

TouchdownBuddha on March 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Then explain the disappointing year-over-year numbers.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Isn’t that the perfect definition of INFLATION?

Everything costs more.

stenwin77 on March 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

stenwin77 on March 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I always thought the definition of inflation was “the numbers go up for everything but it’s all ‘worth’ the same.” Could be wrong tho.

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Then explain the disappointing year-over-year numbers.

Steve Eggleston on March 1, 2013 at 12:59 PM

.
After he answers that, I’ll ask him what importance he attaches to the Dow given Fisher’s statements admitting the Dow et al would be back to March of 2009 without the Fed’s QE.

PolAgnostic on March 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM

No, when the gift cards are sold, they become a liability on the company’s books. That’s why companies have started to expire gift cards over time to remove those commitments from the books. When the card is used, the liability is removed from the books and the income is recognized. The expiring gift cards are pure profit to the company since no product cost is incurred.

AZfederalist on March 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Thanks! I took a couple accounting courses back in college, but it has been awhile. I knew it went on the books as a liability. I wasn’t sure when/if the sale would be “counted” by the government as consumer spending.

DRayRaven on March 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Have we seen any data on credit card usage in January? Less money usually equals more credit used for gas and groceries.

maables on March 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Who knew the Sequester could have done this in only a few hours?

Galt2009 on March 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Have we seen any data on credit card usage in January? Less money usually equals more credit used for gas and groceries.

maables on March 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Ooh, good point!

MelonCollie on March 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM