Dallas Fed president and CEO Richard W. Fisher sat down with economist Milton Friedman on October 19, 2005, as part of ongoing discussions with the Nobel Prize winner. In this clip, Friedman argues for a reduction in government spending.
I really wish that Senator Pryor would see the wisdom of supporting the Balanced Budget amendment. If he did then I think his chances of getting re-elected in Arkansas would rise considerably. What are the chances that Senator Pryor will be re-elected? They have greatly improved from 2% to about 40% since he now appears willing to work on the most serious out of control spending problem our federal government has ever had. See a post that I did yesterday concerning Pryor’s recent speech at the Political Animals’ Club in Little Rock.
The disagreement is over the solutions — on what spending to cut; what taxes to raise (basically none ever, according to Boozman); whether or not to enact a balanced budget amendment (Boozman says yes; Pryor no); and on what policies would promote the kind of economic growth that would make this a little easier.
Steve Brawner in his article “Senators differ on constitutional change,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 20, 2011 noted:
Now the government is running annual deficits in the $1.5 trillion range – much of it financed by foreign entities such as the Chinese government.
Meanwhile, Boozman and others can point to a state like Arkansas, where the Revenue Stabilization Act, the statutory equivalent of a balanced budget amendment, has helped the state remain relatively debt-free.
But opponents of the idea have compelling arguments of their own, starting with the fact that there are times when the government shouldn’t balance its budget. During World War II, for example, big annual deficits caused the national debt to reach 122 percent of gross domestic product, its highest percentage ever, but those deficits financed victory in Europe and the Pacific. Moreover, sometimes excess government spending can help keep a recession from becoming much worse.
Any balanced budget amendment therefore would include a clause allowing deficit spending under certain conditions. That would be a big – and often abused – loophole.
Opponents of a balanced budget amendment have other arguments on their side. One is that elected officials simply would work around it — by declaring certain expenditures “off budget,” for example.
Another is that the amendment would add a third branch of government, the judiciary, to a process that is messy enough involving two. Constitutionally requiring a balanced budget would open up each year’s spending decisions to all kinds of lawsuits, meaning that judges, many of them unelected, would be making the ultimate decisions about how tax dollars are spent.
In Feb of 1983 Milton Friedman wrote the article “Washington:Less Red Ink (An argument that the balanced-budget amendent would be a rare merging of public and private interests),” and here is a portion of that article:
Two national organizations have led this drive: the National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC), founded in 1975 as a single-issue, nonpartisan organization to serve as a clearinghouse for information on attempts to limit taxes at a local, state, or federal level, and to assist such attempts; and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which led the drive to persuade state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to enact an amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget. Thirty-one states have already passed resolutions calling for a convention. If three more pass similar resolutions, the Constitution requires Congress to call such a convention–a major reason Congress has been active in producing its own amendment.
The amendment that was passed by the Senate last August 4, by a vote of 69 to 31 (two more than the two thirds required for approval of a constitutional amendment), had its origin in 1973 in a California proposition that failed at the time but passed in 1979 in improved form (not Proposition 13). A drafting committee organized by the NTLC produced a draft amendment applicable to the federal government in late 1978. The NTU contributed its own version. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a final version on May 19, 1981, after lengthy hearings and with the cooperation of all the major contributors to the earlier work. In my opinion, the committee’s final version was better than any earlier draft. That version was adopted by the Senate except for the addition of section 6, proposed by Senator William Armstrong, of Colorado, a Republican. Approval by the Senate, like the sponsorship of the amendment, was bipartisan: forty-seven Republicans, twenty-one Democrats, and one Independent voted for the amendment.
The House Democratic leadership tried to prevent a vote on the amendment in the House before last November’s elections. However, a discharge petition forced a vote on it on October 1, the last full day of the regular session. The amendment was approved by a majority (236 to 187), but not by the necessary two thirds. Again, the majority was bipartisan: 167 Republicans, 69 Democrats. In view of its near passage and the widespread public support for it, the amendment is sure to be reintroduced in the current session of Congress. Hence it remains a very live issue.
The amendment as adopted by the Senate would achieve two related objectives: first, it would increase the likelihood that the federal budget would be brought into balance, not by prohibiting an unbalanced budget but by making it more difficult to enact a budget calling for a deficit; second, it would check the growth of government spending–again, not by prohibiting such growth but by making it more difficult.
Robert Redford brings his new film to the Toronto International Film Festival 2010, a film about a female charged as a co-conspirator in the assassination trial of Abraham Lincoln. As the whole nation turns against her, she is forced to rely on her reluctant lawyer to uncover the truth and save her life.
I love the movie “The Conspirator” and I wanted to take a closer look at the people involved.
LEWIS POWELL |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
On Friday, March 17, 1865, Powell, Booth and other conspirators planned to kidnap President Lincoln as he rode in his carriage to attend a play at the Campbell Hospital located just outside Washington, D.C. The kidnap plot failed as Lincoln never arrived in his carriage. ** The president had remained in Washington. At about 4:00 P.M., standing on the balcony of the National Hotel, he spoke to the 140th Indiana Regiment and presented a captured flag to Indiana’s governor. The National Hotel was the same hotel where JWB stayed. On April 14, 1865, after Booth heard of Lincoln’s plan to attend Ford’s Theatre, the conspirators held one final meeting. This was possibly in Powell’s rented room at the Herndon House. However, it could well have been at another location most likely at another location as Powell had checked out during the mid-afternoon. Booth assigned Powell to kill Secretary of State William Seward that night at approximately 10:15 P.M. to coincide with Booth’s attack at Ford’s Theatre. David Herold would accompany Powell. Another conspirator, George Atzerodt, was supposed to assassinate Vice-President Andrew Johnson at the Kirkwood House. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
SKETCH OF POWELL’S ATTACK
SOURCE: The Assassination and History of the Conspiracy (Cincinnati, J.R. Hawley & Co., 1865) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Powell ran out of the house and hid for three days in a wooded lot about a mile from the Navy Yard Bridge. He took shelter in the branches of a tree. Then, on the night of April 17, 1865, disguised as a laborer, he showed up at Mary Surratt’s home just as she was being placed under arrest. Powell was arrested and taken in for interrogation. Bell, the Secretary of State’s second waiter, identified Powell as Seward’s attacker.
WILLIAM BELL IDENTIFIED LEWIS POWELL
|