The Daily Hatch

Last night here in Arkansas we had tornadoes.

Take a look at this video from last week in the St. Louis Airport:

Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue Show in 1980 provides a direct and to-the-point defense of capitalism and free trade. He explains how governmental regulations, no matter how well-intended, are inevitably infiltrated by business interests which use governmental power to stifle competition.

Steve Brawner in his article “Safer roads and balanced budgets,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 13, 2011, noted:

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.

Senator Pryor and  Congressman Mike Ross are the only surviving Democrats in  Washington from Arkansas. Mike Ross supports the Balanced Budget Amendment. Human Events reported:

The House passed a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1995 as part of the “Contract for America.”  As mentioned, the BBA failed in the Senate in 1997 by one vote.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R.-Va.) reintroduced that same BBA from 1995 at the beginning of this year as HJ Res 2, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee.  The bill has 215 co-sponsors, including 13 Democrats: Jason Altmire (Pa.), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Leonard Boswell (Iowa), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Henry Cuellar (Tex.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jane Harman (Calif.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Mike Ross (Ark.), and David Scott (Ga.).

There is no doubt that Ross is more conservative than Pryor, but he is also has been targeted by the Republicans. Jason Tolbert reported today:

The National Republican Congressional Committee has a radio ad out today hitting Congressman Mike Ross for his votes against all five budget proposals.

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:

Here, for their consideration, are my answers to the principal objections to the proposed amendment that I have come across, other than those that arise from a desire to have a still-bigger government: 

**2. The President and Congress are guilty of hypocrisy in voting simultaneously for a large current deficit and for a constitutional amendment to prevent future deficits.** 

Of course, I have long believed that congressional hypocrisy and shortsightedness are the only reasons there is a ghost of a chance of getting Congress to pass an amendment limiting itself. Most members of Congress will do anything to postpone the problems they face by a couple of years–only Wall Street has a shorter perspective. If the hypocrisy did not exist, if Congress behaved “responsibly,” there would be no need for the amendment. Congress’s irresponsibility is the reason we need an amendment and at the same time the reason that there is a chance of getting one. 

Hypocrisy may eventually lead to the passing of the amendment. But hypocrisy will not prevent the amendment from having important effects three or four years down the line–and from casting its shadow on events even earlier. Congress will not violate the Constitution lightly. Members of Congress will wriggle and squirm; they will seek, and no doubt find, subterfuges and evasions. But their actions will be significantly affected by the existence of the amendment. The experience of several states that have passed similar tax-limitation amendments provides ample evidence of that.

__________________________________________-\

 

Part 6