Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 7:43am CST on May 4, 2011.
A real discussion about the budget must begin now—our economy cannot wait any longer. For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money.
That’s ridiculous, and the American people have had enough.
National defense is the primary constitutional function of the federal government. However, that does not mean that the Department of Defense should receive a blank check without serious oversight. In order to supply our troops with the tools they need, it makes sense to prioritize spending where it is needed most—rather than to keep borrowing from other countries, many of which we pay to defend. (The United States’ Top 10 creditors: China, Japan, Caribbean Banking Centers, Oil Exporters, Russia, United Kingdom, Brazil, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Taiwan)
Since 2001, military expenditure has increased by nearly 120 percent; when you subtract the cost of the two conflicts we are currently fighting that still puts military spending at a 67 percent increase. National defense remains the nation’s No. 1 priority. However, the levels of defense spending are no longer justifiable to securing our country, especially given that our defense spending has surpassed the defense budgets of all other countries combined.
Proposing cuts to the Defense budget is no longer an eccentric idea; recently Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, typically the guardian of Defense budgets and often arguing the need for more money, has recently proposed spending cuts totaling $100 billion. That said, even though Secretary Gates’ proposals are genuine, they still allow the DoD to grow into a $1 trillion military by 2030 – nearly the amount we spent on all discretionary spending in 2008.
Many of Secretary Gates’ proposals will be included in the $48 billion in Defense spending cuts proposed, but the proposal will also include reduction in spending from programs like realigning the 750 overseas bases in 63 different countries (including the sale of buildings and assets at unused/vacant overseas bases), turning over responsibility for security in Iraq and Afghanistan to local forces, reducing the size of military personnel through natural attrition, reducing the size of the civilian employment, and focusing on waste, fraud, and abuse.
– The savings proposed are reductions based on FY2011 estimates (Defense is not further reduced to FY2008 levels)
– Relative to FY2010 levels, this proposal reflects a 2.7 percent decrease of all military spending.
Additional:
War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).
The proposal includes transferring the primary functions of the Department of Energy to DoD, includingnuclear weapon procurement and disposal of nuclear waste.
The proposal includes shifting the United States Coast Guard to the DoD, a transfer that will promoteuniformity, administrative savings, and reduce duplicative functions.
The United States Coast Guard has long been considered an essential part of our military reediness throughout its long history. Title 14 of the United States Code states “The Coast Guard was established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.” Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Department of the Navy.
In 2003, the Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Currently, the Coast Guard has been working with the Navy in Operation Iraqi Freedom, anti-piracy operations, and anti-terrorist smuggling organizations.
With all this work for the DoD, common sense would suggest a move from the Department of Homeland Security to the DoD.
The echoes of a royal wedding from an earlier era are difficult to ignore.
The backdrop is the same: the opulent red-and-gold decor of the grand Throne Room at Buckingham Palace. And the mischievous smiles on the faces of some of the bridesmaids and page boys – and endearingly bewildered expressions on the others – are strikingly similar.
But, 30 years after the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, the official wedding picture of Prince William and Kate Middleton also reflects the differences between the two couples’ relationships.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
No strings attached. Test-driving a relationship by sharing living quarters appears to be the perfect solution. If it works out, great! If not, no harm done.
Or so you thought.
Damage does occur when couples choose to live together. Marriage cements love with a commitment. Living together leaves you vulnerable, causing you to doubt the level of your partner’s dedication.
Studies show that couples who live together before marrying have a higher tendency to divorce. It seems the short-term commitment of living together often equals short-term commitment in marriage.
If you’re not ready to get married, do you really think you’re ready to live together?
Tim Hawkins on Parenting
Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (4 4)
Here’s a couple who went to a FamilyLife Conference and how it made a difference in their marriage.
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 6:47am CST on May 4, 2011.
For those who take issue with any of the spending cuts I have proposed, I have two requests:
First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.
Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?
The mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government. State and local governments, parents, and teachers are far better equipped to meet the needs of their students than this redtape laden department, which benefits teachers’ unions more than pupils. However, Pell Grants will be preserved in this proposal.
The Department of Education has increasingly meddled with the more traditional idea of education being tailored to the needs and requirement of communities and states. The growth in education spending at the federal level has gone from nearly $53 billion in 2001 to an estimated $95 billion in FY2011 – an 80 percent increase. When the federal government spends money, those are resources that are drained from the state, diluted by way of large Washington bureaucracy, and sent back to the school districts with red tape and strings attached.
During the first half of the past century, America ranked among the most educated population in the world. Since that time, the role of the federal government in education has expanded significantly, at one point (FY2009) accounting for 10 percent of all government spending. The expansion of the role of the federal government in education has been detrimental, as the U.S. now ranks far below other economically developed countries. In December 2010, the OECD reported that the U.S. ranked 14 th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 25th in mathematics (considered below average) out of 35 developed nations.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
“Despite its widespread acceptance by the young, the remarkable growth of unmarried cohabitation in recent years does not appear to be in children’s or the society’s best interest. The evidence suggests that it has weakened marriage and the intact, two-parent family and thereby damaged our social well-being, especially that of women and children. We cannot go back in history, but it seems time to establish some guidelines for the practice of cohabitation and to seriously question the further institutionalization of this new family form.”
“In place of institutionalizing cohabitation, in our opinion, we should be trying to revitalize marriage-not along classic male-dominant lines but along modern egalitarian lines. Particularly helpful in this regard would be educating young people about marriage from the early school years onward, getting them to make the wisest choices in their lifetime mates, and stressing the importance of long-term commitment to marriages. Such an educational venture could build on the fact that a huge majority of our nation’s young people still express the strong desire to be in a long-term monogamous marriage.”
“These ideas are offered to the American public and especially to society’s leaders in the spirit of generating a discussion. Our conclusions are tentative, and certainly not the last word on the subject. There is an obvious need for more research on cohabitation, and the findings of new research, of course, could alter our thinking. What is most important now, in our view, is a national debate on a topic that heretofore has been overlooked. Indeed, few issues seem more critical for the future of marriage and for generations to come.”
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
January, 1999
Tim Hawkins – Holding Hands
Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (3 4)
Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 6 of 7
Official royal wedding photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton -– now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — were released on Saturday.
The couple, all smiles for the camera, couldn’t look happier.
Osama bin Laden may be dead, but U.S. officials expect at least one new bin Laden tape to surface soon, according to multiple reports.
According to The New York Daily News, bin Laden may have ordered the tape to be released in the event of his death.
The tape is said to be a recording created not long before his death, though authorities say there is no indication he knew the United States was closing in on him. It’s not clear whether it’s audio or video.
Media outlets will have a tough decision on their hands when the tape does surface. Airing it could potentially boost his legacy as a martyr and incite new violence.
_____________________________________
Several dozen demonstrators gathered in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, on Tuesday, to protest against the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a US special forces’ mission a day earlier. Chanting “Obama! Solve your own problems” and “The friend of America is a traitor”, members of Pasban (Pakistan Voice Against Injustice) youth organisation rallied against US troops crossing into Pakistan to raid bin Laden’s compound in the town of Abbottabad.
Prince William (L) and Kate Middleton (R) during their wedding ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London, Britain, 29 April 2011. Westminster Abbey has a long tradition as a venue for royal weddings, going back to 1100. William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, exchanged their vows there in 1947.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
“Some Principles To Guide The Practice Of Cohabitation Before Marriage”
“Unmarried cohabitation has become a prominent feature of modern life and is undoubtedly here to stay in some form. The demographic, economic, and cultural forces of modern life would appear to be too strong to permit any society merely to turn back the clock, even if it so desired. Yet by all of the empirical evidence at our disposal, not to mention the wisdom of the ages, the institution of marriage remains a cornerstone of a successful society. And the practice of cohabitation, far from being a friend of marriage, looks more and more like its enemy. As a goal of social change, therefore, perhaps the best that we can hope for is to contain cohabitation in ways that minimize its damage to marriage.”
“With that goal in mind, are there any principles that we might give to young adults to guide their thinking about living together before marriage? In developing such principles it is important to note that, because men and women differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies, cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex. Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of long-term commitment. A woman’s willingness to cohabit runs the risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard to get.”47
“Pulling together what we know from recent social science research about cohabitation and its effects, here are four principles concerning living together before marriage that seem most likely to promote, or at least not curtail, long-term committed relationships among childrearing couples:”
“1. Consider not living together at all before marriage. Cohabitation appears not to be helpful and may be harmful as a try-out for marriage. There is no evidence that if you decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a stronger marriage than those who don’t live together, and some evidence to suggest that if you live together before marriage, you are more likely to break up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably least harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is prenuptial – when both partners are definitely planning to marry, have formally announced their engagement and have picked a wedding date.”
“2. Do not make a habit of cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple living together experiences, both for your own sense of well-being and for your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership. Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better relationships from multiple failed cohabiting relationships. In fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships.”
“3. Limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. The longer you live together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required for a successful marriage.”
“4. Do not cohabit if children are involved. Children need and should have parents who are committed to staying together over the long term. Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the effects of breakup can be devastating and often long lasting. Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including lethal violence, than are children living with married parents.”
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 3:30pm CST on May 3, 2011.
Examples of federal waste are more abundant than ever. For example, the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy…
The Commerce Department is another prime example. Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce’s main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department’s spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.
My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates understands this and has called for spending cuts, saying “We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable.”
Similar to sections of the EPA, the Forest Service has been on the Government Accountability Office’s “high-risk” list for waste, fraud, and abuse. In recent years, Congress has provided the Forest Service with a nearly blank check to address forest fire issues. A strong step for reform would be to eliminate the federal forest subsidies and to start turning many of these forests over to the states or private interests. These states could maintain control over their forests, using them for timber, conservation, or recreation based upon the needs of the environment.
Commerce
Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
Commerce $6.178 B $5.322 B 54%
The Department of Commerce has consistently been labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990’s. Aside from a few research programs, the department’s main functions are associated with wasteful corporate welfare. The proposal would scale back the Department of Commerce by 54 percent, including additional cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the elimination of a large portion of corporate welfare.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Reduce 36 Percent
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was formed in 1970 to serve as both a physical and atmospheric science agency, as well as for the purpose of commercial fishery conservation. Yet according to the NOAA website, “Approximately 25 % of NOAA’s annual budget was committed to making progress in understanding the link between our global economy and our planet’s environment.”
NOAA, like most government agencies, has become bloated and its breadth and scope has broadened over the years. It is time for agencies to focus on the priorities for which they were intended.
Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that he should seek to marry a virgin.
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
“Should Unmarried Cohabitation Be Institutionalized?”
“If marriage has been moving toward decreased social and legal recognition and control, cohabitation has moved in the opposite direction, steadily gaining social and legal identification as a distinct new institution. Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and, although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal relationship, but most states have now decriminalized ‘consensual sexual acts’ among adults, which include cohabitation.”
“In lieu of state laws, some marriage-like rights of cohabitors have gradually been established through the courts. The law typically comes into play, for example, when cohabitors who split up have disagreements about the division of property, when one of the partners argues that some kind of oral or implicit marriage-like contract existed, and when the courts accept this position. Whereas property claims by cohabitors traditionally have been denied on the ground that ‘parties to an illegal relationship do not have rights based on that relationship,’ courts have begun to rule more frequently that cohabitors do have certain rights based on such concepts as ‘equitable principles.’”43
“The legal changes underway mean that cohabitation is becoming less of a ‘no-strings attached’ phenomenon, one involving some of the benefits of marriage with none of the costly legal procedures and financial consequences of divorce. In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the news media labeled ‘palimony’ in place of alimony was sought by a woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman’s claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts has come to be widely acknowledged.”
“In an attempt to reduce the uncertainties of the legal system, some cohabitors are now initiating formal ‘living together contracts.’45 Some of these contracts state clearly, with the intent of avoiding property entanglements should the relationship break down, that the relationship is not a marriage but merely ‘two free and independent human beings who happen to live together.’ Others, in contrast, seek to secure the rights of married couples in such matters as inheritance and child custody. Marriage-like fiscal and legal benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities, municipalities, and even some states now provide “domestic partnership” benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits charging ‘illegal discrimination.’ Although the legal issues have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws against sex discrimination.”
“Religions have also started to reconsider cohabitation. Some religions have developed “commitment ceremonies” as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their purview is broadened.”
“Unlike in the United States, cohabitation has become an accepted new social institution in most northern European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world’s cohabitation leaders, cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care. Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children, but even that difference may soon disappear. Not incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30% of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are unmarried.46 For many Swedish and Danish couples cohabiting has become an alternative rather than a prelude to marriage, and almost all marriages in these nations are now preceded by cohabitation.”
“Is America moving toward the Scandinavian family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world’s most secular societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more serious form of commitment. But as the practice of cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of northern Europe, do appear to be headed in the direction of Scandinavia.”
“The institutionalization of cohabitation in the public and private sectors has potentially serious social consequences that need to be carefully considered. At first glance, in a world where close relationships are in increasingly short supply, why not recognize and support such relationships in whatever form they occur? Surely this is the approach that would seem to blend social justice and compassion with the goal of personal freedom. But is it not in society’s greater interest to foster long-term, committed relationships among childrearing couples? In this regard the advantages of marriage are substantial. It is only marriage that has the implicit long-term contract, the greater sharing of economic and social resources, and the better connection to the larger community.”
“The recognition and support of unmarried cohabitation unfortunately casts marriage as merely one of several alternative lifestyle choices. As the alternatives to it are strengthened, the institution of marriage is bound to weaken. After all, if cohabitors have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, why bother to marry? Why bother, indeed, if society itself expresses no strong preference one way or the other. It is simpler and less complicated to live together. The expansion of domestic partner benefits to heterosexual cohabiting couples, then, may be an easy way to avoid legal challenges, but the troubling issue arises: cities and private businesses that extend these benefits are in effect subsidizing the formation of fragile family forms. Even more troublingly, they are subsidizing family forms that pose increased risks of violence to women and children. While the granting of certain marriage-like legal rights to cohabiting couples may be advisable in some circumstances to protect children and other dependents in the event of couple break up, an extensive granting of such rights serves to undercut an essential institution that is already established to regulate family relationships. These issues, at the least, should cause us to proceed toward the further institutionalization of unmarried cohabitation only after very careful deliberation and forethought.”
43. Monica A. Seff. 1995. “Cohabitation and the Law.” Marriage and Family Review 21-3/4:141-165. p. 149.
44. Marvin vs. Marvin, 1976. California
45. Toni Ihara and Ralph Warner. 1997. The Living Together Kit: A Guide for Unmarried Couples. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press, 8th edition. These contracts are not yet upheld by all states, and their enforceability is often in question.
46. Richard F. Tomasson. 1998. “Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage.” Scandinavian Review August 1998:83-89. The marriage rate in the United States is two and a half times the Swedish rate.
“The National Marriage Project”
“The National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian and interdisciplinary initiative supported by private foundations and affiliated with Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.”
“The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the state of marriage in America and to educate the public on the social, economic and cultural conditions affecting marital success and wellbeing.”
“The National Marriage Project has five immediate goals: (1) publish The State of Our Unions, an annual index of the health of marriage and marital relationships in America; (2) investigate and report on younger adults’ attitudes toward marriage; (3) examine the popular media’s portrait of marriage; (4) serve as a clearinghouse source of research and expertise on marriage; and (5) bring together marriage and family experts to develop strategies for revitalizing marriage.”
For more information or additional copies of this publication, contact:
The National Marriage Project Rutgers The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 (732) 932-2722 marriage@rci.rutgers.edu
Tim Hawkins Things you don’t say to your wife
Official royal wedding photos: Prince William, Kate Middleton are all smiles [Poll]
.
The portraits, taken by their official photographer Hugo Burnand in the Buckingham Palace throne room, include three poses: A romantic image of the couple alone, a cheery ensemble picture of the pair with the children,
and one for the family album, featuring the bride and groom with the wedding party, their parents, siblings and of course William’s grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
Of course the monarchy in England no longer has the power that it used to. Now the power is with the house of commons. Likewise, in the USA President Obama and the Congress have all the power.
Milton Friedman served as economic advisor for two American Presidents – Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Although Friedman was inevitably drawn into the national political spotlight, he never held public office.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1
Mike Huckabee recently moved to Florida? Why? The answer is easy. Huckabee wants to avoid Arkansas’ high state income tax. Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wants to call Huckabee a tax fugative, but who can blame him.
Liberals like Brantley and Ernie Dumas want to praise former Arkansas governor Dale Bumpers for raising the state income tax to 7%, but that is the reason our state has the highest state income tax in the area (all bordering states have either lower state income taxes or no state income tax).
Is it any suprise that during the last census that the seven states that do not have an income tax grew in population? Arkansas has suffered from bracket creep and in 1929 you had to make 5 times the average wage to pay any state income tax at all, but now over 66% of tax payers in Arkansas pay at least some of their income at the 7% level.
Take a look at all the Milton Friedman clips that I have posted today. These liberals I mentioned above have truly forgotten how powerful the market is if not interferred with by the government.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2
Until Gov. Dale Bumpers raised income-tax rates and other taxes in 1971, Arkansas had by far the lowest per-capita state and local taxes in the United States. Afterward, we were still 50th but within shouting distance of 49th.
(June 2006) Democratic Gov. Dale Bumpers and the General Assembly raised Arkansas’ top income tax rate to “broaden the tax base” in 1971(1). Yet Arkansas’ per capita income, expressed as a percentage of the U.S. total, has barely improved, moving from 71 (1971) to 77.7 percent (2005) over the 34-year period, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The 1971 income tax increase reversed a decades-long strong growth trend and left Arkansas with the highest income tax rate among bordering states (Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas).
Income Stagnation: The 1930s
One has to turn to the 1930s-the decade of the Great Depression-to find weaker income growth than in recent years.
Arkansas per capita personal income was 44 percent of the U.S. in 1929, the first year data was compiled in the BEA time series. The Great Depression started that year, and by the time it ended in 1933 Arkansas per capita income had fallen to 41 percent of the U.S. By decade’s end (1939) it had returned to 44 percent.
Growth Decades: The 1940s, 1950s & 1960s
Arkansas per capita income increased as a percentage of the U.S. in the next three decades.
In 1941, at the onset of World War II, Arkansas per capita income was 47 percent of the U.S. It was 59 percent at war’s end in 1945 and again in 1949. It was 56 percent in 1950, 62 percent a decade later in 1960, and 68 percent in 1969. If this growth rate had continued Arkansas would have exceeded 100 percent of the U.S. average in the current decade (2000-2009).
To summarize, Arkansas per capita income increased from 44 to 71 percent of the U.S. total between 1939 and 1971.
Anemic Income Growth (1971-2005)
The trend in recent decades is anemic growth in Arkansas per capita personal income. Fiscal policy changes effect economic behavior with a time lag. Arkansas per capita income was 71 percent of the U.S. in 1971 and 76 percent in 1973. Income growth stagnated for the rest of the decade, reaching 77 percent of the U.S. in 1979. It fell to 75 percent in 1989, and was 76 percent in 1999. Today, Arkansas per capita income, at 77.7 percent of the U.S., is barely above its high point of the 1970s.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3
Since its introduction in 1929, Arkansas‘ statutory incometax structure has changed very little. However, due to changes in the economy and in inflation, the real effects of that tax structure have changed substantially. This report looks at the effects that rising incomes and inflation have had on the Arkansasincometax structure. In addition, the report looks at the changing profile of Arkansas taxpayers in recent years, and provides a brief comparison of Arkansas taxes in relation to other states and the federal tax system.
Arkansas‘ IncomeTax Structure: Original and Revised
In 1929 Arkansas became 12th among the states to adopt an individual incometax. The structure contained five rates and net income brackets with a top rate of five percent applying to net income over $25,000. That original structure remained in place until 1971 when a new middle income bracket was added and the rate on net income over $25,000 was increased to 7.0 percent. The rates and brackets revised in 1971 remain in place today. The 1929 original and the revised current tax structure are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Arkansas Individual IncomeTax Structure
1929 Original Net Income Rate first $3,000 1.0% next$3,001 to $6,000 2.0% next$6,001 to $11,000 3.0% next $11,001 to $25,000 4.0% over $25,000 5.0% 1971 Revision (Current) Net Income Rate first $2,999 1.0% next$3,000 to $5,999 2.5% next$6,000 to $8,999 3.5% next$9,000 to $14,999 4.5% next $15,000 to $24,999 6.0% over $25,000 7.0%
Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research.
In 1975, the earliest year for which records on income tax collections by income group is available, only the top 4.0 percent of Arkansas taxpayers would have had any of their income subjected to the top 7.0 percent rate. By 1991, around 66.0 percent of the state’s taxpayers would have had some of their income subjected to this top rate–a rate once reserved for only the highest income earners.
The 1929 tax structure provided for exemptions of $1,500 for a single person and $2,500 for married individuals. In 1947 the state raised the exemption to $2,500 for singles and $3,500 for married persons. In 1957 the personal exemption was converted to a credit of $17.50 for singles and $35.00 for married persons. In 1987 the credits were increased to $20 per person. Finally, in 1991, low income Arkansans were exempted from paying incometax if their gross income did not exceed $5,500 for an individual or $10,000 for a married couple. For most taxpayers, the $20.00 credit remains in effect today.
The Value of Exemptions as a Share of Per Capita Income
Table 2 shows how the value of the personal tax exemption or credit has diminished over time. The figures shown represent the personal exemption or credit for a single individual as a ratio of the per capita personal income in the year in which the credit was first enacted. In 1929, for instance, an individual would have been exempted from any tax until their income reached a level which was equal to 490 percent of the Arkansas per capita income for that year. In 1947 with the first statutory change in the exemption, that individual would have still been exempted up to an amount equal to 340 percent of the per capita income level. By 1957 the value of the exemption (which was changed to a tax credit that year) had declined substantially, falling to 130 percent of per capita income. At the time of the next change in the personal credit (1987), the value of that credit was only 17 percent of the per capita income level. For most taxpayers (all those not officially classified as low income) in 1992, the value of the personal credit was only 13 percent of per capita income.
Table 2 Personal Exemptions and Credits As a Percent of Per Capita Income
Arkansas Year of Value of Per Capita Enactment ExemptionIncome Ratio 1929 $1,500 $ 308 490% 19472,500 737 340% 19571,6001,247 130% 19872,000 11,980 17% 19922,000 15,439 13%
Source: Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, 1992, Bureau of Legislative Research; Per capita personal income data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, unpublished data, April, 1993.
In other words, whereas in the first year of enactment of the incometax, the personal exemption would have allowed an Arkansan to earn almost five times the average per capita income before paying any tax.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 4
For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.
The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.
First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.
Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).
Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.
There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.
This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.
Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.
Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 5
A drawing, released by the United State Department of Defense May 2, 2011, shows the compound that Osama bin Laden was killed in on Monday in Abbottabad,Pakistan
When one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world’s most wanted terrorist.
That monitored phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden’s personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.
The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden’s vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA’s secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.
Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida’s operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden’s personal courier.
“Hassan Ghul was the linchpin,” a U.S. official said.
Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.
If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they’d find bin Laden.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.
Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.
It took years of work before the CIA identified the courier’s real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA’s sources didn’t know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.
Ahmed was identified by detainees as a mid-level operative who helped al-Qaida members and their families find safe havens. But his whereabouts were such a mystery to U.S. intelligence that, according to Guantanamo Bay documents, one detainee said Ahmed was wounded while fleeing U.S. forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and later died in the arms of the detainee.
But in the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.
In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad.
In fact, nobody came or went. And no telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. The CIA soon believed that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, in a hideout especially built to go unnoticed. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.
Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.
By mid-February, the officials were convinced a “high-value target” was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.
“They were confident and their confidence was growing: ‘This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we’ve ever seen before,'” John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. “I was confident that we had the basis to take action.”
Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden’s death.
Said Brennan, “The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”
Brennan told CNN Tuesday that “there was no single piece of information that was an ‘ah-hah’ moment.” He said officials took “bits and pieces” of intelligence gathered and analyzed over a long period of time to nail down the leads they needed.
Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy’s elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.
Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country’s radar systems, a U.S. official said.
Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn’t kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.
The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.
With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound.
Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they’d likely find bin Laden’s family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.
Ahmed and his brother were killed, officials said. Then, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet just above his left eye, blowing off part his skull, another official said. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that “Geronimo” had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.
Bin Laden’s body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation on site by a woman believed to be bin Laden’s wife, who was wounded, and matching physical features such as bin Laden’s height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.
“I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida,” Brennan said.
U.S. forces searched the compound and flew away with documents, hard drives and DVDs that could provide valuable intelligence about al-Qaida, a U.S. official said. The entire operation took about 40 minutes, officials said.
Bin Laden’s body was flown to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea, a senior defense official said. There, aboard a U.S. warship, officials conducted a traditional Islamic burial ritual. Bin Laden’s body was washed and placed in a white sheet. He was placed in a weighted bag that, after religious remarks by a military officer, was slipped into the sea about 2 a.m. EDT Monday.
This Monday, May 2, 2011 satellite image provided by GeoEye shows the compound, center, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden lived. Bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was tracked down and shot to death at the compound by an elite team of U.S. forces, ending an unrelenting manhunt that spanned a frustrating decade.
Terrorist’s burial at sea was done in accordance with Muslim law.
The Daily Hatch 