Monthly Archives: July 2011

Extending unemployment benefits is stupid

July 18, 2011 – 10:26 pm

Chris Edwards in his article Jettison Those Musty Jobless Benefit and Union Rules makes some great points:

Many of the laws covering today’s workforce were written more than seven decades ago during the New Deal. Collective bargaining and the unemployment insurance system, for example, were both established in 1935. Since then, the U.S. labor force and industrial structure have vastly changed, which creates an opportunity to update the laws to better suit the modern economy.

Let’s look at unemployment insurance. UI has aided millions of laid-off workers during the recent recession, but the system has also created problems. For one thing, high unemployment and expansive benefits have drained UI funds in most states, and now most states — including Maryland and Virginia — are jacking up UI taxes on businesses to replenish their reserves. But the economic recovery is still very shaky, and higher UI taxes will dampen business hiring at a time when unemployment is still very high.

Another problem is that UI pushes up the unemployment rate because it dissuades laid-off workers from reducing their wage demands, moving or making other tough but needed decisions. Harvard University’s Robert Barro estimated last year that recent expansions in UI benefits pushed up the U.S. employment rate by about 2.7 percentage points.

Collective bargaining is out of step with today’s individualistic culture.

There is a better way. In 2002, the nation of Chile created personal UI savings accounts funded by payroll contributions. When workers lose their jobs, they draw on their UI accounts, giving them a strong incentive to find a job quickly and not deplete their funds. A detailed study of the Chilean system found that, indeed, workers using the new accounts had shorter spells of unemployment. A side benefit of Chile’s system is that when workers retire, they have an additional pot of savings to enjoy.

We should also reform labor union rules. Workers have generally rejected the current system of collective bargaining, which amounts to monopoly union control of a workforce after a majority vote. The share of private-sector workers in labor unions has plunged from a peak of 35 percent in the 1940s to just 7 percent today — despite the pro-union tilt of federal laws.

Collective bargaining is out of step with today’s individualistic culture. The system is inconsistent with the right to freedom of association, and it effectively silences workers who disagree with union heads. Collective bargaining also creates rigid work structures in companies, which is damaging to firms competing in the dynamic global economy.

Chris Edwards is editor of Cato Institute’sDownsizing Government.org.

 

More by Chris Edwards

A better alternative is voluntary unions or worker associations. In Virginia, for example, collective bargaining is outlawed in the public sector, but the state has voluntary associations of teachers and other government workers. That voluntary approach should be the rule for both the private and public sectors nationwide.

The Cato Institute in Washington looks out over Samuel Gompers Park, named after the founder of the American Federation of Labor. Gompers was strongly against a federal UI system because he thought it would restrict freedom and undermine the union role in providing unemployment benefits, which was commonplace before 1935.

Today, unions based on voluntary membership — rather than forced collective bargaining — could work if they provided useful services to their members such as UI benefits. As for UI, policymakers should explore nonfederal options such as union plans and private insurance, and they should study the advantages of Chile’s savings-based system.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Current Events, President Obama | Comments (0)

Obama’s phony cuts will not help, Cut, cap and balance would help

July 18, 2011 – 4:07 pm

It appears the USA will become Greece. Even the Republicans are not willing to offer major cuts in spending. Ted Dehaven hits the nail on the head.

Washington is the only town where the circus never leaves. Elephants, donkeys, clowns and a ringmaster residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — our nation’s capital has it all. And what a show they’re putting on for the American people over raising the debt ceiling for the umpteenth time in recent years.

On one side we have a president whose surrogates warn of economic Armageddon if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, despite the fact that he himself voted against raising the limit in 2006 as the junior senator from Illinois. On the other side are congressional Republicans, tasked with negotiating spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling — the same guys who happily voted for big-spending legislation when it was their guy in the White House.

In short, the two sides have a credibility gap on debt reduction that makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole. That begs the question: What sort of deal will they ultimately agree to?

Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst at the Cato Institute and co-editor of Downsizing Government.org.

 

More by Tad DeHaven

The president doesn’t want to have to rehash this debate before the November 2012 election. That means that the debt ceiling will have to be increased by $2 trillion in order to create enough space through the end of next year. House Speaker John Boehner has drawn his line in the sand: Republicans will only agree to increase the debt ceiling if spending is cut by at least as much. Thus, it is generally assumed that the two sides will have to negotiate a deal to cut spending by $2 trillion.

Here’s the problem: The $2 trillion in cuts would be over ten years, or about $200 billion a year. Suddenly, $200 billion in annual spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling by $2 trillion through the end of 2012 doesn’t sound so great — especially when one considers that lawmakers have a storied history of changing their minds about promised future cuts. Therefore, it is imperative that any debt ceiling deal contains real spending cuts.

“Real spending cuts” means terminating programs or reducing entitlement benefits — for example, eliminating programs at the Department of Education and repealing the underlying program authorizations, or changing entitlement laws to reduce the benefit levels of programs such as Medicare. Future policymakers could reverse these cuts, but it wouldn’t be easy given that the government’s finances will probably remain in a precarious state.

Unfortunately, there’s little evidence to suggest that real spending cuts are on the table. Were that the case, we would probably be reading countless articles on the consequent suffering of those who would be separated from the federal teat. Instead, there is a growing indication that the cuts will merely be amorphous reductions against the Congressional Budget Office’s spending baseline, which projects spending over the next 10 years based on current law with an adjustment for inflation.

For example, negotiators could agree to freeze discretionary non-security spending for 10 years, which would “save” about $1 trillion compared to the baseline. However, making sure that future policymakers adhered to the freeze would require a strict budget enforcement mechanism. Such mechanisms haven’t held up well in the past for the simple reason that when it comes to spending, the legislative fox is guarding the budgetary henhouse.

Even if we knew for certain that a $2 trillion reduction in spending compared to the baseline would be achieved, again, we’re still looking at a relatively small sum of money. According to the CBO’s latest baseline, the federal government is projected to spend $46 trillion over the next decade. Regardless of whether the federal government proceeds to spend $44 trillion or $46 trillion, the government will remain on an unacceptable spending trajectory.

Unfortunately, the current state of the debt ceiling negotiations indicates that the stakes holding up the big tent in Washington aren’t going to be pulled anytime soon. On the bright side, perhaps this latest spectacle will cause more of the electorate to question why we’ve allowed so much of our collective well-being to be placed in the hands of so few. If so, there’s a chance we can at least get the animals back in their cages before it’s too late.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Democrats still up to their old tricks in redistricting?

July 18, 2011 – 10:38 am

The blog Red Arkansas noted:

Beebe Gives “Finger” to Beebe

July 14, 2011

By

Reading Jason Tolbert’s take (welcome back, BTW) on the new map from Governor Mike Beebe and note that Mr. Beebe seems to be screwing the people of Beebe out of their hometown elected state Sen. Jonathan Dismang:

Sen. Jonathan Dismang’s district will also see a dramatic shift giving up much of its area of White County and instead moving more in the north Pulaski County and therefore deeper into the metro areas north of Little Rock. This puts Dismang on the far edge of his district and away from his base in Beebe where he formerly served as a state representative.

It would appear that in Mr. Beebe’s lame-duckiness, he wants his legacy to be how he punished his home of White County for having the audacity of electing Republicans.

Other related posts:

John Brummett :Are public forums on redistricting a sham without Democratic maps provided? Will there be lots of little Fayetteville Fingers? (Part 24)

Governor Schwarzenegger Pumps GERRYMANDERING on Leno Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Jay Leno promoting GERRYMANDERING, which will hit theaters later this year. “An exceptionally entertaining film!” – New York Magazine “Snappy, engaging…succeeds in holding one’s attention the way a good thriller does. It is cinematic – in the best way – all the way through.” – […]

John Brummett :Redistricting is controlled by one party and they may try more Fayetteville Fingers, but mood may be more important than lines? (Part 23)

“Gerrymandering” Film Exposes Truth of Redistricting Bill Plante talks to Jeff Reichert, the writer/director of “Gerrymandering,” a new documentary film that uncovers the way that congressional districts are drawn up. _____________________________________ In my last post about redistricting, the point was made that State House and Senate redistricting could lead to many little Fayetteville Fingers. However, […]

John Brummett :Glad the Fayetteville Finger died, but will there be lots of little Fayetteville Fingers? (Part 22)

John Brummett in his article, “It’s a ‘little-bitty controversy,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 26, 2011 noted: The Republicans said that “even left-leaning columnist John Brummett” had said on Roby Brock’s Talk Business show Sunday night that, conceivably, the Democratic dominance of this board could result in new state House and Senate districts that would include […]

Is Mallett goofy and clueless or sharp?

.Jason Cole reported for Yahoo Sports: NEW YORK – The New England Patriots’ selection of Ryan Mallett in the third round of the 2011 NFL draft on Friday may have made sense in a lot of ways, but it did beg one big question: Is coach Bill Belichick focused on what he has left of the Tom Brady(notes) era or […]

Ledge finishes business after giving up on Fayetteville Finger (part 21)

Jason Tolbert points out today that even though it seemed like it took forever to get this process of redistricting done, Arkansas still may be the first state in the country to finish the process.   One thing I noticed about the new congressional map is that there are 75 counties and District 3 only has […]

Some Democrats mad Fayetteville Finger did not make it (Part 20)

Max Brantley thought the “Fayetteville Finger” was a joke when he first heard about it, but he later embraced it and was disappointed when the Democrats could not get it passed. Likewise other liberals John Brummett and Pat Lynch were surprised that that it did not make it. The http://bluearkansasblog.com/ was the latest to rant and […]

Fayetteville Finger missing from latest map (Part 19)

Rob Moritz and John Lyon in their article “Panels, Senate OK redistricting plan to split five counties,” Arkansas News Bureau, April 11, 2011 wrote: (NEW MAP BELOW) ( A new congressional redistricting plan advanced at both ends of the Capitol today, possibly signaling an end to a stalemate that has prolonged the regular legislative session […]

Lynch: Fayetteville Finger could have quietly gone through (Part 18)(Famous musicians from Arkansas series continued)

  Jason Tolbert reported that Rep. Uvalde Lindsey  (D-Fayetteville) prefers the map know as the Luker Amendment and does not mix words regarding his opposition to moving Fayetteville into AR4. Here is a clip of an interview Jason did with Rep. Lindsey below. Pat Lynch suggested today in his article “The political bog,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, […]

Fayetteville Finger again? Maybe another plan or Court? (Part 17)

John Burris on Redistricting (from Tolbert Report): I watched “Arkansas Week” and I saw Rob Moritz of the Arkansas  News Bureau suggest that it was very realistic that if the state legislators don’t get together soon that this could end up in court. In his article today “Lawmakers return to work on congressional redistricting,” Arkansas […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

McConnell plan stinks

July 18, 2011 – 10:23 am

In this speech above by Mitch McConnell, I agree with everything he says. However, his actions of late have been deplorable.

David Addington lets it rip on McConnell below:

Shame on the Politically Motivated McConnell Plan to Hike Borrowing With No Spending Cuts

The McConnell Plan to hike the debt limit has only one thought behind it — fade the political heat.  The Plan purportedly makes the Democratic President bear the political burden for increases in the debt limit to the benefit of Republicans, but the Plan does nothing for the good of the country.

The McConnell Plan, if enacted, would immediately raise the amount of money the government can borrow by $100 billion above the current debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion.  The McConnell Plan would then allow the President to make this year and in the coming year a total of three requests for further increases of $700 billion, then $700 billion more, and finally $900 billion more.  Each of those presidential requests would take effect automatically, unless a law is enacted to reject the presidential request.  Because President Obama is highly likely to retain the support of at least one-third of one House of Congress (the number of votes it takes to sustain a presidential veto of legislation), the real effect of the McConnell Plan is to raise the debt limit by more than $2 trillion.

The McConnell Plan would put America deeper into debt and achieves nothing toward the vitally important objective of getting federal overspending and overborrowing under control.  All the McConnell Plan requires the President to do is submit a list of suggested spending cuts that exceeds the dollar amount of the requested hikes in the debt ceiling.  The McConnell Plan does not give those spending cut ideas or any alternative ideas any legal effect or even specify an accelerated procedure for congressional consideration of such ideas — the McConnell Plan just requires the President to submit a piece of paper.

If the outcome of the current presidential-congressional negotiations over how to get spending under control is the McConnell Plan of just letting the President have the freedom to go on borrowing another $2 trillion, then Senator McConnell and every congressional Republican who votes for it will bear as much political responsibility for this action as President Obama and the Democrats.

Senator Jim DeMint was right to describe the McConnell Plan to the newspaper The Hill as “like leaving the jail door open and looking the other way, then saying it’s not our fault.”  And Representative Jim Jordan was even more succinct with his view on the McConnell Plan on the website Politico.com: “I’d say ‘no way.’”  Conservatives should follow their lead.

Conservatives in Congress need to focus on what is good for the country.  That starts with a clear understanding that this is the moment to put the country on the path toward getting federal overspending and overborrowing under control.  The guiding principle is simple:  Don’t raise the debt limit, without getting spending under control.  Use the legislation on the debt limit to put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving our ability to protect America, and without raising taxes.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Regrettable Compromise coming on debt ceiling

July 18, 2011 – 8:40 am

I am not happy at all with developments on this latest compromise. It appears we are not going to get true meaningful cuts to this 1.6 trillion deficit.

Geithner: Sides are moving closer on debt deal
By: Jennifer Epstein
July 18, 2011 08:51 AM EDT

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Monday there’s progress on the debt talks and he is “absolutely” certain that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans will be able to reach a deal to raise the ceiling ahead of the August 2 deadline.

“Despite what you hear, and this is a complicated place, Washington, people are moving closer together,” Geithner said in a morning interview on CNBC.

Though there were no meetings between the president and congressional leaders over the weekend, he stressed that there’s “a lot happening” to push both sides toward a deal.

“You’ve seen the leadership of the Republican Party, in the Senate and the House, definitively take default off the table as leverage for a deal — that’s encouraging,” Geithner said.

Geithner noted that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have all individually said “default is not an option.”

But, he added, “It’s not enough, because we still need to find some way to make progress” and reach a deal.

Though the Treasury Department has looked for ways to stay on top of its bills beyond August 2, Geithner said there are “no other options available to give Congress more time” to raise the debt ceiling “and they understand that.” Republican leaders, he said, “are not going to play around” on this issue.

Some Republicans – particularly tea party-affiliated House members – have said that the United States could keep operating without raising the debt ceiling, but Geithner cautioned that “there’s no plausible way to run a country … for an extended period of time” without raising the credit limit.

“We’re not paying our obligations — it’s not feasible. Everybody that had my job before looked at this question and reached the same conclusion. That’s why you’ve seen the leadership of the Republican Party take that opening off the table, take default off the table.”

Geithner said there is no backup plan. “We looked to see all the feasible options” but there aren’t any, he added.

And, as he has for months, Geithner issued warnings. “If the United States of America were to default, it would be catastrophic for the American economy, for the American financial system for the average American people,” he said.

“It would be a substantial, unfair tax on all Americans, and it would bring the world economy, again, because of the critical role we play in the global economy to the edge of recession again,” he continued. “Again, it’s not an option we can consider. There’s no alternative for congress to raising the debt limit. Again, that’s why you’ve seen Republicans as well recognize that reality and take default off the table.”

Meanwhile, Geithner wouldn’t offer more details on rumors that he’s getting ready to leave his job.

“I’m not going to make any news for you on that today,” he said. “And it won’t surprise you to hear I’ll be doing this for the foreseeable future. I’ve got a lot on my plate.”

Asked if he’d be there through the end of the year, he repeated: “For the foreseeable future.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

What John Quincy Adams said concerning slavery

July 18, 2011 – 7:44 am

John Brummett in his article, “Praying for Bachmann’s America,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 18, 2011 notes:

Speaking of incredibly ridiculous things, she said in another television interview that she had been right to assert that our founding fathers fought tirelessly against slavery. She cited John Quincy Adams, a little boy and teen in revolutionary days. Again, to extend the generosity of doubt: Perhaps she simply can’t admit when she is spectacularly wrong.

If there is any doubt about John Quincy Adams being one of the most amazing patriots our country has ever seen then take a moment and view the video clip above by David Barton. John Quincy Adams was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia at age 14!!! He was living in the White House with his father in 1801.

David Barton in a fine article on what the founding fathers believed concerning slavery provided a lot of insightful quotes. John Quincy Adams asserted:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5

Maybe Bachmann has been reading more American history than Brummett thinks.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years

July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

“Midnight in Paris” has been one of Woody Allen’s biggest hits in recent years. I can remember many Woody Allen movies coming to Little Rock and if I did not see it on the first weekend then I would not get to see it at all because it would get pulled. Here it is 8 weeks later and it is still being shown all over town. It has done over 38 million dollars and it is still in the top 10.

LARRY CROWNE Plummets, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS NOT to Become Woody Allen’s Biggest Box-Office Hit Ever

 

Box Office Shocker: ‘Midnight in Paris’ Becomes Woody Allen’s Highest-Grossing Film in 25 Years

8:52 PM 6/22/2011 by Pamela McClintock
share
 284
Midnight in Paris
 
 

Woody Allen

 

Date Title (click to view) Studio Lifetime Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters
5/20/11 Midnight in Paris SPC $38,890,374 1,038 $599,003 6
9/22/10 You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger SPC $3,248,246 402 $160,103 6
6/19/09 Whatever Works SPC $5,306,706 353 $266,162 9
8/15/08 Vicky Cristina Barcelona MGM/W $23,216,709 726 $3,755,575 692
1/18/08 Cassandra’s Dream Wein. $973,018 107 $361,901 107
7/28/06 Scoop Focus $10,525,717 541 $3,046,924 538
12/28/05 Match Point DW $23,151,529 512 $398,593 8
3/18/05 Melinda and Melinda FoxS $3,826,280 302 $74,238 1
9/19/03 Anything Else DW $3,212,310 1,033 $1,673,125 1,033
5/3/02 Hollywood Ending DW $4,850,753 772 $2,017,981 765
8/24/01 The Curse of the Jade Scorpion DW $7,517,191 909 $2,459,315 903
5/19/00 Small Time Crooks DW $17,266,359 886 $3,880,723 865
12/3/99 Sweet and Lowdown SPC $4,197,015 239 $94,686 3
11/20/98 Celebrity Mira. $5,078,660 493 $1,588,013 493
12/12/97 Deconstructing Harry FL $10,686,841 445 $356,476 10
12/6/96 Everyone Says I Love You Mira. $9,759,200 276 $131,678 3
10/27/95 Mighty Aphrodite Mira. $6,468,498 278 $326,494 19
10/21/94 Bullets Over Broadway Mira. $13,383,747 278 $86,072 2
8/18/93 Manhattan Murder Mystery TriS $11,330,911 337 $2,015,360 268
9/18/92 Husbands and Wives TriS $10,555,619 868 $3,520,550 865
3/20/92 Shadows and Fog Orion $2,735,731 288 $1,111,314 288
12/25/90 Alice Orion $7,331,647 325 $36,274 3
10/13/89 Crimes and Misdemeanors Orion $18,254,702 525 $911,385 66
3/3/89 New York Stories
(Oedipus Wrecks)		 BV $10,763,469 514 $432,337 12
10/14/88 Another Woman Orion $1,562,749 24 $75,196 4
12/18/87 September Orion $486,434 15 $85,731 15
1/30/87 Radio Days Orion $14,792,779 488 $1,522,423 128
2/7/86 Hannah and Her Sisters Orion $40,084,041 761 $1,265,826 54
3/1/85 The Purple Rose of Cairo Orion $10,631,333 419 $114,095 3
1/27/84 Broadway Danny Rose Orion $10,600,497 613 $953,794 109
7/15/83 Zelig WB $11,798,616 245 $60,119 6
7/16/82 A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy WB $9,077,269 501 $2,514,478 501
9/26/80 Stardust Memories UA $10,389,003 – $326,779 29
4/25/79 Manhattan MGM $39,946,780 – $485,734 29
8/2/78 Interiors UA $10,432,366 – n/a –
4/20/77 Annie Hall UA $38,251,425 – n/a –
6/10/75 Love and Death UA $20,123,742 – n/a –
12/17/73 Sleeper UA $18,344,729 – n/a –
8/6/72 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask UA $18,016,290 – n/a –
4/28/71 Bananas UA n/a – n/a –
8/18/69 Take the Money and Run CRC n/a – n/a –
11/2/66 What’s Up, Tiger Lily? AIP n/a – n/a –

Note: Titles in grey are cameo or bit parts and not counted in totals and averages.

Colin Farrell-Jennifer Aniston’s HORRIBLE BOSSES Good, Kevin James’ ZOOKEEPER Weak: Box Office

More box-office news: John Lasseter‘s Cars 2, featuring the voice of Owen Wilson, was no. 4 on the North American box-office chart this weekend (July 8-10), with earnings of $15.2 million according to studio estimates found at Box Office Mojo.

Having grossed $148.2m to date in the US/Canada, Cars 2 will pass the $150m milestone some time this week; it’ll thus become only the eighth movie to reach that mark so far in 2011. The others are: Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Hangover Part II, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Fast Five, Thor, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Bridesmaids. As you can see, six (including Cars 2) of those movies are sequels; one is based on a comics character; one is an original screenplay. Not one is a “straight” drama, i.e., one without super-heroes or super-effects. Yeah, now let’s start complaining about Hollywood’s lack of imagination.

Internationally, Cars 2 has collected an estimated $121.6m, opening at the top of the box-office chart in Spain and Argentina this weekend. The Disney/Pixar animated feature’s worldwide total stands at $269.8m.

At no. 5, the Cameron Diaz–Justin Timberlake–Jason Segel R-rated comedy Bad Teacher drew $9m, lifting its domestic total to $78.75m. Worldwide: $124.45m.

Adults take their time to go to the movies, we’re told. Well, obviously not the adults who were interested in watching Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks together in the poorly received Larry Crowne. The Hanks-directed comedy was down 52%, pulling in only $6.26m at no. 6. Domestic total to date: $26.52m. That’s not good even for a relatively low-budget — $30m — effort.

At no. 7, J. J. Abrams‘ Super 8 brought in $4.82m, for a domestic cume of $118.05m. It was followed by the Selena Gomez vehicle Monte Carlo, which took in $3.8m, down 49% from last weekend’s already underwhelming grosses.

After 10 days, the romantic comedy Monte Carlo has grossed a paltry $16.12m in North America. As in the case of Larry Crowne, that’s bad even for a movie that cost only $20m — especially considering that Monte Carlo, marketed to teenagers and young women, is no heavy drama. Without special effects and action scenes, dramas usually have a harder time at the domestic box office, as was the case with the Robert Pattinson vehicle Remember Me last year, which ended its North American run with a modest $19m. (Somewhat ironically, Pattinson’s Water for Elephants is the top drama on the domestic chart this year.)

Rounding out the twelve this weekend were:

And definitely not: Allen’s Midnight in Paris will not become the director’s biggest hit ever at the North American box office. Regardless of the inevitable studio hype, it would be downright stupid not to consider that $40m in 2011 is a lot less than $40m in 1986, the year Hannah and Her Sisters came out. More on the inflation-adjusted performances of Woody Allen movies.

 

Things seem just a little bit different as Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s 41st feature and his first shot entirely in the eponymous City of Light, gets started. The staple jazz-tinged opening credits are interrupted for an extended sequence of lovely but not-quite-postcard-ready images of the streets, waterways, and monuments of Paris and, when the credits resume, the jazz has subsided and we hear two distinctly American voices bickering. “You’re in love with a fantasy,” says a female voice that ends up belonging to the radiant yet odiously over-privileged Inez (Rachel McAdams), who looks out on a pond that may have inspired Monet. “I’m in love with you,” calls back her fiancé, Gil (Owen Wilson), a successful screenwriter and aspiring novelist who dreams of walking the tight corridors of the famed city in the rain.

Blind nostalgia is Gil’s drug of choice, and despite being on vacation with his soon-to-be wife’s parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy, beautifully cast), the studio-approved scripter is covertly considering a post-nuptials move to France. To Inez, Gil is merely swept up in the romanticism of the city and she refuses him even the most minor of indulgences, even openly scolding him when he disagrees or even slightly disturbs Paul (Michael Sheen), an old friend, traveling professor, and unerringly obnoxious intellectual. When Paul offers to take Inez dancing, Gil takes the chance to walk the streets under cover of night, ending up at the steps of a cathedral as the grand bells strike midnight and a car full of drunken Parisians pulls up in a decidedly anachronistic automobile. Already a few glasses of wine in, Gil obliges them and is immediately flung back into the heyday of Parisian culture, circa 1920.

Roaming around in the post-war salad days, Gil is privileged to hobnob with F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), drink with Hemingway (Corey Stoll), trade philosophies with Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody, obviously having some fun), even get a few notes on his unpublished novel from Gertrude Stein, lovingly played by Kathy Bates; Cole Porter sticks around just to sing a few bars of “Let’s Do It, Let’s Fall in Love.” In the morning, however, it all goes back to normal, prompting return trips that make Inez and her parents suspicious enough to call in a private eye. Following Gil proves impossible, allowing the soon-to-be groom to pitch to Luis Bunuel and romance Picasso’s latest muse (Marion Cotillard), who has her own romance for the late 19th century.

Gil inevitably falls for Cotillard’s wandering flapper, erupting in a confluence of fantasies at famed Maxine’s after a can-can show but Allen has not gone completely soft on us. Allen’s previous film, the severely underrated You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger, ended warmly on two spiritually inclined, elderly lovebirds while faux-intellectuals, atheists, misogynists, and philanderers seemingly were given their cosmic punishments. For Allen, it seemed like a grand gesture made sincerely towards a contingency that he showed little more than pity or disdain for beforehand, and Midnight in Paris continues in the vein of that film. Less schematic and thematically dialectic than a great deal of the director’s late work, Midnight in Paris eschews the pleasures of nostalgia and delusions, but also suggests that they evolve from a great internal displeasure, in this case Gil’s suspicions of Inez having an affair with Paul and not loving him all that much.

Not that Gil has been strictly devoted to Inez: When not applying his aw-shucks brand of seduction to Picasso’s mistress, he can be seen flirting with a young woman at the local bazaar (the enchanting Lea Seydoux). He even chats up a guide at the Rodin Museum, played by France’s first lady and former super model Carla Bruni. As much as Cotillard is a fantasy, Inez represents an illusion of what a grounded, successful man should seek in a wife and, by extension, in life. In other words, the fantasy Allen, who wrote his own screenplay per usual, sculpts for Gil offers the would-be novelist both a luminous escape and a mirror to lend insight into his connubial predicament, which includes entering into a family of overindulged snobs and Tea Party supporters.

Shot by the great Darius Khondji, Midnight in Paris celebrates the timeless allure of the City of Light to the cinematic image without apology but it never goes as far as to overstate that allure. The same can be said about its attitude towards cultural idols, who show up here stripped of their great artistic weight and are presented as lovefools, eccentrics, macho bullheads, and, in the case of Bates’s Stein, a sort of mother superior to the whole lot. (Indeed, the film is an ipso facto parody of the sacrosanct attitude given many biopics of heralded artists.) And Allen finds himself a strong proxy in Wilson, who hasn’t responded this well to a director since traveling to India with Wes Anderson in The Darjeeling Limited. Allen’s trip to Paris doesn’t resonate with the immense emotional complexities that Anderson’s film did but his fantastical bit of time travel brings out a startling generosity and humanity in Allen that has only been seen in glimpses recently. Fantasies are as much tied to our personal desires as they are to our sense of mortality, but if Gil’s concluding walk over a rainy bridge with a lovely young woman is any indication, some things defy even the unforgiving specter of time.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 97)

July 18, 2011 – 5:43 am

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c31859-4.jpg

The Reagans have tea with Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the White House residence. 11/9/85 .

I remember when I visited London in July of 1981 and the whole town was getting ready for the big royal wedding between Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Above you will see them pictured with President Reagan.

From November of 1980, here is CBS’s coverage of Election Night. Taped from WJKW-TV8, Cleveland. This is part 2 of 3.

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration,  and I wanted to share it with you. Here is the tenth portion:

Even the Heritage Foundation, as good a friend of the Reagan administration as there was in Washington, concluded after one year that although headed in the right direction, the administration “should and could have accomplished more.” The foundation estimated that of two thousand recommendations made in its monumental Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration, published in late 1980 just before Reagan took office, about 1,270 suggestions — “only” 60 percent — had been implemented or initiated. The “only” seemed gratuitous: Even the fabled Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox would have been satisfied with a .600 batting average. But conservatives, out of power for decades, were impatient and demanding of results.

Certainly the Reagan administration achieved much in the domestic field in its first term — reducing inflation, lowering unemployment, cutting the prime interest rate in half and producing economic growth of six percent in 1983. But it did not solve all the old problems and indeed failed to even tackle some, such as the federal deficit and intrusive federal departments like Education. After chalking up a series of impressive budget victories in their first year and maintaining the policy initiative, Reagan officials, according to Heritage’s Stuart M. Butler, “appeared to lose their edge.”[xxxv]

There were several reasons for the slowdown. The federal bureaucracy, protective of its power, began to dig in and practice its well-honed delaying tactics. The Democratic opposition in Congress, led by the wily House Speaker Tip O’Neill, organized more effectively. Pragmatic Reagan aides like Jim Baker kept resisting bold initiatives. And the complicated budget process (authorization, appropriation, conference committees, etc.) allowed liberal legislators to block White House proposals and whittle away at the president’s early antispending victories. All the while, the mounting federal deficits made conservatives in Congress increasingly nervous.

Contrary to conservative hopes, Reagan was not able to cut overall government spending, which remained at roughly 22 percent of GNP during his eight years in office. But the change in priorities was significant, with defense spending increasing from 5 to 6.5 percent of GNP, thus enabling the president to deal with the Soviets from a position of strength. Even so, Heritage analysts Robert Rector and Michael Sanera pointed out, the Reagan buildup, measured in constant dollars, was “about half the size of Eisenhower’s peacetime military increases.”[xxxvi] Which suggests, ironically, that Ike himself might have been responsible, at least partially, for the creation of the “military-industrial complex” which he warned America about in his farewell address.

Still, if one examines the economic report cards of American presidents from Truman through Reagan, Reagan easily finishes first. Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates and growth in Gross National Product, Harvard economist Robert Barro ranked Reagan number one. Among other things, Reagan engineered the largest reduction in the misery index (the total of inflation and unemployment) in history — 50 percent. In fact, sums up economist Richard B. McKenzie, the 1980s were, up to then, “the most prosperous decade in American history.”[xxxvii]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Ronald Reagan | Comments (0)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 93)

July 18, 2011 – 5:17 am

 

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.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

 

  • Each month, taxpayers provide $40,000worth of office space, cell phones, staff, and an SUV for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who currently works as a lobbyist for private corporations and foreign governments.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her staff have charged taxpayers $101,000 for “in-flight services”—including food and liquor—during trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. Charges reportedly include “Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, and Corona beer.”
  • The Legal Services Corporation, which is supposed to provide legal services to the poor, has repeatedly ignored warnings to stop spending its money on alcohol. It also funds limousines, first-class airfare, and “death by Chocolate” pastries for its executives.
  • The Department of Energy spent nine years and $153 millionon an obsolete cyber-security project that was supposed to safeguard America’s nuclear weapons information.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Debt Ceiling Deadline August 2 is a hoax

July 18, 2011 – 5:16 am

I am upset at all the lies I hear coming out of President Obama’s mouth and below I put some facts that Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine out there to straighten things out.

___________________________

Uploaded by on Jul 15, 2011

All anybody in Washington can talk about these days is the debt limit or debt ceiling — the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at any given time. After a decade in which spending increased by more than 60 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars and the debt limit was raised no fewer than 10 times, the government is about to max out its $14.3 trillion credit line, leading to fears that Washington is going to default on its bonds, stop cutting Social Security checks, and destroy the economy more than it already has.

But the current debate over the debt ceiling is full of malarkey for at least three reasons.

1. August 2 is a phony deadline. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has pushed back the drop-dead date when the U.S. finally reaches its limit a bunch of times already: March 31, April 15, May 31 were all cited as deadlines before August 2 was inked in as Armageddon. But this time, he means it, man, really.

2. Reaching the debt limit is not the same as defaulting on our debt — which would indeed be catastrophic.

Think about it: You can max out your credit cards but as long as you keep paying the minimum amount due each month, your creditors don’t go crazy. Interest on the debt is a small fraction of total outlays and the government has a series of tools — from using cash on hand to selling assets to scrimping on nonessential payments — to make sure interest payments are made and seniors aren’t put on an all cat-food diet.

3. Legislating-by-Panic is no way to run a country. The reason we’re in this mess is because government can’t stop spending. And the government can’t even pass a budget on a year’s notice. But we’re expecting them to come up with a good plan for the country’s borrowing in a couple of weeks? Trying to force through an expansion of the country’s credit line by promising cuts in spending down the road is exactly why we’re in this situation to begin with.

It makes far more sense to do something like sell some TARP assets — the government is sitting on $320 billion in outstanding direct loans and equities investments — to cover interest payments through the end of the fiscal year then force Congress and the president to come up with a budget that cuts spending — and borrowing — for real, next year, not is some distant future.

For more information, check out Nick Gillespie’s 5 Uncomfortable Facts About the Wonderful, Horrible Debt-Limit Debate: http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/08/five-uncomfortable-facts-about

And Mercatus Center’s Jason J. Fichtner & Veronique de Rugy’s The Debt Ceiling: What is at Stake: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Debt%20Ceilling.deRugy.Fi…

About 2.35 minutes.

Produced by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg, edited by Joshua Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Comments (0)