Monthly Archives: July 2011

Is President Obama willing to present real or phony cuts in debt ceiling crisis?

In the press the Republicans are getting hit over the head constantly with the popular explanation that President Obama is ready to compromise and provide real deep budget cuts. However, is that the truth? Michael Tanner exposes the real proposal by President Obama.

The Intransigent Meet the Unserious,” by Michael D. Tanner

Democrats go hardball on tax hikes while Republicans play softball.

Last Friday, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to announce that House Democrats should oppose a debt-ceiling agreement that included any cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) announced that they would filibuster any deal that included changes to those programs, and possibly Medicaid as well.

So, of course, you saw the deluge of media stories blaming Democratic intransigence for threatening to throw the country into default. Neither did I.

Republicans have clearly drawn a line in the sand, opposing any tax increase. But Democrats have been even more unbending, resisting any serious structural reform of entitlements or deep spending cuts, while insisting on huge tax hikes as part of any deal.

Why the insistence on tax hikes? Democrats know that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, tax revenues will return to their historic average of 18 to 19 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. They know this will happen even if the Bush tax cuts are extended and the alternative minimum tax is fixed. The only reason, therefore, for tax increases would be to enable more government spending.

The president is now calling for a “big” deal that would reduce the debt by $4 tillion over ten years, while we’ll borrow more than a third of that this year.  In fact, over those ten years, we are expected to run up more than $13 trillion in new debt.

It’s also important to remember that the president is not offering $4 trillion in spending cuts. The deal he has proposed includes more than $1 trillion in tax hikes. Another $1 trillion is assumed savings on interest payments. Thus, what is really on the table is barely $2 trillion in actual spending reductions. What the president is really offering is closer to $2 in spending reductions for every $1 in tax hikes, not the 4:1 ratio reported by the media. Moreover, that is over ten years, meaning the cuts would actually be just $200 billion per year. We will pay more than that this year in interest on what we have already borrowed.

As minimal as these cuts are, they are actually even less than they appear. Most people assume that a spending cut means spending less next year than we spend this year. Then again, most people don’t understand Washington. Washington operates under “baseline budgeting,” meaning that if Congress plans to spend $2 billion more on a program than it spent this year, but only spends $1 billion more, that is a $1 billion “cut.” Thus, the $2 trillion in spending “cuts” currently being discussed would actually allow government spending to increase by $1.8 trillion.

Of course, the president also has expressed a willingness to put Medicare and Social Security on the table, despite opposition from the Democrats in Congress. But here too the proposals are far less than they appear. They would do nothing to change the structure of these programs, instead offering a grab bag of future benefit trims that may or may not ever occur, such as further squeezing reimbursements to hospitals and physicians.

So the deal that the Republicans are currently offering would actually allow federal revenue, federal spending, and the national debt all to increase over the next decade. They have abandoned structural changes to entitlement programs — anything like Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is off the table — and appear to have dropped calls for a balanced-budget amendment or a spending cap.

This is radical? This is intransigence? If only.

Mike Huckabee’s solution to debt ceiling crisis: Let the Democrats have their way

Cut Cap Balance Debt Ceiling Republicans

On Saturday’s Huckabee Show (July 16, 2011) Mike Huckabee opened up the show with the following statement: 

The Republicans ought to put forth their plan and advance it as far as it will go and then make clear where they stand. If they can’t get the “Cut, Cap and Balance” through the Senate and the White House, then at least they have made their stand. Then it is going to be up the the President and the Democrats to put a real plan on the table. Let them propose it and support and send it to the House.The House ought to pass it, not because they like it, but to give the Democrats full ownership of their plan.The government will then operate and we will not lose our credit rating, but then the constrast is set between two very clear directions for the next eletions. Spend and tax more or “Cut, Cap and Balance”. As a Republican I would glad to run on that platform instead of spend and tax anyday. What do you think? Well you can let me know at MikeHuckabee.com

I did take Mike Huckabee’s suggestion and email my thoughts on his statement. Below is the email. 

Dear Governor Huckabee,

I have supported you since 1992 when you ran for Senator in Arkansas against Dale Bumpers. My close friends and relatives of mine have been on the street campaigning for you even to following you to Iowa in 2008 and going door to door for you. 

Since 2008 we have been tuning in to see your show every week and have been telling our friends about that. I have especially enjoyed the first part of every program where you give your take on the current political talk of the day. Occasionally I do disagree with you on some things and today I find it is one of those days. 

The problem with your suggestion that Republicans vote for the Democrat plan in the House is what I would consider an “epic cave in.” There are two reasons this would not be a good course of action.

First, Republican primary voters will hold Republicans accountable for voting to hand over our future to the Democrats. How can a Democrat or a Republican turn their back on their core beliefs just to allow the other side the opportunity to mess up? 

Second, if Republicans hold firm then the Democrats will come to deal concerning serious budget cuts. I do admit that they may instead try McConnell’s alternative where President Obama becomes basically a dictator. If that does occur then it will truly become the election issue that you talk about. That is much different than caving into what they want by voting for it.  Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute had an excellent article along these lines. 

McConnell’s Cave-In and Boehner’s Opportunity

Posted by Chris Edwards

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered the president a way to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion without having to cut spending. The WaPo reports that “McConnell’s strategy makes no provision for spending cuts to be enacted.”

This appears to be an epic cave-in and completely at odds with McConnell’s own pronouncements in recent months that major budget reforms must be tied to any debt-limit increase.

House Republicans should obviously reject McConnell’s surrender, and they should do what they should have done months ago. They should put together a package of $2 trillion in real spending cuts taken straight from the Obama fiscal commission report and pass it through the House tied to a debt-limit increase of $2 trillion. Then they shouldn’t budge unless the White House and/or the Senate produce their own $2 trillion packages of real spending cuts, which could be the basis of negotiating a final spending-cut deal.

For those who say that House tea party members won’t vote for a debt increase, I’d say that $2 trillion in spending cuts looks a lot better than the alternative of having Democrats and liberal Republicans doing an end-run around them with McConnell’s no-cut plan.

For those who say that House members are scared of voting for specific spending cuts, I’d say that they’ve already done it by passing the Paul Ryan budget plan. I’d also say that you can’t claim to be the party of spending cuts without voting for spending cuts.

Obama’s Fiscal Commission handed Republicans ready-made spending cuts on a silver platter—Republicans will never get better political cover for insisting on spending cuts than now.

Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” explores “golden age fallacy” (Part 39)

Owen Wilson as Gil

Owen Wilson as Gil
I have really enjoyed going through the historical characters mentioned in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris,” but today I am turning my attention to the “golden age fallacy” that is brought up in the film.
 
Gil is a victim of “golden age thinking” according to Paul. Basically when you get down to it, Gil is in denial according to Paul. The hard reality of the cold heartless universe and the realities of the present seem to be swept away if you can imagine yourself happier in another golden age.
 
Woody Allen has made it clear in the past that he does not believe that God exists. However, he continues to probe issues in his films dealing with finding a lasting meaning to life.
 
King Solomon sat down at the end of his life and wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes. Woody Allen has also touched on the same issues that Solomon discussed so many years ago. Remember that Woody Allen is looking at the world through the eyes of an atheist.
 
The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias noted, “The key to understanding the Book of Ecclesiastes is the term UNDER THE SUN — What that literally means is you lock God out of a closed system and you are left with only this world of Time plus Chance plus matter.” This is the same way that Woody Allen is choosing to view the world today!!
 
Solomon’s father David had expanded Israel and as a result Solomon had lots of resources, and he found himself searching for the meaning of life and trying to come up with answers concerning death and a possible afterlife.  However, it seems every door he tries to open is locked. Solomon found riches (Ecclesiastes 2:8-11), pleasure (2:1), education (2:3), fame (2:9), and his work (2:4) all “meaningless” and “vanity” and “a chasing of the wind.” None of those were able to “fill the God-sized vacuum in his heart” (quote from famous mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal). Solomon finally concluded in Ecclesiastes that he should “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (12:13).
 
All of his accomplishments would not be remembered (1:11) and who is to say that they had not already been done before by others (1:10)? Also the prospect of Solomon’s upcoming death would wipe out all of accomplishments anyway. Solomon observed, “For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die” (2:16). This is where Woody Allen’s story must begin. A while back in an interview Allen said, “My 70 plus years will be spent better than those of a beggar on the streets of Calcutta. But we’ll wind up in the same place” (Washington Post, July 26, 2006).
 
Woody Allen has won Academy awards for his comedies. Chuck Colson has noted that Woody Allen’s films do not celebrate life, but apparently divert Allen from its emptiness and despair. “It’s just an awful thing,” Allen says, “and in that context you’ve got to find an answer to the question: Why go on?” At best, all Allen has ever found is a temporary answer: You go on long enough to get the current project finished, and then you go on to the next one. But at bottom, there’s no significance to any of it.
 
As Allen confesses, movies were only a “means” for him to live the kind of lifestyle he wanted, but now that he has it, he has to keep making movies to distract himself from it. Like the writer of Ecclesiastes, who “withheld not [his] heart from any joy,” Woody Allen apparently has concluded that “all is vanity.”
 
This is the same result that Solomon got in his search for answers in  the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. Solomon also dealt the subject of death a lot. Ecclesiastes 7:2-4 asserts, “It is better to spend your time at funerals than at festivals. For you are going to die, and you should think about it while there is still time. Sorrow is better than laughter, it may sadden your face, but it sharpens your understanding.”
 
Solomon went to the extreme in his searching in the Book of Ecclesiastes for answers, but all his answers did not bring lasting satisfaction and in fact they all turned to dust over time because both people and animals alike “go to the same place — they came from dust and they return to dust” (3:20).In 1978 I heard the song “Dust in the Wind” by Kansas when it rose to #6 on the charts. That song told me that Kerry Livgren the writer of that song and a member of Kansas had come to the same conclusion that Solomon had. I remember mentioning to my friends at church that we may soon see some members of Kansas become Christians because their search for the meaning of life had obviously come up empty even though they had risen from being an unknown band to the top of the music business and had all the wealth and fame that came with that. Furthermore, like Solomon, they realized death comes to everyone and there must be something more.Livgren wrote:”All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

Both Kerry Livgren and Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on youtube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. Hope is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

 
On the other hand David Segal of the Washington Post concluded that Woody Allen’s world “…is bereft of meaning, so godless and absurd, that the only proper response is to curl up on a sofa and howl for your mommy. Alternatively, you could try the Allen approach, which is to make a feature film every year and try, however briefly, to distract yourself from the darkness.” This is in contrast to Solomon’s conclusion that he should “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (12:13).
 
 
 
 
Woody Allen’s whimsical valentine to the City of Light may be his most enjoyable film in years.
Steven D. Greydanus | posted 6/24/2011 04:55AM

Returning from a trip to Paris sometime in the mid-20th century, a federal judge named Frank A. Picard told a friend named Charley Manes, “It was a wonderful trip. Paris is a grand place. But I wish I had made the trip 20 years ago.”

“You mean, when Paris was Paris?” Manes asked.

“No,” Picard replied, perhaps wistfully. “I mean when Picard was Picard.”

When Paris was Paris. When Picard was Picard. Ah, the old days. It seems the present is always overshadowed by a remembrance of lost or faded glory, some golden age before which present realities are poor and unsatisfactory substitutes.

Woody Allen fans know it well. Sure, they’ll admit, Allen cranks out a lot of unmemorable and even poor work nowadays—ah, but they remember when Allen was Allen. Every once in a while, perhaps, he comes out with a film that shows them he remembers, too.

Midnight in Paris is such a film. It’s a nostalgic movie about nostalgia—nostalgia for when Paris was Paris, for one thing. Even if you’ve never been to the City of Light, even if phrases like “the Lost Generation” and “la Belle Époque” hold for you none of the magic they do for Allen, the film makes you feel their power for his onscreen alter ego, appealingly played by Owen Wilson. For that matter, even if you aren’t an Allen fan—even if you aren’t convinced Allen was ever Allen—Midnight in Paris could almost make you nostalgic for the Allen that fans remember, or seem to.

Which Allen, though? There are almost as many Woody Allens as there are Allen films, but Midnight in Paris is a frothy, whimsical confection that harks back to fantasies like The Purple Rose of Cairo and Zelig—but in a sunnier, more relaxed mode, as if even Allen’s bleak anxieties soften when night falls on the City of Light. The universe may be a cold, violent, meaningless place, Gil Pender (Wilson) muses—and yet there is Paris.

Credit the star, in part, whose distinctly non-East Coast persona caused Allen to rethink and rewrite his main character after Wilson was cast. As Gil, a Hollywood screenwriting hack (by his own admission) yearning to write a serious novel, Wilson is still recognizably “the Woody Allen character,” like many Allen protagonists before him, but with his laid-back charm and unaffected enthusiasm he’s a more likable than usual version, with fewer anxieties and more naiveté.

Gil, visiting Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her chilly, well-to-do parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy), is overwhelmed with the romance of the city (beautifully photographed by Darius Khondji) that he feels and they don’t. “To know that Paris exists and anyone would choose to live anywhere else is a mystery to me,” he muses, but even living in Paris wouldn’t be enough for him. “I was born at the wrong time, into the wrong era,” he complains. For him, “when Paris was Paris” means the days of expatriate writers and artists like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald; of Cole Porter and Josephine Baker; of Picasso, Dalí and Buñuel.

“All that’s missing is the tuberculosis,” sniggers Paul (Michael Sheen), an insufferable, preening academic whom Gil regards with the same testy unease that Allen did with Alan Alda in Crimes and Misdemeanors. Inez, though, fawns over Paul’s erudition, and isn’t embarrassed for Gil when Paul says things like “Gil’s lament is nothing more than golden age thinking,” as if he were diagnosing a case of psoriasis instead of cutting off a man’s soul at the knees, if souls have knees.

Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle

Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle

It’s a typically suffocating, Allenesque setup—but then, as unexpected as a delicious breeze on the muggiest urban summer night, a door opens for Gil. Where does it take him? It’s not in the trailer, and even the cryptic end credits coyly avoid spoilers, but most reviews have no qualms about mentioning it, and it’s probably not hard to guess.

At any rate, for Gil Paris comes alive at midnight. He gains admittance to a wonderful world of music and dancing, meets fascinating people and participates in exhilarating conversation. He is delighted when a no-nonsense writer named Gert (Kathy Bates) offers to look at his novel. Then he meets a lovely woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard) who intrigues him despite, or perhaps because of, her complicated romantic history.

Kurt Fuller as John, Mimi Kennedy as Helen

Kurt Fuller as John, Mimi Kennedy as Helen

Midnight in Paris is about the allure of the past, of times and places that loom large in our imagination, when it seems things were more than what they are. It’s also about the illusion of perspective: the past looks romantic to us from our vantage point, and if we went there we might contrive to bring that perspective with us, although to the people actually living then, the past was simply the present. Or one could look further back to other golden ages.

Are golden ages golden while you are living through them? Time and memory sift the past, retaining what is golden and sweet while leaving the chaff behind. In our own day, perhaps, we are more conscious of the chaff, while the good wheat remains half-hidden, not fully appreciated in its day. Time will reveal it more fully to our children.

Or perhaps the past shines as it does because for us, like Picard, the past is bathed in the rosy glow of our own remembered youth (or, if we are young ourselves, that of the glowing memories and anecdotes of our elders). But was our youth itself as rosy as we remember? Is it all just a trick of perspective, the way ordinary surroundings become the mysterious horizon when you get far enough away?

Where is it all going? What’s remarkable about Midnight in Paris is that in the end it’s about seeing through the illusion of nostalgia and yet not being disillusioned—about cherishing the past, while living in the present.

Director Woody Allen on the set with Wilson

Director Woody Allen on the set with Wilson

Tolkien wrote about how fantasy can reveal rather than obscure reality: “By the forging of Gram cold iron was revealed; by the making of Pegasus horses were ennobled; in the Trees of the Sun and the Moon root and stock, flower and fruit are manifested in glory.”

That’s a speech the nihilistic Allen would choke on. Yet in this film he allows a character to claim that “the job of the artist is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence.” Even that cautious sentiment is probably more than Allen himself believes deep down (certainly his work as a whole hardly seems to reflect such a philosophy). Still, in Midnight in Paris he seems willing to allow the audience, and perhaps even himself, the luxury of hope.

Talk About It
Discussion starters

  1. Have you ever wished you could live in another time and place? When? Or where? (Or both?) Why are you attracted to that? How does that time and place compare to the world of today—for better and for worse?
  2. Do you think the world is changing for the worse or for the better? Or is it staying the same? What are some ways the world has changed in the last 50 or so years that are for the better? For the worse?
  3. The idea of the world in decline, or of a past golden age, are perennially popular notions. Why do you think this is?
  4. Compare the movie’s sentiment that “the job of the artist is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence” with this statement: “Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption” (Pope John Paul II, Letter to Artists). How are they the same? How are they different?
  5. Does Midnight in Paris “give voice to the universal desire for redemption”? Have you seen other Woody Allen movies that express a desire for redemption? Have you seen ones that you would say fail to do this?

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 96)

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/C31673-17.jpg

Nancy Reagan photo with Lab School Honorees Tom Cruise, Bruce Jenner, Cher and Robert Rauchenberg in State Dining Room. 10/30/85.

My wife Jill loves to watch the reality show “Keeping up with the Kardashians.” Bruce Jenner who is pictured above is one of the main characters in that show since his wife is Kris Jenner is the mother of all the Kardashians.

From November of 1980, here is CBS’s coverage of Election Night. Taped from WJKW-TV8, Cleveland. This is part 1 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 ninth portion:

Sometimes the president sided with reformers as when, after a year of hard work, he signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan had signaled his intention “to simplify the tax code so all taxpayers would be treated more fairly.”[xxxii] An unusual coalition formed around the president’s initiative, including Democrats Richard Gephardt and Dan Rostenkowski in the House and Budget Chairman Pete Domenici and Democrat Bill Bradley in the Senate. A bipartisan deal was ultimately struck with Reagan agreeing to close existing tax loopholes if the Democrats would agree to lower marginal rates for individuals and families.

Reagan was deadly serious about the measure. In mid-December 1985, for example, he made an unusual personal visit to Capitol Hill to lobby members of Congress for his tax reform. A few days later, he telephoned House Speaker O’Neill to report that he had rounded up at least fifty Republican votes for final passage of the legislation. O’Neill had set the 50-vote requirement for bringing the bill to the floor.

Describing his plan as a “Second American Revolution,” Reagan promised that it would make taxes lower, fairer, simpler, and more productive. And it did, lowering the top marginal rate from 50 percent to 33 percent, simplifying the number of tax brackets, and increasing personal deductions so much that an estimated 4.3 million low-income families were removed from the tax rolls. At the same time, a minimum tax was established to ensure that wealthy taxpayers would not escape paying at least some income tax. And hundreds of special interest provisions, such as deductible “three martini luncheons,” were eliminated.

Reagan described his tax reform initiative as one of the proudest achievements of his administration. He called his tax reform act “the best anti-poverty bill, the best pro-family measure and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.”[xxxiii]

However, whichever way he tacked, Reagan often found himself being roundly criticized by leaders of the New Right, eager as always to find fault with a conservative for not being quite conservative enough. Richard Viguerie and others pointed out that regardless of Reagan’s successful battles to reduce income tax rates, the average American’s total tax payments had actually gone up in Reagan’s second year if you included increases in Social Security withholding. As for Reagan’s spending cuts, the New Rightists stressed, they were not absolute reductions but merely reductions in the rate of increase.

“We constantly hear nonsense about how conservatives are running everything,” remarked Terry Dolan, head of the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). “If that were true, we wouldn’t have the biggest budget deficits in history.”[xxxiv]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 92)

 

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.

 

  • Improper or fraudulent Medicare spending now totals $47 billionannually—12.4 percent of its budget.
  • New York distributed $140 million in stimulus money into the individual accounts of families on welfare, yet neglected to mention it was intended for school supplies. Local ATMs were depleted, and much of the money was reportedly spent on “flat screen TV’s, iPods and video gaming systems” as well as “cigarettes and beer.”
  • Washington will spend $615,175on an archive honoring the Grateful Dead.
  • Federal employees owe more than $3 billionin income taxes they failed to pay in 2008.

Brummett: Where are the Statesmen today?

Max Brantley noted this morning on his Arkansas Times Blog:

John Brummett washes his hands of every single member of the six-man Arkansas congressional delegation for their total default on solutions for the country’s financial ills.

The state that produced Mills, McClellan, Bumpers, Fulbright, Clinton and other large Washington figures “has now shipped six empty suits to Washington, D.C., where filled ones are desperately needed.”

John Brummett in his article is critical of six Arkansans in Arkanasas. He asserts:

U.S. Sen. John Boozman — He was elected to be a mere head of cattle available for herding by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Yet all of a sudden he has found a proposal by McConnell potentially objectionable.

Boozman was last seen scratching his head with his hoof, having strayed to the side of the herd.

U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford — This old filer of personal bankruptcy because he had a little unwanted balance on a credit card says we can leave the debt ceiling where it is and, as of Aug. 2, start paying only on our debt and for the military and for Social Security and for Medicare, simply letting the rest — farmer subsidies, veteran’s benefits, law enforcement, disaster assistance, you name it — go.

If only we could let him go.

U. S. Rep. Tim Griffin — He was last heard from saying he and other tea party types think it’s time to do something big. Defaulting on debt and ruining the domestic and global economies … that would do it.

A head of cattle himself, he is herded by Paul Ryan, last seen at a high-dollar eatery on Capitol Hill enjoying a $360 bottle of pinot noir with a couple of anti-government types who appreciated his efforts to switch the burden of health care costs from government to sick old people.

U.S. Rep. Steve Womack — Otherwise nondescript, he wanted to reduce the deficit by taking away Obama’s TelePrompTer.

U.S. Mike Ross — He used to be a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. But then most of them got beat last year by undisguised Republicans.

So there you have the sad story of how one small needy state once known for producing uncommon national political prominence has now shipped six empty suits to Washington, D.C., where filled ones are desperately needed.

______________________________

I know that many times we glorify the past and it is true that Arkansas had some very powerful men representing our State in the past. However, they were all Democrats and now almost all of them are conservative Republicans.

We need for our men in Washington to make the hard choices. You will notice above the comment by Brummett that many of the blue dog Democrats that Mike Ross associated with the past have been defeated. He is in a pretty lonely group right now. Mark Pryor is still sticking to the old methods by traveling the state and saying that the Republicans will discontine the Social Security checks. Actually it was President Obama that suggested that the other day even though Social Socurity currently has the payroll taxes coming in to pay all their bills.

We need some statesmen that will cut when we need to cut. Take a look at this fine suggestion below.

Debt-Limit Deal: $500 Billion Cut Option

Posted by Chris Edwards

Charles Krauthammer is absolutely right that Republicans must call President Obama’s bluff on the debt-limit vote. I suggested that the House GOP pass $2 trillion in cuts tied to a $2 trillion debt increase, thus handing the matter over to the Senate and the president and refusing to budge.

Krauthammer has the same idea, but with $500 billion in cuts and a $500 billion debt increase. That would certainly be better than Senator McConnell’s chicken-out plan, and it would have the advantage of being so modest in size that I think it would ultimately get large support in the Senate from moderates.

The cuts–small “trims” really–could be taken right from Obama’s own Fiscal Commission report. The table below illustrates how modest and limited are the reforms needed to hit $500 billion in savings over 10 years. Indeed, the data from the commission only covers a nine-year period and includes just some of the proposed entitlement savings.

Obama Fiscal Commission Entitlement Trims $Billions
Trim Health Care Subsidies
Reduce subsidies for medical education $60
Expand Medicare cost sharing $110
Enact tort reform $17
Reduce Medicaid tax gaming $44
Reform Tricare $38
Trim Social Security Growth
Increase benefits by chained CPI $89
Trim Growth in Other Entitlements
Increase other entitlements by chained CPI $43
Reform federal retirement benefits $73
Reduce farm subsidies $10
Reduce student loan interest subsidies $43
Total Trims, 2012-2020 $527

It would be blindingly obvious to most voters that Obama would be responsible for a debt default if he couldn’t bring himself to sign such modest cuts that were proposed by his own fiscal commission. Then, when the government runs up against the debt limit again five months from now, the GOP should have another package of cuts ready to be passed. This next time they could perhaps focus on discretionary program terminations, some of which I’ve proposed here.

Osama bin Laden wanted to take down Air Force One

Osama bin Laden hit list: aspired to kill Obama on Air Force One

July 15, 2011 |  2:06 pm
 
 

Obama

Osama Bin Laden had a hit list and on top was a plan to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks by shooting down Air Force One with President Obama aboard it, officials say. He was also hoping to fly a small plane into a U.S. sporting event and attack Gen. David Petraeus’ plane.

The airplane-obsessed terrorist was killed when Navy SEALs helicoptered into Pakistan and raided his hideout. In the “treasure trove” of documents discovered in Bin Laden’s compound were newly released plans the Al Qaeda leader was crafting to assassinate Obama on his plane or helicopter with a missile or grenade, officials told ABC News.

The documents were part of the discoveries that included the much ballyhooed “fairly extensive” collection of pornography found at the Bin Laden “mansion.”

“It’s difficult, but not impossible, to shoot down either Gen. Petraeus or the president’s plane. But the reality is because of the countermeasures and other planes and helicopters in the air, it’s not a likely scenario,” Brad Garrett, former FBI special agent who now works for ABC, said of the proposed attack.

The plane into the sporting event scenario, however, possibly could have been executed, Garrett said.

“We have so many small airports, you could fly below radar,” he said. “That’s possibly doable.”

Oh great.

Other related Posts:

Mike Huckabee to Osama bin Laden: “Welcome to Hell” (Part 6)Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example of why hell the only “enforcement factor”

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]

Osama bin Laden knew big body count on level of 9/11 was needed to get U.S. forces to withdraw

    Next Back BroadcastAs the U.S. fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bin Laden periodically released audio and video recordings (like this one, from 2007) calling for the destruction of America and its allies. Kimberly Dozier of the Associated Press reported today in her article, “Bin Laden’s diary shows he eyed new targets, big […]

2007 Interview with Jane Felix-Browne concerning her husband Omar bin Laden (pictures included)

  Jane Felix-Browne, a 51-year-old grandmother and parish councillor from Cheshire has married a son of Osama bin Laden after a holiday romance       A British divorcee said Wednesday she has married Omar bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader’s fourth son, after they met in Egypt last fall.Jane Felix-Browne, a 51-year-old grandmother from Moulton, […]

Hamza bin Laden wants to keep his father’s family business of terror going

AP Osama’s youngest son, Hamza, is believed to have escaped the compound where his terror fiend dad was killed by SEALs. Chuck Bennett of the NY Post in his article “Osama’s youngest son escaped capture,” wrote this morning: Osama bin Laden’s youngest known son — a budding teen terrorist groomed since childhood to wage jihad […]

Osama bin Laden’s sons think U.S. broke international law

  Omar bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden, in his apartment in Al-Rahad city near Cairo in 2008 The New York Times reported today: The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama over their father’s death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an […]

 
By Everette Hatcher III, on July 15, 2011 at 7:37 am, under Current Events. No Comments

Michele Bachmann and her husband up close

Uploaded by on Jul 13, 2011

Today Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joined her colleagues Congressmen Steve King (IA-05) and Louie Gohmert (TX-01) to unveil H.R. 2496, the “Payment Reliability for our Obligations to Military and Investors to Secure Essential Stability Act,” or the PROMISES Act. Introduced by King, this legislation ensures spending is prioritized in the case the federal government exceeds its ability to borrow. The PROMISES Act will direct the Treasury to pay down the interest on our national debt and ensure the Armed Forces are paid for their tireless service.

_____________________________________

FILE - In this June 27, 2011, file photo Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and her husband Marcus wave to the crowd after her formal announcement to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in Waterloo, Iowa. Marcus Bachmann is defending his Christian counseling business for offering so-called ex-gay therapy, a controversial practice that's focused attention on the Bachmanns' views on social issues at a time when the Minnesota congresswoman has shown momentum in the Republican presidential race. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File) )

  • FILE – In this June 27, 2011, file photo Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn and her husband.

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — One of Michele Bachmann’s closest advisers during her rapid political rise was her husband, Marcus. He also was one of the least visible, happy to stand in his wife’s shadow even as her career took her to Washington.

These days, both Bachmanns are finding there’s no escape from the scrutiny that follows a candidate who rockets into the top tier of Republican presidential hopefuls, and Marcus Bachmann has been forced to defend his Christian counseling business from claims its therapies include “curing” people of being gay.

In an interview with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published Friday, Marcus Bachmann did not deny he and other counselors at Bachmann and Associates Inc. have attempted to convert gay patients. But he said it’s not a special interest of the practice and would only be attempted if a client requested it.

“Will I address it? Certainly we’ll talk about it,” Bachmann told the newspaper, in response to a question about an undercover investigation by a gay activist that showed a counselor at the clinic offering the therapy. “Is it a remedy form that I typically would use? … It is at the client’s discretion.”

Bachmann’s campaign this week turned down multiple Associated Press requests to interview Marcus and Michele Bachmann. The campaign also did not respond to an emailed list of basic biographical questions about Marcus Bachmann.

The Bachmanns and people who know them describe a couple who connected in college in southeastern Minnesota, brought together in part by their deep Christian faith. Over time they raised five children, fostered 23 others, and built separate careers. She was a tax attorney, a school board candidate, a state legislator and a congresswoman; he built the counseling business they now own together.

As his wife’s star rose, Marcus Bachmann increasingly balanced his two suburban Twin Cities clinics with growing responsibilities at the family’s suburban St. Paul home.

“Without him, she couldn’t be doing what she’s doing,” said JoAnne Hood, a former neighbor who said she’s still close to the family. “He would leave notes on the kitchen island to each of the kids with a list of their chores for the day. He’ll buy the flowers in the spring and plant them in the planter boxes. He runs the whole show.”

Marcus Bachmann is one of three sons of a Swiss couple who upon their marriage in 1950 emigrated to the U.S. and bought a dairy farm in southwestern Wisconsin that the family still owns. Hood described him as “just a farm boy — he’s jovial, he’s genuine, he’s all about family, just an all-around good guy.”

He met Michele Amble when they were undergraduates at Winona State University in 1976.

“And then the Lord led me to this man …” Michele Bachmann recalled during a 2006 speech at Living Word Christian Center near Minneapolis. “Led me to him, and showed me that this was also part of my calling. That my calling was to marry this man.”

They married in 1978, around the time they switched their political allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

Marcus Bachmann, now 55, is often at wife’s side while she campaigns. Tall and burly where she is short and petite, friends say Marcus Bachmann sometimes acts as a bodyguard of sorts as his wife draws larger crowds.

Former aides and associates say Marcus Bachmann appears to be his wife’s closest adviser. But he rarely speaks on her behalf in a political setting, and even longtime allies of Michele Bachmann say they don’t know him well; the most frequent impression is of a quiet and good-natured man, amiable and laid-back in contrast to his wife’s perky charisma.

“He’s her closest confidante,” said Warren Limmer, a Republican state senator in Minnesota who teamed with Michele Bachmann during her crusade for a state constitutional gay marriage ban in 2005 and 2006.

While avoiding his wife’s political spotlight, Marcus Bachmann has been a regular guest on Christian and inspirational radio programs — sometimes making comments that have resurfaced amid his wife’s presidential bid.

In one frequently cited interview with the Point of View radio show in May 2010, Bachmann seemed to suggest gay people were “barbarians” to a question about how Christian parents should respond if their children come out. A clip on YouTube includes the statement:

“But again, it is as if we have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated, they need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to go down that road. That’s what’s called a sinful nature. And we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings to move into the action steps,” the clip shows Bachmann saying.

In the Star Tribune interview, Marcus Bachmann said that interview clip was doctored and that he would never call gay people barbarians. “That’s not my mindset. That’s not my belief system,” he told the newspaper.

The original interview was not available on the Point of View website, and the company was unable to provide a copy of it Friday.

___

Associated Press writer Brian Bakst contributed to this report.

Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 38,Alcoholism and great writers and artists)

I have really enjoyed going through all the characters mentioned in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris.” One think that shocked me was that many of these great writers mentioned in the film were also alcoholics. Why is that?

It is my view that if a sensitive person really does examine life closely without a belief in God then they will come to a negative nihilistic point of view concerning life. That will possibly lead them to try and escape through alcoholism. What is the answer to that? We will get to that later in this post.

I stumbled on this list of the Top 15 Great Alcoholic Writers and here is the top five of that list:

 William Faulkner, Ernest Heminingway, Scott  Fitzgerald and James Joyce are all in the latest Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris” and they all were alcoholics.  

5. William Faulkner

2636168

William Cuthbert Faulkner (September 25, 1897 – July 6, 1962) was an American novelist, film screenwriter, and poet whose works feature his native state of Mississippi. He is regarded as one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century and was awarded the 1949 Nobel Prize for Literature. Much has been made of the fact that Faulkner had a serious drinking problem throughout his life, but as Faulkner himself stated on several occasions, and as was witnessed by members of his family, the press, and friends at various periods over the course of his career, he did not drink while writing, nor did he believe that alcohol helped to fuel the creative process. It is now widely believed that Faulkner used alcohol as an “escape valve” from the day-to-day pressures of his regular life.

4. Charles Bukowski

Bukowski460

Henry Charles Bukowski (August 16, 1920 – March 9, 1994) was an influential Los Angeles poet and novelist. Bukowski’s writing was heavily influenced by the geography and atmosphere of his home city of Los Angeles. His father was in and out of work during the Depression years and was a reputed tyrant, verbally and physically abusing his son throughout his childhood. It was perhaps to numb himself from his father’s abuse that Bukowski began drinking at the age of 13, initiating his life-long affair with alcohol.

3. F. Scott Fitzgerald

Fsfitz2

Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald (September 24, 1896 – December 21, 1940) was an American writer of novels and short stories, whose works have been seen as evocative of the Jazz Age, a term he himself allegedly coined. Fitzgerald had been an alcoholic since his college days, and became notorious during the 1920s for his extraordinarily heavy drinking, leaving him in poor health by the late 1930s. On the night of December 20, 1940, he had a heart attack, and the next day, December 21, while awaiting a visit from his doctor, Fitzgerald collapsed and died. He was 44.

2. James Joyce

Bernice Abbott James Joyce 1926

James Augustine Aloysius Joyce (2 February 1882 – 13 January 1941) was an Irish expatriate writer, widely considered to be one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. He is best known for his landmark novel Ulysses (1922) and its highly controversial successor Finnegans Wake (1939). Joyce lived in Dublin for many years, binge drinking the whole time. His drinking episodes occasionally caused fights in the local pubs.

1. Ernest Hemingway

Hemingway-Ernest-Hemingway-Portret

Ernest Miller Hemingway (July 21, 1899 – July 2, 1961) was an American novelist, short-story writer, and journalist. Nicknaming himself “Papa” while still in his 20s, he was part of the 1920s expatriate community in Paris known as “the Lost Generation”, as described in his memoir A Moveable Feast. Throughout his life, Hemingway had been a heavy drinker, succumbing to alcoholism in his later years during which time he suffered from increasing physical and mental problems. In July 1961, after being released from a mental hospital where he’d been treated for severe depression, he committed suicide at his home in Ketchum, Idaho with a shotgun.

Henri Toulouse Lautrec and  Paul Gauguin both died from the results of alcoholism. They also were in the film “Midnight in Paris.” Actually you can go through all 30 of the characters I have discussed and I think you will be quite shocked at how many became alcoholics.

Now to the answer. Several years ago I got to hear Pat Summerall speak here in Little Rock and I actually got to ask him a question. Below is his moving testimony and how he overcame alcoholism.

Pat Summerall: A Divine Intervention

 

CBN.comA LEGEND IS BORN

Pat Summerall was the signature voice of sports broadcasting in America. Over the years, millions of viewers have welcomed him into their homes, as the voice of NFL football. He’s been part of televised football from its early days. Though he broadcast from the first Superbowl, and many since, he’s had a love for the game well before the “Superbowl” even existed. As a professional football player, he is best known as the kicker for the legendary New York Giants of the late ’50s and ’60s. He started playing football in his small hometown in Florida. He actually played multiple sports and was good at all he tried. When he headed off for college, he turned down a few offers because they wouldn’t let him play both football and basketball, and he didn’t want to choose between his two loves. In college, he played both, but after a while he decided to stick with football and see where it took him. It’s taken him from the Detroit Lions, to the New York Giants, to the Sportscaster’s Hall of Fame, with numerous stops along the way.

Pat’s broadcast career was something he hadn’t planned on pursuing, but rather something that just kind of happened. He “walked-on” for an audition with CBS radio and got the part. Just that easy, his broadcasting career took off and he was launched into stardom. He went from radio to television, even hosting the morning news for a stint on CBS. Through his career, Pat encountered and interacted with numerous celebrities and professional athletes who are legends themselves. Pat continued his broadcast career with CBS for 32 years. In addition to his coverage of football, he was also the network’s signature voice for its golf coverage, including the Masters, the U.S. Open Tennis Championships, the NBA and five Heavyweight Championship Fights. In 1999, Summerall was inducted into the American Sportscaster’s Association’s Hall of Fame.

OFF-AIR AND OUT OF CONTROL

With fame and money, came opportunity and that opportunity for Pat was to live in a self-indulgent way. Though he had a wife and children waiting at home, Pat spent much of his time on the road with other athletes and broadcasters. He was sucked in by the seductive world around him. He spent much of his time in bars, and when he wasn’t in a bar, alcohol was widely available at sporting events. Over time, Pat became an alcoholic. His behavior wasn’t only hurting himself, it was hurting his family. When his family and friends staged an intervention, one of his daughters wrote a letter saying she was ashamed to share his last name. Pat agreed to go to rehab at the Betty Ford Clinic in 1992.

A NEW THIRST

While in rehab, Pat spent much of his time reading one of the two books available in his room, the Bible. He found that the thirst for knowledge about God and faith was replacing his thirst for alcohol. He found Jesus and gave up alcohol. He was later baptized and now shares his faith with others. His spirit was renewed, but years of drinking took a toll on his body. He has battled through serious health issues, including liver failure and the subsequent liver transplant, but continues to trust God through it all.

______________________________________

Midnight in Paris: The Lost Generation Reborn
Owen Wilson

Satire is a reactionary art form powered by contempt for the present. Although Woody Allen, now 75, has always espoused conventionally liberal views, he’s one of the last figures in American culture unaffected by the 1960s’ faux egalitarianism.

Having turned 21 in 1956, Woody’s enthusiasms remain those of a cultured mid-century New Yorker. In his famous speech at the end of 1979’s Manhattan on what makes life worth living, Allen references Mozart, Flaubert, Cézanne, Louis Armstrong, Groucho Marx, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Willie Mays, and Ingmar Bergman—in other words, nobody from the 1960s or 1970s. Like Ralph Lauren, Woody Allen has always been an old-fashioned snob.

In his delightful new romantic fantasy Midnight in Paris, Allen takes on a challenge similar to Evelyn Waugh in Brideshead Revisited: recreating a vanished golden age. To Woody, it’s the 1920s Paris of the Lost Generation modernists.

Midnight in Paris stars Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers) as The Woody Allen Character: a well-paid but artistically frustrated Malibu script doctor named Gil who is struggling to finish his literary novel about a nostalgia shop. This is less of a stretch for Wilson than you’d think: Before getting sidetracked into Hollywood stardom, the blond Texan star cowrote Wes Anderson’s first three movies. Here, Wilson’s guileless boyishness and prep-school politeness make him hugely likable in the role of a kvetching rich guy. Gil is vacationing in Paris with his unappreciative fiancée (Rachel McAdams, her hair dyed blonde and tousled to look like Allen favorite Scarlett Johansson).

“Like Ralph Lauren, Woody Allen has always been an old-fashioned snob.”

Woody’s modern Paris looks stereotypically superb. Allen sets his camera exactly where generations of postcard photographers have stood to shoot the Eiffel Tower, the Paris Opera, and Montmartre’s Basilique du Sacré-Cœur. Not surprisingly, the only modern Parisian landmark that meets Woody’s approval is I. M. Pei’s glass pyramid addition to the Louvre. The inside-out 1977 Centre Pompidou is conspicuously absent.

In contrast to Jonathan Demme’s 2002 dud, The Truth About Charlie, which exulted in a multiracial Paris that didn’t seem much different from Houston, Woody has no interest in the Paris of immigrant Muslim youths setting cars on fire. His Paris, like his New York, is 95 percent white, with the remainder stylish blacks.

Gorgeous as it may look, contemporary Paris bores Gil. Instead, he’s fascinated that he’s walking the same streets as his 1920s idols. A favorable post-WWI exchange rate made Paris cheap for affluent Midwesterners such as Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Cole Porter. Those artists weren’t starving. The title of Hemingway’s Parisian memoir, A Moveable Feast, can be read literally: A three-course dinner with wine cost $0.20 back then.

While Gil is out walking one midnight, an ancient Duesenberg limousine full of young flappers pulls up and carries him back in time to a 1927 Charleston dance party where Porter is pounding out on the piano his new song “Let’s Do It (Let’s Fall in Love).” Paul Johnson observed, “The keynote of the 1920s musical was joy, springing from an extraordinary exuberance in the delight of being alive and American.” Joy is the dominant emotion Woody conveys in his movie about an American in Paris.

Every midnight, Gil hops in the limo and meets more legends. Fitzgerald introduces Gil to Hemingway, who speaks only in oracular run-on sentences about courage and grace and manhood. Hemingway takes him to meet Gertrude Stein (a businesslike Kathy Bates), Picasso, and Matisse. The funniest cameo is Adrien Brody’s impression of surrealist Salvador Dali (or, as he refers to himself in the third person, “dah-LEEEE”). Brody plays the mannered Spaniard as a confident version of Manuel the Waiter from Fawlty Towers.

Cheap as Paris was for foreigners, how could modern Gil pay for all this high-class socializing with a wallet of credit cards and Euros? What could you bring from the present that would be accepted as payment in 1927? Gold coins?  Yet the question, “How can he pay for all that?” can be asked about every character in every Woody Allen movie. Plausibility be damned, Woody just likes expensive-looking stuff.

With contemporary characters, all this conspicuous consumption can be irritating because they are outcompeting us. In contrast, Woody’s love of opulence is pleasing when set in the past. Fitzgerald’s Marcelled hairdo of shiny waves would be annoying if, say, Justin Timberlake were paying to have it done now. Yet when a style is 85 years out of fashion, it’s hard not to enjoy it.

Allen is aware that 1920s artists are dauntingly esoteric material for 21st-century audiences, so he keeps his jokes on the nose. It’s all very predictable for anybody who has seen a half-dozen Woody Allen movies. Still, watching a master craftsman rummage through his well-worn bag of tricks with the sole intention of making his audience happy for 90 minutes is deliriously infectious.

 

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about the saving the American dream project released May 10, 2011? (Part 2)

Further Reforms to Modernize Social Security — Saving the American Dream

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beachis one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, and today are some of the conclusions of this study.

The Bottom Line:
Static Analysis and CBO Current Law
Baseline

On the revenue side,[7] the Heritage plan reforms the tax code as
described in the Tax Reform section by creating a new labor and business tax
system. The static estimates of tax changes were developed by introducing these
changes into the CDA tax models. The resulting estimates show revenues reaching
approximately 16.9 percent of GDP in 2013 and increasing to 18.5 percent in
2022, where they remain throughout the remaining forecast period. The
Peterson/CBO baseline, on the other hand, shows revenues rising from 18.8
percent of GDP in 2013 to 23.3 percent in 2035.

On the outlay side, changes to nearly every major spending category sharply
reduce the spending estimates under the Heritage plan. The plan starts with
spending at 22.1 percent of GDP in 2012—roughly $188 billion lower than the
baseline—by assuming some cuts in discretionary spending. Outlays drop
significantly thereafter. By 2021, spending stands at 18.1 percent of GDP and
ends the forecast period in 2035 at 17.7 percent of GDP. In contrast, the
baseline projects outlays at 24 percent of GDP in 2021 and 28.3 percent in
2035.

Given this much lower spending path and steady revenue growth, the Heritage
plan achieves low deficits and then fiscal balance during the forecast period. A
balanced budget appears in 2021 and 2022 and the budget remains balanced in each
subsequent year through the simulation. The baseline shows worsening deficits
throughout the forecast period. By 2035, the fiscal deficit stands at a 5
percent of GDP in the current law baseline.

Taxes. Under the Heritage plan, the tax system is reformed, and
revenue is capped at its historical level of 18.5 percent of GDP. The plan
replaces the current six tax brackets and payroll taxes with one simple flat
rate that applies to all corporate, small business, and personal income,
excluding savings and a few other deductions, and produces that needed level of
revenue (18.5 percent of GDP).

The Heritage tax model estimates that these reforms will save taxpayers an
average of almost $280 billion annually over the next 10 years compared with the
current law baseline. By 2021, total tax savings will exceed $3.1 trillion. Many
taxpayers will immediately see a significant reduction in their tax burden. For
example, those with small business income will see an average tax reduction of
about $8,000 in 2012, rising to $11,000 by 2014. By 2014, households filing
jointly will see an average tax reduction of about $4,000, while college
students will see an average reduction of about $3,000. In 2014, seniors with
Social Security income will on average owe about half what they currently owe
($5,500 down from $11,000).

Many tax provisions have strong effects on other
elements of the budget. For example, health care benefits are no longer excluded
from taxation, but are replaced by a health care tax credit. This change will
make total compensation more transparent and in most cases quickly lead
employers to provide more compensation in the form of cash, which will encourage
employees to make more efficient purchases of health insurance. The credit is
available to all taxpayers, regardless of insurance offering by their place of
work, therefore promoting tax equity and limiting “job lock.”[8]