The Heritage plan achieves fiscal balance by ensuring that tax receipts will
match government expenditures. If no action is taken, the deficit in the current
law baseline is 3.2 percent of GDP in 2021 and 5 percent in 2035. The Heritage
plan balances the federal budget by 2021, with spending and revenues each
reaching 18.5 percent of GDP. The budget stays balanced without exceeding those
levels through the entire time frame. This leads to a sharp reduction in debt as
a percentage of GDP. In the extended baseline scenario, debt climbs to 91.5
percent of GDP by 2035. The Heritage plan reduces the debt by two-thirds to 30
percent of GDP. A smaller national debt results in savings to taxpayers as
interest payments fall sharply from an annual share of 4.6 percent of GDP to 1.7
percent in the Heritage plan, a savings of more than $1 trillion each year.
Reduced interest payments on the national debt account for almost one-third of
the reduced government spending, which is a result of the strong budget reforms
contained in the Heritage plan.
Stuart M. Butleris Distinguished
Fellow and Director of the Center for Policy Innovation, Alison Acosta Fraser
is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and William W.
Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis, at The Heritage
Foundation. The editors are grateful to the team leaders who worked with policy
experts throughout The Heritage Foundation to develop this report: J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture
Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy; Rea S. Hederman, Jr., Assistant
Director and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis; David C. John, Senior Research Fellow in
Retirement Security and Financial Institutions; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Senior
Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; Nina Owcharenko, Director of the
Center for Health Policy Studies; and Brian
M. Riedl, Grover M. Hermann Research Fellow in Federal Budgetary
Affairs.
_______
This plan was developed as part of the Solutions Initiative and funded by the
Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
The Peterson Foundation convened organizations with a variety of perspectives
to develop plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The American
Enterprise Institute, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress,
Economic Policy Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and Roosevelt Institute
Campus Network each received grants. All organizations had discretion and
independence to develop their own goals and propose comprehensive solutions. The
Peterson Foundation’s involvement with this project does not represent
endorsement of any plan. The final plans developed by all six organizations will
be presented as part of the Peterson Foundation’s second annual Fiscal Summit in
May 2011.
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.
I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:
Reforming the Federal Budget Process. When Congress established its current budget process in 1974, the United States was in debt by about a half-trillion dollars; it is now in debt over $14 trillion. Regrettably, for any proposal to deal with the nation’s fiscal problems, the budget process does little to help and in many ways impedes good and bold policy. For one thing, its focus on just 10 years diverts lawmakers from dealing with the mounting long-term challenges, such as retirement programs. For another, the lack of firm budget controls and enforcement procedures makes fiscal discipline very difficult. Reforming the budget process is therefore an implicit part of reforming the budget itself.
In the Heritage plan, we change the budget process to impose enforceable caps to reduce total federal spending to 18.5 percent of GDP by 2021 (including entitlement programs) and then keep spending at that level. Within those overall caps we also cap non-defense discretionary spending at 2.0 percent of GDP. Anti-poverty spending is also capped, as described above. These statutory restrictions on future spending are to be no higher than the modern historical level of federal revenues.
We also propose amending existing federal laws that provide permanent or indefinite appropriations for federal agencies or programs (including and especially entitlement programs), or that allow agencies or programs to spend funds they receive from fees or other sources, rather than depositing them in the U.S. Treasury, so as to retrieve congressional control of spending for those agencies and programs. Within our specific reforms for Medicare and Medicaid we also include a fixed budget amount for each program.
To make the budget process more visible, understandable, and accountable to the American people, we require Congress to estimate and publish the projected cost over 75 years of any proposed policy or funding level for each significant federal program. Any major policy change should also be scored over this long-term horizon.
Finally, in addition to calculating the costs of proposed congressional actions without regard to the response of the economy to those actions (known as “static” scoring), we require a parallel calculation that takes account of that response (known as “dynamic” scoring) so as to make more practical and useful cost information available to Congress when it decides whether to pursue the actions.
The Bottom Line
Runaway federal spending threatens to drown the nation in taxes and debt for generations to come. Promoting economic prosperity requires streamlining government, cutting spending, and empowering families and entrepreneurs.
The Heritage plan achieves those objectives by focusing Washington on performing a limited number of appropriate duties well rather than a wider range of questionable duties poorly. It transfers more power to state and local governments, which are closer and more responsive to the people; transfers functions to the private sector that the market can perform better; targets federal spending more precisely to those in need; and eliminates wasteful, unnecessary, and duplicative spending.
These steps will unleash the power of the private sector to meet market demands, create jobs, and raise living standards. Taking these steps, combined with entitlement and tax reform, means that Americans can look forward to opportunity and prosperity rather than a future of debt and economic decline.
Over and over the people representing us in Washington say they want to get serious about reducing our national debt and they want to balance the budget. One big step in the right direction would be to eliminate the Dept of Education which spends over 100 billion every year.
1. The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to be involved in education. Eliminating the department on those grounds would help to reestablish the original understanding of the enumerated powers of the federal government.
2. No matter how brilliantly designed a federal government program may be, it creates a uniformity among states that is harmful to creativity and improvement. Getting the federal government out of the picture would allow states and local governments to create better ways of addressing education issues and problems.
3. If education were left at the local level, parents would become more involved in reform efforts. Differences in school effectiveness among states and communities would be noted, and other regions would copy the more effective programs and policies.
4. The contest between Congress and state legislatures to demonstrate who cares more about education would be over, allowing members of Congress to focus on areas and problems for which they have legitimate responsibility.
5. Since most information about the problems and challenges of education is present at the local level, Congress simply does not have the ability to improve learning in school classrooms thousands of miles away. These problems are best understood and addressed by local authorities and parents.
6. The inevitable pattern of bureaucracy is to grow bigger and bigger. The Department of Education should be eliminated now, before it evolves into an even larger entity consuming more and more resources that could be better spent by parents themselves.
7. The $47.6 billion spent each year by the Department of Education could be much better spent if it were simply returned to the American people in the form of a tax cut. Parents themselves could then decide how best to spend that money. (Actually in 2011 it will be over 100 billion)
8. The Department of Education has a record of waste and abuse. For example, the department reported losing track of $450 million during three consecutive General Accounting Office audits.
9. The Department of Education is an expensive failure that has added paperwork and bureaucracy but little value to the nation’s classrooms.
BOEHNER: Screaming “Hell no you can’t!” Ah, the good old days.
Slate has a running update of the debt ceiling debate in Washington. So far it looks like Speaker of the House John Boehner will have the votes in the House to pass his plan. Sen. Harry Reidhas said the bill will be defeated when considered in the Senate.
“As soon as the House completes its vote tonight, the Senate will move to take up that bill,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “It will be defeated. No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now.”
_____________________________
Harry Reid and the Democrats have not lifted a finger to cut federal spending and the markets know it. I am disappointed in Boehner’s recent attempt to get a bill together. It really does not cut spending much either. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes us through the figures.
House Speaker John Boehner has revised his budget plan in response to an unfavorable analysis by the CBO. The CBO has examined Boehner’s new plan and finds that it would cut spending by $917 billion over 10 years. Of the total, only $761 billion would be cuts to programs. The rest of the savings would be from reduced interest costs.
Actually, the revised Boehner plan doesn’t cut spending at all. The chart shows the discretionary spending caps in the new Boehner plan. Spending increases every year—from $1.043 trillion in 2012 to $1,234 trillion in 2021. (These figures exclude the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
The “cuts” in the Boehner plan are only cuts from the CBO baseline, which is an assumed path of constantly rising spending. If Congress wanted to, it could require CBO to increase its “baseline” spending by, say, $5 trillion over the next decade. Then Boehner could claim that he was “cutting” spending by $5.9 trillion, even though his plan hadn’t changed. You can see that discretionary “cuts” against baselines don’t mean anything.
The way to make real spending cuts is to abolish programs and agencies. But it’s been eight months since a landslide election that focused on the issue of spending cuts, and the Republican leadership hasn’t proposed any major terminations.
Senator Tom Coburn told us exactly where he wants to cut spending in this 620-page report. Senator Rand Paul has detailed $500 billion in specific cuts. Where are the spending cut plans of the other fiscal conservatives in Congress?
Members need to step up to the plate and tell us where they would cut the budget. (For help, they can look here). The reality of ongoing $1 trillion deficits is that Congress has to start abolishing programs, privatizing activities, and making other lasting reforms. Promising to reduce spending growth a bit from projected baseline increases won’t do the job.
In the article “When a state legislator’s brain shorts out…,” July 28, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, Brummett was critical of recent statements by Representative Nate Bell of Mena. Brummett was critical of these Tea Party types not only because they sometimes mispeak but also because the Tea Party is taking the country in a direction that Brummett detests. He asserted:
For one thing, and in the immediate term, it may be that our government’s credit rating will be downgraded to the point that interest costs will rise for beleaguered Americans’ mortgages and car loans.
Let me make two points here. First, the term Tea Party is being used by Brummett for any right wing person he does not like.
One sign of the tea party movement’s success is that the term “tea party” is becoming an all-purpose smear term for any more-or-less right-wing person or activity that the writer doesn’t like. In fact, I think “Tea Party” is replacing “neocon” as an all-purpose word for “the people I hate.”
Second, Brummett claims it the Republicans who want to default, but is the Democrats who are refusing to cut the budget in a way we can lower this 1.7 trillion deficit for this year!!!!
The huge deficits are the problem. People want the debt ceiling raised, but if the huge deficits continue then what is the use? The article below shows how our government will have their credit rating devalued UNLESS WE STOP RUNNING UP BIG DEFICTIS EVERY YEAR!!
Americans, and global financial markets, are watching Washington nervously for a real plan—one that will put the nation squarely on a path to solving our twin crises of spending and debt. Without strong structural changes in spending, our debt will balloon out of control.
At stake are two issues. The short-term is obvious – will there be an increase in the debt limit before August 3? Despite the President and his team practically begging Wall Street to collapse, the markets and the rating agencies believe that there will be an increase and the federal government can safely avoid the chaos of prioritizing its bills in order to service the debt. Though they warn of the consequences if this doesn’t happen, Standard & Poor’s, has stated that
…the risk of a payment default is small, though increasing…Standard and Poor’s still anticipates that lawmakers will raise the debt ceiling by the end of July to avoid those outcomes.”
The second and even more crucial issue is whether Congress will take necessary action beyond the next year to bring our debt under control over the medium and long-term. This is where the rating agencies really voice their strong concern. Again, Standard & Poor’s:
Congress and the Administration might also settle for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling, or they might agree to a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio.”
Moody’s response is similar:
The outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.
What the rating agencies are saying is that Congress and the President must pass legislation that immediately begins to rein in deficits and bring our debt down to more acceptable levels, and either keeps it there or continues to drive it down further.
_____________________________
We need more lawmakers like Nate Bell who want to get our country back to the tax level we were at many years ago. Our founding fathers would be SHOCKED IF THEY CAME BACK TODAY AND SAW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS SPENDING OVER 24% OF GDP.
You almost have to feel bad for Arkansas Democrats…almost. With the last remaining Arkansas Congressional Democrat, Mike Ross, announcing he will not run for re-election, they are facing the realization that the entire Arkansas delagation – save Sen. Mark Pryor who is not up until 2014 – could turn red in the next cycle. They are just coming off a tidal wave 2010 election which saw Republicans in the state capitol close to double in ranks. And with the unpopular President Obama leading their ticket in 2012, it is likely to get even worse for them.
It is so bad that Politico this week had the healine “Arkansas Democrats Face Extinction.” Ouch!
It is almost understandable then that they are doing everything they can to hang on to power – whether it is creative map drawing or trying to seize every opportunity to paint Republicans as crazy extremists. Granted, frequent e-mails circulating the Internet make for easy targets. But the over-the-top reaction to an ill-advised Facebook post from a Republican state representative has been both amusing and a bit annoying at the same time.
_________________________
John Brummett Says: July 28th, 2011 at 10:39 am ill-advised? understatement, you think? for the record, i care much less whether democrats or republicans win arkansas political races than whether the republican party can extricate itself from the cranks and kooks and affronts to advanced civilization represented by this kind of outrageously ignorant comment — a process a couple of republicans could begin right here right now by denouncing this guy’s outrage on specific merit and in unambiguous terms, not dismissing it defensively for purely partisan motivation
____________________
If you look at the unbelievable comments that Democrats have made the last two years when they have crammed Obamacare down our throats then you could really come up with so crazy comments. Obama says the whole Obamacare debate will be on CSpan then he retreats with Nancy and does it in private and she says, “You will find out what is in it when we pass it.”
I still think that Tolbert has it right. It makes me think that the Democrat Party of Arkansas is acting much like Florida Alantic’s announcer did last year in the ASU game.
With Arkansas St. leading 37-16 late in the game, Lamont lost his marbles after FAU quarterback Jeff Van Camp scrambled, slid and then took a hit in the head by an Arkansas St. defender.
It should have been a flag. But, as we are reminded on a weekly basis, sometimes officials miss calls. It happens. Well, Lamont was in no mood for oversights. And his subsequent on-air rant was hilariously intense. Here it is:
Florida Alantic was losing at the time and that is why I have compared them to the Arkansas Democratic Party. Jason Tolbert hit the nail on the head in his comments. Is it any wonder that liberal Democrat Michael Cook revealed the Democrats next play in the playbook: “Remarks like the ones made by Nate Bell and Jon Hubbard, without apologies, should be highlighted by Democrats”
I don’t think this strategy of the Democrats will work since it President Obama and the liberals in Washington that have caused the largest pick up of seats by Republicans in Arkansas’ history. IT STILL COMES DOWN TO THE ISSUES.
Congress’s dance with the debt limit can be confusing and, frankly, the details can be a real snooze fest for many Americans. Sometimes a little humor clarifies the absurdities of Washington antics better than flow charts and talk of trillions.
The 31-second video and accompanying infographic “The Debt Ceiling Explained” by Bankrupting America offers the facts, leavened with a dose of levity. The conclusion is serious, however: The country’s debt threatens economic growth, and spending cuts are the answer.
_________________________
It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and written every Republican that represents Arkansans in Arkansas before (Griffin, Womack, Crawford, and only Senator Boozman got a chance to respond) concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.
What would happen if the debt ceiling was not increased? Yes President Obama would probably cancel White House tours and he would try to stop mail service or something else to get on our nerves but that is what the Republicans need to do.
Amy Winehouse died at age 27 and unfornately joined the “27 club” which is made of famous rockers that died at age 27. Pete Ham was a member of Bad Finger which was one of my favorite groups that I followed. “Come and get it” was my favorite song of theirs.
___________________________________
Badfinger perform a lipsync to their song Without You – made most famous by Harry Nilsson, Mariah Carey, Il Divo, Shirley Bassey, Clay Aiken, Heart, and even Frank Sinatra did this onstage. Pete Ham and Tom Evans wrote it. Ham also wrote Baby Blue, Day After Day, Name Of The Game, and Lonely You. Great site on badfinger http://www.badfingerlibrary.com
If ever a band was cursed by good fortune, it was Badfinger. The first band signed to Apple Records, they scored several hit singles right out of the gate. But it’s no secret that the Beatles were better musicians than label heads, and soon their protégés were adrift in a sea of bad contracts and diminishing returns. The low point came when a crooked business manager began withholding money from Ham shortly after he’d bought a house and shortly before the birth of his daughter. Combined with what he perceived to be his failure as a recording artist and the intractability of his business affairs, his inability to earn money led Ham to despair. The band’s most distinctive singer and one of its primary songwriters hanged himself in his garage on April 24, 1975, three days shy of his 28th birthday. (To make a sad story sadder: Ham’s bandmate Tom Evans also hanged himself, eight years later.)
Badfinger Doc 1 of 6
Badfinger Doc 2 of 6
Badfinger Doc 3 of 6
Badfinger Doc 4 of 6
Badfinger Doc 5 of 6
Badfinger Doc 6 of 6
________________________
I highly recommend Bill Muehlenberg’s website. He looks into modern culture from a Christian perspective. I wanted to share with you a great article he wrote recently concerning Amy Winehouse.
As everyone now knows, troubled singer Amy Winehouse passed away on Saturday. She was as famous for her drug and alcohol-plagued life as her musical career. The English singer-songwriter had a short but controversial run with fame as a musician.
While it is still somewhat early to state with any sort of certainty, it seems her death was due to her on-going struggles with substance abuse, and perhaps to some mental-health problems she was also dealing with. The talented singer who was also known for her foul-mouth was born into a Jewish home.
But she seems to have moved beyond her religious roots. And as many have already noted, her death at just 27 years of age puts her into a club of other famous rock stars and musicians who also died at that age, often due to similar problems. Consider this short list of some of the more well known examples of this:
-Brian Jones (Rolling Stones), died July 1969, drug related
-Jimi Hendrix, died September 1970, drug overdose
-Janis Joplin, died October 1970, drug overdose
-Jim Morrison (Doors), died July 1971, drug overdose
-Kurt Cobain (Nirvana), died April 1994, suicide
Many other lesser known musicians have also passed away at age 27. One has to ask just what is it about the rock star and celebrity culture that seems to lead to such tragic and untimely deaths, due to such reckless lifestyles. It probably comes down to a combination of factors as young people seek to deal with their newfound fame and fortune.
It seems that such hard living, hard rocking and hard partying lifestyles are not very helpful to health and longevity. But while not everyone will be familiar with Winehouse and her work, perhaps even fewer people will be aware of Danniella Westbrook and her work.
I for one was not aware of her until I saw a news report about her in today’s press. It seems that she too was another wild, drug-taking celeb who was on a path of self-destruction. By her own description, she too was headed for an early grave.
The English actress was heading down the celebrity highway to an early exit, but unlike the other famous names mentioned above, she was rescued by a divine encounter. A relationship with Christ has turned her life around. Here is how the story covers this radical transformation:
“Danniella Westbrook, who starred as Samantha Mitchell in award-winning soap drama Eastenders which is shown on UKTV, said she is dedicating the rest of her life to the evangelical The Sanctuary in Westminster, California, after being ‘saved by Jesus Christ.’ Pop star Katy Perry’s parents Keith and Mary Hudson are pastors at the church. ‘Gucci and Prada used to be my God. Now I have given my life to the Lord,’ Westbrook, whose nose was ravaged by snorting cocaine, told the Mirror in the UK.
“‘If you had told me two years ago that I was going to be Christian, I would have laughed. I used to tell people, “I’m way past saving”.’ Westbrook quit Eastenders and moved with her husband to California where the couple were introduced to former drug addict and professional skateboarder turned pastor, Jay Haizlip, by mutual friends. Haizlip is senior pastor of The Sanctuary.
“‘The first time I came to this church, I felt something so spiritual and amazing, I wanted to cry,’ 37-year-old Westbrook said. ‘After a few visits I found myself walking up to the altar to ask the Lord for forgiveness for my sins. It was an incredible experience. I have realised that there have been things I have struggled with, like guilt, that I would have never found a solution for. Because there are things that a therapist cannot give me – that I can only get from Jesus Christ.’
“Westbrook, who made repeated suicide attempts when addicted to cocaine and saw her weight plummet to 38kg (6 stone). She says she would have spent $375,000 on cocaine. ‘I feel that me working on EastEnders and becoming a Christian might be God’s way of leading people to the Lord,’ she said.”
Wow, that is quite a story, and quite a contrast to the life of Winehouse, who as far as we know, never had such a life-changing encounter with the risen Christ. Jesus Christ is in the business of changing lives, and setting people free from their destructive addictions and harmful lifestyles.
It is a pity that more troubled and needy celebs and pop stars have not realised the truths which Danniella has, and have allowed a loving Father to help redeem their messed up lives. God yearns to break into these lives and turn them around by his power and grace.
Please keep Danniella in prayer. It sounds like she is a rather new Christian, and there will be lots of pressure put on her to go back to her old destructive ways. Pray that she grows in her faith and develops her powerful testimony even further, becoming a beacon for others to find hope and new life in Christ.
midnight in paris transports you to the stein salons in paris during the 1920’s.
in one scene, gertrude stein (played by kathy bates), is seated in the salon of her residence at 27 rue des fleures in front of the picasso portrait of gertrude stein from the exhibition.
stein and picasso (played by argentinian actor, marical di fonzo bo) are discussing a (faux) portrait of picasso’s (fictional) mistress, adriana (played by marion cotillard).
tHenri Matissehe midnight in paris cast of characters also includes gertrude stein’s brother, leo stein (1872-1947), her partner, alice b. toklas (1877-1967) (who answers the front door), and other avant-garde artists, writers, or musicians who could have frequented the stein salons in paris during the 1920’s.
cameo appearances include:
artist
salvatore dali (played by adrien brody)
photographer
man ray (played by tom cordier)
writers
ernest hemingway (played by corey stoll)
f. scott (and zelda) fitzgerald (played by tom hiddleston and alison pill)
t.s. eliott (played by david lowe)
filmmaker luis bunuel (played by adrien de van)
and, musician
Nelson Terry is new to the world of movie reviews, but not to movies.
Midnight in Paris is a 2011 film by Woody Allen. It stars Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Adrien Brody, Kathy Bates, Tom Hiddleton, Kurt Fuller, Mimi Kennedy, Michael Sheen, Alison Pill, Corey Stoll, Carla Bruni, and Lea Seydoux. it is currently showing at Market Street Cinema and at Rave Motion Pictures Theaters in Little Rock.
This is my first Woody Allen movie. I think this may be his 40th or 41st film, and I am just now getting to him.
The film begins with a cinematic montage of famous Parisian locales. It’s pretty obvious this film is a love letter to the city. Then we get the opening title sequence, and hear the voices of Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez (Rachel McAdams). What becomes obvious after the first minute that this engaged couple is completely mismatched. That they are engaged (much less together at all) makes no sense. Inez (who is totally unlikable) has no interests in Gil’s interests, he has no interest in hers. And it turns out she may not even respect him at all, there are several scenes in which she talks to him as if he were a child. Gil wishes to ditch his successful yet unfulfilling career as a Hollywood screenwriter and become a novelist, Inez think this is silly. Her unlikable parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy) are even more dismissive of Gil than Inez is. That Gil and Inez are even a couple isn’t at all believable, but maybe that’s the point.
Things get going when an inebriated Gil leaves Inez with her friends. He attempts to walk off the wine, and a 1920’s era car pulls up to him, and the people inside beckon him in. The car turns out to be Woody Allen’s version of Doc Brown’s DeLorean, and Gil finds himself in the Roaring Twenties.
“If you’re gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?” – Doc Brown
Our funny-nosed hero arrives in a party attended by none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleton), his girl Zelda (Alison Pill), and a hardened Ernest Hemingway. He later meets Pablo Picasso, Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody), and Picasso’s muse named Adrianna (Marion Cotillard, who shines even when the movie does not) who studied fashion under the wing of Coco Chanel. At first, I thought that Gil was merely drunk and/or delusional. The historical figures seemed not to resemble real-life people, but exaggerated versions of their biographies. It later becomes clear that yes, he did indeed travel through time. He goes back and forth from the past to the present, and does this while acknowledging and dealing with a personal crisis. While that sounds like it would lead to a satisfying conclusion, it ultimately does not.
There are multiple levels of nostalgia on display here. Internally, Gil is nostalgic for his idealized version of 1920’s-era Paris. Externally, film critics and Woody Allen fans are nostalgic for the high standard of films Allen used to make. Many of them seem to be giving this one a pass simply because it’s:
‘…better than anything he’s done in a decade!’
The consensus seems to be that it’s been a while since Allen has done a superb film. While that may certainly be true, that’s not the proper way to judge a film. We shouldn’t be judging Midnight in Paris on whether it makes up for his mediocre recent films. The question should be:
Does this film stand firm on its own?
In my opinion, no. Gil and Adrianna are the only characters with any real dimension in this film. The time-travel scenes are packed to the brim with talented actors and actresses playing legendary authors, but that’s precisely the problem. Each of them does what they can with such limited screen time, but it’s all for naught. There’s so many of them, that none of them can claim enough screen time to make an emotional impact. It’s all just fluff. Pretty, Parisian fluff. And the present-day scenes are just flat-out painful. Every present-day character apart from Gil (and maybe the street vendor, played by Lea Seydoux) is a loathsome caricature. Versatile actress Rachael McAdams’ is reduced to playing a one-note harpy. She’s had more human roles in films such as epic tearjerker The Notebook and even Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes. Midnight in Paris might has worked had Allen chose not to have Gil go back-and-forth from past to present-day, but to simply have one time travel sequence that took up the bulk of the movie. A lot of top-notch talent in this picture, but most of it goes to waste.
This is the fourth movie I’ve seen that stars Marion Cotillard (also Inception, Nine, and Public Enemies), and she’s played sad/tragic roles in all four (great roles, don’t get me wrong). I’d like to see at least one movie where she has a happy ending. I like Cotillard, I think she’s one of the best current actresses in Hollywood (or anywhere else).
I can’t completely dismiss the film. There are some good moments (mostly the scenes when Gil allows himself to have a good time), but those moments are fleeting. Midnight in Paris wants to say something deep, but lacks the courage to go all-in.
But then again, maybe this is just Woody Allen’s style, and maybe I’m just not a Woody Allen fan.
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.
I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:
Replacing Farm Subsidies with Farmer Savings Accounts. Intended to remedy low crop prices and farmer poverty, the current farm subsidy system does neither. Farm subsidies encourage overplanting, which drives prices down further, necessitating even more subsidies. Moreover, rather than focusing on low-income farmers, most farm subsidies go to commercial farmers who report an average annual income of nearly $200,000. Claims that the agriculture industry could not survive without large subsidies are contradicted by the fact that nearly all subsidies go to growers of just five crops (wheat, cotton, corn,
soybeans, and rice), while fruit, vegetable, livestock, and poultry operations thrive with almost no government aid.
The real problem—yearly income fluctuations due to crop and weather
unpredictability—can be solved inexpensively with farmer savings accounts. Under the Heritage plan, growers of all crops, not just the “big five,” can save money during boom years in tax-deductible IRA-style accounts and withdraw those funds during bust years as taxable income, thus smoothing out their yearly income fluctuations. An improved no-net-cost crop insurance system will assist when major disasters deplete most farmers’ accounts. All farmers can participate in the new system regardless of income or crop grown and at a fraction of the current costtotaxpayers.
Capping and Reforming Antipoverty Spending. Since 1990, federal
antipoverty spending, including Medicaid, has expanded 236 percent faster than inflation, from $190 billion to $639 billion (an increase of 2.2 percent of GDP). Antipoverty spending has grown as much as Social Security, Medicare, defense, and education spending combined. Overall, the federal government spends approximately $28,000 per family with children in the bottom third of the income table without encouraging independence. Many of the programs do not include enforced work requirements and continue to reward illegitimacy and other destructive behaviors that block the road to independence. Once the unemployment rate drops back to normal levels (projected in 2014), the Heritage plan returns total federal antipoverty spending to its 2007 level (adjusted for inflation) and then caps total spending growth at the inflation rate (using the medical inflation rate for the health care portion). Congress or states could shift spending among antipoverty programs to increase effectiveness
as long as total spending does not exceed the cap. This cap and flexibility will force lawmakers at all levels to reexamine the size and goals of the welfare state and tailor assistance more efficiently to help families escape poverty and dependence and achieve independence.
Other Spending Reforms. Multiple federal programs should be returned to the state or local levels. For instance, there is no compelling reason for Washington to finance local job training, justice, environmental, or community and economic development programs. Therefore, the plan eliminates these federal grant programs with the expectation that state and local governmentswill determine whether to address these local issues with local funds and be held accountable by local voters. Energy research and development spending that is commercial in nature is moved to the private sector. Lawmakers are also expected to pare $15 billion in costs associated with the estimated $125 billion in annual federal payment errors.
Asset Sales. The federal government currently owns and controls vast
assets, including huge swaths of commercial land, especially in the West; power generation facilities; valuable portions of the electromagnetic spectrum; underutilized buildings; and financial assets. Given the federal government’s huge debt, it makes sense to sell at least a portion of these assets, especially those that are currently generating revenue below market levels (in which case the sale value would be above the present value of the current income on the assets). Sales of assets would immediately reduce the government’s operating deficit and debt, reducing future interest costs.
The Heritage plan includes a program of asset sales totaling approximately
$260 billion over 15 years. This includes partial sales of federal properties,
real estate, mineral rights, the electromagnetic spectrum, and energy-generation facilities.
Politico notes that Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s budget plan cuts spending more than Republican John Boehner’s plan. Boehner’s two-step plan is calculated on providing a highly politicized two-step plan for raising the debt ceiling.
____________________
After a closer look at Harry Reid’s plan, it is evident that his “austerity” turns out to be fiction. I do admit that the Republican plan is not much better, but it is false to claim that the Reid plan cuts more. “Some Austerity” by Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute examines Harry Reid’s plan closely:
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
“It is clear we must enter an age of austerity,” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi mourned as she endorsed Harry Reid’s proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Austerity? Really?
The Reid plan would theoretically cut spending by $2.7 trillion over ten years. Even if that were true, it would still allow our national debt to increase by some $10 trillion over the next decade. But, of course, the $2.7 trillion figure is mostly fiction.About $1 trillion of the savings would come from the eventual end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, savings that were going to occur anyway. Senator Reid might just as well have added another $1 trillion in savings by not invading Pakistan.
Another $400 billion comes not from cuts but from assuming reduced interest payments. And, of course, there are $40 billion in unspecified “program-integrity savings,” meaning the “waste, fraud, and abuse” that is the last refuge of every phony budget cutter. The plan rejects any changes to Medicare and Social Security, despite the fact that the unfunded liabilities from those two programs could run as high as $110 trillion. But those liabilities generally fall outside the ten-year budget window, so Reid — unlike our children and grandchildren — doesn’t have to worry about them.
[U]nder both the Reid and Boehner plans, actual federal spending will continue to rise.
That leaves about $1.2 trillion in discretionary and defense spending reductions over the next ten years. Let’s put that in perspective. This year the federal government will spend $3.8 trillion. Our deficit is roughly $1.6 trillion. Our national debt exceeds $14.3 trillion, not counting unfunded entitlement liabilities. We are talking about raising the debt ceiling to $16.9 trillion. This month alone the federal government will borrow $134 billion. Reid’s cuts would average roughly $120 billion per year.
This is austerity?
Of course, the House Republican plan as announced by Speaker John Boehner is only marginally more austere.
Boehner proposes a two-stage increase in the debt ceiling, with each stage accompanied by spending cuts. The first $1 trillion debt increase would be accompanied by $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, pretty much the same as Senator Reid’s plan. The big difference is that instead of Sen. Reid’s phony Iraq and Afghanistan savings, the speaker’s plan would appoint a commission — now there’s an exciting new idea — to propose $1.8 trillion in savings from entitlement programs. To be fair, Senator Reid would also appoint a commission — because that’s what Washington does — to recommend additional deficit reductions, presumably including entitlement changes. The difference is that the Boehner commission has teeth. If Congress rejects its recommendations, the president doesn’t get a second $1.6 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
But $1.8 trillion in entitlement savings over ten years is still too small to encompass real structural reforms of the type envisioned by Rep. Paul Ryan and others. It is much more likely to simply be more tweaking around the edges, perhaps raising the eligibility age or changing the way the cost-of-living formula is calculated. True, changes such as these will have a real impact out beyond the ten-year budget window, but they fall far short of what is necessary to deal with the shortfalls to come.
Making matters worse, both Reid and Boehner are using the time-honored Washington dodge of “baseline budgeting,” meaning that the proposed cuts are not actual reductions in spending from year to year, but cuts from projected future increases. Thus, under both the Reid and Boehner plans, actual federal spending will continue to rise.
With the clock running out, we are now down to fifth- or sixth-best options. But let’s not pretend that this is austerity.
Is there a better voice for moderation, compromise and legislative solutions than Gov. Mike Beebe? His legislative career contains few policy monuments, but a warehouse full of settlements of pitched legislative battles.
So he’s a good spokesman against the current impasse created in Congress by Republicans like 2nd District U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin intent on holding the U.S. hostage to debilitating budget cuts and absolute protection of the wealthy from even a small increase in the lowest tax burden in half a century. Good for Beebe.
“They are apparently so entrenched that they’re ready to allow this country to default, with all of the economic consequences that that brings with it,” Beebe told reporters. “They’re up to the licklog, and they’d better sit down and figure out how they solve this problem.”
Beebe said both sides in the debate deserve criticism, but “it sounds to me like it’s the Republican majority in the House that has just drawn a line in the sand.”
Beebe claims it the Republicans who want to default, but is the Democrats who are refusing to cut the budget in a way we can lower this 1.7 trillion deficit for this year!!!!
The huge deficits are the problem. People want the debt ceiling raised, but if the huge deficits continue then what is the use? The article below shows how our government will have their credit rating devalued UNLESS WE STOP RUNNING UP BIG DEFICTIS EVERY YEAR!!
Americans, and global financial markets, are watching Washington nervously for a real plan—one that will put the nation squarely on a path to solving our twin crises of spending and debt. Without strong structural changes in spending, our debt will balloon out of control.
At stake are two issues. The short-term is obvious – will there be an increase in the debt limit before August 3? Despite the President and his team practically begging Wall Street to collapse, the markets and the rating agencies believe that there will be an increase and the federal government can safely avoid the chaos of prioritizing its bills in order to service the debt. Though they warn of the consequences if this doesn’t happen, Standard & Poor’s, has stated that
…the risk of a payment default is small, though increasing…Standard and Poor’s still anticipates that lawmakers will raise the debt ceiling by the end of July to avoid those outcomes.”
The second and even more crucial issue is whether Congress will take necessary action beyond the next year to bring our debt under control over the medium and long-term. This is where the rating agencies really voice their strong concern. Again, Standard & Poor’s:
Congress and the Administration might also settle for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling, or they might agree to a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio.”
Moody’s response is similar:
The outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.
What the rating agencies are saying is that Congress and the President must pass legislation that immediately begins to rein in deficits and bring our debt down to more acceptable levels, and either keeps it there or continues to drive it down further.
The Boehner proposal would cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending. There is no assurance that these cuts will occur, but let’s assume they do. Let’s even be generous and assume that they are – in the words of S&P– “enacted and maintained throughout the decade.” This would cut debt held by the public from its projected $24.9 trillion in 2021 to $23.7 trillion, and when measured against the economy from 104% to 99.4%. Certainly, this is an improvement, but it is hardly declining from today’s levels, nor would these cuts fundamentally restructure entitlements – the real driver of our deficits in the future.
Step two in the Boehner proposal would reduce deficits by an additional $1.8 trillion over ten years. Even assuming these cuts all happen, and even assuming they were all spending cuts – a broad assumption given the President’s rhetoric surrounding tax hikes on the wealthy – this would bring publicly held debt down to 92% of GDP. Better, but not that much. Even throwing in interest savings from deficit reduction would bring this down to 88%. Again, not much improvement and far worse than today’s debt ratio.
The Reid proposal doesn’t move the ball forward enough either. At best it falls somewhat short of Boehner’s $3 trillion by $800 billion ($1.2 trillion in discretionary and some confusing savings to be had from winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan of $1.0 trillion.)
Neither of this week’s dueling debt ceiling proposals would pass the test from Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s for a credible, firm and actionable plan that would turn the tide of our deficits to put our debt on a manageable track. And if that holds true, then a downgrade by the rating agencies could occur smack in the very election year the President is trying to scoot through.
Because spending is set to grow so significantly over the decade, the kind of onesie-twosie approach to cutting spending and increasing the debt limit is simply not adequate. Net interest payments are projected to more than triple over the next decade. The longer Congress waits to seriously control spending, the more it will have to cut just to offset bourgeoning interest costs. And if interest rates suddenly rise? Well, we have an even bigger problem on our hands.
And, as babyboomers flood into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid swell in tandem, the kinds of changes necessary to rein in spending on these programs will be much more difficult. Here again, the longer they duck the problem, the more likely a meltdown ahead.
The fact is, the only plan that could likely pass muster with Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s is House passed, Cut, Cap and Balance. Why? They tackle spending with firm caps that are enforceable, and before the end of the decade bring spending down to 19.9% of GDP and keep it there. With the right spending changes it could fall, along with debt levels, from there. Congress must act now to rein in spending and get our debt under control. It’s time for the dueling to end.
Henri Matissehe
The Daily Hatch 