Monthly Archives: July 2011

Schwarzenegger does not want to pay spousal support

July 21, 2011 – 9:15 pm
  1. FILE - In this Oct. 2, 2009 file photo, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver pose for photos before they meet at the second Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles. The former California governor indicated in a divorce filing that he does not want to pay Shriver spousal support. Shriver filed divorce papers July 1, 2011, to end their marriage of 25 years. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
  2. LOS ANGELES (AP) — Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated in a court filing that he does not want to pay wife Maria Shriver spousal support or attorney fees as the couple ends their 25-year marriage.

The dispute may have little impact on the divorce, since the former Hollywood couple is expected to reach a confidential, out-of-court settlement.

Schwarzenegger’s filing Wednesday differs little from Shriver’s initial petition for divorce, which was filed on July 1. Both seekjoint custody of their sons, ages 17 and 13.

Neither indicated exactly when they separated, although they announced in May they were estranged and Schwarzenegger later admitted he fathered a child with a member of his household staff.

The former couple does not have a prenuptial agreement, according to their filings. That means Shriver would be entitled to half of Schwarzenegger’s assets under California law, although the exact terms were expected to be set through private mediation.

Schwarzenegger would also be expected to provide financial support for his children. In other celebrity divorces, those sums have totaled tens of thousands of dollars a month.

Any agreement reached by Schwarzenegger and Shriver would become public only if there is a later dispute over its terms, or they opt to handle their divorce through a Superior Court judge.

Schwarzenegger’s disclosure of his out-of-wedlock child forced a temporary halt to his acting comeback plans, although it was recently announced that he will appear in the upcoming film “Last Stand” as a border-town sheriff who unwittingly finds himself battling a notorious drug kingpin on the run.

Shriver, a Kennedy family heiress and former network television journalist, has not announced her plans.

Even before the breakup with Schwarzenegger was revealed, she appeared in videos posted on YouTube and talked about stress in her life, the weight of expectations, and the search for faith in a troubled world.

Schwarzenegger’s legal filing was first reported Thursday by celebrity website TMZ.

have written many times about Arnold Schwarzenegger before. Here are just a few of the times:1. President Reagan having a photo taken with Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. 8/23/84.2.Here is a video clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger using an Airlight
Broom as a prop for “cleaning house” in the California Recall
Election as seen on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, ect in 2003. The
Airlight Broom is manufactured by Little Rock Broom Works.3. I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak in Little Rock on April 27, 2011 and in his speech he mentioned the struggle that Arnold Schwarzenegger had with the envirnomentalists in California. I took time to repeat a lot of the facts about that in my blog post that day.4. At that same luncheon on April 27th that I mentioned earlier, one subject that John Fund brought up was the red tape that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to deal with in California. I wrote about that too.5. St. James Palace has confirmed  that Kate Middleton and Prince William – or, more officially, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – will be visiting California from July 8-10 this summer. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to greet the Royals as they touch down.6. Which is better for setting up a business: California or Texas? Arnold Schwarzenegger is mentioned in this post too.7. Arnold Schwarzenegger is fond of quoting Milton Friedman but he rejected fiscal conservative idea to cut spending.8. Pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver through the years. Video clip of them at Ronald Reagan’s funeral.

 

9. I wrote a post on American Exceptionalism and put in a video clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the introduction to an episode of “Free to Choose.”

10. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of  infidelity? I hope so (Part 1).

11. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 2)

12. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part 3 )

13. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part  4)

14. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part  5)

15. Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so (Part  6)

In this series “Will Maria Shriver’s marriage survive Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admission of infidelity? I hope so,” there has been a great reaction to it by the public. I have included articles from “Family Life” of Little Rock, Arkansas about how to recover from an infidelity. I have also included info on how to take part in a “Weekend to Remember,” where you can hear ”Family Life” speakers with your spouse. The only hope for Maria’s marriage will come from the power of Christ in her life to forgive. “A Family Life Conference” would be a great first step. Below is some info on that:

In just one November weekend, for example, more than 6,200 people attended 10Weekend to Remember® marriage getaways around the country. Here are a couple quotes from those who went:

We are moving from a place of being ready to divorce to looking forward to growing together through Christ. This has given us important tools to do so.

We’ve been walking separate roads for many years. Infidelity was the final straw leading us to divorce. I was filling out the papers two days before we came to this event. Over the course of the weekend we found each other, wrote love letters that will be kept as reminders of our true love for each other. I granted forgiveness that my husband really needed. We are going to burn the divorce papers when we get home!

In today’s culture, the issues of marriage and family are open doors for the gospel–the Good News of Christ. Because people want their marriages and families to succeed.  

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

Sen. Marco Rubio on the debt ceiling

July 21, 2011 – 1:36 pm

Published on Jul 17, 2011 by

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) spoke with Bob Schieffer on what he truly feels caused the country’s current debt crisis and the provisions he feels necessary to be included in a compromise for him to vote on raising the debt ceiling.

Senator Rubio is one of the upcoming stars of the Tea Party and he has some great insights on the issue of the debt ceiling.

  • MARCH 30, 2011

Why I Won’t Vote to Raise the Debt Limit

Everyone in Washington knows how to cut spending. The time to start is now.

By MARCO RUBIO

Americans have built the single greatest nation in all of human history. But America’s exceptionalism was not preordained. Every generation has had to confront and solve serious challenges and, because they did, each has left the next better off. Until now.

Our generation’s greatest challenge is an economy that isn’t growing, alongside a national debt that is. If we fail to confront this, our children will be the first Americans ever to inherit a country worse off than the one their parents were given.

Current federal policies make it harder for job creators to start and grow businesses. Taxes on individuals are complicated and set to rise in less than two years. Corporate taxes will soon be the highest in the industrialized world. Federal agencies torment job creators with an endless string of rules and regulations.

On top of all this, we have an unsustainable national debt. Leaders of both parties have grown our government for decades by spending money we didn’t have. To pay for it, they borrowed $4 billion a day, leaving us with today’s $14 trillion debt. Half of that debt is held by foreign investors, mostly China. And there is no plan to stop. In fact, President Obama’s latest budget request spends more than $46 trillion over the next decade. Under this plan, public debt will equal 87% of our economy in less than 10 years. This will scare away job creators and lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and greater inflation.

Betting on America used to be a sure thing, but job creators see the warning signs that our leaders ignore. Even the world’s largest bond fund, PIMCO, recently dumped its holdings of U.S. debt.

We’re therefore at a defining moment in American history. In a few weeks, we will once again reach our legal limit for borrowing, the so-called debt ceiling. The president and others want to raise this limit. They say it is the mature, responsible thing to do.

In fact, it’s nothing more than putting off the tough decisions until after the next election. We cannot afford to continue waiting. This may be our last chance to force Washington to tackle the central economic issue of our time.

“Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America’s debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.View Full Image

rubio

Chad Crowe

rubio

rubio

There is still time to accomplish all this. Rep. Dave Camp has already introduced proposals to lower and simplify our tax rates, close loopholes, and make permanent low rates on capital gains and dividends. Even Mr. Obama has endorsed the idea of lowering our corporate tax rate. Sen. Rand Paul, meanwhile, has a bill that would require an up-or-down vote on “major” regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. And the House has already passed a spending plan this year that lowered discretionary spending by $862 billion over 10 years.

Such reductions are important, but nondefense discretionary spending is a mere 19% of the budget. Focusing on this alone would lead to draconian cuts to essential and legitimate programs. To get our debt under control, we must reform and save our entitlement programs.

No changes should be made to Medicare and Social Security for people who are currently in the system, like my mother. But people decades away from retirement, like me, must accept that reforms are necessary if we want Social Security and Medicare to exist at all by the time we are eligible for them.

Finally, instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio. A comprehensive plan would wind down our debt to sustainable levels of approximately 60% within a decade and no more than half of the economy shortly thereafter. If Congress fails to meet these debt targets, automatic across-the-board spending reductions should be triggered to close the gap. These public debt caps could go in tandem with a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.

Some say we will go into default if we don’t increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis.

I know that by writing this, I am inviting political attack. When I proposed reforms to Social Security during my campaign, my opponent spent millions on attack ads designed to frighten seniors. But demagoguery is the last refuge of the spineless politician willing to do anything to win the next election.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in Washington knows how to solve these problems. What is missing is the political will to do it. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I want my children to inherit what I inherited: the greatest nation in human history. It’s not too late. The 21st century can also be the American Century. Our people are ready. Now it’s time for their leaders to join them.

Mr. Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida.

Sen. Marco Rubio on the debt limit

The president is “more interested in delivering a tax increase to please the base of the party than he is about solving the problem.” Senator Marco Rubio appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon to talk about the debt limit debate and the out-of-control spending in Washington.

Here is one of my favorite videos on this subject below:

What Is The Debt Ceiling?

Published on May 19, 2013

What is the debt ceiling and why does it matter? Find out:http://BankruptingAmerica.org/DebtCei…

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.

Why don’t the Republicans  just vote no on the next increase to the debt ceiling limit. I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

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.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. The White House answered concerning Social Security (two times), Green Technologies, welfare, small businesses, Obamacare (twice),  federal overspending, expanding unemployment benefits to 99 weeks,  gun control, national debt, abortion, jumpstarting the economy, and various other  issues.   However, his policies have not changed, and by the way the White House after answering over 50 of my letters before November of 2012 has not answered one since.   President Obama is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

 I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

_________________________

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

Brummett is fooled by Pryor’s assurance that gang of 6 offers real cuts now (Part 2)

July 21, 2011 – 9:36 am

 

https://i0.wp.com/www.hotsr.com/news/Hot-Springs-FYI/2011/06/03/pryor03.jpg

John Brummett in his article, “By Pryor prediction, gang of 6 emerges,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 21, 2011 asserts:

So what’s in this great new plan from the Gang of Six? Only about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved by deep defense cuts, commission-delegated reductions in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plugging of assorted tax code loopholes and — get this — an elimination of the alternative minimum tax and an over-all actual reduction in personal income taxes attainable, presumably, by the credibility and depth of the spending cuts.

Evidently Brummett actually believes there will be “about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved” but I have been able to see through these phony promises of future cuts just by looking at the history of Congressional lies in the past.
Michael Reagan said his father was promised 3 dollars of spending cuts for every one in tax increase in the early 1980’s but we are still waiting on those spending cuts!!

This plan by the gang of six raises taxes which is stupid and it also only accomplishes $500 billion of savings scheduled (read: back-loaded) over the next 10 years. The rest of it is just procedural provisions to “seek future budget savings.” It achieves few real and significant budget savings today.

Let me share with you this excellent article, ” The Futility of the Gang of Six Budget Plan,“by Jagadeesh Gokhale 

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).

Added to cato.org on July 20, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on July 20, 2011.

The budget showdown in Congress is being described as a “crisis,” “looming catastrophe,” “approaching disaster” — pick your hyperbole. But anything that happens on August 2 will pale in comparison to the real fiscal disaster that is several years down the road. Policymakers need to take the long view in pursuing a fix.

The decade-long expansion of government spending during the 2000s created a future trajectory of government spending that is unsustainable and in dire need of attention. A “balanced approach” to the debt problem involving both revenue increases and spending reductions might sound terrific on CNN, but it yields more government spending on net than the historical norm. A better approach would be to determine the proper share of government spending in terms national economic output, specify that share ahead of time, and enforce a balanced budget funding process — as House members have just voted for.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that government spending is scheduled to increase to 24 percent of GDP by 2020. It has averaged about 20 percent between 1960 and 2005 — not counting recent years when massive economic stimuli distorted the government share. That means exhorting policymakers to adopt a “balanced” approach — such as the “Gang of Six plan” now drawing plaudits from editorial pages and the White House — is really promoting a new and higher federal spending norm as a percentage of GDP.

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010). 

There are other questionable features of the rhetoric used to sell the Gang of Six plan. It mentions allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 annually, and overhauling the tax code to “maintain or improve” progressivity of the tax code. The crowning piece of rhetoric: “This is the sort of pro-growth tax reform that could help energize the economy.”

Why is this approach fundamentally wrong? First, increasing tax rates on entrepreneurs and job creators will achieve exactly the opposite result — galvanizing sloth and energizing capital flight. And “improving progressivity” (a bit of ideological wordplay — why not just say “increasing progressivity?”) will reinforce those outcomes because making the tax code more progressive will place higher hurdles before low-income individuals to increase their work-hours and incomes.

The Gang of Six proposal also shifts government-wide inflation indexing to use the chained Consumer Price Index. In particular, it would cause income tax brackets to rise more slowly — leading to increases in marginal tax rates on all taxpayers. It would also reduce Social Security benefits of current beneficiaries on an inflation-adjusted basis. But it means that not all changes to Social Security are independent of budget reform, as the proposal claims.

The proposal would repeal the CLASS Act — a classic Washington two-step. The CLASS Act is a proposal under the new health care reform law to extend voluntary long-term care coverage to all workers, financed out of a payroll tax. This program is widely acknowledged to be so badly designed that it is fundamentally unworkable and could never be established; most healthy workers won’t sign on, which would increase the program’s cost to others and make it financially unsustainable.

It’s a classic example of achieving spurious budget savings by eliminating programs that don’t, and never could, exist — thereby placing a larger weight on revenue increases in the reform as a whole.

Finally, the plan only accomplishes $500 billion of savings scheduled (read: back-loaded) over the next 10 years. The rest of it is just procedural provisions to “seek future budget savings.” It achieves few real and significant budget savings today.

Elsewhere, I’ve opined that a budget deal yielding just $4 trillion in budget savings is unlikely to improve the U.S. fiscal condition by 2020. Given how little the Gang of Six plan achieves, any debt limit increase that it facilitates is likely to persist for a long time. On balance, it’s likely to lock us into a worsening fiscal and economic condition during coming decades.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Brummett is fooled by Pryor’s assurance that gang of 6 offers real cuts now

July 21, 2011 – 9:16 am

John Brummett in his article, “By Pryor prediction, gang of 6 emerges,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 21, 2011 asserts:

So what’s in this great new plan from the Gang of Six? Only about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved by deep defense cuts, commission-delegated reductions in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plugging of assorted tax code loopholes and — get this — an elimination of the alternative minimum tax and an over-all actual reduction in personal income taxes attainable, presumably, by the credibility and depth of the spending cuts.

The problem with Brummett’s comments is that he is totally fooled by “procedural gimmicks that promise Congress will do in the future what it won’t do now to control spending.” Dav id Addington rightly has noted, “Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control. Debt limit legislation should put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving our ability to protect America, and without raising taxes. Conservatives should stop the Gang of Six Plan. To control federal overspending and overborrowing, America doesn’t need more empty promises of future action — America needs action now.”

David Addington wrote an excellent article, “Gang of Six: Promises, Promises,” Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2011 that breaks down the proposal of the gang of six. Here is the article:

A group of U.S. Senators called the Gang of Six has cobbled together the third Senate-originated half-baked idea this week that would lead to hiking the debt limit. All three Senate approaches — the McConnell Plan, the McConnell-Reid “Just Borrow More” Plan, and now the Gang of Six “Maybe Later in the Year” Plan — have one thing in common: procedural gimmicks that promise Congress will do in the future what it won’t do now to control spending. The time has passed for procedural gimmickry — Congress should cut spending and cut it now.

The Gang of Six circulated a plan that has Congress enact a law now whose principal elements (1) make unspecified spending cuts and unspecified tax increases to yield a $500 billion reduction in the federal deficit, and (2) impose spending caps on discretionary spending, but not on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that are the main cause of out-of-control spending.

Then the Gang of Six promises — an unenforceable promise — that some time in the next six months Congress will enact a second law with all kinds of Christmas presents for everybody. As an imaginary present for Republicans, for example, the Gang of Six promises to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, drop the top individual tax rate to 29 percent, and drop the corporate tax rate to 29 percent. And, as an imaginary present for the Democrats, the second law would have what appears to be a $3.4 trillion tax hike over the next 10 years, so the size of government can just keep on growing. Of course, enactment of the second law is just a promise, or, in the case of the huge tax hike, a threat.

Although the “Gang of Six” claims that their plan is separate from the debt limit increase, everyone in Washington including President Obama thinks its precise purpose is to pave the way for a debt limit hike. Under the Gang of Six Plan, Congress will pass some easy stuff now, but punt the hard stuff to the future, promising that Congress will pass it some time within the next six months. There’s plenty in the Gang of Six Plan for President Obama — he gets his tax hikes and, in reality, he gets to borrow lots more money. But the American people don’t really get much of anything, except the usual empty promise of action in the future.

Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control. Debt limit legislation should put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving our ability to protect America, and without raising taxes. Conservatives should stop the Gang of Six Plan. To control federal overspending and overborrowing, America doesn’t need more empty promises of future action — America needs action now.

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

David and Hope Solo

July 21, 2011 – 7:22 am

Hope Solo: ‘I will be a better sister’

Hope Solo Hope Solo (L) and Lori Chalupny model the Saint Louis Athletica team uniforms during a fashion show to unveil the new uniforms for the Women's Professional Soccer League February 24, 2009 in New York City. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Hope Solo;Lori Chalupny
By BOB PADECKY
PRESS DEMOCRAT COLUMNIST

The text sent to U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo, the day before America was to play Japan for the Women’s World Cup championship, contained encouragement and affection from her half-brother, David, CEO and president of the Marin and Southern Sonoma Counties’ Boys and Girls Clubs. His last sentence was particularly memorable.

“I will be a better brother,” David wrote.

3
hope solo alex morgan 14 Hope Solo vs Alex Morgan (26 photos)

David Solo said he never expected a reply. In less than 24 hours, Hope would be in goal for the biggest match of her life. She wouldn’t have time. Plus, there hadn’t been any real urgency in their relationship. The last time Hope and David were together was a chance meeting on Labor Day, 2009. They would speak on the phone, on the average, every three to six months.

Sunday, David received a reply. It came less than five hours before Hope would play. It was two sentences he will never forget.

“And I will be a better sister. I love you.”

Although 6-foot-1 and a solid 260 pounds, David appeared to be much smaller when he repeated his sister’s response. He had stopped carrying a huge load that had weighed him down. It was his father, their father, the one who was gone from David by the time he was 9, the one who remarried, had Hope 12 years after David, then left again. He went by John, Jerry or, usually, Jeff. He said he went to Vietnam, but David isn’t sure. He did live in the woods around the Seattle area. This much David was certain: His dad was 69 when he died June 15, 2007.

“He had trouble holding a steady job,” said David, 42, “so he wasn’t able to support his family. He had trouble with stability in relationships. He went to prison for a short time on an embezzlement charge.”

In November, 1991, David stopped speaking to his father.

“I cut him off,” he said. “I had enough.”

For 17 years David stayed away. For 17 years, by and large, he stayed away from Hope, as well. It was a distance he created between the two of them. Now it was a distance he was trying to close.

12
hope solo alex morgan 16 Hope Solo vs Alex Morgan (26 photos)

“I just realized today,” David texted Hope after the U.S. lost to Japan on Sunday, “that you were just 10 years old when I stopped speaking to him. I missed a lot of your life, including high school, University of Washington. I did not realize how the decision to stop speaking to our father impacted our relationship. I am sorry for that.”

David now understands he was in pain for those 17 years, pain that fueled anger, resentment. He saw other boys with their dads, coached by their dads, hanging with their dads. He took it out on the football field, where he was an All-Conference nose tackle at Chico State in 1990 and 1991. He was Chico’s captain his senior year and a pre-season DivisionIII All-American.

“I was alone,” David said in that text late Sunday night, “and I always had the attitude that I would show them who was better. I was always in attack mode.”

David graduated with a degree in history from Chico in 1993. His first job out of college was in San Diego, at a Boys and Girls club. He wasn’t sure why until he met a 12-year kid named Terrell four years later.

“Terrell was a troubled kid,” David Solo said. “He was a discipline problem. We couldn’t get through to him. Then one day I was alone with Terrell and he broke down. He said his dad had left him. That’s when it hit me.”

He had to work with troubled kids. He knew their pain. They were him, all of them carrying the same baggage. At the time, David never accepted or understood why his sister didn’t carry his anger.

“Hope always was much more compassionate and understanding than me,” he said. “She was never judgmental.”

14
hope solo alex morgan 17 Hope Solo vs Alex Morgan (26 photos)

So they locked horns when they did talk.

In 2007, David reached out. He had sent his dad a video about Mickey Mantle. In it Mantle said he apologized to his wife and his sons for not being a good father, for drinking too much, staying away too much. David called his dad to ask him if that video triggered anything inside him.

“I wanted him to apologize,” David said. “At least that’s what I hoped for. He didn’t. Three days later he died.”

David didn’t go to the funeral and, as he realizes now, he still was distancing himself from his sister.

Then he experienced a moment of clarity. It began with, of all things, the start of the 2011 Women’s World Cup soccer tournament. David saw an ESPN interview with Hope. He watched another Hope interview on YouTube. He read newspaper articles about his sister.

“I didn’t realize we had so much in common,” David said. “We both love the outdoors. We both love camping. She is passionate about what she does, like me. I love the fact she is an intense competitor. So was I. She is strong-willed, stubborn, just like me.”

The walls began coming down for David. He stopped resenting that Hope never had an ax to grind about their father. She even bristled when someone would call him homeless.

“I feel I have come to an understanding these last two weeks,” David wrote in his post-match text. “You and I have different experiences with our father. Neither was right or wrong. I believe you have taught me about compassion and understanding. I can learn from you. And that if the roles were reversed you may have felt the same way I did. I didn’t realize until this week how alike we are.”

16
hope solo alex morgan 18 Hope Solo vs Alex Morgan (26 photos)

In the course of his sharing his story Sunday night at the Beyond The Glory restaurant, about a dozen 11-year-old girls from a soccer team found out who David is. They came over and asked for his autograph. They gave him cards to give to his sister. They asked him if he knows Abby Wambach.

“I didn’t realize what a role model Hope is,” David said.

David leaned back in his chair to catch his breath. Everything was happening very fast for him. He’s still in the middle of it, he admitted, realizing he has much work to do, not only with Hope but with Terry, his sister, and Marcus, his half-brother. He would like to start, right now, not wait. He missed so much in 17 years. He doesn’t want to waste a moment now. He asked Hope to get together Labor Day weekend.

“I love you very much,” David texted, “and I would like to see you soon. It would be great to sit in front of a campfire and discuss the old man and some of his various opinions.”

With that David smiled, the kind of smile that could start that Labor Day campfire with Hope.

Copyright © 2011 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.

Other posts about soccer:

David and Hope Solo

Hope Solo: ‘I will be a better sister’ By BOB PADECKY PRESS DEMOCRAT COLUMNIST Published: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. The text sent to U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo, the day before America was to play Japan for the Women’s World Cup championship, contained encouragement and affection from her half-brother, David, CEO and president […]

USA wins 3-1 over France to get in World Cup Final

United States’ Abby Wambach celebrates scoring her side’s 2nd goal during the semifinal match between France and the United States at the Women’s Soccer World Cup in Moenchengladbach, Germany, Wednesday, July 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner) MOENCHENGLADBACH, Germany (AP) — The United States is in the World Cup final for the first time since it […]

Mexico defeats USA 4-2 in Gold Cup

USA vs Mexico (2-4) All goals and highlights 2011 Gold CUP FINAL PASADENA, Calif. –  In just a few short minutes, Mexico turned the tables on the United States, then ran away with its second straight Gold Cup win. This one means more than the title they took in 2009 against a second-team USA. Now […]

Various video clips of Mexico 4-2 over USA for Gold Cup in soccer

USA vs Mexico (2-4) All goals and highlights 2011 Gold CUP FINAL USA Vs Mexico 2-4 – All Goals & Match Highlights – June 25 2011 – CONCACAF Gold Cup Final – [HQ] USA VS MEXICO 2-4 Highlights CONCACAF FINAL USA vs Mexico [2-4] AMAZING Giovani Dos Santos goal Other posts on soccer: Top 10 […]

Predictions on Gold Cup Semifinals by W. Hatcher and E. Hatcher

  Wilson Hatcher picks Mexico to win 3-2 and the USA to win 2-0. Everette Hatcher picks Mexico to win 4-1 and the USA to win 1-0. US looks to apply lessons learned     Carlos Bocanegra (R), Armando Cooper during the US and Panama’s June 12 meeting.       Ives Galarcep is a […]

video clip of USA vs Jamaica 2-0

The United States scored early to seal the deal against Jamaica with great communication. Panama will be much harder to beat but I know America can beat anyone in CONCACAF. In the News: U.S. advances in Gold Cup soccer Jermine Jones broke a scoreless tie early in the second half, leading the United States to […]

Top 10 most Controversial World Cup Games (W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher, Part 5)

Italy Four Time World Cup Winner 1934 – 1938 – 1982 – 2006 AP Photo With Europe on the brink of war, Mussolini’s Italian team, defending champions, reveled in their role as tournament heel. Their fixtures in France drew boisterous mobs of exiled Italian anti-fascists, up to 10,000 strong, who came to jeer their country’s […]

Video of USA v. Guadalupe and Gold Cup Prediction

Guadalupe Vs United States 0-1 “Full Highlights”Resumen Everette Hatcher: My prediction is that the USA will win 4-3 today. Wilson Hatcher : My prediction is that the USA will win 1-1 in penalty kicks over Jamaica. Other posts about soccer: USA must defeat Guadeloupe in Gold Cup in KC tonight June 13, 2011 – 10:07 am […]

USA must defeat Guadeloupe in Gold Cup in KC tonight

The Kansas City Star reported: The Kansas City Star reported: Less than 24 hours after a history-making loss, the United States men’s national soccer team landed in Kansas City bloody, but unbowed. Not only did a 2-1 defeat against Panama on Saturday night mark the Americans’ first group-play loss in the 20-year history of the […]

Donovan “We were …lackadaisical…” against Panama

LA Galaxy reported: Gold Cup: USA at loss for answers after historic loss No explanation for lackadaisical start, says Donovan after loss Simon Borg MLSsoccer.com June 11, 2011 (Getty Images) TAMPA, Fla. – It’s a script the US national team has seen play out plenty of times over the last year or so: Slow start. […]

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

Brummett: Congress abdicates political responsibility to make wise cuts, but we don’t need balanced budget amendment (Part 3)

July 21, 2011 – 5:36 am

John Brummett in his article “It may get personal in debt-limit end game,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 19, 2011 noted:

The White House is quietly encouraging the Reid-McConnell talks.

Meantime, there is talk of pandering to the tea party radicals in the unwieldy House by letting them pursue referral of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

Ratification would take years. If enacted, such an amendment would amount to the same abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending as has been evident in the debt-ceiling debate.

It is obvious to me that the Balanced Budget Amendment is needed because of the “abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending” that Brummett is talking about and we have all seen for decades.

The real debate in my view should be which variety of amendment should we pass. This is a series of posts I am doing on that subject. They come from Brian Darling’s excellent article, ” The House and Senate Balanced Budget Amendments: Not All Balanced Budget Amendments Are Created Equal,” Heritage Foundation, July 14, 2011. 

Abstract: Republicans in the House and Senate have announced that they will force votes on balanced budget constitutional amendments. While the Senate and House versions of the current BBA are similar, there are some important differences that Members of Congress and the American people need to understand. For example, the Senate version makes it more difficult to enact revenue-neutral tax reform, while the House version would waive its tax limitation in times of military conflict. How Congress resolves these differences could determine whether future Congresses and Presidents balance the budget without increasing taxes.

Differences Between S.J. Res. 23 and H.J. Res. 1

Waivers for War or Military Conflict

Both the Senate and House versions of the BBA provide for a waiver during a war or military conflict because an unyielding requirement to balance the budget during such times might unduly constrain the U.S. military, but these waiver provisions differ dramatically and warrant close scrutiny. Specifically, the House provision would suspend the entire BBA, while the Senate version would permit only a partial waiver when the U.S. is engaged in a congressionally authorized “military conflict.”

Both the Senate and House versions of the BBA provide for a waiver during time of declared war. The House version would waive all provisions of the BBA, and the Senate version would waive all provisions of the BBA with the exception of Section 4, which requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber to increase taxes.

The Senate version requires a higher threshold for waiver during “military conflict” than for official declarations of war. Section 6 of the Senate version allows for Congress to waive certain provisions of the BBA “for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect” by a majority vote of both chambers. Section 7 allows for Congress to waive certain provisions “in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths” of both the House and Senate.

The House version allows Congress to waive the whole BBA “for any year in which a declaration of war is in effect” or “any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serous military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution.” The House waiver provision would go into effect with a simple majority vote of each chamber.

Neither the House nor the Senate version would require a declaration of war as a predicate to waive certain provisions of the constitutional amendment. The Senate version requires a supermajority to authorize a waiver, whereas the House version requires a mere simple majority to waive during time of authorized “military conflict.”

For example, if a majority, but less than three-fifths, of each chamber authorized a wavier of the BBA during military conflict, the House version would allow Congress to waive the entire amendment and deficit-spend in areas unrelated to the military conflict. The Senate version would not allow a waiver, because both chambers would have to approve a waiver by a three-fifths vote. For the House version, the declaration of “military conflict” allows a waiver by majority vote of both chambers, whereas the Senate version would allow a waiver only if three-fifths of both chambers voted affirmatively. This is a significant difference in the two approaches to securing a waiver during a “military conflict.”

Additionally, the Senate BBA requires that, even if the United States were in a state of declared war or a military conflict, the House and Senate would still have to pass a revenue or tax measure by a supermajority roll-call vote. The House version does not contain such a requirement.

A specific condition on the nature of funding a “military conflict” appears in Section 7 of the Senate version but is absent in the House version. This condition would require Congress to specify the amount necessary for the military conflict as part of the budgeting process. The Senate resolution states that “such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.” The deficit for a fiscal year envisioned in the Senate version is limited to the cost of the military conflict itself, and in no circumstances can it be used to justify deficit spending elsewhere in the government.

The House waiver provision, on the other hand, is exceptionally broad in that it would give Congress carte blanche authority to deficit-spend on non-military items such as education, entitlements, transportation, or any other area where the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.

The requirement for a simple majority vote, coupled with the provision allowing non-military spending to breach a balanced budget requirement during times of military conflict, weakens the practical effects of the House BBA. Since the United States has been in a continuous state of “military conflict” since 2001 and may continue in such a state for the foreseeable future, the House language could be used to justify budget deficits for many years to come.

Effective Date

The two versions of the BBA have different effective dates. Both dates, however, give Congress and the President time to prepare to meet the BBA’s balanced budget requirement.

Section 11 of the Senate version of the BBA states that the budget must be balanced “beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after [the amendment’s] ratification.” Section 9 of the House version makes the effective date “beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after [the amendment’s] ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.”

The Senate version allows for Congress to take five years to balance the budget no matter what year the states ratify the constitutional amendment—a provision that gives Congress five years to develop a plan to chip way at overspending.

If it were to be ratified this year, the House version gives Congress until 2016 to balance the budget. But what if it takes five years for Congress to ratify the amendment? The House version would give Congress two years to put the budget in balance. For a Congress that has had a hard time coming even close to balancing the budget, this requirement might prove rather daunting.

Total Outlays v. Total Receipts

The House and Senate versions of a BBA include a procedure by which more than a majority is necessary for Congress to pass an unbalanced budget. This provision in both measures allows some flexibility in the operation of a BBA. There may be a time when a supermajority of House and Senate Members deems it necessary to spend more than is taken in for a specific fiscal year.

The House and the Senate versions differ on the percentage of votes required to pass an unbalanced budget for a given fiscal year. Section 1 of the Senate version provides for a “two-thirds” vote of each chamber to pass an unbalanced budget; Section 1 of the House version provides for a “three-fifths” vote of each chamber.

If the House version were to become part of the Constitution, the House would need 261 votes and the Senate would need 60 votes to pass an unbalanced budget. If the Senate version were to become an amendment to the Constitution, the House would need 290 votes and the Senate would need 67 votes to pass an unbalanced budget. The House version would create a lower threshold to run budget deficits.

Clearly, the Senate version makes it tougher for Congress to waive the BBA during a time when the U.S. is at peace with other nations.

Prohibition on Court-Ordered Tax Increases

Section 8 of the Senate BBA states that “no court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.” This provision would prohibit activist federal judges from ordering tax increases as a means to balance the budget. This provision is absent in the House version.

While preventing the courts from raising revenue is certainly prudent, it is not enough. The courts can still meddle with a BBA—for example, by issuing declaratory judgments or choosing how to balance the budget. The only way to prevent activist judges from intruding on political questions such as spending choices is a complete ban on judicial enforcement of the amendment. Any BBA should contain such a complete and explicit ban on judicial enforcement.[9]

.

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

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 96)

July 21, 2011 – 5:24 am

 

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

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

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

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

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

 

  • Over half of all farm subsidiesgo to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.
  • A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billionin cost overruns.
  • The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 millionannually in flight upgrades.
  • Washington spent $126 millionin 2009 on projects associated with the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D–MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.
  • The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.
  • The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.
  • Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines—plus $24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000on personalized calendars.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

“Midnight in Paris” film review

July 21, 2011 – 5:05 am


There’s a strain of magical realism that runs through the filmography of Woody Allen that pops up – and delightfully so – in his newest film, “Midnight in Paris.”

From “Alice” to “Mighty Aphrodite,” from “Scoop” to “Zelig” and “The Purple Rose of Cairo,” all the way back to his short fiction (particularly “The Kugelmass Episode” in “Side Effects”), Allen has shown a fanciful touch that is part magic, part surrealism, part fantasy. His characters suddenly find their reality shaken by something that seems to be impossible – yet is happening to them.

That was the case of everything from “Alice” and the title character’s ability to disappear to “The Purple Rose of Cairo” (and its delicious switcheroo, with characters moving between the world of a movie onscreen and the real world off the screen).

Now, with “Midnight in Paris,” Allen indulges himself again, this time with a bit of ethereal time travel. And he manages to be poignant and funny at the same time.

The central character is Gil Pender (Owen Wilson, an actor whose oddball affect makes him seem born to say Woody Allen’s dialogue). He’s a successful Hollywood screenwriter who thinks of himself as a hack and who is dying to give it all up to focus on writing a serious novel.

That’s what he talks about with his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her parents (Kurt Fuller, Mimi Kennedy) as they tour Paris together. Gil and Inez are the guests of her parents; Gil and Inez aren’t married yet but she’s already shopping for furniture for the house she imagines they’ll own in Malibu.

Gil, however, is dissatisfied with the future that seems laid out for him. He talks about how much he’d like a simple artist’s garret in Paris, where he could live honestly while working on the novel he’s written but isn’t satisfied with. She doesn’t understand what he’s talking about – and pooh-poohs his talk of how great it would have been to live in Paris in the 1920s with the Lost Generation.

He’s even unhappier when she connects with an old professor of hers, Paul (Michael Sheen), an unbearable snob and know-it-all, and his wife (Nina Arianda). They’re suddenly tethered together, with Gil an unwilling audience for Paul’s endless lectures on everything from Versailles to Rodin.

One night, after a wine-tasting, Gil decides not to go dancing with the other three and goes for a walk. A little lost and a little drunk, he sits down on some stairs and hears the cathedral clock chime midnight. Suddenly, a classic automobile – a Roaring ’20s-era limo – pulls up in front of him and its occupants invite him to a party.

At the party, it finally dawns on him that, somehow, he has been transported back to the 1920s – and that his hosts are, in fact, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston, currently on view as Loki in “Thor”). By the end of the evening, he’s also met Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), who talks almost exactly the way he writes.

Gil is smitten; his fiancée, however, thinks he’s insane, that he’s had some sort of breakdown. The next night, Gil goes back to the same spot at the same time – and to his delight, is picked up by the same car. This time, his evening includes not just the Fitzgeralds and Hemingway, but Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso – and a gorgeous model who has Picasso flummoxed named Adriana (Marion Cotillard).

The rest of the film deals with Gil juggling his time and attention between Inez and Adriana, between the unsatisfying present and the glorious past. As he discovers, however, the past is great when seen in retrospect – but even 1920s’ Paris seems passé to the people for whom it functions as the present.

To every generation, Allen says, there’s a previous era that looks more glamorous, more glorious, more golden. Nostalgia, as he notes, is a longing for something that didn’t actually exist, that is more imagination than reality. Living in the past ultimately leads you to waste the present.

This is a comedy for thinking people. While the one-liners with contemporary references zip by, the real humor comes with a frame of reference that allows the viewer to understand why Hemingway’s manly prose style is so funny when it’s spoken. You have to understand who these people are and what they mean – which is a daring thing to ask of a modern audience.

As noted, Wilson has a slightly loopy delivery that seems perfectly suited to Allen. His look – a mixture of eagerness and being a little dazed – seems perfect for someone who finds himself rubbing shoulders with his literary idols and making time with a woman who has beguiled Picasso, Hemingway and Fitzgerald.

McAdams has just the right brittleness as the modern woman who has no interest in anyone’s golden age except her own, while Sheen is wonderfully supercilious as the guy who’s willing to step forward to correct anyone about anything, no matter how small. Stoll is blunt and robust as Hemingway, while Kathy Bates makes a wonderfully no-nonsense Gertrude Stein. And look for Adrian Brody in a small but funny turn as Salvador Dali.

“Midnight in Paris” is a comedy for smart people. Allen’s humor prizes cultural literacy, a rarity in these times. It’s magical, in all the right ways.

Print This Post

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

Brantley: Republicans will pay for opposing tax increases

July 20, 2011 – 4:23 pm

Today on the Arkansas Times Blog Max Brantley asserted:

 A growing number of polls show Republican voters think their representatives in Congress are too extreme — opposing any tax increases — and have not done enough to work out the debt ceiling problem.

Tim Griffin, Rick Crawford and Steve Womack don’t need no stinkin’ polls.

I do not think that the American people want their taxes raised right now. That may be contrary to what President Obama thinks though. In the article, “Myths of Tax Cuts for Rich, Spending Cuts for Poor,” published on May 3, 2011 by Brian Riedl, the case is made that the rich pay a higher percentage of the total taxes than they have in a long time. He notes, “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 20 percent of taxpayers now shoulder a record 86 percent of the federal income tax burden. By comparison in 1981 it was 64 percent and in 2001 it was 81 percent.

Below is the complete article:

Conventional wisdom becomes dangerous when it contradicts analysis and evidence. On the federal budget, for example, we’re told that the rich are evading their fair share of the tax burden while the poor are seeing their spending slashed.

These assumptions have consequences. The president’s deficit commission — which maintains that everything is on the table — left the $638 billion federal anti-poverty budget virtually untouched. Others assert that finally soaking the rich will close the budget deficit.

Basic government data reveal this conventional wisdom to be flat wrong: Anti-poverty spending is at record levels. The rich are shouldering more of the tax burden than ever. The federal budget is more redistributive than ever.

First, let’s examine taxes. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 20 percent of taxpayers now shoulder a record 86 percent of the federal income tax burden. This is substantially higher than when Ronald Reagan took office (64 percent) and even higher than when George W. Bush took office (81 percent).

How could the tax code become even more progressive after President Bush’s tax cuts? Imagine an income tax cut that reduces Montgomery Burns’ tax from $95,000 to $85,000 and Homer Simpson’s tax from $5,000 to $0. Mr. Burns saves more dollars, but the Simpsons see a larger percentage reduction in their taxes. As a result, Mr. Burns goes from paying 95 percent of the combined tax burden up to 100 percent.

This happened with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Although Mr. Bush reduced taxes for wealthy individuals, he also cut the lowest income tax bracket by one-third and doubled the refundable child tax credit — taking 10 million low-income families off the income tax rolls. In fact, the poorest 40 percent of households now pay zero income taxes, and many actually receive checks from Washington on April 15.

Examining all federal taxes — including corporate, payroll and excise taxes — doesn’t significantly change the story. In 1980, the richest 20 percent financed 55 percent of all federal revenue. Today, they finance a record 69 percent. In that time, the portion of all taxes paid by the top 1 percent has doubled. The portion paid by the bottom 40 percent has dropped nearly in half.

The data are clear. Nearly every year, the federal tax burden tilts even further toward upper-income taxpayers. Seekers of a more progressive tax policy should answer two questions: If 86 percent of the income tax burden is not enough, how much should the top 20 percent of taxpayers pay? And if the bottom 40 percent paying no income taxes is not sufficient, what is?

The flip side of the “tax cuts for the rich” mantra has been “spending cuts for the poor.” Again, the official government data flatly contradict the conventional wisdom.

According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, federal anti-poverty spending has soared from $190 billion in 1990 to $348 billion in 2000, and to a staggering $638 billion this year (all adjusted for inflation). The growth since 2000 has been particularly remarkable in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (470 percent), food stamps (229 percent), energy assistance (163 percent), child care assistance (89 percent) and Medicaid (80 percent).

These expansions have been bipartisan: Mr. Bush — unfairly derided as bad for poor people — became the first president to spend more than 3 percent of the nation’s income on anti-poverty programs. President Obama then pushed it above 4 percent. In fact, since 1990, anti-poverty spending as a share of national income has expanded as fast as Social Security, Medicare, defense and education — combined.

So why the perceived “spending cuts for the poor”? Because anti-poverty spending increases (as large as $60 billion annually) occur automatically, and therefore go largely unnoticed. Yet any lawmaker proposing to shave even $1 billion off that growth is loudly attacked for “declaring war” on the safety net.

Missing is any broader context. Also missing is serious engagement with Robert Rector’s research displaying the ineffectiveness of much of this spending.

Washington faces enormous budgetary problems, including trillion-dollar deficits and the exploding costs of Social Security and Medicare. A lack of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is not one of those problems.

Brian Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation

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

Senator Jim DeMint critical of fellow Senator Mitch Mcconnell

July 20, 2011 – 3:27 pm

Uploaded by on Jul 19, 2011

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is no stranger to fights with party leadership. And he’s not holding back in his criticism of the so-called “Plan B” that’s being developed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

“It seems to be a cover-up,” DeMint said this afternoon in an exclusive interview with Heritage. “It’s like leaving the door to the federal vault open and looking the other way and saying we had nothing to do with the robbery.”

It seems to me that the Democrats are in calling the shots. Take a look at the points that Mike Brownfield makes today:

All of the clever rhetoric and recasting of history is designed to distract from the reality on the ground. The U.S. government has racked up $14 trillion in debt. For more than 800 days, the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget. President Obama continues his calls for “compromise” and “shared sacrifice,” all while insisting on tax increases to fund spending—a philosophy that was roundly rejected at the polls last November. That is not a manner of governance that President Reagan would have endorsed.

It’s also a line of argument that has no grounding in reality. Last night, the U.S. House passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, which would impose a cap on federal spending and allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion on the condition that the House and Senate approve a balanced budget amendment. To date, it is the only plan to raise the debt limit that has passed either chamber, and it is the only plan whose details can be seen in the light of day.

But amid the good news last night, another plan emerged from the shadows promising to answer the nation’s budget woes. Its authors are a group of U.S. Senators known as the Gang of Six, and their plan offers to 1) make unspecified spending cuts and unspecified tax increases to yield a $500 billion reduction in the federal deficit and 2) impose spending caps on discretionary spending but not on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs that are the main cause of out-of-control spending.

The Heritage Foundation’s David Addington explains how the back-room strategy behind the Gang of Six plan paves the way for a debt limit hike and why the American people lose out:

Under the Gang of Six Plan, Congress will pass some easy stuff now, but punt the hard stuff to the future, promising that Congress will pass it some time within the next six months. There’s plenty in the Gang of Six Plan for President Obama — he gets his tax hikes and, in reality, he gets to borrow lots more money. But the American people don’t really get much of anything, except the usual empty promise of action in the future.

That’s not the only plan floating around Washington this week, though. There’s the McConnell Plan and the McConnell-Reid “just borrow more” plan, neither of which does the work that the American people have elected Congress to do—get spending under control right now without raising taxes, without raising spending, and without punting tough decisions on spending down the road for future Congresses and Presidents to cope with.

That path should be one in which Congress doesn’t raise taxes, preserves our ability to protect America, and gets spending and borrowing under control before raising the debt limit. Getting there will take strong leadership and an ability to clearly communicate a message to the American people—both of which are lacking among the left in the debt limit debate today. No wonder they’re looking to Reagan for help.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control, Taxes | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)