Monthly Archives: August 2011

Tea Party Terrorists? Do Biden and Brummett agree on that?

August 9, 2011 – 2:58 pm

Vice President Biden, I’m not a terrorist. Terrorists target and kill innocent people. I’m a freshman Congressman who was sent to Washington in January to stop President Obama from bankrupting future generations and destroying job creation.

_______________________________

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 
 
By Michael Ramirez – August 03, 2011
Michael Ramirez was born in Tokyo, Japan. He graduated from the University of California, Irvine, in 1984 with a bachelors degree. He has worked for The Commercial Appeal of Memphis for seven years and then for the Los Angeles Times. In 1994, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning. He again won the Pulitzer for editorial cartooning in 2008. He is a three-time winner of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Sigma Delta Chi Award for excellence in journalism in 1995, 1997 and 2007. He has also been awarded the 1996 Mencken Award for Best Editorial Cartoon. He is a regular contributor to USA Today and The Weekly Standard, and his work has a subscription/distribution of over five hundred and fifty newspapers and magazines through Creators Syndicate. He is also the co-editor of the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page.
_________________________________________
 
Is the Tea Party made up of a bunch of terrorists? No! However, the liberals and the members of the Tea Party do have a different vision f0r the future.
 

John Brummett in his article “Why is this culprit smiling?,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 9, 2011, referred to  ” the  tea party-inclined insurgents.” That came after Biden made the headlines by calling them terrorists.

Here is an excellent article on that:

Liberal Rage Won’t Stop the Tea Party’s Rise

by John Samples

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.

Added to cato.org on August 9, 2011

This article appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9, 2011

 

The tea-party contingent in Congress drove the Republican leadership to bargain harder than it otherwise would have on last week’s debt-ceiling deal. Liberals have rightly concluded that the tea party is changing political outcomes. Their response has been to equate tea-party members with terrorists.

Vice President Biden recently told House Democrats that tea-party Republicans had “acted like terrorists.” And a New York Times columnist claimed that “Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.” Many people on the left no doubt take their cues from the vice president and the Times, so we should expect more such venomous rhetoric castigating the movement as an enemy of America.

Ironically, the movement being portrayed this way takes its name from an iconic event in American history. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 helped establish the principle of “no taxation without representation.” And the members of the current tea-party movement clearly believe in the American system of representative government. They worked to change Congress through the election of 2010, and now they expect their efforts to bear fruit in the form of new policies.

Even if their anger is understandable, liberals should be ashamed of their over-the-top anti-tea party rhetoric.

“Tea Party Patriots” — the name of one tea-party organization — is closer to the truth. Far from being enemies of America, these people believe deeply in the nation’s history, promise, and Constitution.

Differing visions
The liberal anger toward the tea party is justified in one sense. The tea-party movement’s vision of America is distinct from the reality of the welfare state the country has built since 1936. So a powerful tea party is understandably disturbing to liberals — even if their recent campaign of vilification against it is reprehensible.

But is the tea-party movement really all that powerful? The budget deal, after all, hardly restrained the growth of spending over the next year, when the government will still run a deficit in excess of $1 trillion. Even with the restraint prescribed by last week’s deal over the long term, the federal government will still be spending $4.25 trillion a year. The deal may lower federal spending, but it clearly will not bring about a substantially smaller government.

The evident rage among liberals, however, may have more to do with the battles to come than it does with the battle they’ve just lost (or won). We stand at the beginning of a long struggle. For the next few years — and maybe many more — our politics will be occupied by the same kind of fights over spending, deficits, and taxes.

These battles will be about more than just money. They reflect two different ideas of what the U.S. government should be. On one side is the tea party’s vision. On the other is the welfare state of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and President Obama, which taxes and spends more and more in pursuit of security and fairness for its citizens.

As recently as 2008, the big-government vision seemed poised to win the day. Then came the tea-party mobilization of 2009, which led to the election outcome of 2010.

Here to stay
That victory was remarkable but, in a way, unconvincing. After all, protest movements have emerged, affected elections, and then disappeared before. The Reform Party of Ross Perot comes to mind. Last year, it was far from certain that the tea party would be more than a memory by the summer of 2011.

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.

 

More by John Samples

Even before the election of 2010, tea-party leaders were concerned that electing fiscally responsible members of Congress would not be enough to save the nation from financial ruin. They knew they had to follow up their victory with oversight to ensure that new members would remember who had elected them and why. The recent pressure on House Speaker John Boehner from tea-party representatives reflected that strategic choice.

Political scientists tell us that to bring fundamental change to the nation, political movements must become permanent organizations. The civil rights movement accomplished such a transformation. Will the tea party also become a permanent part of our politics?

It’s too soon to say, of course, but the debt-ceiling deal suggests the answer may be yes. In fact, the Republican Party might be the permanent organization the tea party becomes.

Even if their anger is understandable, liberals should be ashamed of their over-the-top anti-tea party rhetoric. The tea party could become a lasting force in American politics — one that slowly ends the long era that began with the New Deal. Though it’s often criticized as rooted in the past, the tea party may be a harbinger of the future.

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

Katherine Schwarzenegger thought about changing last name

August 9, 2011 – 2:37 pm

Photo credit: Nikolai Von Bismarck

posted by Lizbeth Scordo – Tue Aug 9 2011, 7:35 AM PDT

After managing to stay out of the spotlight for most of their lives, the Schwarzenegger kids were suddenly swarmed with media attention during the demise of their parents’ marriage earlier this year, when it was revealed that their dad, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, had fathered a child out of wedlock. A mega scandal ensued.

Read the Full Interview with Katherine

For eldest daughter Katherine, 21, the change was overwhelming. “It was like everything came out of nowhere overnight,” she says in the September issue of Harper’s Bazaar. “I would go out to lunch, and literally 20 people would come and scream at me. And I’m like, ‘This is so inappropriate; you’re trying to provoke me to have an attack and say something crazy.'”

Which Celebs Have an Open Marriage?

In fact, “crazy” was what Katherine had been trying so hard to avoid since her father became governor when she was just 13. Though she admits to doing some partying in high school, she also knew that one slip-up could ruin everything. “It could have ruined my father’s career if I was caught drunk driving or something like that,” Katherine says. “Being the oldest and going from being an actor’s kid to being the governor’s daughter, it’s a totally different amount of pressure put on you to be perfect.”

“It’s something I deal with every day,” Katherine says of having the Schwarzenegger name. Nikolai Von Bismarck/Harper

Lady Gaga Interviews Her Idol

Eventually, when Katherine began attending college a few years ago, she found that having Schwarzenegger for a last name made certain aspects of her life, well, less than perfect. “I thought of changing it because, especially for dating, it’s impossible,” she tells the magazine. “It’s something I deal with every day, and I am hyperconscious about it. When I got to college, people — much more guys than girls because girls don’t give a crap about bodybuilding — were coming up to me, and it would automatically jump to a conversation about my dad and weight lifting or how to do a proper bicep curl. It’s like, ‘Do you want to date my father, or do you want to date me?'”

Smurfette Models Hot Fall Accessories

Despite having the same last name as her dad, it’s her mother, Maria Shriver, with whom she feels more connected. The two talk around six times a day and email constantly. “I’ve always been way closer to my mom,” Katherine admits. “Even when I was little, I was glued to her all the time. I’m close to my dad, but they’re totally different kinds of relationships.”

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

Tea Party representatives claim debt deal responsible for downgrade because it did not cut enough (Part 1)

August 9, 2011 – 8:51 am
 
The Tea Party members in the Republican Party voted against the debt deal and have even claimed that the debt deal did not cut enough out of the budget and that is why the USA got a downgrade in the  credit rating.

 

 
 
Washington, D.C., Aug 5-Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) released the following statement after Standard and Poor’s announced they have lowered the United States credit rating to AA+:“For the first time in history, the credit rating of the United States has been downgraded.  This confirms my belief that the debt ceiling increase signed into law this week does not go far enough to change the nation’s fiscal trajectory.  Congress should immediately reconvene to take up the fundamental reforms necessary to right the ship and lay the groundwork for a more stable and secure future for our children and grandchildren.“I have put forth legislation which can be brought up today to cut spending immediately and bring the budget to balance in five years.  With it and with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution, we can answer the call for leadership necessary to face our fiscal challenges.”NOTE: Earlier this year, Kingston introduced legislationto limit total federal spending as a percentage of the economy.  Americans for Prosperity, National Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens United, and Americans for Limited Government have all endorsed the plan.

______________________________________

S&P Downgrade Stark Reminder We Must Get Our Fiscal House in Order

Aug 6, 2011 Issues: Spending Cuts and Debt 
 

Today Rep. Todd Rokita responded to news that Standard & Poor’s lowered the United States’ long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+:

“Last night’s announcement by Standard and Poor’s is the starkest reminder yet that we must get our fiscal house in order and put our nation back on a fiscally sustainable trajectory.  The debt ceiling increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama failed to do that.”      

The choices may be hard, but the way forward is clear.  We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have.  The time has come for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Sending a balanced budget amendment to the states will give the American people a vote on their future and the opportunity to force politicians to stop borrowing from China and stealing from our children and grandchildren.”    

Rokita is the co-author of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 

_______________________

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

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6)

August 9, 2011 – 6:31 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 6)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

August 1, 2011 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Rachel Semmel | 202-226-2298

Washington, D.C. – Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) made the following statement after he voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011:

“While this deal was well-intended and skillfully negotiated, I cannot in good faith vote for a bill I know does not do enough to bend the curve of our rapidly escalating debt.

“When looking solely at the numbers, the amount of cuts in the 2012 and 2013 budget cycles are not nearly enough, and these are the only two cycles under the control of this Congress. I remain concerned about holding future Congresses accountable to cap spending at our requested levels.

“Though I feel this measure is inadequate, I am proud of House Republicans for shifting the conversation from spending and borrowing to reducing the size and cost of government.  It is a positive sign, and slowly but surely Washington is waking up to how massive our debt really is.

“I was sent here to grow the economy, stand up to the president’s tax-and-borrow bailouts, and stop the avalanche of debt. However, we simply must do more.”

 

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

Advice to Gene Simmons Part 5, (“Tip Tuesday” Part A) jh15a

August 9, 2011 – 5:50 am

Gene-Simmons-tvae-24.jpg

Gene Simmons Family Jewels

Adrian Rogers – [2/3] How to Cultivate a Marriage

The series I have been doing on “Advice to Gene Simmons” that I am starting what I am calling “Tip Tuesday.” For the next few months we will be looking at the Simmons family.

On July 19th on Gene Simmons Jewels, in a meeting with his marriage counselor, Gene stated, “There is never enough money. Money is the implantation of love.  It begins there and it is only money that provides the walls of your fortress.” Dr. Ann Wexler responds, “Only money? In the pursuit of all this money, in the pursuit of all this fame, aren’t there things that you have missed?”

Gene responded that he missed his daughter’s graduation, but that is life. 

___________________________________________

My advice to Gene Simmons is very simple. Ann Wexler mentioned to him that there is a point where you have enough money and should turn your attention to other important things in his life like relationships. She implies that Gene is being selfish. 

_____________________________-

Many times when a marriage is falling apart there is lots of selfishness that comes out in the open. It may be that a love of money is exposed or it may be a desire to satisfy carnal desires. 

Here are some important points.  First, we are to be married and faithful to one lady. Gene has been having occasional affairs and deep down thinks he deserves the right to do this. However, that is not the plan that God has for us. 

Second, we are to love our wife as Christ loves the church and that means we love her more than anything even money. 

Brandon Barnard in his message “The Battle for Purity” at Fellowship Bible Church on July 24 said there were two paths. The path of impurity and the path of purity. Last time we looked at the path of impurity and today we want to look at the path of purity.

THOSE ON THE PATHWAY TO PURITY WILL PURSUE ALL PLEASURE IN CHRIST AND TAKE GREAT DELIGHT IN THEIR SPOUSE ALONE AND DRINK WATER FROM YOUR OWN CISTERN AND REJOICE IN THE WIFE OF YOUR YOUTH.

Proverbs 5:15-20 states:

15Drink water from your own cistern,
   flowing water from your own well.
16Should your springs be scattered abroad,
   streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
   and not for strangers with you.
18Let your fountain be blessed,
   and rejoice in the wife of your youth,

 19a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
   be intoxicated[a] always in her love.
20Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman
   and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?[b]

Adrian Rogers – [2/3] How to Cultivate a Marriage

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

Kerry and Brummett: Downgrade was Tea Party’s fault

August 9, 2011 – 1:09 am

They denied that there would be a downgrade. Then they denied it meant anything,  and now they are blaming it all on the Tea Party. The truth of the matter is that the Tea Party has been pushing for a balanced budget. So how could they have been responsible for all this overspending which is the true cause of the downgrade?

John Brummett in his article “Why is this culprit smiling?,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 9, 2011, asserted that Republican leaders “caved to the extreme right and sent the issue to the very brink, compelling S&P’s to downgrade the country’s rating, thus adding further uncertainty to the American economy and threatening the beleaguered every-day American with further equity losses and higher borrowing rates.”

Who were these extreme right people responsible for the downgrade? Brummett identifies them as ” the  tea party-inclined insurgents.”

Daniel Doherty in his excellent article, “Congressman Allen West Defends Tea Party Republicans,” 8/8/2011, Townhall, noted:

During an appearance on Fox & Friends this morning, Congressman Allen West (R-FL) slammed Senator John Kerry for his egregious assertion that House Republicans were exclusively to blame for the U.S. credit downgrade. In 2007, as Mr. West explains on the program, the debt ceiling stood at $8.6 trillion when Democrats held both chambers of Congress. Today, after a $787 billion failed stimulus package and a partisan health care law — the federal deficit has risen to $14.5 trillion.

As Katie Pavlich posted earlier, the Cato Institute has proven in unequivocal terms how our ongoing debt problems stem not from a lack of revenue, but from an addiction to spending. Senator Kerry’s argument, then, that Republicans should be blamed for the impasse – especially when Democrats in the senate have yet to propose a budget in over 800 days – is unfounded and an obvious attempt to denigrate his political rivals.

Furthermore, Senator Kerry’s statement conveniently overlooks the intransigence of his own party. As George Will pointed out today on ABC, 95 House Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling compared to only 66 House Republicans. The notion, therefore, that Republicans were solely responsible for the near calamitous U.S. default is demonstrably false.

____________________________

Democrats’ “tea-party downgrade” spin is self-defeating

 

posted at 8:25 pm on August 8, 2011 by Karl
printer-friendly

Various Dems, including but not limited to Pres. Obama’s presidential campaign adviser David Axelrod, Sen. John Kerry, and fmr. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, were busy Sunday blaming S&P’s downgrade of America’s credit rating on the Tea Party. It is bad spin on at least two levels.

First, the spin creates mixed messages. To quote Jim Treacher: “Yesterday, the downgrade was fake. Today, the Tea Party caused it. ‘This isn’t happening… and it’s all your fault!’” In particular, it muddles the Obama administration’s official position, which is that S&P is mistaken. If the administration is trying to stave off similar downgrades from other ratings agencies (even if the impact is more limited than many think), having the president’s campaign flack suggesting a real phenomenon is at work is counter-productive.

Second, the left’s focus on S&P’s comments about GOP opposition to higher taxes (and avoidance of S&P’s comments on entitlement reform) sends a toxic subliminal message to voters. Consider this from the S&P explanation:

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Of course, S&P may not be entirely accurate on this point: Obama blew up a grand bargain with Speaker Boehner that included $800 billion in revenue. But taken on its own terms, S&P’s explanation necessarily assumes not only that the GOP will continue to oppose raising tax rates, but also that the GOP will succeed in doing so. S&P’s analysis implies: (a) the House GOP is unlikely to suffer serious losses in 2012 from their position on the debt ceiling; (b) Pres. Obama may not win re-election in 2012; (c) if Pres. Obama is re-elected, he will likely be beaten a third time on taxes, despite being a lame duck with nothing to lose. These are the narratives being advanced by Democratic spin about a “Tea Party downgrade.”

As the WSJ’s James Taranto quipped: “So the argument for re-election is going to be ‘Don’t blame Obama, he was no match for the Tea Party’?”

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

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age”

August 9, 2011 – 12:09 am

E P I S O D E 5

How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong. B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.”

Another great point that Schaeffer makes in this series is that Communism  has NEVER EXISTED WITHOUT BRINGING REPRESSION.  A few months ago a young person said to me, “I think that Marx was misunderstood and that true communism has not been  really tried yet.” I responded that there are a hand full of Communist countries today and they all have several similar conditions: NO FREEDOM OF PRESS, NO POLITICAL FREEDOM, NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NO ECONOMIC FREEDOM. I noted that Schaeffer has rightly said that Communism  is basically based on materialism and a result it must fail. It does not have a Reformation base.

T h e

REVOLUTIONARY AGE

I. Bible as Absolute Base for Law

A. Paul Robert’s mural in Lausanne.

B. Rutherford’s Lex Rex  (Law Is King): Freedom without chaos; government by law rather than arbitrary government by men.

C. Impact of biblical political principles in America.

1. Rutherford’s influence on U.S. Constitution: directly through Witherspoon; indirectly through Locke’s secularized version of biblical politics.

2. Locke’s ideas inconsistent when divorced from Christianity.

3. One can be personally non-Christian, yet benefit from Christian foundations: e.g. Jefferson and other founders.

II. The Reformation and Checks and Balances

A. Humanist and Reformation views of politics contrasted.

B. Sin is reason for checks and balances in Reformed view: Calvin’s position at Geneva examined.

C. Checks and balances in Protestant lands prevented bloody resolution of tensions.

D. Elsewhere, without this biblically rooted principle, tensions had to be resolved violently.

III. Contrast Between English and French Political Experience

A. Voltaire’s admiration of English conditions.

B. Peaceful nature of the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 in England related to Reformation base.

C. Attempt to achieve political change in France on English lines, but on Enlightenment base, produced a bloodbath and a dictatorship.

1. Constructive change impossible on finite human base.

2. Declaration of Rights of Man, the rush to extremes, and the Goddess of Reason.

3. Anarchy or repression: massacres, Robespierre, the Terror.

4. Idea of perfectibility of Man maintained even during the Terror.

IV. Anglo-American Experience Versus Franco-Russian

A. Reformation experience of freedom without chaos contrasts with that of Marxist-Leninist Russia.

B. Logic of Marxist-Leninism.

1. Marxism not a source of freedom.

2. 1917 Revolution taken over, not begun, by Bolsheviks.

3. Logic of communism: elite dictatorship, suppression of freedoms, coercion of allies.

V. Reformation Christianity and Humanism: Fruits Compared

A. Reformation gave absolutes to counter injustices; where Christians failed they were untrue to their principles.

B. Humanism has no absolute way of determining values consistently.

C. Differences practical, not just theoretical: Christian absolutes give limited government; denial of absolutes gives arbitrary rule.

VI. Weaknesses Which Developed Later in Reformation Countries

A. Slavery and race prejudice.

1. Failure to live up to biblical belief produces cruelty.

2. Hypocritical exploitation of other races.

3. Church’s failure to speak out sufficiently against this hypocrisy.

B. Noncompassionate use of accumulated wealth.

1. Industrialism not evil in itself, but only through greed and lack of compassion.

2. Labor exploitation and gap in living standards.

3. Church’s failure to testify enough against abuses.

C. Positive face of Reformation Christianity toward social evil.

1. Christianity not the only influence on consensus.

a) Church’s silence betrayed; did not reflect what it said it believed.

b) Non-Christian influences also important at that time; and many so-called Christians were “social” Christians only.

2. Contributions of Christians to social reform.

a) Varied efforts in slave trade, prisons, factories.

(1) Wesley, Newton, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and abolition of slavery.

(2) Howard, Elizabeth Fry, and prison reforms.

(3) Lord Shaftesbury and reform in the factories.

b) Impact of Whitefield-Wesley revivals on society.

VII. Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection

But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement.

A. With Bible the ordinary citizen could say that majority was wrong.

B. Tremendous freedom without chaos because Bible gives a base for law.

Questions

1. What has been the role of biblical principles in the legal and political history of the countries studied?

2. Is it true that lands influenced by the Reformation escaped political violence because biblical concepts were acted upon?

3. What are the core distinctions, in terms of ideology and results, between English and American Revolutions on the one hand, and the French and Russian on the other hand?

4. What were the weaknesses which developed at a later date in countries which had a Reformation history?

5. Dr. Schaeffer believes that basic to action is an idea, and that the history of the West in the last two or three centuries has been marked by a humanism pressed to its tragic conclusions and by a Christianity insufficiently applied to the totality of life. How should Christians then approach participation in social and political affairs?

Key Events and Persons

Calvin: 1509-1564

Samuel Rutherford: 1600-1661

Rutherford’s Lex Rex: 1644

John Locke: 1631-1704

John Wesley: 1703-1791

Voltaire: 1694-1778

Letters on the English Nation: 1733

George Whitefield: 1714-1770

John Witherspoon: 1723-1794

John Newton: 1725-1807

John Howard: 1726-1790

Jefferson: 1743-1826

Robespierre: 1758-1794

Wilberforce: 1759-1833

Clarkson: 1760-1846

Napoleon: 1769-1821

Elizabeth Fry: 1780-1845

Declaration of Rights of Man: 1789

National Constituent Assembly: 1789-1791

Second French Revolution and Revolutionary Calendar: 1792

The Reign of Terror: 1792-1794

Lord Shaftesbury: 1801-1855

English slave trade ended: 1807

Slavery ended in Great Britain and Empire: 1833

Karl Marx: 1818-1883

Lenin: 1870-1924

Trotsky: 1879-1940

Stalin: 1879-1953

February and October Russian Revolutions: 1917

Berlin Wall: 1961

Czechoslovakian repression: 1968

Further Study

Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction: 1789-1850 (1970).

R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (1963).

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1957).

Peter Gay, ed., Deism: An Anthology (1968).

John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church (1970).

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1957).

Louis L. Snyder, ed., The Age of Reason (1955).

David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1975).

J. Kuczynski, The Rise of the Working Class (1971).

Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958).

John Newton, Out of the Depths. An Autobiography.

John Wesley, Journal (1 vol. abridge).

C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, Ireland, 1845-1849 (1964).

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

President Obama still loves big government policies but our problem is the overspending.

August 8, 2011 – 7:57 pm

President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits again and he would love to spend more money, but he says they are not “big government proposals.” He still does not get it. It is the spending and we will not always be a triple A country if we keep spending like this.

Rory Cooper

August 8, 2011 at 10:42 am

On Friday evening, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+. As we and other conservatives warned, the spending reductions in the deal negotiated by President Obama to raise the debt ceiling were inadequate, and S&P reacted as we predicted but sooner. Neither Moody’s nor Fitch, two other rating agencies, have downgraded federal debt yet, but they are not providing much rosier outlooks.

Decades of over-spending and over-borrowing by the federal government have damaged America’s creditworthiness. Congress after Congress, President after President, the federal government spent every penny it took in—and borrowed over $14 trillion on top of that—to try to keep happy the voters to whom the government made promises it could not afford. The government kept shifting the burden of paying the bills forward onto future generations.

Well, the future has arrived, and it is bleak. Our economy is weak, millions of Americans are out of work, and America is so deep in debt that we have lost our good credit rating. Our nation needs to drive federal spending, including our ever-growing entitlement programs, down toward a balanced budget while maintaining our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. That is the sound path forward to a stronger economy with smaller government and more real jobs.

The White House’s first reaction to this news was to blame S&P itself, claiming that their math was wrong as spokesmen pointed out S&P’s past rating failures. Correcting the math didn’t correct the problem, however, and so S&P went ahead with its downgrade. Debating S&P’s credibility misses the more important point, which is there for all to see: Projected deficit spending properly raises questions about U.S. credit quality.

We cannot waste time shooting the messenger when the message itself is impossible to ignore: It’s the spending.

Unsustainable entitlement programs have been built up over many Congresses and Presidents. Elected officials from both parties over many decades helped push us closer to this point. But the last chance to start correcting the problem before damage to America’s credit occurred was during the recent debate over the debt limit.

Regrettably, President Obama and the Senate liberals refused to allow reforms to any entitlement programs and refused to make significant cuts in other federal spending unless they could raise taxes on America. Conservatives rightly resisted increasing taxes, which is a recipe for economic disaster during an economic slowdown. The resulting deal on the Budget Control Act brought little in the way of spending cuts and lots in the way of increased borrowing, and it was the last straw that cost America its top credit rating. President Obama and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill brought America’s credit down

The White House claims that its tax-hike centered “grand bargain” would have prevented a downgrade, yet they still have not told us what was in that “bargain.” Even as Senate Democrats are nearing three years without a budget, President Obama has offered to the American people rhetoric and class warfare, rather than solutions and responsible leadership.

Other liberals went out of their way this weekend to blame this downgrade on the Tea Party, with Senator John Kerry (D–MA) going as far as calling it the “Tea Party downgrade“ on NBC’s Meet the Press. Former Obama advisor David Axelrod echoed that coordinated spin on Face the Nation. Besides proclaiming for all to see that the liberals have no solutions themselves, this argument ignores the facts.

The Tea Party’s primary focus is our nation’s fiscal health. If it were not for the Tea Party’s positive influence, Congress would still be spending, taxing, and borrowing with little regard for the burden it is placing on future generations. Only months ago, President Obama was demanding a so-called “clean” debt limit increase that would allow him to keep on borrowing without any cuts to spending.

As our colleague J. D. Foster points out in his expert analysis of Friday’s downgrade, the debate over the debt limit was the substantive ideas of the conservatives versus empty political rhetoric of liberals:

In the course of negotiations on the debt ceiling, congressional Republicans tried tirelessly to get the President and Senate Democrats to get serious about cutting spending. All Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) could do was carp about symbolic tax hikes on the rich, oil companies, and their latest silly affection—corporate jets. To be clear, despite the perilous state of the nation’s finances, the President’s sole objective was ideological and symbolic: Even if Republicans had caved on tax hikes, which they wisely refused to do, the revenue gains would have been inconsequential compared to the spending cuts that are necessary. The President played politics while the nation’s credit rating was set to burn, and now it has.

President Obama, congressional liberals, and their allies believe that if we remain silent on our fiscal future, then markets and credit agencies will not notice our perilous future. Thus we heard from liberal pundits and politicians who called the debt debate a “manufactured crisis”—as if everything would be fine with more blank checks. The problem of federal over-borrowing and over-spending was and is real, as the credit downgrade and market reactions reflect. Congress and the President must fix the problem and fix it now.

Liberals this week will try to equate revenue increases with tax hikes. But that is simply not factual. Government revenues increase when we have greater economic growth and more taxpayers in the workforce. That economic growth is impossible with job-killing tax hikes and increased regulation. Raising taxes on taxpayers earning $250,000 or more hits entrepreneurs, small business owners, and investors, thus slowing economic growth still further.

In the next 10 years, once the economy recovers, revenue will rapidly approach and will likely surpass its historical average of 18.5 percent of GDP, while spending is projected to shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent to 26.4 percent of GDP. Government spending will have increased by 22 percent just on President Obama’s watch.

Yet some liberals were still calling for more debt and deficits this weekend in the name of new “stimulus.” On Friday evening, Obama’s former economic advisor Christina Romer said the first failed stimulus she helped design should have been bigger and argued for a new and larger stimulus saying: “What I want is more now.”

That is, more of what President Obama has given us in the past—fruitless new spending programs. This would give us a bigger problem, not a solution. With America and the world in the grips of an economic slowdown, we need action to create economic growth and jobs and restore America’s credit. We do not need more government.

As dire is the domestic situation, as Foster notes, the consequences for the global financial crisis may be worse:

In today’s global economy, however, the U.S. credit rating downgrade may prove catastrophic. Prior to the credit rating downgrade, Europe was already teetering on the brink. Last week European stock exchanges plunged 10 percent, their worst weekly losses since November 2008. The long-building government debt crisis in Europe, which had been so unsuccessfully papered over just a few weeks ago by its leaders, is reaching the boiling point, threatening to wash over not just the worst offenders like Greece and Portugal but also some of the pillars of the European Union like Spain and Italy.

We cannot improve domestic or global economic conditions by becoming more like Europe. America can do better by adopting better ideas.

Heritage has offered its fiscal plan, “Saving the American Dream,” which would balance the budget in 10 years and lower our debt-to-GDP ratio to 30 percent (from the 100 percent it reached last week). It would accomplish this through responsible reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code.

As Foster concludes:

A number of sound incremental reforms can garner strong bipartisan support and can substantially improve these program’s sustainability and the nation’s finances. The President must lead his party to join hands with Republicans in the joint select committee to embrace these reforms and be ready to enact them, saving far more than $1.2 trillion and far sooner than November 23. The objective for the nation, the President, and the joint select committee is clear: drive down spending—including and especially on entitlement programs—toward a balanced budget while protecting America and without raising taxes. Properly done, this would lead to economic growth, more jobs, less government, and a restoration of the nation’s credit rating. It can be done.

It can be done.

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

Brummett: Across-the-board spending cuts will not work

August 8, 2011 – 1:17 pm

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 
By Michael Ramirez – July 28, 2011
_________________
John Brummett in his article, “Neither trickle-down or tax-and-spend,” Arkansas News Bureau, August, 8, 2011, asserted, “…simple and non-strategic across-the-board spending cuts could well push an economy from idle to reverse.”
 
I disagree because our problem is overspending. We need to dramatically cut back on our spending. 100 years ago the federal government spent less than 3% every year unless it was during war time. In fact, it had been that way since the founding of our nation. Then why do we think it would crush our nation to reverse our spending trend?
 
If we do not start balancing our budget soon then we will be where Greece is in a few years. Take a look at this video and article below.

What Are the Consequences of the Downgrade?

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Even though I predicted it had to happen at some point because of the Bush-Obama spending binge and America’s giant long-run entitlement crisis, I confess that I’m somewhat surprised that the United States has suffered a debt downgrade for the first time.

That being said, I don’t think the downgrade will matter. Everyone knew the U.S. was heading in the wrong direction before the announcement by Standard & Poor. Moreover, big investors have very few attractive options for where to place their money – thanks to a weak global economy. As such, I suspect the federal government will still be able to borrow money at very low rates.

What does matter, however, is that the American economy is burdened with a bloated public sector that is sapping the nation’s economic vitality. And this problem will get worse every year because of a toxic combination of poorly designed entitlement programs and demographic change.

As the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector – taxes and borrowing – both have additional adverse economic consequences.

In other words, the United States has fiscal cancer. Yet rather than try to cure the disease, politicians are – at best – kicking the can down the road.

The only glimmer of hope, as I wrote yesterday, is that House Republicans have made serious efforts to restrain the burden of federal spending.

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

Downgrade of US credit rating because of growing spending

August 8, 2011 – 12:49 pm

This clip above and the article below really helped my understanding of the issue.

What’s Next After the S&P Downgrade

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 August 8, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on August 8, 2011

What now, in the wake of Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt?

Well, the real answer is: nothing much.

Though the agency’s downgrade is being reported apocalyptically by news media — and had a corresponding effect on markets early Monday — the fact is that the S&P rating should be treated as but one datum in a vast sea of information about the financial sector and the overall economy.

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).

 

More by Jagadeesh Gokhale

S&P is only one of three major agencies whose credit ratings are widely used by individual and institutional investors to set their asset portfolios. Despite S&P’s downgrade, the other two major ratings agencies — Moody’s and Fitch — affirmed their AAA rating of U.S. Treasury bonds.

S&P’s own suggested interpretation is that ratings are “one of several tools that investors can use when making decisions about purchasing bonds and other fixed income investments.” Indeed, S&P’s language here hints at a double standard: it issues the ratings, but then describes them as not very useful — suggesting a desire on the part of S&P to evade accountability when their ratings turn out to be misleading, as happened with mortgage-backed securities during the recent recession.

S&P’s ratings measure “relative risk,” informing investors about whether one financial asset is more (or less) likely to default compared to another. Thus, with the recent downgrade, U.S. Treasuries are now more risky than the sovereign debt of several other countries: Australia, Sweden, Canada and six others. However, none of those countries is large enough, with capital markets sufficiently deep or liquid, to replace U.S. Treasuries as the destination of choice for investors wishing to shield their capital from risks.

Moreover, because accruing federal revenues are considerably larger than federal debt service costs, the likelihood of an outright default on U.S. public debt remains remote. The only other way to default on U.S. Treasuries is through higher inflation — to erode the real value of federal debt, most of which is denoted in nominal (rather than inflation-adjusted) terms. The potential for rising inflation in the long-term remains high with banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, and regular private sector firms sitting on large hoards of liquid reserves. But the likelihood of an inflationary spiral in a sluggish economy with a high rate of unemployment appears to be very low. Therefore, a broad-based exit from U.S. Treasuries appears unlikely.

S&P says that its ratings do not amount to investment advice — to purchase, sell or hold particular financial instruments. They are simply one of many factors — such as companies’ business models, their revenue potentials, input costs, sector outlook, technologies in development, and so on — that should be considered when selecting financial investments. Indeed, this view was strongly emphasized by S&P and other ratings agencies after the financial sector collapse from exposure to sub-prime mortgages. Those loans were financially engineered to construct derivative financial assets — mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations — that were rated AAA, but which later failed spectacularly and still toxically infest many financial institutions’ portfolios.

That episode has cast considerable doubt upon the ability and reliability of ratings agencies’ risk evaluation methods. By S&P’s own admission, establishing ratings is not a science. Well, then: it must be an art at which the agencies have proved particularly inept. The $2 trillion error in S&P’s projections of U.S. federal debt — an error S&P admitted — is clear evidence that these agencies are unworthy of worship on a pedestal.

Finally, the ratings downgrade provides no new information about the fiscal condition of the U.S. federal government. Our aging population — increasing longevity, and the retirement of 76 million baby boomers — will boost government spending on entitlement benefits unless those programs are reformed to cut costs. Politicians’ unwillingness to reform them is well known. And it just happened again, as Congress and President Obama settled on a small budget deal that’s likely to leave the government’s finances in a deeper hole by the end of the decade. Investors and others knew it as soon as the budget deal was announced, as indicated by the almost universally negative market commentary on the adequacy of the deal. The recent market decline must be interpreted as a clear response to the disappointing outcome.

The S&P ratings downgrade only rubber-stamps the negative outlook on the federal government’s finances that markets have already expressed. This ratings downgrade, by itself, is unlikely to make much additional difference to market outcomes in the short term; markets had clearly decided on their own not to rely too much on S&P’s rating of U.S. Treasuries.

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