Monthly Archives: August 2011

Standard & Poor’s downgrades US credit rating

August 6, 2011 – 11:32 am

Over and over conservatives have warned that a US default was not the main thing we needed to fear but not cutting our budget enough to avoid a downgrade of the US credit rating. Now it has happened just as we feared!!!

Standard & Poor’s downgrades US credit rating

Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credit rating for the US from AAA for the first time in US history.

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press / August 5, 2011

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor‘s on Friday downgraded the United States‘ credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country’s top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country’s debt situation.

A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration feels the S&P’s analysis contained “deep and fundamental flaws.”

S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.

S&P first put the government on notice in April that a downgrade was possible unless Congress and the administration came up with a credible long-term deficit reduction plan and avoided a default on the country’s debt.

After months of wrangling and negotiations with the administration, Congress passed this week a debt reduction package at the 11th-hour that averted a possible default.

In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view “of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties” over a credible deficit reduction plan.

S&P said it was now “pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics anytime soon.”

Despite Dow ending the day up, it was a roller coaster all day at one point down 170 points. With the S&P downgrade, the release of the jobs report, and the roller coaster week on Wall Street, many are just holding their breath to see how the markets flesh out.

Debt Deal: Politicians Win, Middle Class Loses

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

Added to cato.org on August 2, 2011

This article appeared on CNN.com on August 2, 2011.

America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the baby boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. We’re now in our third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington.

 

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

But it wasn’t easy getting there. Just as happened with the “government shutdown” debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than $900 billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a “supercommittee” charged with proposing another $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favorite programs and created a supercommittee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here’s why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their tea party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn’t matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the supercommittee must use the “current law” baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the supercommittee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here’s why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than $100 billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the class-warfare crowd that there’s an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other “rich” people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its $1.5 trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a supercommittee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

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

US Navy Seals killed in Afghanistan this morning

August 6, 2011 – 11:12 am
 

It’s a sad day for America.

In the largest single loss of U.S. troops since the war in Afghanistan started, the Taliban shot down a helicopter early this morning carrying 25 Navy SEALS and other special operations forces, killing total of 31 Americans.

A total of 38 people were on board the Chinook helicopter when it crashed overnight in the eastern Afghan province of Wardak.

Initial reports indicate up to 25 Navy SEALs were on the aircraft at the time.

It was also carrying seven Afghan Special Forces troops, one interpreter, five member helicopter crew and one dog.

Troops were apparently involved in a raid at the time.

“We are aware of an incident involving a helicopter in eastern Afghanistan,” U.S. Air Force Capt. Justin Brockhoff, a NATO spokesman, told the Associated Press. “We are in the process of accessing the facts.”

Although the Taliban have claimed to have shot the helicopter down, the exact cause of the crash is still under investigation.

God bless their souls, their families and may they rest in peace.

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

W. Hatcher v. E. Hatcher top ten soccer videos (Part 3)

August 6, 2011 – 10:30 am

This is Wilson’s 4th pick

cristiano ronaldo

bad music, great video!

This is Wilson’s 3rd pick

Diego Maradona vs England ’86

The music fits it very well!

This is Wilson’s 2nd pick

The politics of the World Cup

It’s very funny!

__________________

This is Everette’s #4 pick:

George Best- ‘The Best Tribute’!

George Best is great.

_______________________________

Everette’s #3 pick:

Young Lionel Messi – Rare Clips HD

Only Ronaldo is better than Messi!!!

Lionel Messi 2011 – This is my life story

_____________________________

Landon Donovan Fantastic Goal 2-0 – USA vs Brazil – Confederations Cup Final 2009

Everette’s number two is:

USA MEXICO 1_8 FINAL WORLD CUP 2002

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

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 3)

August 6, 2011 – 6:06 am

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 3)

Will Rogers has a great quote that I love. He noted, “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago”(Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 20.)

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.

Congressman Flake Votes Against Debt Deal
Greater Congressional Spending Restraints Needed
Washington, D.C. , Aug 1 –

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today voted against the revised version of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

“I don’t think that this deal takes into account the severity of the budget crisis we face.  The age-old trick in Washington is to produce a ten-year budget with serious cuts only taking effect in later years.  This deal continues that practice.  Additionally, the requirement for a balanced budget amendment, which was included in the Boehner bill, was excluded from the final legislation.”

Congressman Flake: So Just How Broke Are We?

 

Mesa, Arizona, Aug 2 – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today illustrated the size and scope of the growing national debt.          The Washington Times reports that Vice President Joe Biden collects rent from the Secret Service for use of a cottage on a property he owns in a Wilmington, Delaware suburb. The Secret Service pays the vice president $2,200 each month in rent.

The U.S. is so broke that Vice President Biden would have to rent his cottage to the Secret Service for 545.8 million years – long after he’s left office – to have the money to pay down our debt of more than $14.4 trillion.

“Biden’ our time clearly isn’t solving the debt problem,” said Flake.

Along with Senators McCain and Rubio, Congressman Flake introduced in the 112th Congress the Debt Buy-Down Act, which allows taxpayers to designate up to 10 percent of their federal income tax liability to reduce the national debt.  The bill then requires Congress to reduce federal spending by that amount.  More information on the Debt Buy-Down Act can be found here.

Print version of this document

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

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages”

August 6, 2011 – 12:50 am

How Should We Then Live 2-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” In my view we see a move from more conservative evangelicalism of the early church to the Catholic Church.

E P I S O D E 2

T h e

MIDDLE AGES 

I. Introduction: The Post-Roman World

A. Social, political, and intellectual uncertainty.

B. General decline in learning, but monasteries were a depository for classical and Christian documents.

C. The original pristine Christianity of the New Testament gradually became distorted.

D. Decline of vital naturalism in art parallels decline of vital Christianity: positive and negative aspects of Byzantine art.

E. Music at time of Ambrose, later Gregorian chants.

II. The Church in the World: Economic, Social, Political.

How to be in the world but not of it.

A. Generosity of early church.

B. Ambivalence in Middle Ages about material goods; asceticism and luxury.

C. Economic controls to protect the weak.

D. Emphasis on work well done.

E. Care for social needs: e.g. hospitals.

F. Meaning of Christendom; attendant problems. Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good and Bad Government.

III. Artistic Achievements

A. Close relation between church and society in art and life: e.g. reign of Charlemagne.

B. Basis of unified European culture laid by Charlemagne.

C. Birth and flowering of Romanesque architecture.

D. Birth and flowering of Gothic architecture.

IV. Links Between Philosophical, Theological, and Spiritual Developments on Eve of Renaissance

A. Aquinas’ emphasis on Aristotle.

1. Negative aspect: individual things, the particulars, tended to be made independent, autonomous.

2. With this came the loss of adequate meaning for the individual things, including Man, morals, values, and law.

B. Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.

C. Reaction of Wycliffe and Hus to theological distortions is prophetic of Reformation.

Questions

1. Summarize the negative and positive aspects of church influence in the Middle Ages.

2. “To speak of distortions of belief in the Middle Ages is to pretend that the church should have stood still when the apostles died. But we have to adapt to new circumstances and ideas. The medieval church did.” Comment.

3. Apply the particulars-universals discussion to modern circumstances. How do people repeat the same mistakes nowadays? Be specific.

Key Events and Persons

Aristotle: 384-322 B.C.

Ambrose: 339-397

Alcuin of York: 735-804

Charlemagne reign: c. 768-814

Crowned Emperor: 800

Romanesque style: 1000-1150

Gothic style: 1150-1250

St. Denis: 1140-

St. Francis: c. 1181-1226

Chartres: 1194-

Aquinas: 1225-1274

John Wycliffe: c. 1320-1384

John Hus: 1369-1415

Further Study

H. Fichtenau, The Carolingian Empire (1954).

Gordon Leff, Medieval Thought (1958).

C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image (1964).

E.K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages (1954).

O. vonSimson, The Gothic Cathedral (1964).

R.W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (1953).

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

The Penny Plan: How to balance the budget in 8 years

August 5, 2011 – 9:08 am

If our country is at a crisis point with this huge federal deficit, why can’t we freeze spending until we get it under control? Below is a good proposal.

Now that the national debt ceiling deal is done — and liberals like me are unhappy and conservatives deservedly have more to cheer about — Thanksgiving 2011 will be more than about good turkeys. This is the deadline for the so-called “super” congressional committee of six Democrats and six Republicans from the House and Senate to cut at least $1.2 trillion in the projected budget deficit for the next 10 years.

I favor at least one-half of this $1.2 trillion to be funded by a combination of tax reform – closing tax loopholes — and increases in marginal tax rates of upper income taxpayers (including me).

But if you are an anti-tax conservative who sincerely believes that you have to cut spending and not “feed the beast” with more revenues, then one approach on spending cuts for the super committee to consider is the simple and creative “Penny Plan” introduced by Rep. Connie Mack (R.-Fla.).

Mr. Mack’s bill, H.R. 1848, would cut one-penny-out-of-every dollar actually spent by the federal government from year-to-year for the next six years, from FY 2012-FY 2017. Beginning in FY 2018, there would be a budget cap of 18% of GDP (the average federal revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years). And by FY 2019 America would finally have a balanced budget — that is, assuming revenues naturally increase from the current 14.8% of GDP to 18% of GDP by 2019, after which the budget would be in surplus.

There is an automatic spending cut “trigger” under Mr. Mack’s plan — one he came up with well before the trigger used in the recently passed national debt ceiling bill. If congress failed to enact a budget implementing the one-percent-actual-spending cut required under Mr. Mack’s measure, then there would be automatic, across-the-board actual cuts in all federal programs to meet the one percent reduction, and that means all: in defense, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, defense and national security spending, everything.

Mr. Mack’s plan may seem draconian to some. It would cut the accumulated budget deficits by an estimated $7.5 trillion over ten years — more than three times the amount achieved by the debt ceiling deal congress approved last Tuesday.

But it actually has a rather modest impact on reducing our total national debt. It won’t be until 8 years from now that the budget will be in balance and the national debt starts getting paid down.

We had $1 trillion in surplus — money in the bank — when Bill Clinton left office on January 20, 2001, just eight years after he began his presidency inheriting a $300 billion deficit. Now we are heading towards a $15 trillion debt. How did this happen? Both parties are guilty.

I am a liberal Democrat who believes that the national debt and annual deficits are the country’s greatest moral issues. We cannot continue to use credit cards to pay for wars, corporate jet write-offs, and Social Security and Medicare — and leave it to our children, grand-children, and probably great grand-children to pay our bills.

That is simply wrong. It is a moral stain on our generation if we leave this red-ink legacy for generations to come to deal with.

Mr. Mack’s Penny Plan may be imbalanced from my perspective, lacking in the revenue-raising component endorsed by the bipartisan Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles commission. I believe Republicans will have difficulty in the 2012 congressional and presidential elections defending the proposition that the national debt can be significantly paid down from budget cuts alone, or that the wealthier in our society shouldn’t pay more or at least stop taking advantage of tax loopholes to pay less.

But since the “balanced” solution of both increased revenues and spending cuts entitlement reform is supported in virtually ever poll by substantial majorities of all voters, including large numbers of Republicans, Democrats need to find a spending cut formula that they can live with. The Mack Penny Plan seems a good place to start — it is simple, it makes common sense, and with some adjustments protecting the poor and the unemployed, it could be seen as fair even to many of the most liberal Democrats.

Despite our philosophical differences, I am a great admirer of Rep. Mack. I respect his deeply felt conservative philosophy and values. Most of all I respect his ability to disagree agreeably.

In this time of crisis — and I believe our national debt is a genuine and historic crisis — we need members like Mr. Mack who know how to reach across the aisle, as I have seen him do many times, to find common solutions. The Mack Penny Plan deserves serious consideration – as serious as the man who proposed it.
Mr. Davis has served as a lobbyist representing the government of Honduras and the Honduran business council and in that capacity met with Rep. Mack, who was Ranking Member and then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, on many occasions.

Mr. Davis is the principal in the Washington D.C. law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-98 and as a member of President Bush’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in 2006-07. He is the author of “Scandal: How ‘Gotcha’ Politics Is Destroying America” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). He can be found on Facebook and Twitter (@LannyDavis).

This weekly blog appears in The Hill, Foxnews.com, Huffington Post and the Jakarta Globe every Thursday.

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

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2)

August 5, 2011 – 6:00 am

“What good is a debt limit that is always increased?”

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2)

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.

Roby Comments on Debt Limit Vote

Aug 1, 2011 Issues: Spending Cuts and Debt
 
 
 

WASHINGTON—U.S. Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, made the following comments today regarding the House of Representative’s vote to increase the statutory limit on the national debt:

                “I applaud the efforts of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, and Budget Chairman Ryan over the last month. Every dollar saved under the plan approved tonight is a result of their steadfast advocacy on behalf of the American People. While the final legislation is far from perfect and while many of us would prefer the more fundamental reforms found in the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,’ this compromise cuts a dollar of spending for every new dollar of debt. That is a significant accomplishment given that Democrats—who wanted new taxes and no spending reductions—outnumbered Republicans two to one at the negotiating table.

                “During this debate, I voted for two separate proposals that would significantly cut future spending, put our nation on firmer financial footing, and avoid a potentially catastrophic default. Each was killed by Senate Democrats.

                “I am pleased that a default has been avoided as a result of the vote tonight. However, I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy.

                “Of course we lack a crystal ball to know how it will play out, but my best judgment is that the chances the special joint committee will fail are too high to risk our national defense, which is one of few legitimate government functions enumerated in the Constitution. If required, the cuts would be so deep as to affect the readiness of our troops around the world—a risk I am not willing to take. As important as deficit reduction is, what good is it for a country that is unable to adequately defend the freedom and liberty it cherishes? Certainly there are other places in the massive federal bureaucracy that are more deserving of deep cuts.

                “I reject the idea that we need not worry about these cuts because Washington will never let them happen. To make that suggestion is to say that the legislation does not actually do what we have said it does.

                “In the end, I hope that the special joint committee will find the spending cuts that it is charged to identify, and I look forward to reviewing the product of its work. Our prayer is that the special joint committee members will do their jobs, thereby ensuring that the damaging military cuts that could occur never see the light of day.

                “On the broader question of restoring fiscal responsibility, our work has just begun. This has been a long and convoluted process, but the takeaway is simple: in a short period of time, House Republicans have successfully changed the conversation in Washington from ‘how do we spend more’ to ‘how do we spend less.’ Even so, much work remains, and only a sustained, dedicated effort will truly change the spending culture in Washington.”

# # #

NOTE: Congress debated how best to raise the debt limit for many months. Members considered numerous proposals, and the House of Representatives and the Senate each took several votes on the issue. On May 31, Rep. Martha Roby voted against President Obama’s original request for a clean debtincrease that would expand the government’s ability to borrow money without placing any restrictions on future spending. She saidthat any debt limit increase should be accompanied by “significant” spending cuts. On July 22, Roby voted in favor of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,” referringto the “strong” measure as her “preference.” The Democratic Senaterejected the measure. With the debt deadline looming, Roby supported Speaker Boehner’sproposal on July 29, notingthat it was “far from perfect” but that it cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of additional debt and included no new taxes. Again, the Senaterejected that measure. On July 28, Roby opposed Sen. Reid’s proposal, which she pointed outincluded an unacceptable budget gimmick that would not result in real savings. (The Senatealso rejectedthe Reid proposal.) That vote was followed by the events described in the press release above.

 

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

“There is no free lunch” said Milton Friedman (“Friedman Friday” Part 1)

August 5, 2011 – 5:20 am

“There is no free lunch” said Milton Friedman (“Friedman Friday” Part 1)

Today is the beginning of a new series I am starting:

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN.

Milton Friedman – The Free Lunch Myth

No Free Lunch, Now We have to Pay

January 23, 2011 by John Beagle

Milton Friedman held that the government’s role in the guidance of the economy should be restricted severely.

Taking over car companies is not restricted government economics from any sense of the concept. A health care program which will cost taxpayers dearly and continuing to expand all social programs cut into the economic freedoms of everyone  working.

We should be cutting programs that Milton says,  ’enslave those who are supposed to benefit from the very program that is supposed to help.’

Unions continue to hurt much more than they help. Unions have a bad name in our country. More on that here: Milton Friedman on Labor Unions.

For too long we have lived with improper spending. Living as if lunch were free.

“There is No Free Lunch”

– Milton Friedman

Countries taking ‘no heed’ of proven Friedman economic fiscally responsible theories are now suffering with huge cuts in social programs resulting in violent protests from an under-informed public. Irresponsible governments are defaulting on financial obligations and are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Where does that leave US in Friedman’s eyes?

Right now all we have are Milton Friedman approved ‘promises’ from newly elected conservative lawmakers. If congress puts together a budget this year, that would be a good first step. Last year the democrat controlled congress failed to put forth a budget for the first time in history. Never before has the house failed to pass a budget, yet that same congress passed huge spending bills without a financial forecasted budget.

The next step to being more Milton Friedman-like would be to honor federal spending cut promises.

Here are some highlights, thanks Daniel Foster for putting this list together:

– Reducing the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and eliminating automatic pay increases for the next five years.
– Eliminating all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion
– Privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion
– Prohibiting any funding of the implementation — or legal defense — of Obamacare.
– Cutting the federal travel budget in half. $7.5 billion annually
– Cutting the federal vehicle budget by 20 percent. $600 million annually
– Eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting subsidy. $445 million annually
– Eliminating Amtrak subsidies. $1.565 billion annually
– Repealing Title X Family Planning. $318 million annually
– Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act (which sets “prevailing wages” for workers on federal projects). $1 billion-plus annually
– Prohibiting taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years

Next, let states declare bankruptcy. Lawmakers are working on a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debt, including pensions promised to retired public workers. The New York Times reported on Friday that House Republicans, and senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue.

More cuts and bankruptcies are needed. It will be a painful catharsis. You can’t pay for this lunch with “lunch money”. You’re going to need allot more.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Free Markets, Milton Friedman | Leave a Comment »

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

August 5, 2011 – 12:49 am

The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part1)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 2)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 3)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 4)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 5)

How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)

#02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer

10 Worldview and Truth

Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970’s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first.

Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward problems. We have many of these same problems today in the USA.

The late Francis Schaeffer wrote of the significance of one’s world view, which, in the final analysis, represents one’s doctrinal perspective about God and life:

There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind—what they are in their thought world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity …

People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and their basis for their decisions.

“As a man thinketh, so is he,” is really most profound. An individual is not just the product of the forces around him. He has a mind, an inner world …

Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true …

It is important to realize what a difference a people’s world view makes in their strength as they are exposed to the pressure of life. That it was the Christians who were able to resist religious mixtures, syncretism, and the effects of the weakness of Roman culture speaks of the strength of the Christian world view. This strength rested on God’s being an infinite-personal God and his speaking in the Old Testament, in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in the gradually growing New Testament. He had spoken in ways people could understand. Thus the Christians not only had knowledge about the universe and mankind that people cannot find out by themselves, but they had absolute, universal values by which to live and by which to judge the society and the political state in which they lived …1

Apathy was the chief mark of the late Empire. One of the ways the apathy showed itself was in a lack of creativity in the arts. One easily observed example of the decadence of officially sponsored art is that the fourth-century work on the Arch of Constantine in Rome stands’ in poor contrast to its second-century sculptures which were borrowed from monuments from the period of Emperor Trajan. The elite abandoned their intellectual pursuits for social life. Officially sponsored art was decadent, and music was increasingly bombastic. Even the portraits on the coins became of poor quality. All of life was marked by the predominant apathy.

As the Roman economy slumped lower and lower, burdened with an aggravated inflation and a costly government, authoritarianism increased to counter the apathy. Since work was no longer done voluntarily, it was brought increasingly under the authority of the state, and freedoms were lost. For example, laws were passed binding small farmers to their land. So, because of the general apathy and its results, and because of oppressive control, few thought the old civilization worth saving.

Rome did not fall because of external forces such as the invasion by the barbarians. Rome had no sufficient inward base; the’ barbarians only completed the breakdown — and Rome gradually became a ruin.

It is important to realize what a difference a people’s world view makes in their strength as they are exposed to the pressure of life. That it was the Christians who were able to resist religious mixtures, syncretism, and the effects of the weaknesses of Roman culture speaks of the strength of the Christian world view. This strength rested on God’s being an infinite-personal God and his speaking in the Old Testament, in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in the gradually growing New Testament. He had spoken in ways people could understand. Thus the Christians not only had knowledge about the universe and mankind that people cannot find out by themselves, but they had absolute, universal values by which to live and by which to judge the society and the political state in which they lived. And they had grounds for the basic dignity and value of the individual as unique in being made in the image of God.

Perhaps no one has presented more vividly to our generation the inner weakness of imperial Rome than has Fellini (1920-) in his film Satyricon. He reminds us that the classical world is not to be romanticized, but that it was both cruel and decadent as it came to the logical conclusion of its world view.

A culture or an individual with a weak base can stand only when the pressure on it is not too great. As an illustration, let us think of a Roman bridge. The Romans built little humpbacked bridges over many of the streams of Europe. People and wagons went over these structures safely for centuries, for two millennia. But if people today drove heavily loaded trucks over these bridges, they would break. It is this way with the lives and value systems of individuals and cultures when they have nothing stronger to build on than their own limitedness, their own finiteness. They can stand when pressures are not too great, but when pressures mount, if then they do not have a sufficient base, they crash-just as a Roman bridge would cave in under the weight of a modern six-wheeled truck. Culture and the freedoms of people are fragile. Without a sufficient base, when such pressures come only time is needed and often not a great deal of time-before there is a collapse.

E P I S O D E 1

ROMAN AGE

I. Introduction

A. Problem: dilemma of social breakdown and violence leading to authoritarianism which limits freedom.

B. We are, however, not helpless. Why?

C. Answer approached through consideration of the past.

D. Any starting point in history would be good; we start with Rome because it is direct ancestor of modern West.

II. Rome: The Empire Triumphant

A. Size and military strength of Empire.

B. Imperial sway evoked by Aventicum (Avenches), Switzerland.

III. Rome: Cultural Analysis

A. Greece and Rome: cultural influences and parallels.

1. Society as the absolute, to give meaning to life.

2. Finite gods as ground of accepted values.

B. Problems arising from Roman culture.

1. No infinite reference point as base for values and society.

2. Collapse of civic ideals therefore inevitable.

C. Results of collapse of ideals.

1. Dictatorship of Julius Caesar a response to civil disorder.

2. Firmly established authoritarian rule of Augustus.

D. Characteristics of regime introduced by Augustus.

1. Claim to give peace and the fruits of civilization.

2. Care to maintain facade of republican constitution.

3. People ready to accept absolute power in return for peace and prosperity.

4. Religious sanction for emperor-dictators: the emperor as God.

E. Christian persecution

1. Religious toleration in the Empire.

2. Christians persecuted because they would worship only the infinite-personal God and not Caesar also. They had an absolute whereby to judge the Roman state and its actions.

F. Viability of presuppositions facing social and political tension.

1. Christians had infinite reference point in God and His revelation in the Old Testament, the revelation through Christ, and the growing New Testament.

2. Christians could confront Roman culture and be untouched by its inner weakness, including its relativism and syncretism.

3. Roman hump-backed bridge, like Roman culture, could only stand if not subjected to overwhelming pressures.

IV. Rome: Eventual Decline and Fall

A. Growth of taste for cruelty.

B. Decadence seen in rampant sexuality and lust for violence.

C. General apathy, as seen in decline in artistic creativity.

D. Economic decline, more expensive government, and tighter centralization.

E. Successful barbarian invasions because of internal rot.

V. Conclusion

There is no foundation strong enough for society or the individual life within the realm of finiteness and beginning from Man alone as autonomous.

Questions

1. Dr. Schaeffer claims that, through looking at history, we can see how presuppositions determine events. Does his discussion bear this out and, if so, how?

2. How can a survey of Roman history in one-half hour be either useful or responsible? Discuss.

3. “History does not repeat itself.” —The parallels between the history of Rome and the twentieth century West are many and obvious.” How may these statements be reconciled?

Key Events and Persons

Julius Caesar: 100-44 B.C.

Augustus Caesar (Octavian): 63 B.C.-A.D. 14

Declared Pontifex Maximus: 12 B.C.

Diocletian: (Emperor) A.D. 284-305

Further Study

Here, as in succeeding suggestions for further study, it will be assumed that if you want to devote a great deal of time to a topic you can consult a library or a good bookstore. Suggestions given below are made on the basis of relevance to the text, readability, and availability.

Not all the books will necessarily agree at all—or in all details—with Dr. Schaeffer’s presentation. But as in the general conduct of life, so in matters of the mind, one must learn to discriminate. If you avoid reading things with which you disagree, you will be naive about what most of the world thinks. On the other hand, if you read everything—but without a critical mind—you will end up accepting by default all that the world (and especially your own moment of history) thinks.

J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969).

E.M. Blaiklock, The Christian in Pagean Society (1956).

Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1962).

E.M.B. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (1970).

Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans: A Selection (1972).

Virgil, The Aeneid (1965).

Film: Fellini, Satyricon (1969).

In about A.D. 60, a Jew who was a Christian and who also knew the Greek and Roman thinking of his day wrote a letter to those who lived in Rome. Previously, he had said the same things to Greek thinkers while speaking on Mars Hill in Athens. He had spoken with the Acropolis above him and the ancient marketplace below him, in the place wherethe thinkers of Athens met for discussion. A plaque marks that spot today and gives his talk in the common Greek spoken in his day. He was interrupted in his talk in Athens, but his Letter to the Romans gives us without interruption what he had to say to the thinking people of that period.

He said that the integration points of the Greek and Roman world view were not enough to answer the questions posed either by the existence of the universe and its form, or by the uniqueness of man. He said that they deserved judgment because they knew that they did not have an adequate answer to the questions raised by the universe or by the existence of man, and yet they refused, they suppressed, that which is the answer. To quote his letter:

The retribution of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is evident within them [that is, the uniqueness of man in contrast to non-man], for God made it evident to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made [that is, the existence of the universe and its form], even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse. [Roman 1:18ff.]

Here he is saying that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail. That this God exists and that he has not been silent but has spoken to people in the Bible and through Christ was the basis for the return to a more fully biblical Christianity in the days of the Reformers. It was a message of the possibility that people could return to God on the basis of the death of Christ alone. But with it came many other realities, including form and freedom in the culture and society built on that more biblical Christianity. The freedom brought forth was titanic, and yet, with the forms given in the Scripture, the freedoms did not lead to chaos. And it is this which can give us hope for the future. It is either this or an imposed order.

As I have said in the first chapter, people function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view — the world view which gives men and women the truth of what is.

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

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

August 4, 2011 – 11:59 am

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.
Rep. Brooks on Fox Business: BBA and the Debt Ceiling Vote

Print

Share

 

Rep. Mo Brooks To Vote No On Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill

08/01/11

Washington, D.C. – Today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) made the following statement concerning his vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:

 

Summary

The Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill is bad for America, bad political process, bad for national defense, does not prevent unsustainable budget deficits, kicks the debt ceiling crises down the road to 2013 (when America will have more debt and less financial strength with which to fix the problem), and fails to satisfactorily decrease the risk of an American credit rating downgrade.

 

Overview

America must, and will, raise the debt ceiling.  The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how.  Regardless of when the debt ceiling is raised, every bill and obligation of America to its citizens and creditors will be paid in full (albeit, with the exception of creditors, some payments may be delayed).

I have voted to raise the debt ceiling provided the debt ceiling bill makes America’s financial condition better, not worse.

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 22, 2011, when I voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan (cutting FY 2012 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit; capping federal government expenditures within historically justifiable 18-20% ranges; and passing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that protect future generations of Americans from revisiting the financial mess we face).

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 29, 2011, when I voted for the Boehner Plan (which included a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment requirement).

I will not vote for the Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Bill (herein the “Debt Bill”) because it is not up to the financial challenges America faces. 

 

Background:  The Problem

Years of spending binges by the federal government have come home to roost.  America’s debt exceeds $14 trillion.  America has suffered three consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits (and faces trillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future).

Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.

In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis.  Over the longer term, America faces a debt crisis. 

If trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, America’s insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, thereby risking America’s national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else the federal government does.

 

Debt Bill Deficiencies That Compel a “No” Vote

The accumulative deficiencies in the Debt Bill compel me to vote “No.”  The deficiencies are:

1. Minimal Time for Consideration and Deliberation.

The Debt Bill is 74 pages of interwoven, complicated legal and budgetary terms.  I have read and studied the Debt Bill in the limited time available.  The Debt Bill forces onto our children and grandchildren another $2.4 trillion in debt burden, yet we are expected to vote on it with less than 24 hours notice.

This is insufficient time to thoroughly understand the Debt Bill’s nuances, for budget experts to digest the Debt Bill and offer their insights, for the public to analyze the legislation and share their insight, and for Congress to make a wise and deliberative decision.

While some argue the Debt Bill must pass by the White House’s August 2 deadline; I believe it is better to act wisely than in haste.  The economy will be much worse if Congress, in haste, makes a $2.4 trillion error. 

2. Significant Defense Cuts in FY 2012 & 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts national defense by $2 to $17 billion (the variance is due to different Debt Bill interpretations by the House Armed Services Committee).

The Debt Bill creates a 12-member Joint Select Committee (six Senators and six Congressmen; six Republicans and six Democrats).  By November 23, the Committee must recommend $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures (spending cuts and/or tax increases).  If the Committee makes a recommendation, Congress must vote on the recommendation on or before January 15. 

If the Committee splits 6-6 and makes no recommendation, or if either House of Congress rejects the Committee’s recommendation, then the Debt Bill mandates that the Defense budget be cut $60 Billion in FY 2013 (i.e. – in the fiscal year beginning 14 months from now, on October 1, 2013).

National defense is the top priority of the federal government.  If the Debt Bill passes, there is an unnecessary and substantial risk that it will trigger risky defense cuts in just 14 months that undermine the defense capabilities of America.

3. The Bill Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem.

The Bill makes America’s financial challenges worse by inadequately addressing unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and force debt ceiling increases.

The Debt Bill’s “cuts” bind no future Congresses.  Hence, the only “cuts” that count are those for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts discretionary federal government spending by only $7 billion (versus FY 2011 levels), while overall federal government spending actually increases (“discretionary spending” is less than 30% of total federal government spending). 

In FY 2013, the Debt Bill increases discretionary federal government spending by $4 billion (over FY 2012 levels).  Overall federal government spending again increases significantly.

Hence, in both FY 2012 and 2013, the federal government deficit is estimated to exceed $1 trillion/year if the Debt Bill passes and, under the best of scenarios, the Debt Bill’s “solution” increases America’s debt by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, which makes America’s debt problem much worse, not better.

4. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. 

The Debt Bill requires a vote of Congress on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment but does not require that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

The July 29 Boehner Bill required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before the Phase II debt ceiling increase would occur.  The Debt Bill eliminates the requirement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, thereby eliminating the only long-term fix to America’s unsustainable deficits. 

5. Punting the Debt Ceiling Crisis to 2013. 

Because of 2012 election considerations, the Debt Bill “kicks the can down the road” to 2013, when a financially weaker America will be less capable of facing yet another debt ceiling crisis. 

America will be weaker because debt service burdens will be $2.4 trillion more and the total debt of $16.7 trillion will likely be subject to higher interest rates and more onerous payment obligations.

America must face its unsustainable deficit issue while it is stronger, not weaker.  The longer America waits, the worse the economic outcome will be.

6. Credit Rating Cuts.

In my judgment, the Debt Bill substantially increases the long-term risk of a cut in America’s credit rating. 

Standard & Poor stated on July 14, 2011, that America’s credit rating is at risk if Washington has “not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and [is] not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.”  Standard & Poor president Deven Sharma reiterated this concern on July 27, 2011 when he testified before the House Financial Services Committee that, “The more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the debt… that is the more important issue at hand.”

Similarly, Moody’s stated on July 13, 2011 that, if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating outlook “would very likely be changed to negative… unless [there is a] substantial and credible agreement [on] long-term deficit reduction.”

The Debt Bill does not cut America’s short or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America’s credit rating… a downgrade that will, in turn, drive up America’s debt service cost and reduce funding for all other federal government programs.  To make matters worse, if America’s interest rates go up; state, local and private interest rates are likely to also go up… thereby hurting all Americans at every level.

 

The Solution

The best solution that protects America from the short term debt ceiling and long term insolvency threats is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that is phased in over a 5 year period.

Inasmuch as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America may not have, the debt ceiling should be raised in a two-step process.  The first step partially raises the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive and effective Balanced Budget Amendment.  If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.

The second step raises the rest of the debt ceiling requirement when the states ratify the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment.  This process gives the states an incentive to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment in less than one year (or trigger the effects of not raising the debt ceiling).

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