Monthly Archives: August 2011

Senator Mark Pryor in favor of debt deal: “We must continue making tough decisions to reduce our debt”

August 2, 2011 – 1:06 pm

Mark Pryor voted for the Debt Deal on August 2, 2011.  He said, “We must continue making tough decisions to reduce our debt. ” However, I don’t think cutting 22 billion out of projected increases in a 3.6 trillion budget is “making the tough decision to reduce our debt.”

Aug 01 2011

Statement by Senator Mark Pryor In Support of the Bipartisan Solution to Raise the Debt Ceiling

1. “The debate over raising the debt ceiling has been difficult…” After the vote he stated, “This has been an ugly process and an unnecessary process.”

Only because liberals in Congress are addicted to overspending like a drug addict is to his drugs. Have you ever heard a drug say he was going to kick the habit and then you invite him in and he steals your shirt to go buy more drugs!!!!

2. “…but essential to reduce the deficit…’

Are you kidding me. The projected debt will now be over 20 trillion in a few years instead of 23 trillion. Also once our credit rating is downgraded in a few months then all the projections will have to increased because we will be paying more interest. SENATOR PRYOR DID YOU THINK OF THAT WHEN YOU WERE PROTECTING ALL YOUR VOTERS SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT LIVE OFF OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD STAMPS (34 billion in 2007 but 72 billion today, 40 million people in the USA). We are reaching the point of no return.

3. “…avoid default…”

Why make a big deal about default when your refusal to cut spending has allowed us to rack up huge deficits and possibly get our credit rating downgraded in the next few months. Orrin Hatch makes it clear that the solution is “cut, cap and balance” and his speech on the floor this morning made that point.

4. “…and provide more certainty in our economy….”

THE ONLY CERTAINTY WE WILL HAVE IN OUR ECONOMY IS THAT WE WILL BE JOINING GREECE SOON!!!!!  

5. “We started with harmful, partisan plans and advanced to an agreement on a bipartisan, practical solution.”

The only partisan politics according to you is done by the Tea Party activists that are outside your office shouting: “DON’T TAKE US DOWN THE SAME PATH AS GREECE!!!!” By the way can you say that you disagree with their conclusion? You got the same numbers in front of you.  

6. “While not perfect, I plan to vote for this bill. It makes a nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts…”

You mean it will not raise the debt to 23 trillion in the next 1o years but it will take 12 years before the country goes bankrupt with that much debt.

7. “…and sets the stage for long-term savings…”

Let’s talk about longterm savings. It sounds like you care about our savings accounts. Babies born today have around  $45,000.00 they already owe as their part of the national debt.  In 10 years that “savings” will put the amount owed to new born babies around $70,000.00. That seems that the term “savings” is not a proper term to use in this case.

8. “It does so without dismantling safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which would have been unacceptable to hundreds of thousands of Arkansans.”

The dismantling of these programs is coming if we do nothing. Did you know that the baby boomers will be completely on Social Security by 2029 and all three of these programs will beyond repair by then.  EVEN BILL CLINTON KNOWS THIS!!! 

9. Though it is a step in the right direction, we must continue making tough decisions to reduce our debt.

These are tough decisions but all you want to do is kick the can down the road.

10. “Arkansans have shared with me how truly frustrated they are about the gridlock in Washington, DC.  I agree.”

THE ONLY REASON YOU SAY THAT ARKANSANS ARE FRUSTRATED IS BECAUSE YOU SENSE THAT THIS STATE IS GOING CONSERVATIVE AND YOU AND MIKE ROSS ARE THE ONLY DEMOCRATS LEFT. IN 2012 YOU WILL BE THE ONLY ONE LEFT AND IN 2014 YOU WILL FACE THE FRUSTRATED ARKANSAS VOTERS YOURSELF.

11. “We need to work better together in order to put Americans back to work and earn back their trust.”

PUTTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK DOES NOT MEAN ALLOWING UNEMPLOYED WORKERS TO STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT FOR A 2 YEAR PERIOD OR BALOONING OUR FOODSTAMP ROLLS TO COVER 40 MILLION!!! SOUNDS LIKE YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON YOUR GOVERNMENT STIMULUS AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS THAN WORKING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. OF COURSE, YOUR OBAMACARE IS NOT TOO POPULAR DOWN HERE EITHER. 

_______________________

Here are the real facts about where government spending is going:

Debt Deal: Spending in Perspective

Posted by Tad DeHaven

The following chart looks at total projected federal spending according to the Congressional Budget Office’s adjusted March baseline and its score of the debt deal. The chart only considers the reduction in outlays resulting from the deal’s cap on discretionary spending, which the CBO says will save $917 billion over the next ten years.  It does not consider the $1.2-$1.5 trillion in future “deficit reduction” that Dan Mitchell discusses here.

Total spending under debt deal

Excluding outlays for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are unlikely to materialize, total spending over the next ten years would be about $43 trillion under the discretionary spending caps instead of $44 trillion. In other words, even if Congress holds to the caps — and even if the “deficit reduction” targets established in the bill are achieved — the federal government’s spending binge will continue. If this is a “win” for the limited government crowd, I’d hate to see what the Beltway establishment would consider a “loss.”

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

Rand Paul against debt deal

August 2, 2011 – 10:21 am

John Brummett entitled his article “It is a crafty deal — good too,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 2, 2011, and that is because this deal DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY REAL CUTS TO THE BUDGET IN 2011. IN FACT, IT CUTS 22 BILLION OUT OF THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN THE 3.6 TRILLION BUDGET THAT WILL HAVE A 1.5 TRILLION DEFICIT!!!

Rand Paul hits a homerun with this open letter. That is why he was the number one name in the nation for yahoo search engine searches right now:

0

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today Sen. Rand Paul issued an open letter on the subject of the debt ceiling compromise facing the Senate. Below is that letter.

To paraphrase Jim DeMint: When you’re speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don’t set the cruise control. You stop the car.

The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.

This plan never balances. The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.

This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.

The deal that is pending before us now:

· Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to “cut” $2.5 trillion, but the “cut” is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate – the BEST case scenario is still $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.

· Never, ever balances.

· The Super Committee’s mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let’s be clear: $2.5 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the Constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue therefore the filibuster could be rendered most. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a “trigger” ensures that the Committee will simply report its $7 trillion in new debt and never move to a BBA vote.

· Cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.5 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that’s an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.

Buried in the details of this bill there also appears to be the automatic Debt increase as proposed a few weeks ago. Second half of the debt ceiling is increased by President automatically and can only be stopped by two-thirds of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. This would cede debt ceiling to the President, and none of the triggers in this deal include withholding the second limit increase.

Debt agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt from downgrading and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill or the resulting Super Committee to fail, so that a Balanced Budget Amendment can save our country.

This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.

U.S. Senator

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

Brummett: Debt deal avoids “juvenile nonsense in election season”

August 2, 2011 – 8:39 am

John Brummett in his article “It is a crafty deal — good too,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 2, 2011 asserted, “…this increase would extend past the next election so that we can keep paying on our debt without enduring this kind of juvenile nonsense in election season, when even the kind of last-gasp sanity we’re now seeing would not be likely.”

What kind of “juvenile nonsense” is Brummett referring to? He is talking about the Tea Party which is the main group that kept shouting in the streets that WE ARE HEADING DOWN THE PATH TO GREECE!!! WE NEED SIGNIFICANT CUTS NOW TO AVOID DOWNGRADING OF OUR CREDIT STATUS!!!

This debt ceiling deal is the coward’s way out because we are still heading straight to Greece. Take a look at this article, “Budget Deal Doesn’t Cut Spending,” by Chris Edwards, Cato Institute, August 1, 2011:

Republicans and Democrats have come together on a “historic” budget deal that cuts federal spending by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The Washington Post’s lead story calls the cuts “sharp” and “severe.”

However, the budget deal doesn’t cut federal spending at all.

House Speaker John Boehner’s bullet points on the deal say that it cuts discretionary spending by $917 billion over 10 years, as “certified by CBO.” These discretionary “cuts” appear to be the same as those in Boehner’s plan from last week. The chart shows CBO’s scoring of those spending cuts (see here and here).

Wait a minute, those bars are rising! Spending isn’t being cut at all.  The “cuts” in the deal are only cuts from the CBO “baseline,” which is a Washington construct of ever-rising spending. And even these “cuts” from the baseline include $156 billion of interest savings, which are imaginary because the underlying cuts are imaginary.

No program or agency terminations are identified in the deal. None of the vast armada of federal subsidies are targeted for elimination. Old folks will continue to gorge themselves on inflated benefits paid for by young families and future generations. None of Senator Tom Coburn’s or Senator Rand Paul’s specific cuts were included.

The federal government will still run a deficit of $1 trillion next year. This deal will “cut” the 2012 budget of $3.6 trillion by just $22 billion, or less than 1 percent.

The legislation does create a “Joint Committee” to design a second round of at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts by November. Presumably, interest savings will be included in those “cuts” as well, reducing the amount of actual program cuts needed to about $1 trillion.

Will these Joint Committee cuts be real? This deal’s immediate cuts aren’t real, nor were many of the cuts in the 2011 budget deal earlier this year. It won’t be hard by the Joint Committee to manufacture $1 trillion in pretend savings in coming months.         

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

Even Eliminating Vital Defense Spending Completely Would Not Solve the Entitlement Spending Problem

August 2, 2011 – 8:22 am

Even Eliminating Vital Defense Spending Completely Would Not Solve the Entitlement Spending Problem

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Long-term deficits are the result of unsustainable levels of spending on entitlement programs. Rather than tackle them directly, some would cut defense. But even if spending on this crucial national priority was eliminated completely, entitlements would continue to drive deficits to unmanageable levels.

PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Receive Information on Federal Budget Data
 
Download

Even Eliminating Vital Defense Spending Completely Would Not Solve the Entitlement Spending Problem

Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on Congressional Budget Office data.

Chart 39 of 42

In Depth

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

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

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 3)

August 2, 2011 – 8:20 am

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 3)

Liberty and Equality?

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.

Milton Friedman – University of Chicago School of Economics ProfessorHere is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth:

Friedman: The Influence of Ideas

By Shelli Camenga

On the bookshelf of an average American patriot, it would be more common to see a collection of Ronald Reagan biographies than books on the life of Milton Friedman. Ask a person on the street who they think holds the most power in America and you have a good chance of hearing “the president.” However, the president is a single man whose power is limited by checks, balances, and, depending on his character, his personal desire for re-election. One free man with an idea can prove influential and limitless without holding public office. Milton Friedman was that man.

Behind every great success lies a great inspiration. For the millions of conservatives who venerate Reagan, they are also (wittingly or unwittingly) admiring the impact Friedman made on the mentality of his times and on Reagan himself. That the political climate even allowed a man with Reagan’s platform to be elected was due in part to Friedman’s work, starting as early as the failed Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, which began calling for a return to laissez-faire economic principles when the position was considered extreme. This movement gained momentum, culminating in Reagan’s election.

In 1980, Reagan appointed Friedman to the select Economic Policy Coordinating Committee. As a team they applied Adam Smith’s concepts, and the economy became a freer and more prosperous place; regulations were limited, inflation was brought under control, taxes were cut, and government began to find its place — on the sidelines. Reagan’s policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second-longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the United States. The key to bringing this prosperity was the wisdom of those advisors who, like Friedman, truly understood economic policy. Later, Friedman was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Friedman didn’t only have an influence at home in America; his ideas brought significant changes around the world. Former prime minister of Estonia, Mart Laar, who is credited with bringing about Estonia’s rapid economic development in the 1990s, said that the only book on economics he read before his election was Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Under Laar, Estonia became the first country to institute a flat tax, which was very successful. While speaking about Friedman’s “Free to Chose” TV series, Reagan mentioned that the principles Friedman expressed had also helped inspire the Polish drive for freedom.

Although politicians come and go and their ideas can change with the political winds, the protection and presentation of sound economic ideas remains a vital tenant of freedom. Politicians are only in power for a few terms at most, but influencing the electorate and swaying public opinion toward freedom is a full time job with no term limit. This position in the cause of freedom is taken today by think tanks like the Mackinac Center. They, like Friedman, publish articles, give lectures and research responsible policy changes, sharing their findings publicly.

As an intern at a think tank, I am inspired by Milton Friedman. Looking at his example, I know that as a responsible citizen, I can live an influential life of loving and sharing liberty without needing to be elected. My job is to provide, present and protect the principles which will bring about the next age of prosperity.

_____

 

 

_____

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

Mike Ross: This debt deal “forces touch decisions to reduce our national debt”

August 2, 2011 – 8:14 am

Above you will see the liberal spin on what has happened and it is that the Republicans won!!! However, no serious cuts were made.

“Thus, this deal achieves far too little by way of spending cuts, keeps open the possibility of new taxes, and hikes the debt ceiling substantially — all of which constitutes a clear and predictable kicking of the can past the November, 2012 elections… In related news, credit ratings agencies have signaled that that a small deal — which this is — is unlikely avoid a downgrade of U.S. Treasury securities. If a ratings downgrade actually occurs, the negative economic fallout will interrupt this deal’s framework of achieving spending cuts — by forcing future lawmakers to renege on the cuts. Today’s failure to deliver deeper spending cuts will then be correctly viewed as the missed opportunity that it is“

Jagadeesh Gokhale is senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Reform Alternatives, by the University of Chicago Press.

________________________________

The words above are very important. The markets were looking for a deal that would turn us away from the path of Greece, but we did not get it.

Basically President Obama if he had got everything he wanted would have raised our debt under his 10 yr plan from 14 to 23 trillion. Under this plan we go to 20 trillion. How can I get excited about a 3 trillion cut over 10 years when the budget deficit this year alone will be 1.5 to 1.7 trillion?

Now let’s look at the response of Democrat Mike Ross (retiring representative from Arkansas):

1. “At last, cooler heads prevailed and we were able to pass a bipartisan agreement that secures America’s financial standing in the world..”

How can it secure “America’s financial standing in the world” if we are heading to Greece with 20 trillion in debt?

2. “forces tough decisions to reduce our national debt”

Nothing gets cut now and this year’s budget of 3.8 trillion gets 22 billion cuts in projected increases. 

3. “..and makes meaningful spending cuts that protect seniors’ Social Security and Medicare benefits.”

Where does it do anything like that?

4. “While this bill is a step in the right direction…”

We are still heading toward Greece!!

5. “…we still have a lot of work to do to get this nation’s fiscal house back in order.”

I haven’t seen any work yet on it.

6. “As a fiscal conservative, I will continue to be a moderating voice in this debate, bringing everyone to the table as we find commonsense ideas that help us return to the days of a balanced budget and a stronger economy.”

You are not a fiscal conservative and you let Obamacare out of committe. Way to go!! You could have killed it and now it will kill our businesses.

7. “This entire debate has demonstrated just how dangerous partisan bickering has become.”

The Tea Party was the only sane group that knows that we are heading to Greece.

8. “For months now, both sides have played political games with this issue, catering to their own respective extremes, and bringing our economy to the brink of a financial crisis.”

Who brought this country to financial crisis? It was not the Tea Party, but it was the liberals in Congress who are addicted to overspending.

9. “It’s become clear that we need more centrist members of Congress who are willing to reach across the aisle, compromise and work together.”

If Mike Ross is a centrist member of Congress then we are in big trouble. Heading to Greece will not be avoided!!

10. “This nation needs bipartisan, long-term solutions if we are ever going to truly solve our fiscal crisis.”

We don’t need bipartisan solutions if they are going to look like this debt deal that leads us to Greece!!!

11. “Job creators and the American people need the certainty of a strong, stable economy and it’s our job to work together and make that happen as soon as possible.”

“As soon as possible?” This budget deal would not get us anywhere close to the balanced budget in the next decade. It is classic kicking the can down the road.

_______________________________________

This debt deal stinks. It is a failure of leadership and resolve.

The Debt Deal: Failures of Leadership and Resolve

by Jagadeesh Gokhale

Jagadeesh Gokhale is senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Reform Alternatives, by the University of Chicago Press.

Added to cato.org on August 1, 2011

This article appeared on Cato.org on August 1, 2011.

The President and leaders in Congress have basically thrown in the towel.

Democrats are unwilling to endure the political risks of agreeing to sorely needed spending cuts. House Republicans are holding out against revenue increases. The final deal announced Sunday includes just $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending, with an increase in the debt limit sufficient to carry through next year. Thus, this deal achieves far too little by way of spending cuts, keeps open the possibility of new taxes, and hikes the debt ceiling substantially — all of which constitutes a clear and predictable kicking of the can past the November, 2012 elections.

The deal, therefore, does not reduce the economic uncertainty that is keeping the country mired in recession. The major deficit drivers — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are not addressed. That task is dispatched to a special committee of 12 senators and House members to be convened by congressional leaders. The joint committee is to report back by November 23, 2011 on further deficit reduction measures. But its members may be unable to agree on sensible deficit-cutting measures, or its recommendations may be voted down by Congress. If that happens, deficit reduction will be triggered through automatic and haphazard cuts to discretionary programs — but Social Security, Medicaid, defense, veterans programs, and civilian and military pay will remain walled off. That leaves a lot of red ink completely off the negotiating table, and spending on two out of the three major deficit drivers will continue to escalate.

Jagadeesh Gokhale is senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Reform Alternatives, by the University of Chicago Press.

 

More by Jagadeesh Gokhale

In related news, credit ratings agencies have signaled that that a small deal — which this is — is unlikely avoid a downgrade of U.S. Treasury securities. If a ratings downgrade actually occurs, the negative economic fallout will interrupt this deal’s framework of achieving spending cuts — by forcing future lawmakers to renege on the cuts. Today’s failure to deliver deeper spending cuts will then be correctly viewed as the missed opportunity that it is.

The media is calling this deal a victory for Republicans, especially for the Tea Party. How so? None of the targets of the House Republicans’ Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is included in it. It does not remove tax increases from consideration by the new joint committee. Republicans also were not able to push through their preferred shorter-term increase in the debt limit to hamper President Obama’s re-election effort. Finally, although the deal schedules a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment after October, 2011, nothing — not even a future debt-limit increase — is contingent upon it. Thus, a crucial element of guaranteeing fiscal discipline beyond 2021 has been bargained away.

The deficit cutting debate will now be pushed under the rug until the joint committee concludes its deliberations. That committee is charged with recommending deficit reduction to the tune of only $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. As I’ve noted elsewhere, even cuts of $4 trillion over 10 years that were under consideration earlier would be insufficient to prevent the federal government’s fiscal condition from worsening by 2021.

The “Skirmish on the Precipice” that we just witnessed yields little by way of long-term fiscal discipline, contrary to the claims of the Obama administration and congressional leaders. We seem trapped in a particularly vexing Catch-22: the current Congress is bound to pay the bills incurred by past Congresses, but it is unable to bind future Congresses to rules that would guarantee continued fiscal discipline.

It’s been a frustrating two months watching politicians alternately squirm and spin only to achieve a damp squib of a deal. But that frustration will pale to insignificance when all of us are reeling in the vortex of a continuing economic decline, from which this deal appears unlikely to rescue us. The President is being excoriated for failing to lead. But if this deal is enacted, conservatives would also deserve some blame for a failure of resolve — to win more concessions on spending cuts and substantively redirect the nation’s wayward fiscal course.

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

Pete de Freitas of Echo and the Bunnymen is a member of the “27 club” (Part 9)

August 2, 2011 – 6:53 am

Amy Winehouse died last week and she joined the “27 club.” Pete de Freitas of Echo and the Bunnymen is also a member of the “27 Club.” This is group of rockers that have died at age 27.

A tribute to the amazing drummer of one of our biggest influences, Echo & The Bunnymen. We figured this would be a nice tribute to put on here.

Pete de Freitas
1961-1989

Echo & the Bunnymen perform “Killing Moon” on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Aired July 12, 2006

Echo & the Bunnymen – Rescue / Never Stop – 18 July 1983 (4 of 7)

Perhaps the only moderately optimistic thing one can say about the untimely death of the underrated drummer of Echo and the Bunnymen throughout their formative years and greatest successes is that he never had to endure the reunion period -- which persists to this day. Of course, that is grasping at straws. Peter de Freitas was a rock-steady element in a difficult-to-classify rock group, more famous in the U.S. for their look than for their sounds, which is a pity. Overshadowed by temperamental singer Ian McCulloch and ingenious guitarist Will Sergeant, de Freitas was a journeyman flanked by a loudmouth and a visionary. But he proved the old maxim that a band can't be great without a great drummer (he should know, Echo's original drummer was a machine). He died in a motorcycle crash on June 14, 1989. (AP Photo)

Larger image

AP Photo

Perhaps the only moderately optimistic thing one can say about the untimely death of the underrated drummer of Echo and the Bunnymen throughout their formative years and greatest successes is that he never had to endure the reunion period — which persists to this day. Of course, that is grasping at straws. Peter de Freitas was a rock-steady element in a difficult-to-classify rock group, more famous in the U.S. for their look than for their sounds, which is a pity. Overshadowed by temperamental singer Ian McCulloch and ingenious guitarist Will Sergeant, de Freitas was a journeyman flanked by a loudmouth and a visionary. But he proved the old maxim that a band can’t be great without a great drummer (he should know, Echo’s original drummer was a machine). He died in a motorcycle crash on June 14, 1989.

_______________________

Pete de Freitas: The Human Metronome behind Echo & the Bunnymen

November 16th, 2009 → 6:58 pm @ admin

0

 
Pete de Freitas: The Human Metronome behind Echo & the Bunnymen

 

Pete de Freitas (“Mad Louis,” “Boomerang Pete”)

Born: August 2, 1961, in Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
Died: June 14, 1989, in England
Bands: Echo & the Bunnymen, The Sex Gods

Pete was recruited as a replacement to Echo and the Bunnymen’s drum machine. De Freitas proved quickly that he was much more than an average drummer. Opting for tribal rhythms and shunning excessive cymbal use, de Freitas established himself as an original rock drummer in the reverb-drenched eighties music scene. He was the backbone of Crocodiles, Porcupine, Heaven Up Here, and the brush-laden Ocean Rain.

In early 1986, Pete de Freitas left for New Orleans where he set a new record in rock ‘n’ excess. He consumed vast quantities of LSD, molly, cocaine, and booze while pretending to create music with his new band The Sex Gods. Instead of creation it was a macabre display of destruction. De Freitas totaled two cars, two motorcycles, and nearly himself. He stayed manically awake for eighteen days straight. The party ended when his money ran out and his compadres-in-excess drifted home. Pete de Freitas returned to Liverpool like a burnt-out shell and asked for a second chance. The Bunnymen took him back in, albeit on a salary, but the Bunnymen never found the way back to its creative glory (not just because of Pete). Vocalist Mac left and the three started recording with a new singer. In 1989, Pete de Freitas died on his Dukati motorcycle on the way to the studio in a head-on accident with a car.

_________________________________

What is the Purpose of Your Life?

Discovering Your Purpose In Life

Like most people, you may have wondered why you are here on Earth. Do you think your existence is an accident or are you here for a reason? Is there some purpose for your life? According to the Bible, you are not a mistake and you were created by God for a reason.

Created For A Reason

The main reason God created you is to make you part of His eternal plan (Romans 8:28-29). God wants us to be in Heaven with Him and to tell people about Him. His plan is for every person to be saved from their sin and Hell and to spend eternity with Him (2 Peter 3:9). Unfortunately, some people choose to live their own way and abandon God’s plan for their life (Proverbs 14:12).

What Are You Living For?

Most people seem to believe that the main purpose of life is enjoyment and personal fulfillment. Are you living for things such as money, fame, success, fun, possessions and power? The wise King Solomon accomplished many great things and had all that anyone could desire, yet described it all as meaningless (Ecclesiastes 1:2). How about you? Are you more consumed with the pleasures of life than what happens to your soul when you die? The Bible says “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul” (Mark 8:36)?

Life Is Short Compared To Eternity

Hopefully, you would agree that what happens to you eternally is far more important than what happens to you on Earth. Think about the word eternity. That is far beyond trillions and trillions times longer than our earthly life. It is so hard to even comprehend that concept because it never ends. You may have a great life or a terrible life on Earth, but either way it will come to an end someday. Then, you will spend everlasting life in either Heaven or Hell (Matthew 25:46). Please think carefully about where you will go after you die as it can happen any day.

The Problem

Too many people assume they will go to Heaven when they die based on their own concept of God. The reason why everybody can’t spend eternity in Heaven is because sin separates people from God (Isaiah 59:2). You have rebelled against God and committed a sin every time you broke one of God’s commandments by stealing something, telling a lie, hating somebody, disobeying your parents, having a lustful thought, or countless other things. God hates sin and will severely judge each and every one of your sins. Just being a good person or believing in God won’t erase your sin either. The Bible says that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

The Good News

The good news is that no matter how severe your sins are, God made a way for you to be forgiven and be declared innocent on judgment day. “But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Being a good person or being religious won’t rescue you from your sin. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) The word grace means “undeserved favor”. Your sin separated you from a perfect and sinless God, but Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins and later rose back to life (Matthew 28:5-6) so you can have everlasting life in Heaven. Even though none of us deserve Heaven, God was kind enough to make a way for us.

Receiving Forgiveness

It is not enough to just believe that Jesus died for your sins. You must personally trust in Jesus to save you from the penalty of your sin (Romans 8:1-4). You must also be willing to repent (turn from) your sin (Luke 13:5) and follow Jesus as Lord of your life (Romans 10:9-10). Doing this mends your broken relationship with God and allows you access into Heaven.

Live For God

You were created to know God and to live for Him. That is why you exist. Only then does your life have the meaning and purpose God intended for you. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). To live your life for the glory of God means that you will love, obey, worship, please, and trust Him. This should not be a burden, but a pleasure because of what He means to you.

The Choice Is Yours

You never know how much time you have left on this Earth and nothing is more important than where you spend eternity. Hopefully, you will decide to follow Jesus so your life can be used to glorify God. Please make this choice right away, because after you die it will be too late.

Yes, I would like to know how I can become a follower of Christ
No thanks, I prefer to live life my own way

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

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 2)

August 1, 2011 – 4:25 pm

Milton Friedman on Fairness vs Freedom

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 2)

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.

Here is another tribute:

Happy 99th Birthday, Milton Friedman

by Don Boudreaux on July 31, 2011

in Civil Society, Dinner Table Economics, Economics

During the second semester of my freshman year of college (Spring 1977) – the semester in which I was first exposed to economics – Bill Field (then a professor of economics at my alma mater, Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, LA) recommended that I read the writings of Milton Friedman.  Of course, as an 18-year old who’d read very little of anything beyond the sports pages of the Times-Picayune (and, back then, also the sports pages of the States-Item), I’d never heard of Milton Friedman.

“Dr. Field” – as I’d called Bill for many years – loaned me his copy of Friedman’s collection of Newsweek columns, An Economist’s Protest.  I was blown away by the logic, the sensibleness, and the passion channeled toward the goal of maximum human dignity.

That summer, I subscribed to Newsweek simply to get Friedman’s columns (which, if I recall correctly, appeared in every third issue).  (I read Paul Samuelson’s Newsweek columns, too, of course; they left me cold.)  I believe that the first column of Friedman’s that I read from an actual issue of Newsweek was the one in the July 4, 1977 issue.  Its title is “Fair versus Free.”  (Here’s a reprint.)  It remains today just I recall it from 34 years ago: powerful and compelling.  From it I extract today’s Quotation of the Day:

When “fairness” replaces “freedom,” all our liberties are in danger. In Walden, Thoreau says: “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” That is the way I feel when I hear my “servants” in Washington assuring me of the “fairness” of their edicts.

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

Dan Mitchell tells why this deal may develop into more taxes

August 1, 2011 – 2:43 pm

President Obama’s balanced approach means he wants more money from you. In the article, “Deconstructing the Revenue Side of the Debt-Ceiling Deal: Yes, There’s a Real Threat of Higher Taxes,”  Daniel J. Mitchell tells us what may happen in the next few months concerning taxes because of this new deal:

Politicians last night announced the framework of a deal to increase the debt limit. In addition to authorizing about $900 billion more red ink right away, it would require immediate budget cuts of more than $900 billion, though “immediate” means over 10 years and “budget cuts” means spending still goes up (but not as fast as previously planned).

But that’s the relatively uncontroversial part. The fighting we’re seeing today revolves around a “super-committee” that’s been created to find $1.5 trillion of additional “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (based on Washington math, of course).

And much of the squabbling deals with whether the super-committee is a vehicle for higher taxes. As with all kiss-your-sister budget deals, both sides can point to something they like.

Here’s what Republicans like:

The super-committee 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 super-committee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

Here’s what Democrats like:

There appears to be nothing in the agreement to preclude the super-committee 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 (notwithstanding GOP claims that it is “impossible for Joint Committee to increase taxes”).

In other words, there is a risk of tax hikes, just as I warned last week. Indeed, the five-step scenario I outlined last week needs to be modified because now a tax-hike deal would be “vital” to not only “protect” the nation from alleged default, but also to forestall the “brutal” sequester that might take place in the absence of an agreement.

But you don’t have to believe me. Just read the fact sheet distributed by the White House, which is filled with class warfare rhetoric about “shared sacrifice.”

This doesn’t mean there will be tax increases, of course, and this doesn’t mean Boehner and McConnell gave up more than Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

But as someone who assumes politicians will do the wrong thing whenever possible, it’s always good to identify the worst-case scenario and then prepare to explain why it’s not a good idea.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

New Deal promises mythical cuts to be carried out in 2013

August 1, 2011 – 2:24 pm

I am not too happy with the budget deal because I WANT TO SEE REAL CUTS. I knew when I heard President Obama say yesterday that there would be no cuts during this sensitive time that meant till after his Presidency was over. That means these are mythical cuts that are scheduled for 2013 and may never happen.

Michael Tanner  notes, “those cuts would not go into effect until 2013, after the next election.  Since the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses, it’s entirely possible – even likely – that those cuts will be rewritten, reduced, or done away with altogether.”

Michael Tanner sums up my views in his article, “A Deal, Not a Solution, August 1, 2011, Cato Institute:

The deal that President Obama and congressional leaders may well be the best deal that Republicans could get – and any deal that makes Paul Krugman this apoplectic can’t be all bad – but it should not be considered a solution to our fiscal problems.  

In the face of a $1.1 trillion budget deficit, a $14.3 trillion official debt, and a real indebtedness of more than $120 trillion, the deal would reduce the baseline increase in planned spending initially by about $1 trillion, or an average of roughly $100 billion per year – less than the federal government will borrow this month.   Moreover, the cuts are unspecific – apparently Congress still can’t find actual programs to eliminate – raising the specter that it will employ the same budgetary gimmicks as the Continuing Resolution last May, that promised $61 billion in cuts and delivered less than $8 billion.  Any cuts that do occur are simply reductions in baseline increases, not actual year-over-year reductions.  And most cuts are pushed far out into the future when they may or may not materialize.

The plan also creates a “”supercommittee – there’s an original idea – to propose an additional $1.2-1.7 trillion in spending cuts or tax increases, but few Washington observers expect it to be able to reach an agreement that could actually pass Congress.   Of course, in theory, if that happens, there would be automatic cuts of about $1.2 trillion, split equally between domestic programs and defense.   However, those cuts would not go into effect until 2013, after the next election.  Since the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses, it’s entirely possible – even likely – that those cuts will be rewritten, reduced, or done away with altogether.   Certainly there is no reason why we should count on them occurring.

The net result of this deal is that – if every penny of the proposed cuts actually occurs – our official national debt will rise to about $20 trillion by 2020.  That it otherwise would have reached $23 trillion is scant comfort.  With our country careening toward a fiscal cliff, Congress has chosen to tap on the breaks, not change direction. 

More troubling, the deal fails to deal with entitlement reform.   It is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are driving this country towards insolvency, but this plan does not include any structural reform of these programs.   They are exempt from the first round of cuts, and the level of cuts that can be proposed by the supercommittee are far too small to encompass anything like the Medicare reforms that Paul Ryan proposed early this year.   And both Social Security and Medicaid are exempt from the across-the-board cuts that kick in if the committee’s cuts do not occur.  In that case Medicare would be trimmed, but only in terms of further reductions in reimbursements to providers.

Certainly, this deal could have been worse.  There are no tax increases (yet).  There are at least theoretical cuts in spending.   We’ve moved a long way from when President Obama proposed an increase in spending as part of his 2012 budget.  But no one should pretend that we’ve put our fiscal house in order.

 

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