Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:
Department of Transportation
Proposed Spending Cuts
by Chris Edwards
June 2010
Most Department of Transportation activities are properly the responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector. There are few advantages in funding infrastructure such as highways and airports from Washington, but there are many disadvantages. Federal involvement results in political misallocation of resources, bureaucratic mismanagement, and costly one-size-fits-all regulations imposed on the states.
The Federal Highway Administration should be eliminated. Taxpayers and highway users would be better off if federal highway spending and gasoline taxes were ended. State governments could more efficiently plan their highway systems without federal intervention. The states should look to the private sector for help in funding and operating highways, and they ought to move forward with innovations such as expressways with electronic tolling.
The Federal Transit Administration should be eliminated. Federal transit subsidies have caused local governments to make inefficient transportation choices. Federal aid favors rail systems, which are more expensive and less flexible than bus systems. The removal of federal subsidies and related regulations would spur local governments to discover more cost-effective transportation solutions, such as opening transit markets to private operators.
Air traffic control should be removed from the federal budget, and the ATC system should be set up as a stand-alone and self-funded agency or private company. Many nations have moved towards such a commercialized ATC structure, and the results have been very positive with regard to efficiency and safety. Canada’s reform in the 1990s to create a private nonprofit ATC corporation is a good model for the United States to follow. U.S. ATC is currently overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration, which has serious funding problems and a poor record on implementing new technologies. Moving to a Canadian-style ATC system would help solve these problems and allow our aviation infrastructure to meet rising aviation demand.
Amtrak has provided second-rate rail service for decades, while consuming almost $40 billion in federal subsidies. It has a poor on-time record, and its infrastructure is in bad shape. As a government agency, it is hamstrung in its decisionmaking regarding routes, workforce polices, capital investment, and other aspects of business. Amtrak should be privatized to give it the management flexibility it needs to operate in a more efficient and competitive manner.
The table shows that federal taxpayers would save about $85 billion annually by closing down the agencies and programs listed. The department would retain its current activities regarding highway safety, aviation safety, and some other regulatory functions. Those functions could be reformed as well, but the most important thing is to end federal subsidies for transportation activities that would be better handled by the states and private sector. America should take heed of the market-based reforms being implemented abroad, and pursue similar solutions to its transportation challenges.
I attend Fellowship Bible Church and I understand that Auburn Tiger running back Michael Dyer went there too. It did seem like a miracle when he stayed up and ran for a huge chuck of yards to put Auburn in position to beat Oregon and win the national championship. He was not the only Arkansan on that team. Offensive Coordinator Gus Malzahn was a key part of that win as well. Later I want to talk about Malzahn’s Christian testimony.
This year will be rough for the Tigers. They will be better later in the year as their young talented players improve with experience. Did you know that Auburn has recruited better than about anyone the last two years. They posted top 5 classes the last two years. However, that also means that most of their players are underclassmen now (Freshmen and Sophomores).
Mississippi State is very good and they deserved their 9-4 record. This year will be a little tougher for them. Ole Miss ate their lunch in recruiting and eventually that will come back and bite you. ALSO THEIR COWBELLS NEED TO BE BANNED. I predict if they get around to winning the SEC then they will banned immediately. IT JUST IS NOT FAIR. WHY NOT LET THE OTHER TEAMS USE NOISE MAKERS?
Below is a preview from Rivals:
Auburn
Returning Starters: 6
Strengths: In sophomore running back Michael Dyer, who rushed for perhaps the quietest 1,093 yards ever on a national champion, the Tigers’ offense has a nice building block. Another RB, Onterrio McCalebb, and WR Emory Blake are capable of making big plays. DB Neiko Thorpe will help anchor the defense after a junior year which saw him record 64 tackles and break up nine passes. Coach Gene Chizik has followed a national championship with an excellent recruiting year.
Weaknesses: A whopping 16 starters must be replaced, including Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton and dominant DT Nick Fairley. For good measure, Auburn also lost both kickers, including clutch PK Wes Byrum. Whoever replaces Newton – and in late May, some reports suggested it could be former N.C. State QB Russell Wilson – must work behind four new O-line starters. The back seven defensively will be almost totally new. This will be somewhat of a rebuilding year, although a national championship should give Chizik wiggle room with a demanding fan base.
Mississippi State
Returning Starters: 15
Strengths: In his third year in Starkville, Urban Meyer disciple Dan Mullen welcomes back a team which could probably win the East Division, but will be challenged to finish higher than fourth in the West. QB Chris Relf improved his passing last season, hitting 59 percent of his attempts with a 13-6 TD-interception ratio, while RB Vick Ballard rushed for 986 yards and scored 20 touchdowns. The defense returns three starters in the line and all four starters in the secondary, led by SS Charles Mitchell (93 tackles).
Weaknesses: The Bulldogs must break in three new starters at linebacker, never a good idea in any conference but particularly not in the SEC. They must also groom a new placekicker and punter, which could impact them in the type of close games that are a part of SEC life. The schedule is also problematic; they play Auburn and LSU in a five-day stretch in the middle of September, then battle Alabama and Arkansas in consecutive weeks during mid-November.
____________________________________________
Mississippi State
Returning Starters: 15
Strengths: In his third year in Starkville, Urban Meyer disciple Dan Mullen welcomes back a team which could probably win the East Division, but will be challenged to finish higher than fourth in the West. QB Chris Relf improved his passing last season, hitting 59 percent of his attempts with a 13-6 TD-interception ratio, while RB Vick Ballard rushed for 986 yards and scored 20 touchdowns. The defense returns three starters in the line and all four starters in the secondary, led by SS Charles Mitchell (93 tackles).
Weaknesses: The Bulldogs must break in three new starters at linebacker, never a good idea in any conference but particularly not in the SEC. They must also groom a new placekicker and punter, which could impact them in the type of close games that are a part of SEC life. The schedule is also problematic; they play Auburn and LSU in a five-day stretch in the middle of September, then battle Alabama and Arkansas in consecutive weeks during mid-November.
On Tuesday, November 17th East Alabama Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) held the Third Annual Prayer Breakfast at Beard-Eaves Memorial Coliseum on the Auburn University campus. It was a large turnout with close to 1500 students and supporters in attendance. The coliseum was full of notable Auburn Athletic Department employees showing their support for this great cause. Auburn University Defensive Coordinator Ted Roof was recognized from the podium, Athletic Director Jay Jacobs gave the Invocation, and Receiver Coach and Assistant Head Coach Trooper Taylor emceed the event in his normal, energetic, Trooper style. It was great seeing the support from Auburn for the former Auburn defensive linemanWayne Dickens. Dickens is currently the FCA Area Representative for East Alabama. Guests heard both student and coach testimonies of what FCA is doing in area schools, but the highlight of the event was definitely the keynote speaker, Gus Malzahn-first year Offensive Coordinator for Auburn University. His speech was short and to the point, but he challenged the entire room with the 7 (+1) characteristics of a champion. In this series, we will touch on these 7 (+1) characteristics that he discussed, and then spend a little time talking about each.
The first characteristic of a champion is to set high goals. In 14 years of coaching high school football, Malzahn led his team to seven state championships. His offenses at University of Tulsa set both conference and national records during his short tenure, and his first Auburn team sits at number 18 in the nation in total offense and 13 in the nation in scoring offense. None of this would be possible without setting high goals for himself. Coach Malzahn noted that most people pass away without living up to their full potential. The main cause of this is that they do not set high enough goals to challenge themselves to reach this potential which leads to never truly knowing they are capable of.
I completely agree with what Coach Malzahn was saying and have just a few things to add to it. These goals must have measurable results. One can set lofty goals, but without measurable results and a plan to achieve those goals, they are nothing but dreams. Don’t get me wrong, I love to dream, but these dreams will never become achievable goals without a plan that includes measurable short term and long term goals.
Finally, how do your goals line up with Christ? Do they intersect at all? The goal ofFCA is displayed in the Mission Statement, “to present to athletes and coaches and all whom they influence the challenge and adventure of receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, serving Him in their relationships and in the fellowship of the church”. Do you have goals? What are you doing to reach these goals? In these actions, how are you affecting others?
______________________-
I first knew that Gus Malzahn was a great coach when in 1998 he brought his Shiloh Christian Saints into Little Rock and beat my Arkansas Baptist Eagles at Eagle Field. In this clip below you will see that the Arkansas Baptist Eagles in the red uniforms had the much bigger team. In fact, many of the Arkansas Baptist players went on to play college ball.
Dan Mitchell wrote an excellent article yesterday on President Obama’s policy of double taxation on US firms who have operations in other countries. They are taxed by their host countries and then taxed again by the US.
Another American company has decided to expatriate for tax reasons. This process has been going on for decades, with companies giving up their U.S. charters (a form of business citizenship) and redomiciling in low-tax jurisdictions such as Bermuda, Ireland, Switzerland, Panama, Hong Kong, and the Cayman Islands.
The companies that choose to expatriate usually fit a certain profile (this applies to individuals as well). They earn a substantial share of their income in other countries and they are put at a competitive disadvantage because of America’s “worldwide” tax system.
More specifically, worldwide taxation requires firms to not only pay tax to foreign governments on their foreign-source income, but they are also supposed to pay additional tax on this income to the IRS — even though the money was not earned in America and even though their foreign-based competitors rarely are subject to this type of double taxation.
In this most recent example, an energy company with substantial operations in Asia moved its charter to the Cayman Islands, as reported by digitaljournal.com:
Greenfields Petroleum Corporation…, an independent exploration and production company with assets in Azerbaijan, is pleased to announce that the previously announced corporate redomestication … from Delaware to the Cayman Islands has been successfully completed.
Because it is a small firm, the move by GPC probably won’t attract much attention from the politicians. But “corporate expatriation” has generated considerable controversy in recent years when involving big companies such as Ingersoll-Rand, Transocean, and Stanley Works (now Stanley Black & Decker).
Statists argue that it is unpatriotic for companies to redomicile, and they changed the law last decade to make it more difficult for companies to escape the clutches of the IRS. In addition to blaming “Benedict Arnold” corporations, leftists also attack low-tax jurisdictions for “poaching” companies.
Libertarians and conservatives, by contrast, explain that expatriation is the result of an onerous tax system that imposes high tax rates and requires the double taxation of foreign-source income. Expatriation is the only logical approach if companies want a level playing field when competing in global markets.
My recommendation, not surprisingly, is that politicians fix the tax code. Unfortunately, politicians prefer the blame-the-victim game, so they attack the companies instead of solving the underlying problem (and then they wonder why job creation is anemic).
AR Sen. Mark Pryor praises Barack Obama (and Clinton arrives
I was sad to learn that the 56th Grady Fish Fry fell on the week I was gone to Boston. Last year I got to go and enjoyed meeting all the politicians like Pryor, Boozman, Lincoln, Darr and many others. This year Pryor was back again.He has been faithful to attend the Grady Fish Fry almost every year. However, in the clip above you will see that he was endorsing candidate Barrack Obama in 2008. Little did he know that Obama would not even get 40% in Arkansas then and because Obama has done so badly on the economy, he will be lucky to get 30% this time around. Below I have some links to previous posts I have made concerning Senator Pryor.
Rex Nelson just posted a fine piece on his experience this year and here ia portion of it.
For the 56th time, they held the Grady Lions Club Fish Fry under the big trees of the Ned Hardin pecan grove.
It’s always held on the third Thursday in August. Always.
It was cooler than usual last night.
The crowd seemed bigger than it had been in recent years.
The fried catfish, fries, hushpuppies and sliced watermelon were as good as ever.
I checked my old calendars and was able to determine that this was the 15th time in the past 16 years that I’ve been to Grady on the third Thursday night in August. The only fish fry I missed during that stretch was in 2004. I was Gov. Mike Huckabee’s representative on the board of the Delta Regional Authority at the time, and we were interviewing candidates in a Memphis hotel that day for the DRA’s chief operating officer’s job.
I’ve written before that my favorite annual winter event is the Slovak Oyster Supper and my favorite annual summer event is the Grady Fish Fry. Both are rural Arkansas traditions.
Bubba Lloyd was behind the wheel last night. I figure that if you’re headed to a catfish supper in southeast Arkansas, you at least ought to have a Bubba driving.
First-time attendees Blake Eddins and Randy Ensminger joined us for the trip south.
More than one person remembered Blake from his days as a Razorback basketball player for Nolan Richardson.
Randy, meanwhile, is a member of the board of the Southern Food & Beverage Museum at New Orleans, and we found a fading sign that we’re hopeful the Hardins will donate to the museum. It advertises sorghum, sweet potatoes, pecans, cane syrup — all things Southern.
I have a feeling that Blake and Randy will be back at this event next August. They took it all in — the prisoners waiting tables, the prison band playing, the politicians making the rounds, the folks from all over southeast Arkansas visiting with each other and enjoying themselves.
As always, we visited at length with Sen. Mark Pryor, who also makes it a point not to miss this event.
It’s like something out of a movie. If you have any doubts that the South still lives, all you have to do is show up at the Hardin pecan grove on the third Thursday night in August and erase those doubts.
They start serving the fish each year at 4 p.m. They stop at 8 p.m. In between, hundreds of people make their way through the line and watch the amazing hushpuppy machine (constructed years ago from salvaged farm equipment) drop the batter (two hushpuppies at a time) into the hot grease.
My love for south and east Arkansas — areas of the state that are losing population and often are overlooked by the so-called opinion makers — is evident to those who read this blog. There are fine people and rich traditions in these areas of our state.
I attended the fish fry on a day that had started on a bright note. While having my first cup of coffee, I read in the newspaper that W.O. Prince is reopening his classic Riverfront Restaurant and Fish Market where U.S. Highway 70 crosses the Cache River at Biscoe.
For years, one of my regular stops on the old highway to Memphis was the place known to the locals simply as W.O.’s. You would turn down the gravel road to your right just before crossing the Cache River bridge when heading east. You would order your supper in the bait shop. You would then walk down to the boat that floated on the Cache. They would bring the food down the hill to you. The steaks were as good as the catfish.
They’ll serve lunch on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m.
They’ll serve dinner each Friday and Saturday from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m.
They’re supposed to open today. I’ll make a road trip soon.
In thinking about east Arkansas landmarks such as W.O.’s and the Hardin pecan grove, I go back to the points I made in a newspaper column earlier this week. I see nothing on the horizon that leads me to believe that the population shift in this state from the east and the south to the north and the west will slow anytime soon.
People go where the jobs are. It’s that simple.
Grady is in Lincoln County. Biscoe is at the edge of Prairie County (my mother’s home county) just before Monroe County begins on the other side of the Cache. Places such as Lincoln, Monroe and Prairie counties have been losing population since the end of World War II, when the mechanization of agriculture meant that thousands of sharecroppers and tenant farmers were no longer required. Monroe County, in fact, lost more population than any county in Arkansas during the previous decade — 20.5 percent.
The rural-to-urban trend, of course, is a nationwide trend. It’s hard to believe that rural America now accounts for just 16 percent of the nation’s population…
Even as the population of many east and south Arkansas counties declines, their value to the state’s overall economy remains strong. That’s a fact that shouldn’t be lost on this state’s growing percentage of urbanites.
For me, the Grady Fish Fry represents more than a chance to eat fried catfish.
It represents all that is right about rural Arkansas.
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
I went to the Grady Fish Fry last year and got to visit with Rex Nelson, Senator Pryor and Boozman, Lt. Gov. Mark Darr and many others. Below is a story by Rex Nelson on last year’s fish fry: Back to Grady (and other Arkansas favorites) At the first of every year, I mark the […]
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011, I […]
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
It is my view that if the economy keeps stinking that Republicans will have a field day in November of 2012. However, the same principle holds true that challengers to Democrats will be very successful in Democratic primaries. In Arkansas many have longed for another Clinton in the White House. Could it happen? It is my […]
What kind of intervention does Congress need to get it to spend with its spending addiction? Back in 1982 Reagan was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases but the cuts never came. In 1990 Bush was promised 2 for 1 but they never came either. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT THE LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE ADDICTED TO SPENDING?
In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?
Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.
That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, Housespeaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.
The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.
These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.
Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.
Sadly, this wasn’t even the first time this happened. Back in 1982, President Reagan agreed to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. Inflation projections make the analysis difficult, but it seems clear (and President Reagan believed) that almost none of the promised spending cuts materialized in real terms.
There is a clear lesson from these budget deals: Tax increases are real — they become law immediately — but promised spending cuts are illusory. There is always an S&L bailout, a Hurricane Andrew, or a Gulf War — or a financial meltdown, a string of tornadoes, and a three-front War on Terror. After a while, the spending-cut promises are forgotten, and all that remains is higher taxes on the American people.
This should be obvious to anyone who knows the history, including thinking Republicans in Washington. For the most part, it is. All but six of the 239 Republican representatives — including Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and the rest of the House GOP leadership — have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which they rule out net tax hikes. Even in the more moderate Senate, 40 out of 47 GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), have taken the pledge.
Yet there are several GOP senators who don’t quite get it. Formerly known as the “Gang of Six” (now known as “Five Guys” because Tom Coburn left), this group includes Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Mike Crapo (Idaho) — both pledge signers. The point of this group was to put legislative meat on the bones of President Obama’s “Simpson-Bowles” debt commission. Bragging of at least a $3-to-$1 spending-cuts-to-tax-hikes ratio (sound familiar?), this plan was a ten-year net tax hike of either $1 trillion (the commission estimate), $2 trillion (House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s estimate), or $3 trillion (the Heritage Foundation’s estimate). The political strategy of the Democrats is to get GOP fingerprints on a tax hike, and ultimately to do a repeat of 1982 and 1990 — real tax hikes coupled with spending-cut promises that don’t come to fruition.
Official Washington is shocked that the old playbook isn’t working this time. For all but a few Republican senators, the reason is obvious: “I promised my constituents that I would not raise their taxes, and I’m honoring that promise.” Lucy has pulled the football away from Charlie Brown twice already, but congressional Republicans have finally gotten the message that tax hikes are a sucker’s bet.
— Ryan Ellis is tax-policy director of Americans for Tax Reform.
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18)
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.
Graves Votes Against Deal To Raise Debt Limit
Washington, D.C., Aug 1 –
U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) issued the following statement after voting against the deal President Obama and Congressional leaders reached to raise the debt limit:
“America’s call for sweeping change last November set the stage for this great debate over our debt burden. Washington has pushed its recklessness to the limit and violated the trust of the American people for far too long. A debt of $14 trillion isn’t an indictment; it’s a conviction.
“Unfortunately, the final deal before us today fails the match the magnitude of the crisis. In fact, it doesn’t come close. In exchange for giving President Obama the largest debt limit increase in United States history, the American people receive only $10 billion in savings over the next two years. The bill does seek out deeper spending cuts in the future, but if we’re to learn anything from history, that promise is bound to be broken. The fact is, by the end of next year our national debt will be near $17 trillion and will remain a serious threat to our economy.
“Ultimately, the voices of the Georgians I represent weren’t reflected in the final result, and I could not support the bill.
“Despite the legislation’s many flaws, I do want to commend Speaker Boehner for his hard work and critical victory on the issue of taxes. By preventing any job-destroying tax hikes from making their way into the deal, the Speaker protected a great many American jobs from being sacrificed for Washington’s bailout.
“I realize this debate has been long and very difficult, but if we intend to change a government as broken as ours, prepare for the road ahead to be even more challenging. This debate is far from over, and I’ll continue to work toward solving our debt crisis—even if it means going against the grain every time. We have made progress, and we will continue to fight for a brighter, more prosperous future for America.”
Ever heard of the influential evangelical Francis Schaeffer? (Mike Huckabee once said his favorite book after the Bible was Schaeffer’s “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” and he’s been described as having a “profound” influence on Michele Bachmann.) Best reading of the morning is this New York Times article about how Schaeffer’s son, Frank, eventually turned away from his father’s politically conservative Christian ways and spurned the dynastic inheritance that could have been his. He’s written a memoir, “Sex, Mom and God.”
In 1969 my former pastor Bill Elliff was a college student and someone told him about Francis Schaeffer speaking at Wheaton college in Chicago. He drove up there and heard him speak. He spoke about abortion and asst suicide and many of the social changes that would be happening in the next few decades. LOOKING BACK HE COULD HAVE NOT BEEN MORE RIGHT? However, the liberals like Max Brantley keep attacking him because he is dangerous because his films expose the weaknesses of the secular humanist point of view.
Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material.
What Ever Happened to the Human Race?
___________________________________________
Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.
___________________
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
_____________________________________
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)
Death is universal. Apart from the intervention of the second advent of Christ, every human being will die. But how humans should die is a point of keen debate in the history of ethics.
Christians and non-Christians have deeply disagreed over the ethical validity of “non-natural” means of human death, namely suicide, abortion, infanticide, capital punishment, war, and euthanasia. And even among Christians there have been deep disagreements over whether these means of human death are ever legitimate. Specifically, then, what should a Christian think about the surging interest in euthanasia in our largely non-Christian culture?
For a host of reasons including advancements in medical technology, the aging of America, and the increasing impact of the secularization of our society, the concept of “quality of life” continues to supplant the concept of “sanctity of life.” Not surprisingly, the practice of euthanasia, simply translated as “the good death,” is a topic of increasing interest and concern.
The stories of Karen Ann Quinlan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the Hemlock Society, and Terri Shiavo have filled the news. “Death with dignity,” “mercy killing,” “the right to die,” or “physician assisted suicide” identify some of the claims of the advocates of euthanasia.
To consider the issues surrounding euthanasia, or the alleged “good death,” it is essential to understand how we, as a society, have arrived at the point where legislators are discussing not how we are to live, but how we are to die.
The Advent of the Culture of Death
Euthanasia is not new. But its rise to the forefront of our social and political discussions can be seen as one outcome of the legalization of abortion in 1973. Claims by the critics of abortion that its legalization would naturally lead to infanticide and euthanasia were seen as scare tactics to keep women from exercising their “right to privacy” or “right to choose.” However, it was not long until these warnings were becoming realities. “Deformed” children were being starved to death or refused treatment and newborn infants were being discarded in trash bins.
Surgeon General of the U.S. Dr. C. Everett Koop responded to the euthanasia/infanticide by starvation of a Down syndrome child in a Bloomfield, Ind., hospital by writing an article in 1980 entitled “Slide to Auschwitz.” He explained that when the “quality of life” value system replaces the “sanctity of life” ethic, it is the first step to what the Nazi physicians at Auschwitz proclaimed—namely, that the unhealthy, the aged, the handicapped, the mentally incompetent, or the dying were lebensunwerten Lebens, or “life unworthy of life.”
Francis Schaeffer explained this emerging thinking when he described an article by author Charles Hartshorne in a 1981 article in The Christian Century entitled “Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” Schaeffer wrote, “He [Hartshorne] begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins by assuming that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion is, ‘Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants.’ He then, logically takes the next step: ‘Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does.’ No atheistic humanist could say it with greater clarity.”
The high priest of mercy killing, Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton makes the thinking clear in his book Practical Ethics: “I do not deny that if one accepts abortion … the case for euthanasia … is strong. … euthanasia is not something to be regarded with horror. … On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life … it is the refusal to accept euthanasia which, in some cases, is horrific.” Thus the leaps from abortion to infanticide, to voluntary euthanasia, and ultimately to involuntary euthanasia are not leaps at all, but the natural consequence of stepping onto the slippery slope of morality apart from God.
The Unfolding Expression of the Culture of Death
To a society which no longer embraces the sanctity of human life, the natural extension of a woman’s “right to choose” is a person’s right to die at the time and under the conditions of their own choosing. Physician John M. Templeton, Jr., explains, “This right of personal autonomy regarding medical intervention can contribute to the concept of death with dignity. However, some persons have begun to try and push the concept of rights into extreme positions. In the words of Leon Kass, author of Death with Dignity and the Sanctity of Life, ‘We find people asserting a “right to die” grounded not in objective conditions regarding prognosis or the uselessness of treatment, but in the supremacy of choice itself. In the name of choice, people claim the right to choose to cease to be choosing beings. From such a right to refuse not only treatment, but life itself—that is, from a right to become dead—it is then a small step to the right to be made dead. From my right to die will follow your duty to assist me in dying, i.e., to become the agent of my death, if I am not able, or do not wish, to kill myself.’”
The ultimate expression of the culture of death is of course, the arbitrary killing of human beings based on some yet to be determined criteria, such as age, health, productivity, or cost to society. Philip E. Hughes writes, “given the evolutionist presupposition that the species is of far more consequence than the individual, that Man matters rather than man, it is far from fantastic to envisage the enactment of a law which, in the interest of mankind, would prescribe that on reaching, say, the age of 60, persons should be ‘put to sleep’—painlessly of course—by means of a pill, potion, or an injection.”
What role do physicians play in this new paradigm of the culture of death where they are called no longer to be life givers and sustainers, but instead to become managers of life and death? Templeton, in Death and Dying, writes, “The Dutch, in their research on euthanasia, found that many physicians acted with the initial intention of relieving pain and suffering, but also with the admitted ‘partial intention’ of hastening death. Now the Dutch parliament has lifted all restraints and has completely legalized active euthanasia, even in some cases without the patient’s consent.”
In the end, Peter Singer’s questions paint the road map for the culture of death. “For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.” Singer posits the ultimate question, “But why should human life have special value?”
The Imago Dei
Why is human life precious and why is it wrong to take a life? For the Christian, the answer is clear. We are created by God; in fact, we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28.). But living out that answer is not always simple or easy. This understanding of the sanctity of life is undergirded by God’s moral law, summarized in the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” J. Douma writes, “When we live and die in God’s presence, we do not exercise self-determination over ourselves. When God says that we may not kill, then we must not proceed stubbornly to put an end to our own lives. The wish for death can be a Christian desire, even outside of the dying stage of life (see Philippians 1:23). We may even pray for that; but that kind of praying itself presupposes that we must leave the realization thereof to God Himself.”
Professor J. J. Davis further clarifies how euthanasia is a violation of the sixth commandment: “Human life is sacred because God made man in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). This canopy of sacredness extends throughout man’s life, and is not simply limited to those times and circumstances when man happens to be strong, independent, healthy, and fully conscious of his relationships to others. … The same God who lovingly is present in the womb can be present in the dying and comatose patient, for whom conscious human relationships are broken. The body of the dying can still be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), and hence sacred to God. The euthanasia mentality sees man as the lord of his own life; the Christian sees human life as a gift from God, to be held in trusteeship throughout man’s life on earth: ‘You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Determining the moment of death is God’s prerogative, not man’s (Job 14:5). Man does not choose his own death, but acquiesces in the will of the heavenly Father, knowing that for the believer, death is both the last enemy, and the doorway to eternal life. Because man bears the image of God, his life is sacred in every state of its existence, in sickness or in health, in the womb, in infancy, in adolescence, in maturity, in old age, or even in the process of dying itself.”
In a culture of death, Christians are called to be shining lights of hope to a forlorn and fallen world. When Christians choose life for themselves and/or others—offering to the suffering not deadly poisons, but rather Christ’s life-giving love in word and deed—they reflect the gospel hope of the eternal life promised by Christ’s resurrection.
Dr. Peter A. Lillback is senior pastor of Proclamation Presbyterian Church (PCA) and president of Westminster Theological Seminary.
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)
Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)
In my series on Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?” I have pointed out that Michele Bachmann has received lots of criticism for being influenced by this radical that wanted to encourage people to overturn the government in 1981 in his book “A Christian Manifesto” according to Ryan Lizza. However, Schaeffer never did suggest that we are at the point where we should start a revolution because of abortion. In fact, Schaeffer is not a radical but is very much in the mainstream of the traditional Christian views derived from the Bible.
Take a look below at an excellent article by Nancy Pearcey and then be sure to look at the posts I doing on Bachmann and Schaeffer.
The takeaway from Ryan Lizza’s hit piece on Michele Bachmann in the New Yorker is this: “Dominionist” is the new “Fundamentalist”—the preferred term of abuse, intended to arouse fear and contempt, and downgrade the status of targeted groups of people.
Never mind that most of those people have never heard the term—including me. Bachmann told Lizza that a major influence on her thinking was my book Total Truth (“Bachmann told me [it] was a ‘wonderful’ book”), along with the work of Francis Schaeffer, whom I studied under.
Lizza labeled the two of us Dominionists. Dozens of liberal websites have picked up the story and repeated the charge.
I had to Google the term to discover whether there really is such a group.
Yes, there is a little-known group of Christians who claim the term, though they are typically called Reconstructionists. Apparently it was sociologist Sara Diamond who expanded Dominionism into a general term of abuse, based on a passage in Genesis where God tells humans to exercise “dominion” over the earth.
By that definition, anyone who respects Genesis as Scripture would be a Dominionist—including Jews and Catholics, as well as Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals. And not a few of the American Founders.
Reductio ad absurdum. Or so you would think. But liberal writers have jumped on the label and are applying it to conservatives in just about all of the above groups, with a few secular conservatives thrown in.
Journalist Stanley Kurtz calls this usage of the term “conspiratorial nonsense,” “political paranoia” and ” guilt by association.”
If we’re looking for the real hermeneutical key to Michele Bachmann’s mind, surprisingly it’s right out in plain sight. It is a term that appears several times in Lizza’s piece, though he ignores it.
The term is worldview.
A major theme in my writings and Schaeffer’s is that Christianity is a worldview. That means it is not reducible to a set of privatized religious rituals and practices. Instead it offers a coherent, rationally consistent intellectual framework for all of life.
Schaeffer spent most of his adult life in Europe, and his concept of worldview owes much to Dutch thinkers Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd. Kuyper was prime minister of the Netherlands in the early 20th century and founder of the Free University of Amsterdam. Dooyeweerd was a systematic philosopher who taught there.
They adopted the concept of worldview from Continental philosophy. It is a translation of the German term Weltanschauung, which expresses the Hegelian notion that any given society shares a common outlook, a Zeitgeist or spirit of the age.
The implication is that a society’s cultural artifacts—its laws, customs, morality, art, politics—all express that shared spirit or common outlook.
For Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, this holistic concept of worldview did a nice job of capturing the creative impact that Christianity has had on Western culture through history, inspiring much of its art, literature, music, architecture, philosophy, and political thought.
It was this creative impulse that Schaeffer hoped to revive in our own day.
Lizza writes as though anyone who applies Christianity to all of life is a dangerous extremist. But that shows a failure to understand how worldviews work.
Marxists offer a Marxist perspective on economics, politics, family, technology, and virtually every other discipline.
The same is true of feminism and other isms. Even evolution: There’s a growth industry in books applying Darwinian categories to everything from politics (Darwinian Politics), to sexuality (The Evolution of Desire), to music (The Singing Neanderthals), to creativity (Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity), to literature (Madame Bovary’s Ovaries: A Darwinian Look at Literature).
In Total Truth I explain that such all-encompassing worldviews function as lenses through which people see the world. Lizza quotes one of those passages, insinuating that it is a symptom of near-paranoia. (”She tells her readers to be extremely cautious with ideas from non-Christians.”)
But the role of worldviews is standard stuff among Continental thinkers. “All facts are theory-laden” has the status of cliché in philosophy of science.
Everyone has a more or less coherent worldview that gives them a toolbox of ideas to explain the world—even writers for the New Yorker.
And even if that worldview is masked in order to appear fair and balanced while writing a hit piece on a presidential candidate. In fact, it’s the unstated assumptions that have greatest power to influence and control public perceptions.
You might even conclude that a “Dominionist” impulse is alive and well among members of the secularized ruling class.
Meanwhile, would someone please put Total Truth into the hands of Barack Obama? I’d love to be a dangerous influence on him too.
Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?”
This is a series of posts concerning presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her religious beliefs. Particularly I will be looking at the identity of Francis Schaeffer who Michele said had major impact on her views. I also would say that Francis Schaeffer was the greatest christian philosopher of the 20th century.
In 1979 I first watched the film series “How should we then live?” and it was so impressive to me that I returned to my high school with permission from my former teacher to view the series again. In fact, Mr. Brink would tell the seniors at Evangelical Christian School in Cordova, TN something to this affect: “I hope you realize how important this film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer is. Here we have Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he is coming back to see this film again because he knows how valuable it is.”
The best way to understand Michele Bachmann’s worldview is to watch the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer. I have provided a 30 minute episode at the end of this post with a written outline. In this film series the humanist worldview is seen as weak because it is not able to give adequate answers to life’s tough questions while the christian worldview can. Humanism has a finite base because it is limited to finite man while the Christian worldview is based on information provided by the infinite-personal God of the Bible.
And not just Nancy because of her more than 100,000-copies selling book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity(“Wonderful” book, says Bachmann), but also Francis Schaefferbecause of his work, including the 10-part film series How Should We Then Live? and his book A Christian Manifesto.
So who is Nancy? Not mentioned in the New Yorker is that Bachmann once told me, by phone, when Bachmann was a Minnesota state senator and considering a run for Congress, that she had two heroes: “Ann Coulter and Nancy Pearcey.”
Nancy is a former agnostic, who, like me, embraces critical thinking as a way of life. This too is, perhaps to some, seen as dangerous and even subversive. To us, it’s simply being human and taking responsibility for one’s ideas and one’s choices in life. I think Camusmight have liked that. I like Camus; he played soccer, like me.
For some reason, the so-called elite establishments in politics and media seem frightfully worried about the resurgence of a people who can live and think for themselves.
We’re not afraid of the big questions, and we’re not bigoted toward possible rational answers to the big questions, even if, as the Founding Fathers noticed, the possible answers involve taking seriously the subversive and liberating influence of the Creator.
This divine subversion, as you may recall, upset the reactionary, non-critical-thinking establishment of its own day. Imagine, those extremist tea-partiers actually had the audacity to write it up in theDeclaration of Independence (is that document still legal in New Yorker land?). By the way, here is the, sadly, all-too-predictable New Yorker hit piece on Bachmann. Enjoy!
How Should We Then Live 3-1
I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, or humanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous…Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.” That is exactly where we are today in 2011. Just left with no final answers, but just wtih statistical averages.
E P I S O D E 3
T h e RENAISSANCE
I. The Art of the Renaissance Is One of Mankind’s Glories
A. The artists reflect their culture.
B. The artists often provide the way for the next step in culture.
1. Positive emphasis on nature in Giotto’s art.
2. Significance of work of Masaccio.
3. Perspective as a form of humanism.
4. Parallel and supportive developments in Low Countries. Van Eyck’s Adoration of the Lamb, the substitutionary work of the crucified and risen Christ. Also an example of landscape naturalism.
5. Dante’s life and work.
a) Following Aquinas, he mixed Christian and classical elements.
b) Dichotomy in Dante and other writers between sensual and idealized, spiritual love.
6. Brunelleschi’s architecture and the conquest of space.
7. Trend to autobiography and self-portraiture a mark of emphasis on Man.
C. Italian Renaissance music.
1. Invention of orchestration.
2. Invention of movable type for music.
II. Increased Drift Toward a Total Humanism
A. Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, orhumanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous.
B. The die was cast: Man tried to make himself independent, autonomous.
C. A growing humanism sees what preceded the Renaissance as the “Dark Ages.”
D. Idea of a “Dark Age” and a “rebirth” in Renaissance.
E. Aquinas had opened the door for that which is the problem of humanism.
1. Illustrated by Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican:
The School of Athens.
2. Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.
F. Fouguet’s Red Virgin as an example.
1. At first, only religious values seemed threatened.
2. But gradually the threat spread to all of knowledge and all of life.
G. Man as hero: Michelangelo’s Prisoners and David . Change in his later work, however.
H. Leonardo da Vinci and the dilemma of humanism.
1. Logical conclusion of humanism as perceived by Leonardo.
2. Final pessimism of Leonardo an expression of inevitable progression of humanism towards pessimism.
III. Christianity’s Answer to Humanism’s Problem
Questions
1. In what ways is this treatment of the Renaissance different from other treatments with which you are familiar?
2. Attitudes toward nature and Man seem to be crucial to understanding the Renaissance. How far were these attitudes Christian and how far non-Christian?
3. Can you see any parallels between the evolution of humanism in the Renaissance—from hopeful dawn to ominous sunset–and the changing outlook on human and world problems during your own lifetime?
Key Events and Persons
Dante: 1265-1321
The Divine Comedy: 1300-1321
Giotto: c. 1267-1337
Brunelleschi: 1377-1446
Jan van Eyck: 1380-1441
Masaccio: 1401-1428
Fouquet: 1416-1480
Duomo, Cathedral of Florence: 1434
Leonardo da Vinci: 1452-1519
Michelangelo: 1475-1564
Michelangelo’s David: 1504
Francis I of France: 1494-1547
Further Study
There are so many good picture books of Renaissance art and architecture that, rather than try to select one or two, I will simply urge the importance of consulting some. With profit, one might also listen to
Renaissance music, such as the selection in The Seraphim Guide to Renaissance Music.
J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, 2 vols. (1958).
Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography (1966).
E. Gorin, Italian Humanism (1966).
E. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology (1962).
Georgio Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 4 vols. (1963).
W.H.Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators (1963).
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]
How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]
U.S. Credit Rating Downgraded: Now They’ve Done It By J.D. Foster, Ph.D. August 6, 2011 Late on Friday, August 5, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA, and really best in class, to AA+. In one fell swoop, S&P sent two separate and powerful messages. First, as The Heritage Foundation and […]
How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]
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.” […]
How Should We Then Live 1-1 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 […]
The Daily Hatch 