Monthly Archives: August 2011

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balance Budget Amendment? (Part 3 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

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 www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

Marco Rubio is one of your fellow citizens and he noted:

A balanced budget amendment would be a necessary step in reversing Washington’s tax-borrow-spend mantra. It would force Congress to balance its budget each year – not allow it to pass our problems on to the next generation any longer.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is the only thing I can think of that would force Washington to cut spending. We have only a handful of balanced budgets in the last 60 years, so obviously what we are doing is not working. We are passing along this debt to the next generation.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

 In my two short months in office, it has become clear to me that the spending problem in Washington is far worse than many of us feared. For years, politicians have blindly poured more and more borrowed money into ineffective government programs, leaving us with trillion dollar deficits and a crippling debt burden that threatens prosperity and economic growth.

In the Florida House of Representatives, where a balanced budget is a requirement, we had to make the tough choices to cut spending where necessary because it was required by state law. By no means was this an easy process, but it was our duty as elected officials to be accountable to our constituents and to future generations of Floridians. In Washington, a balanced budget amendment is not just a fiscally-responsible proposal, it’s a necessary step to curb politicians’ decades-long penchant for overspending.

Several senators have proposed balanced budget amendments that ensure Congress will not spend a penny more than we take in, while setting a high hurdle for future tax hikes. I am a co-sponsor of two balanced budget amendments, since it is clear that these measures would go a long way to reversing the spending gusher we’ve seen from Washington in recent years.

During my Senate campaign, while surrounded by the employees of Jacksonville’s Meridian Technologies, I proposed 12 simple ways to cut spending in Washington. That company, founded 13 years ago, has grown into a 200-employee, high-tech business, and the ideas I proposed would help ensure that similar companies have the opportunity to start or expand just like Meridian did.

To be clear, our unsustainable debt and deficits are threatening companies like Meridian and impeding job creation. In addition to proposing a balanced budget amendment, I recommended canceling unspent “stimulus” funds, banning all earmarks and returning discretionary spending to 2008 levels.

Fortunately, some of my ideas have found their way to the Senate chamber. The first bill I co-sponsored in the Senate was to repeal ObamaCare, the costly overhaul of our nation’s health care system that destroys jobs and impedes our economic recovery. Democratic leaders in the Senate have expressed their willingness to ban earmarks for two years after the Senate Republican conference adopted a moratorium. I have also co-sponsored the REINS Act, a common-sense measure that would increase accountability and transparency in our outdated and burdensome regulatory process. These bills, along with a balanced budget amendment, would help get our country back on a sustainable path and provide certainty to job creators.

While Republicans are proposing a variety of ideas to rein in Washington’s out-of-control spending, unfortunately, President Obama’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year proposes to spend $46 trillion, and even in its best year, the deficit would remain above $600 billion. Worst of all, the President’s budget completely avoids addressing the biggest drivers of our long-term debt – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Rather than tackle these tough, serious issues, President Obama is proposing a litany of tax hikes on small businesses and entrepreneurs, to the tune of more than $1.6 trillion. These tax increases destroy jobs, make us less competitive internationally and hurt our efforts to grow the economy and get our fiscal house in order.

A balanced budget amendment would be a necessary step in reversing Washington’s tax-borrow-spend mantra. It would force Congress to balance its budget each year – not allow it to pass our problems on to the next generation any longer.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Florida and former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

China calls U.S. debt a “ticking time bomb” while the Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling

US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and his granddaughter Ashley arrive in Beijing

US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and his granddaughter Ashley arrive in Beijing for his visit to China and Mongolia. China is the biggest foreign holder of US debt and the country’s state run media have delivered a barrage of criticism of Washington’s handling of its near-default crisis, which it has described as a “ticking time bomb”

More stories like this one from AFP will be coming in the future:

US Vice President Joe Biden will meet the man widely expected to become China’s next leader as he begins his first official visit on Thursday under a cloud of criticism over America’s debt crisis.

Biden is under pressure to revive the image of the United States after the world’s largest economy came close to a disastrous default on its debts earlier this month and suffered a historic credit rating downgrade.

China is the biggest foreign holder of US debt and the country’s state run media have delivered a barrage of criticism of Washington’s handling of the crisis, which it has described as a “ticking time bomb”.

On Thursday Biden, 68, will attend a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing before meeting Xi Jinping, who is expected to be named as successor to President Hu Jintao next year.

President Obama taking orders from Michael Moore? (Part 2 of series “What is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrade?”)

Still of Alan Alda, John Candy, Kevin Pollak, Rip Torn, Michael Moore and Rhea Perlman in Canadian Bacon

7 January 2011
© 1995 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Still of Alan Alda, John Candy, Kevin Pollak, Rip Torn, Michael Moore and Rhea Perlman in Canadian Bacon

Michael Moore is a liberal movie director and his films have been pitiful. However, I did enjoy the movie “Canadian Bacon” which was very funny. Above is a clip from that movie.

Liberal firebrand Michael Moore called on President Obama to respond to the U.S. credit downgrade by arresting the leaders of the credit-ratings agencies.

On his Twitter feed Monday, the Oscar-winning film director also blamed the 2008 economic collapse on Standard & Poor’s — apparently because it and other credit-ratings agencies did not downgrade mortgage-based bonds, which encouraged the housing bubble and let it spread throughout the economy.

“Pres Obama, show some guts & arrest the CEO of Standard & Poors. These criminals brought down the economy in 2008& now they will do it again,” Mr. Moore wrote.

Standard & Poor’s, one of three key debt agencies, stripped the U.S. federal government of its AAA status Friday night and reduced it to AA+ for the first time in the nation’s history.

Now I read this story that just came out at 10:30pm CST on August 17th that evidently President Obama thinks that he better get to marching to Michael Moore’s orders!!!!

The Associated Press reported:

 The Justice Department is investigating whether the Standard & Poor’s credit ratings agency improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ AAA credit rating this month, but it’s likely to add to the political firestorm created by the downgrade, the newspaper said. Some government officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.

The Times cites two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews as its sources. According to people with knowledge of the interviews, the Justice Department has been asking about instances in which the company’s analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds but may have been overruled by other S&P business managers.

If the government finds enough evidence to support a case, it could undercut S&P’s longstanding claim that its analysts act independently from business concerns. The newspaper said it was unclear whether the Justice Department investigation involves the other two major ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, or only S&P.

__________________________

I don’t think that Standard and Poors did anything wrong and I think they would have been wrong if they did not act because of all the political pressure they were receiving from the Obama administration. My views are much closer to those below.

Ron and Rand Paul say downgrade is fault of Washington, not Tea Party
CBS ^ | Lucy Madison

Posted on Monday, August 08, 2011 9:02:27 PM by dragnet2

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., both blasted Tea Party critics on Monday for suggesting that the conservative movement with which they’re both linked may have had something to do with America’s recent credit downgrade by the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s.

The elder Paul, a longtime lawmaker, staunch libertarian, and presidential candidate, decried the allegations as an “attempt to scapegoat” Tea Party lawmakers. He pinned the downgrade on the Washington establishment.

“This attempt to scapegoat folks who recognize that our debt is out of control and that we must change course should not be tolerated,” he said in a Monday statement. “They are simply demanding that Washington do its job.”

He continued: “We were downgraded because of years of reckless spending, not because concerned Americans demanded we get our finances in order.

The Washington establishment has spent us into near default and now a downgrade, and here they are again trying to escape responsibility for their negligence in handling the economy.”

In a Sunday appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod pinned responsibility for America’s recent downgrade – arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default.”

“The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade,” Axelrod declared.

Former presidential candidate Howard Dean, also speaking on “Face the Nation,” argued that the “radical right” had essentially scared mainstream Republicans off of voting for a debt limit package that could have included tax increases – and staved off the ratings dip.

Dean said the American people are there, the Democrats are there, a lot of reasonable Republicans are there, but they are terrified of these right wing splinter groups, the radical right, because they are so powerful in the primaries.”

Rand Paul, the first-term Kentucky Senator who was elected in 2010 with the support of the Tea Party, argued that blaming the movement for America’s economic woes was like “blaming the fireman for fires “he said in a statement. “The Tea Party has been fighting for a serious solution that would rescue our finances through immediate spending cuts, spending caps and most importantly, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.”

“While Democrats would like to lay blame on the Tea Party for the current economic failure, it is their President who has failed in leadership, failed to lower unemployment, failed to rescue our economy, failed to prevent a downgrade of our debt, and failed to control spending,” he added.

The Dow Jones industrial fell 634.76 points on Monday, as anxiety plagued Wall Street on the first trading day since Standard & Poor’s downgraded American debt. The drop is the sixth worst point decline for the Dow in the last 112 years. Every stock in the S&P’s 500 index declined Monday.

Ron Paul: S&P Downgraded US Credit Rating… The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming

Time again for Grady Fish Fry on fourth Thursday in August!!!

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 annual Grady Lions Club Catfish Supper on my calendar.

It’s always the third Thursday in August. Always.

It’s always in the Ned Hardin pecan grove.

And it’s almost always hot.

Commonly known as the Grady Fish Fry, it’s among my favorite annual events. I’ve written about it before.

In an election year, the politicians flock to Grady. Among congressional and statewide officeholders and candidates, I saw Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Sen. Mark Pryor, Rep. John Boozman, Jim Keet, Shane Broadway, Mark Darr and Beth Anne Rankin there last night.

There likely were others who left before I arrived or maybe I just just missed seeing them. The event begins at 4 p.m. and ends at 8 p.m. As I said in a post at this time last year, the Grady Fish Fry marks the unofficial end of summer for me. Bring on football season.

I also mentioned last year (but must mention again) what is perhaps the most fascinating contraption in the state — the famed Grady hushpuppy machine, constructed decades ago from pieces of equipment found on area farms. One after another, the huspuppies come out of the machine and are put into the hot grease. If they ever stop using it, it should be donated to the Smithsonian as an example of American ingenuity.

I had a great visit last night with Sherwood Haisty, 85, a Lions Club member who has been a part of 40 of the 55 fish fries. He told me how the members of the Lions Club once worked for days in the hot sun setting up tables, bringing in the products, etc.

Then somebody had the bright idea of asking the Arkansas Department of Correction for help. For years now, it has been a mutually beneficial relationship.

For the Lions Club members, there’s a captive workforce, if you will.

For those who work at the nearby state prisons, there’s a carrot they can dangle in front of inmates – in exchange for good behavior, you can get out for one night and receive a great meal in the process.

Those men from around Arkansas in their white prison garb who are handing out slices of watermelon, filling glasses of iced tea and cleaning off the tables are now just as much a part of the event as the giant pecan trees in the Hardin grove. And the prison band sounded better than ever last night. The lead vocalist has true talent.

Think about it. There are politicians shaking hands. Inmates wearing white and guards wearing blue. A pecan orchard. People cooling themselves with the funeral home-style fans handed out by the politicians. Catfish. Hushpuppies. Watermelon. It just doesn’t get more Southern. It’s like something out of a movie.

Sadly, as the population of rural southeast Arkansas grows older and smaller, we lose members of the Lions Club each year. Rev. Clyde Venable passed away in 2009. Earlier this year, charter members Bill Blankenship and R.C. Johnson died.

Hopefully, there’s some young blood in the area to keep this landmark event going.

A lot of people help out. Hardin Farms supplies the watermelons. Simmons First supplies the plates. St. Michaels Farms supplies catfish. I could go on and on.

Money raised from this annual event (it’s $12 each for all you can eat) allows the Grady Lions Club to provide college scholarships, pay for eye exams and pay for glasses for those who could not otherwise afford them.

Speculations on where Burt Reynolds lives by Ark Times bloggers

I wrote a blog post after Reynolds died at this linkLink

(Burt Reynolds interview at 14 min mark)

If you want to see Burt Reynolds living in Arkansas then you will have to watch the film White Lightning which was filmed in Benton, Arkansas. I put a few clips below and if you are familiar with Benton you will recognize many of the streets during the chases. Also there is one scene at I-30 Speedway.

Image result for burt reynolds frank sinatra
(L-R) Burt Reynolds, Dean Martin, Shirley MacLaine, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Frank Sinatra in “Cannonball Run II.”20th Century Fox
Image result for burt reynolds frank sinatra
_______
Image result for burt reynolds evening shade

Max Brantley wrote today on the Arkansas Times Blog:

News article from Florida about foreclosure action against actor Burt Reynolds for debt on a Florida mansion says legal papers were sent to Reynolds’ home in Little Rock. However, Ark. Business found,that address apparently was for Reynolds’ Arkansas accountant, Young and Associates, to whom his property tax bill was mailed for several years through 2009 (the tab was about $40,000 in 2010 local property taxes on a home appraised at $2.4 million, down from $2.9 million.)

These are some other comments made on the Arkansas Times Blog:

max,

didn’t Stephens used to handle his investments. wonder if the address is for them

Posted by bobbyt

Yes, either that or hopefully he’s not being treated at UAMS…

I saw him having lunch with Billy Bob Thornton one day in July but I just figured he was in town for a show, or business or something. I had no idea he had a residence here.

Posted by HolyGuano

Burton Leon Reynolds aka Burt Reynolds has a listing as a director and active officer in Clematis Films, Inc. and Clematis Productions, Inc., with locations in North Little Rock, AR and Tequesta, FL…a Lenore Haas is also listed with dealings in those companies….I also know that YEARS ago…the mid to late 70’s he had a physician in Little Rock.

Posted by Southernbelle

This is so strange but my wife said last night she thought she saw Burt Reynolds in downtown LR yesterday. Now comes this story. So maybe she did.

Posted by Dan

Funniest Joke Show #01 Act 05 Real People Joke F Dr Jess Moody Pastor

Published on Oct 3, 2012

Jess Moody, a pastor, tells a joke about Burt Reynolds. Burt wanted to hunt, but they could only go to one land. The landowner doesn’t like Jess, but when he got there he was excited to see him and asked him to kill his mule since it was ill. He plays a trick on Burt and tells him it went bad and kills the mule in front of him. Burt kills two of his cows and they run.

_____________________

 

Image Detail

Remember the tv series “Evening Shade” that ran from 1990 to 1994? A friend told me that Reynolds was very impressed with the neighborhood in the Heights on Edgehill Road. He was told the prices of several of the homes back in 1994 and he was amazed the prices were all under 10 million. He said the homes in Beverly Hills were 5 times as much. Maybe he bought one of those “inexpensive houses?” Not likely though. The reason the papers in Florida were sent to Arkansas is because the accounting firm that handles some of his business is in Little Rock as Max pointed out earlier.  He still lives in Beverly Hills according to reports I got off the internet.

 

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/C19401-20.jpg

Nancy Reagan with Dinah Shore and Burt Reynolds in the Blue Room during a state dinner for Premier Zhao Ziyang of the Peoples Republic of China. 1/10/84.

I remember going down to the Robinson Center in Little Rock back around 1995 to see “An evening with Burt Reynolds.” It was very enjoyable as Reynolds told stories about his life. One story I found very funny was the night that Frank Sinatra took Reynolds out to a restaurant.  Dinah Shore was a longtime friend of Sinatra and he always wanted to protect her. He had a talk with Reynolds and he wanted to know Reynolds intentions.
Before the evening started, Reynolds told Dinah that he was not going to stay out late with Sinatra and he was going to leave after he got his “Sinatra story.” Well, Sinatra was served in a private room in the back of his favorite restaurant and there was a server who was nervous and he spilled some soup at Sinatra’s table. The owner came out and fired the server on the spot. Sinatra responded, “Everytime I come back here in the future, I better see this particular server working here or I will never come back again.”
Reynolds got up from the table and started to leave. Sinatra said, “Where are you going?” Reynolds said he was leaving because he told Dinah he would be back as soon as he got a “Sinatra story” and now he had one.
https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c32275-30.jpg
President Reagan and Nancy Reagan attending “All Star Tribute to Dutch Reagan” at NBC Studios(from left to right sitting) Colleen Reagan, Neil Reagan, Maureen Reagan, President, Nancy Reagan, Dennis Revell. (From left to right standing) Emmanuel Lewis, Charlton Heston, Ben Vereen, Monty Hall, Frank Sinatra, Burt Reynolds, Dean Martin, Eydie Gorme, Vin Scully, Steve Lawrence, last 2 unidentified. Burbank, California 12/1/85.
______________________

In England the welfare state has eroded respect for property rights

If the riots in Britain have taught us anything, it is that when government fails in its most basic function — protecting persons and property — civil society ends, and warfare begins. The rise of the welfare state has eroded respect for private property rights and fostered a socialist mentality that dulls individual responsibility.

The welfare state in the USA is almost as big as it is in Europe. Therefore, we may be in for some riots here soon. Take a look at the Founding Fathers had to say about the purpose of government and then compare to what it is doing today.

The Welfare State’s Road to Riots

by James A. Dorn

This article appeared on Orange County Register on August 17, 2011.

The U.S. is quickly catching up with European welfare states. Entitlement spending has skyrocketed since the Great Society programs of the mid-1960s, especially Medicare and Medicaid. Those two programs along with Social Security now account for more than 40 percent of federal spending, which itself has risen to 25 percent of GDP, or nearly $4 trillion. If all entitlement spending is included, payments to individuals account for 66 percent of federal spending.

The transformation from limited government (true liberalism) to the welfare state has no constitutional basis. The three branches of government have failed in their solemn duty to uphold the Framers’ Constitution, or what F. A. Hayek called “the constitution of liberty.”

The lesson from the British riots is that when government overextends itself, it will fail to do what it is supposed to do: protect persons and property.

It is not free enterprise and limited government that led to the riots in Britain; it is rather their demise. The U.S. should wake up and recognize the danger the welfare state poses to property — broadly understood as rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The most fundamental question facing any society is the role and scope of government. The Framers of the Constitution accepted the idea that the primary role of government is to safeguard private property. In 1792, James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, wrote, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. … This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

The Preamble to the Constitution states that the purpose of the charter is to “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” To “establish justice” means to prevent the violation of an individual’s natural rights or property rights; it does not give the federal government an unlimited power to take private property and interfere with freedom of contract.

Madison and the other framers would not have enumerated — and therefore limited — the powers of the federal government in Article 1, section 8, if they thought a redistributive state was just. Nor would they have added a Bill of Rights.

James A. Dorn is vice president for academic affairs with the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute and editor of theCato Journal.

More by James A. Dorn

Amendments to the Constitution — notably the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth — further strengthened property rights. But the Progressive Movement (1890s–1920s) began to erode the Framers’ Constitution. Today, the broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, and other clauses have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond that envisioned by the Framers. In doing so, the meaning of justice has been turned on its head: from its legitimate meaning of safeguarding property to its modern meaning of using taxes, regulation, and laws to redistribute income and wealth to achieve “social justice.”

The problem is that when government is seen as an instrument for “doing good” rather than a force for preventing harm, there is no end to government mischief. By its very nature government operates by coercion, not consent; and as Milton Friedman liked to remind us, when government spends other people’s money, it will naturally want to do more and more.

The lesson from the British riots is that when government overextends itself, it will fail to do what it is supposed to do: protect persons and property. If an anti-market and socialist mentality replace an ethos of liberty and responsibility, then the harmony that results from limited government and free markets will disappear — and hooligans will gain the upper hand.

The massive U.S. debt is a reflection of the rapid growth of entitlements and a do-good vision of government. Next year’s elections will be a referendum on the size and scope of government. If Americans return to the Madisonian principle of justice that underlies the Constitution — and is the foundation of morality — the future of peace and prosperity will be bright. If they adhere to the illiberal principle of “doing good with other people’s money,” the welfare state will grow and eventually put out the light of liberty.

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 10)

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.

Young Man, You Owe Milton Friedman a Thank You

By Andrew Kaluza

Every young man living after 1973 owes his life to Milton Friedman. In that year, Friedman, became the intellectual father behind ending conscripted military service. He wasn’t the first person to voice his opposition to the draft, but he was the first to communicate his ideas effectively enough to change the public mindset on the issue.

Ideas lay the groundwork for a philosophy and provide the foundation for a society. As Peter Kreeft said, “Philosophy is just thought, but sow a thought, reap an act; sow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny. This is just as true for societies as it is for individuals.” Given that ideas guide our every action, we must look to have not just valid ideas, but ones that are intellectually grounded and sound.  Ideas must be communicated, compared and pieced together in order to create even better ideas. Communication is particularly important, as the better the communication, the more accessible and understandable ideas become. Fortunately, Friedman was a great communicator. His ability to communicate the message of liberty and free choice in regard to the draft kept young American males out of compulsory military service.

What was he able to communicate about the draft? When making a case for the draft, advocates claimed that if soldiers enlisted for pay, it would create an army of mercenaries.  They argued that a paid volunteer army would not be a virtuous army, because the soldiers would join for monetary desire and not for patriotic duty.  Milton Friedman rebutted this by pointing out that mandatory conscription hypocritically fails this patriotic test, since forced servitude, rather than inner volition, causes individuals to serve.  Friedman believed that incentives are the foundation of each individual’s action, and therefore, it was inappropriate to attribute unpatriotic motives to paid army volunteers.

Friedman’s repudiation of such mercenary concerns are illustrated in a famous confrontation with General William Westmoreland:

 In the course of his [General Westmoreland’s] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, ‘General, would you rather command an army of slaves?’ He drew himself up and said, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.’ I replied, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.’ But I went on to say, ‘If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.’ That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.  

This example highlights the importance of communicating ideas effectively. By doing so, Friedman successfully convinced people of the ills of conscripted military service and persevered in the all-important court of public opinion. Friedman changed the landscape of modern war — and along with it the destiny of young Americans everywhere.

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14)


Today I read a post by Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog concerning the falling poll numbers for the Tea Party.  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 – 06:54:18

The Tea Party: is the fun over

An interesting New York Times op-ed reviews the plunging poll approval numbers for the Tea Party and delves into the numbers for some insight into who TPers are.

____________________

My response is very simple. The 2010 election brought the Tea Party representatives to the national stage and if their numbers grow in 2012 then Brantley’s observation is inaccurate. If their numbers go down then it was a fine piece of journalism. WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.

For my part, I am posting today “The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 14),” and I plan to keep on posting this series till I get to number 66.

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.

Southerland: Cuts and Caps Will Help Us Conquer the Debt Crisis

Steve Southerland, II (published by The Tallahassee Democrat)
Jul 25, 2011 Issues: Jobs, Economy and Spending

By the time you finish reading this sentence, Washington will add another $360,000 to our national debt. With each day of delay, we dig our economic hole $4 billion deeper.

Make no mistake about it — we’re gazing into an economic abyss. Incredibly, some in Washington believe the best way to get back on track is to move the guardrail closer to the cliff’s edge. I refuse to join the agents of inaction who would rather bankrupt this great nation than make the tough, forward-thinking decisions necessary to fix our fiscal future.

Since 1962, Washington has raised the debt ceiling a mind-boggling 74 times. Yet with every increase, our elected officials failed to implement cost controls on future spending, choosing instead to shift responsibility onto the shoulders of future generations.

We simply cannot afford to continue down this path to economic ruin. The buck stops here and accountability begins now.

There’s an adage that says success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Those words could fittingly be the official motto of Washington, D.C.

The time has come for Republicans and Democrats alike to take ownership of this massive failure of governance. Short-sighted neglect from both parties helped create our $14.3 trillion debt. Both parties have, at one time or another, been more concerned with maintaining their grip on power than with empowering a change of culture in Washington.

I’ve heard loud and clear from citizens across North and Northwest Florida: You’ve had enough. You want Washington to reflect the challenges you face every day in meeting a family budget or keeping a small business afloat. You rightly expect the federal government to do more with less.

Nearly 100 days ago, I publicly announced my support for a common-sense plan of cuts and caps to conquer our debt crisis. I am pleased that a bipartisan majorityof the House joined me in committing to this effort by approving last week the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.

This responsible plan would ensure that Washington cuts its spending immediately while enforcing caps on future spending and sending a federal balanced budget amendment to the states.

If you are a senior or a veteran, your benefits are protected under this plan. Wasteful spending will be weeded out, but your Medicare, Social Security and veterans benefits absolutely will not change.

If you are a small-business owner, lifting our crushing burden of debt will restore certainty and stability to the marketplace, allowing you to expand operations and create jobs.

And if you are a parent, you can take comfort in knowing that your children and grandchildren have hope for a day when they won’t be saddled with the consequences of poor economic decisions from the past.

The House has acted boldly to approve a concrete, measurable strategy to cut the debt.

I am hopeful that ongoing negotiations between President Obama and congressional leaders will build upon this momentum to achieve an agreement in line with the House-passed plan.

As I have consistently stated, I am firmly opposed to increasing the debt limit unless there is a serious, game-changing plan to cut, cap and balance Washington’s checkbook. We will never digest this mountain of debt by simply nibbling around the edges.

With the president’s self-imposed Aug. 2 deadline fast approaching, many Americans are understandably concerned about what will happen if a debt-ceiling agreement proves elusive.

Whether there is an agreement in the next 10 days or not, revenue will continue to come in to the federal treasury. The president will continue to have the constitutional responsibility to prioritize federal spending. His administration will continue to set the timetable by which Social Security, Medicare and veteran benefits are paid.

In an effort to reassure those who have earned federal benefits, I introduced legislation that would ensure our seniors, veterans and active duty troops come first, receiving their full pay and benefits even if there is no debt limit agreement in place by Aug. 2. Your government made a promise to you, and you deserve to know that promise will be honored.

Great nations have fallen throughout history when they grew too bloated and careless to prepare for their economic future. We must not repeat those same mistakes.

When our children and grandchildren look back on the debates of today, do we want them to mark these times as the moment when the American Dream slipped away? Or do we want them to be thankful that we finally stood up, fought for their future and changed the culture in Washington?

I know where I stand.

Does Wal-mart charge us $100 to enter and they choose what we get? Same unsatisfying result when Congress raises debt ceiling!!

“If Wal-Mart charged you $100 to enter its stores and then told you what you were going to get for the money, it would not be a satisfying experience, yet, this is precisely how the U.S. government operates.”

Sadly that has been the way our government has been operating for years and now we all have over 46,000 dollars of debt for each member of our household and we still don’t feel satisfied with what we are getting.

Time for a Constitutional Fix

by Richard W. Rahn

This article appeared in The Washington Times on August 16, 2011.

Can an amendment to the U.S. Constitution fix the deficit problem? Polls show most Americans think we need a balanced-budget amendment. Yet serious scholars of the issue understand that the deficit is merely a symptom of the problem; people want more benefits from government than they wish to pay for.

Various forms of balanced-budget and tax-and-spending-limitation amendments have been proposed. Almost everyone realizes that an amendment must be flexible enough to deal with national emergencies, such as a major war. But if the amendment is too flexible, politicians will quickly find ways around whatever limitations on spending, taxing and deficits are imposed. The more tightly drawn any proposed amendment is, the more difficult it will be to pass it because an effective amendment will limit the powers of the very people who are required to vote for it. As the country considers what type of structural fix is doable, the observations of some leading scholars are worth pondering.

Political economist Lawrence Hunter, who has held senior policy positions both in and out of government, has been working on the issue for a couple of decades. Mr. Hunter just wrote inForbes, “The Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, understood that any constitutional provision without self-enforcing mechanisms attached to it constitutes a mere ‘parchment barrier’ and simply would be ignored and discarded by [the political class]. … Madison laid out a framework in Federalist No. 51 for competition among political and legal actors with the national government as a means of checking and balancing the exercise of power by the various branches: ‘Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'” Mr. Hunter thinks it is an open question when, if ever, the political class will get to the point where it will pass an effective, self-enforcing limitation on taxing, spending and debt.

Without a clear amendment, overspending will continue…

John McClaughry, who was a senior policy adviser in the Reagan White House, has come up with an interesting idea, which was published in the AmericanThinkerin May, that he calls Proposition 20. Mr. McClaughry would limit the total amount of federal debt to $20 trillion. Setting an absolute amount makes the calculation unambiguous, unlike most other proposals that refer to some percentage of gross domestic product or other less precise numbers. The United States has a gross debt of about $15 trillion, so the proposal would give Congress several years to get its house in order and give adequate time for the states to ratify it. Mr. McClaughry would allow the issuance of additional debt if, and only if, Congress formally declared war, and only while the armed forces were engaged in combat.

Maurice P. McTigue, a former New Zealand Cabinet minister who is a distinguished visiting scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has been working on improving government accountability around the world ever since he was a key player in New Zealand’s economic reforms of two decades ago. He has spent considerable time identifying which reforms have worked in various countries and how their successes might be transferred elsewhere. Mr. McTigue notes that a major part of the problem of lack of government fiscal responsibility is the fact that virtually no one knows how much the various government services actually cost. Thus, a key to improving government accountability is to work on ways of ensuring that the public knows what it is getting for each dollar spent on various programs.

When all government revenue (Social Security taxes, personal income taxes, corporate taxes and a never-ending list of excise taxes and fees) goes into the same pot — which is the case now — and then the money is allocated by Congress according to political considerations, any connection between what is being paid and the “service” on which it is spent becomes increasingly remote. If Wal-Mart charged you $100 to enter its stores and then told you what you were going to get for the money, it would not be a satisfying experience, yet, this is precisely how the U.S. government operates.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

More by Richard W. Rahn

As we struggle to try to devise a constitutional fix to the structural problem of destructive debt, spending, regulation and taxation, it would be useful to consider the following:

1. All government insurance (incorrectly called “entitlements”) and trust programs must be privatized or fully funded from specifically identified and allocated taxes and fees that cannot be diverted to pay for other government programs and must be managed by independent officials who will be legally at risk for not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities.

2. Every government expenditure, no matter how small, must be funded from an identifiable stream of revenue — taxes, fees, asset sales or other — and the same dollars may not be spent on more than one item.

3. No new or expanded government program or activity may be enacted into law without a specific source of funding attached to it, and the program or activity may not spend more than funds provided by the identified tax or fee.

The U.S. Constitution was written in response — after vigorous and learned debate — to the problems arising out of the original Articles of Confederation. It appears that a constitutional fix is needed to deal with ongoing fiscal problems the country faces. A vigorous debate has begun, and that is all to the good.

Woody Allen films and the issue of guilt (Woody Wednesday Part 3)

Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt

Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress

In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. Actors flock to his projects just to have a chance to work with him. He is funny, creative, and philosophical in his musings about love, life, and death.

Woody Allen is an Oscar award-winning director and screenwriter. His latest film, “Match Point,” has garnered another screenwriting nomination for Allen from the Academy. And while industry buzz is growing behind “Crash” screenwriters Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco to win, Allen’s nomination is not a courtesy nod to an aging dinosaur. Most critics have hailed “Match Point” as Allen’s comeback film – a movie that demonstrates that Allen is still performing at the height of his powers. “Match Point” most closely resembles another of Allen’s Oscar-nominated films – 1990’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Comparing these two critically-acclaimed films shines a light not only on Woody Allen’s dark and cynical writer’s journey, but also on a culture that consistently chooses to honor his work.

Crimes and Misdemeanors – Sin and Struggle

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an odd morality tale. Judah Rosenthal is an ophthalmologist who has been carrying on an affair for over two years. When his mistress threatens to call his wife, he contracts to have her killed. Throughout the film, characters attempt to make sense of their moral universe. Judah struggles with his guilt and at one point seems so driven by his belief that he must be punished for his sin that he nearly decides to call the police to turn himself in. He is dissuaded by a veiled threat from his mob-connected brother Jack (who arranged the murder at Judah’s request). As time goes by, Judah finds that he is not punished – not by the secular authorities or by God. After a while, even the guilty feelings fade away. He decides that the idea that evil is always punished is only true in the movies. In real life, people get away with it. Judah pushes aside his guilt, returns to his privileged life and walks off, with his wife, into the sunset.

Allen comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation in “Crimes and Misdemeanors” because he is unwilling, or unable, to take into account the judgment of God in the world to come. His materialist-informed worldview discounts or denies that the reality of eternity is more significant than what happens in this life. What made the film noteworthy was its depiction of the moral struggle that people go through when they sin. What made the film chilling is the knowledge that the rationalism engaged in by Judah in the movie represents more than fiction. Psalms and Proverbs are full of pleas from weary saints who complain to God about the prosperous wicked. We cannot know the mind of God. Some sins are punished swiftly; others apparently are not punished at all in this life. But God declares that one day everything done is darkness will be revealed in the light (1 Corinthians 4-5).

Match Point – No Sin, Just Luck

Fifteen years later, Allen gives audiences “Match Point,” the story of Chris Wilton, a British social-climbing tennis pro who marries for money and prestige, but continues to lust after a poor American actress, Nola Rice, who is dating his future brother-in-law. The affair with Nola begins and ends before Chris’ marriage, but picks up again when Nola returns to England. What begins as animal attraction turns complicated as Nola begins pressuring Chris to leave his wife. Chris is torn between his feelings for Nola and the wealth, power, and privilege that he enjoys by being married to his wife, Chloe. Ultimately he determines that he must be rid of one of them. How best to do it while risking the least for himself? Kill one – but make it look like someone else did it. The audience is left guessing whether he will kill Nola, thereby covering his tracks and keeping his wife, or kill Chloe, inheriting her wealth and gaining the sympathy of her family, and then take up again with Nola. Once the deed is done, there is the crying and terror over the prospect of being found out and punished that must accompany any such act. But when word of the homicide appears in the paper, and the fictional motives that Chris hoped to plant are printed as if they are fact, Chris discovers that he has gotten away with it.

The theme of “Match Point” is hammered into the audience over and over again – the world runs on luck. From Chris’ tennis career, to his marriage to a rich and beautiful woman and into a paternalistic and helpful family, to plot twists involving incriminating evidence, everything just falls his way at crucial moments. And while some characters continue to extol the virtues of hard work and perseverance, Chris recognizes and, in the end, vocalizes that the best attribute to possess is good fortune. There is no justice; there is only the slim divide between being caught and getting away with it. No one is smart enough to cover all the bases, so in the end much of it comes down to luck. Chris has it; his victim did not.

Unlike “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” no great struggle over guilt and sin is played out on the screen. The only scene that looks remotely like remorse occurs right after the act. Beyond that, Chris merely lies to those he knows and stonewalls the police. He is like the boy who kills his parents and then begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan
– only in this case, he gets off.

“Crimes and Misdemeanors” could be rationalized as a depiction of one side of the sin debate – that sometimes the wicked prosper. The struggle for Judah’s soul is represented by his brothers: the mafia-connected Jack and Judah’s rabbi brother Ben. In this case, Ben loses, but there is, haunting the background, the idea that it could be otherwise. No such spiritual subtext exists in “Match Point.” Audience members can only get out of the film what they bring to it – it is a case brought before us for judgment.. Those who believe in a just God will find Chris to be a calculating killer who rightly needs to be punished. For those who enter the film believing that humans are merely animals seeking to satisfy drives with no true spiritual component; who believe that guilt only exists if you get caught; who believe (whether they know the source or not) that Nietzsche was right when he said that the hallmark of human existence is the will to power – Chris is a kind of hero. He got everything he wanted, succeeded in destroying those who stood in his way, and emerged unscathed because he was favored by a series of uncalculated quirks in the universe. No objection to such assessment is placed in anyone’s way.

The Weaving of Cultural Threads

Thomas Frentz, noted rhetorical critic, argues that by comparing products of our culture over time, we can begin to discern emerging moral patterns. Cultures, Frentz claims, are always moving toward, or away from, some optimal moral end state. If Frentz is right, then looking at these two similar films from Woody Allen can tell us a little about the state of moral struggle. I do not know whether Allen’s film intends to move us, or if it is merely a reflection of the culture as he sees it. Either way, what Allen appears to be saying is that we have moved beyond morals and simply must deal with what is. In his earlier film, Allen asserts that there is no objective moral lens through which to view the world – ignore morality and it will go away. Now he is saying that if you happen to share the world with people who still hold to the “myth” of morality, “hope you are lucky and then you can get away with it.”

But there is yet a ray of hope.

Anyone watching “Match Point” will come to the conclusion that Chris “got away with it.” The concept of “getting away with something” could not exist in a truly amoral world, because the term itself presupposes punishment. If no punishment is objectively due, then there is nothing from which to “get away.” The concept of escape only exists in a world in which something is pursuing. Even conventional laws implicate an overarching moral sensibility of right and wrong. My fear is not that Allen is predicting some evolutionary leap in moral thinking where all codes are abandoned, but that he is rightly illustrating a growing trend – the searing of the western conscience.
Marc T. Newman, PhD (marc@movieministry.com) is the president of MovieMinistry.com – an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people.

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody AllenJuly 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied,July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years,July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am