Obama’s Budget Would Reduce National Defense Spending
Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.
Adequate funding for the core defense program is crucial for the military to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. Yet defense spending has fallen below its 45-year historical average despite ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DEFENSE SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Download
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s debt reduction and tax increase proposal. Here are their immediate reactions:
_______________
Obama Vague on “Buffett Rule”
President Obama wants tax reform to adhere to his newly formulated “Buffett Rule” which states: Families and small businesses making more than $1 million should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle income family.
But the Congressional Budget Office shows that Buffett Rule is already in effect. The highest earners pay more than double the amount of taxes as a share of their income than middle income earners. The top 1 percent of earners currently pays 29.5 percent of their income in all federal taxes while middle income families pay 14.3 percent.
The President and his staff surely know this so the Buffett Rule likely refers to something else. It is impossible to say for sure since, as usual, the President’s plan is light on details. One likely direction the President may propose when details come out is to equalize the taxation of capital gains with the taxation of income for millionaires. The President wants the top income tax rate to be 39.6 percent like it was before the Bush tax cuts. And that’s just for starters. Perhaps the Buffet Rule would then raise the capital gains rate to that level. This comes after three years of the President claiming he only wanted to raise the capital gains rate to 20 percent.
So kind of surtax on high earners is not a new idea. Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wanted one to pay for Obamacare. It went nowhere then when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress so it has no chance of passing now. The President proposes to further tax the rich not because he wants his class warfare policies to become law, but so he has a talking point for his re-election campaign.
Should the President’s misguided Buffett Rule become law who would lose more? Millionaires or the economy? The so-called coddled rich, or America’s workers? The cost of capital would rise considerably. This would make it harder to businesses to expand and add new workers. It would also hamper entrepreneurs looking to get their ideas off the ground. And even if President Obama and Warren Buffet can “afford to pay a little more” it’s not like this money is just lying around idly in mattresses – it’s already at work invested in some way in the economy, whether it’s cash in the banking system which keeps the nation’s finances moving, or invested in businesses which create jobs. Pulling money out and putting it into government spending will not help the economy. Ultimately the Buffett Rule would result in fewer jobs for American workers and lower wages for those employed. The punitive effect the rule would have on American workers is hard to reconcile with the President’s supposed new focus on job creation.
You may remember that some women’s groups attacked the pro-life Super Bowl ad he did with his mom, who had ignored doctors’ suggestions to abort him for health reasons. Tim has a new book out, “Through My Eyes.” Bill O’Reilly recently talked to Tim.
BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: So here’s what I want to know. I played football at a much lower level than you. In pro football, they have Christian athletes like you, all right? But it’s a secular society. There’s a lot of crazy guys doing a lot of, you know, strip clubs every night, drinking and all this kind of business. Does that impact on the locker room at all, your lifestyle as opposed to theirs?
TIM TEBOW, DENVER BRONCOS QUARTERBACK: To be able to influence someone or to be able to have a group of guys come together to have a successful team and to be together all the time every day for, you know, a year and longer together, you have to have a — find a common ground. And that common ground for us is football.
And when they realize that I go out there and I work as hard as I can every day, they have a respect for me for how I play. And then that respect grows to like. And that like grows to love. And then they’ll play for you. If you walk the walk, then when you say something that’s going to mean so much more. And I think that’s how I try to approach it on the field every day.
O’REILLY: Do you ever get offended by their behavior? I mean, the ones who do not believe the way you believe?
TEBOW: Very rarely, because we all, you know, have things that we’re trying to work on.
O’REILLY: So you don’t judge?
TEBOW: Absolutely not. Because I’m not perfect. I’m never going to be. And that’s the great thing about living the Christian life and trying to live by faith, is you’re trying to get better every day. You’re trying to improve.
O’REILLY: There are some evangelicals who witness, you know …
TEBOW: Absolutely and that is great. But — but the greatest way to witness is by walking that straight and narrow and also realizing that you’re going to mess up. That’s what grace is for. We’re going to fall, but we’ve got to get back up. And you’ve got to improve.
And that’s what I’m all about. It’s not trying to act like I do everything right because I’m going to screw up. I’m going to mess up. But I’m going to get back, you know, and get after it and try to do better the next day.
O’REILLY: Do you pray for victory?
TEBOW: You know, I think He honestly does care about how we play on the field, more than anything more than win or lose our hearts on the field. On the field I’m trying to play for the glory of God but then also I’m trying to give everything I have and win and compete. And so I think more than just winning or losing, I think He cares about where our hearts are when we’re playing.
O’REILLY: So you don’t say before the game with the Dallas Cowboys, “Hey, God, let me win by at least 10 points here to…”
TEBOW: To cover the spread. [Laughs]
O’REILLY: Right. I used to pray. This is absolutely true. I would say, “Please don’t let me break anything.” I want to, you know — I want to keep my head or my arm intact. I would pray for the safety of not only me but the team and let the chips fall where they may.
TEBOW: You know, what I share in this book, I think, more than anything is, you know, I pray that somehow through this game I will be able to honor him, be able to inspire someone, be able to…
O’REILLY: You can do that, sure, by your fame.
TEBOW: But just by how I play.
O’REILLY: The controversy that put you on the map, as far as spirituality is concerned, was the abortion commercial. Do you still get jazzed by that? People remember that and they…
TEBOW: They do remember it. I’ll get asked about it quite a bit.
PAM TEBOW, TIM’S MOTHER: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn’t make it into this world. I can remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard.
TEBOW: It was honestly — it wasn’t judging anyone or putting anyone down.
O’REILLY: No.
TEBOW: It was celebrating my mom’s decision.
O’REILLY: Right.
TEBOW: And honestly just telling a story and a special story. And, you know, I think we’re very blessed to have the opportunity to tell that story.
O’REILLY: You don’t seem to me like a guy that cares about money or fame that much.
TEBOW: You know, any time of the day that can pop up. You think, oh, this is a great deal. Let me think beyond that. What is — you know, what is the underlying factor? how can I influence someone with that?
And that’s why, more than anything, more than doing it as many doors open as I could all season, anything like that. My No. 1 focus was on my foundation, the Tim Tebow Foundation, to bring faith, hope and love to those needing a brighter day in the darkest hour of need.
O’REILLY: Do you ever get heckled? “Hey, you’re a Boy Scout,” all of that? They’re yelling at you?
Dodd and Frank are the real villians of the mortgage mess and I knew that 3 years ago after reading this article below. Who did the Democrats get to clean up this mess? You guessed it. What a joke.
In this current mess, one problem is identifying the heroes and villains in Congress. Many analysts conveniently dodge this question and instead make the rather novel claim that the turmoil in financial markets somehow is the result of deregulation. Yet the financial services industry is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the American economy, saddled with hundreds of laws, thousands of regulations and a plethora of government agencies. If red tape were the answer, this problem never would have happened.
Many lawmakers want more rules and regulation governing disclosure, ostensibly to protect consumers. But the existing policies already have created a jumble of legalese that even highly sophisticated borrowers have trouble grasping, so it is far from apparent how this would help. A far better approach would be sweeping deregulation, replacing all the current clutter with a simple, easy-to-understand disclosure form, such as the one proposed by Alex Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute (PDF).
Back to identifying the heroes and villains. To assign blame, it is first necessary to understand what caused the problem. At the risk of oversimplification, let’s touch on three main causes of the financial turmoil and identify the culprits in the political world:
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow specializing in tax issues and author of The Flat Tax: Freedom, Fairness, Jobs, and Growth.
Problem No. 1– easy-money policy from the Federal Reserve: In an ideal world, the Federal Reserve provides the liquidity needed to enable commerce but avoids excess liquidity to avoid either rising prices (which happens when excess money bids up consumer prices) or bubbles (which happens when excess money bids up asset prices). The Fed clearly failed in this regard, as evidenced by unsustainably low interest rates earlier this decade.
Culprits: Almost every single politician deserves a share of the blame. The political class likes easy money. In the early stages, inflation feels good. Voters feel like they have more money in their pockets and borrowers (who always outnumber lenders) like the artificially low interest rates. And that is why very few voices were raised against the Federal Reserve’s policy.
Problem No. 2 — corrupt subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: These government-sponsored enterprises were created explicitly to distort the flow of capital and encourage over-investment in residential real estate. Responding in part to campaign contributions (a clear conflict of interest), politicians dramatically expanded the power of Fannie and Freddie in recent years, thus creating widespread systemic risk because of the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee.
Culprits: Many politicians from both parties were recipients of campaign contributions from the Fannie and Freddie slush funds, though Democrats had their hands much deeper in the cookie jar. The Bush administration has a very dismal economic record, but the White House does deserve some credit for having tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie earlier this decade. Opponents, led by Democrats Barney Frank in the House and Chris Dodd in the Senate, blocked reforms that would have saved huge amounts of money for taxpayers.
Problem No. 3 — the Community Reinvestment Act: Politicians imposed numerous regulatory burdens on financial institutions, but “affordable lending” requirements such as those imposed as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act were among the most perverse. In effect, banks were extorted into making loans to people who were not credit worthy. This added to the bubble and expanded systemic risk. It’s also worth noting that poor people were victimized by this government policy, because many of them were lured into houses they could not afford.
Culprits: President Carter presumably deserves some of the blame because many of these policies were first imposed during his dismal reign, primarily with support from Democrats. But the so-called affordable-lending requirements were expanded during the Clinton and the current Bush administrations, so the GOP is not without blame.
I really like Rick Perry because he was right when he called Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme” which it is. How did he do in the last debate? You be the judge by watching his response above. Rick Perry’s Moment Posted by Roger Pilon Last night POLITICO Arena asked: Who won the Reagan debate? My […]
I am not too pleased with Mitt Romney and the article below shows one good reason to oppose him. Can Mitt Romney Escape His Romneycare Albatross? by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New […]
Dodd and Frank are the real villians of the mortgage mess and I knew that 3 years ago after reading this article below. Who did the Democrats get to clean up this mess? You guessed it. What a joke. Who Are the Villains of the Mortgage Mess? by Daniel J. Mitchell Daniel J. Mitchell is […]
Reagan’s statement concerning 1982 tax increase is responded to by Republican Candidates in this clip below: Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you […]
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan did steal the show at the Republican debate of October 11, 2011. Take a look at this article below: The Republican presidential debate in Hanover, N.H. (AP) There was one clear winner from Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, based on the simple metrics of name recognition: businessman Herman Cain’s “9-9-9 Plan.” Virtually […]
Ron Paul speaking at Values Voter Summit In this speech above Ron Paul repeats his view that we should not have a Dept of Education and the article below does the same thing. Beating Back Big (Ed.) Brother? Posted by Neal McCluskey It certainly seems quixotic to try to reverse the federal invasion of American […]
This issue concerning Mitt Romney’s religion is heating up. Baptist pastor taken to task Russ Jones and Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 10/10/2011 11:05:00 am Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck wrapped up the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC, Sunday in a wave of anti-Mormonism comments lodged towards GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. […]
Will the Republicans embrace an agenda that will get our country back on tract? Republicans need to cut spending as the video above says. I wish the Republican candidates for president will embrace these policy positions: A Republican Agenda for Real Change by Doug Bandow This article appeared in Forbes on October 3, 2011 The desperate search […]
I think that many evangelical Christians may have a problem with supporting Mitt Romney who is a Mormon. I think that Romney is a very good speaker and will beat President Obama easily. He is not my favorite candidate though. John Brummett rightly noted that this endorsement by Lt. Governor was sought after by Romney […]
I really like Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Only three Republican presidential candidates are worth any money _ campaign money, that is. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul have banked millions. But the other GOP candidates are struggling or broke, putting their candidacies in question four months before the first nominating contests take place. […]
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.”
I was visiting with my father and he told me yesterday about a good friend of his who is a SEC football official. A mutual friend of his did the Florida at Auburn game on October 15, 2011. Word got back to my father about how disgraceful Florida’s coach was in the way he talked to the officials. The comment the official made was that he did not understand how an upstanding university like Florida would hire somebody without any class to try and mold these young players character.
Just this morning I was looking across the internet and ran across this story below and I wanted to share it with you along with some verses from the Bible concerning cursing.
Originally published 02:43 p.m., October 18, 2011
Updated 08:54 p.m., October 18, 2011
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Florida coach Will Muschamp is cleaning up his act.
Well, at least his language.
Muschamp apologized Tuesday for his colorful words that were caught by television cameras during his team’s 17-6 loss at Auburn last week. But the emotional first-year coach said he has no plans to temper his sideline antics.
“Just the language,” Muschamp said.
“It’s hard when you’ve got a 6-year-old and a 10-year-old at home and you’ve got to go home and explain to them what you said. So that’s not good and that’s not how we’re going to run our program. That’s it. Again, as far as the sideline stuff’s concerned, we’re going to be who we are. I’m just apologizing for the language, nothing else.”
Muschamp lost his temper several times during the game — all season really — and at least two rants were picked up clearly by sideline microphones.
The most notable one came when running back Chris Rainey muffed a punt in the first quarter.
Replays seemed to show an Auburn player interfering with Rainey just before the catch. Muschamp screamed at officials, had to be restrained by an assistant and even called timeout to yell some more.
Cameras stayed on him throughout his salty tirade.
“That’s not something that’s going to be tolerated here at the University of Florida, first of all, by me and our program,” Muschamp said. “That’s certainly not representative of what this program and this university is about.”
Muschamp is as fiery as any coach in the country. Nicknamed “Coach Boom” while he was defensive coordinator at Auburn, Muschamp brings as much energy to the sideline as anyone in uniform.
He jumps up and down with every big play, exchanges hugs, high-fives and chest bumps, and hasn’t been shy about sharing his opinion with officials. If he were a basketball or baseball coach, he already would have been ejected this season.
His emotions are as visible as Florida’s bright orange helmets. The guys in pinstripes aren’t the only ones to feel his wrath, either.
Muschamp barks at his players and assistant coaches. He was caught on camera having words with special teams coordinator D.J. Durkin two weeks ago at LSU after the Gators allowed a first down on a fake punt.
Even though many of Florida’s players were never yelled at as high school stars, they insist they enjoy seeing Muschamp’s passionate outbursts, red-faced screams and emphatic celebrations.
Muschamp said he doesn’t believe his demeanor has any negative impact on the team.
“I don’t think it hurts anything, I can tell you that,” Muschamp said. “That’s going to be who I am. That’s what I said from the beginning.”
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.
The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II — but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Baseline Projections Are Optimistic
In support of building a large “fiscal buffer,” policymakers should recognize that both short-term and long-term CBO projections are optimistic in various ways. Perhaps the future will include some positive budget surprises, but the big risk factors seem to be on the negative side.
In CBO’s baseline, federal deficits fall substantially over the coming decade, partly due to changes under the recent Budget Control Act. However, spending will be higher than projected if:
Policymakers lift caps in the Budget Control Act.
Policymakers launch new spending programs or respond to unforeseen crises or wars.
Higher interest rates push up interest costs, which is a risk that gets magnified as federal debt grows larger.
A major recession causes large cost increases in programs sensitive to economic cycles, such as unemployment insurance.
Policymakers respond to another recession with costly new “stimulus” plans. The persistence of Keynesian policy ideas in Washington is an important risk to the outlook for federal debt.
There are likely to be negative shocks in coming years that we don’t foresee. Consider that in its January 2008 budget outlook, CBO projected that U.S. economic growth would slow in 2008 but then rebound fairly strongly in subsequent years.15 CBO discussed the risk of a recession, but didn’t foresee the calamity that was already starting. The upshot is that policymakers should take a conservative approach and build a “fiscal buffer” with large spending cuts now before another recession causes the deficit to soar again.
CBO’s long-range projections — such as the “alternative fiscal scenario” (AFS) shown in Figure 1 — are also optimistic. In its basic projections, CBO does not factor in the negative effects of rising spending, debt, or taxes on GDP after 2021, but it does do that in a separate analysis.16 If spending actually followed the course shown in Figure 1, CBO estimates that GDP in 2035 would be up to 10 percent less than shown in the AFS, and GNP would be up to 18 percent less. In turn, spending-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios would be worse than usually shown in long-range budget charts.
Under the AFS, rising deficit spending could reduce American incomes. The CBO finds that real GNP per capita could stop growing in the late 2020s, and then start falling after that. In a historic reversal, future generations of Americans would become successively poorer.
The way to ensure our continued prosperity is to cut federal spending and reduce debt. In a 2010 analysis, the CBO compared the high-spending AFS with Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan.17 The Ryan plan would restrain federal spending to roughly current levels for the next few decades, and then start reducing it. By the late 2020s, GNP per capita under the Ryan plan would begin rising above the flat and then falling levels under the AFS. By the late 2050s, GNP per capita would be 70 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under the AFS.18
15 Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018,” January 2008, Chapter 2. 16 See Chapter 2 in Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 17 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf. 18 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, p. 16.
Republicans Get heated during CNN WRLC Debate (Media Credit: CNN)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: I’m Anderson Cooper in Las Vegas.
Tonight, the presidential candidates come here to win the West.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NARRATOR: The west. From the mountain majesty of the Rockies, to the desert sands of the Mojave, the American frontier is a historic land of opportunity for Republicans.
GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Believe in America.
NARRATOR: Tonight, the fight for the GOP presidential nomination comes here, to a region where Barack Obama made inroads four years ago, to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election, to a city where dreams are made and crushed.
Stand by for a Las Vegas event, the Republican presidential contenders on stage and in depth after a dramatic reshuffling of the pack.
Herman Cain, now among the leaders surging in recent weeks.
PERRY: We put more boots on the ground.
NARRATOR: Rick Perry, trying to get back on track after a meteoric rise.
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for being here today.
NARRATOR: And Mitt Romney, steady, holding his place in the top tier.
They could have the most to win or lose. But Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul could be wildcards. And Rick Santorum, eager to beat the odds.
The candidates facing tough questions about jobs and the economy, the immigration wars, and other issues that matter to westerners and voters across the nation.
Now, with nothing less than America’s future at stake, the presidential campaign goes West.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And welcome to the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian in Las Vegas, our host of the Western Republican Presidential Debate.
Tonight, seven contenders will be on this stage to convince you he or she should be the Republican nominee for the president of the United States.
I’m Anderson Cooper.
Welcome to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world.
Tonight’s debate is airing on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, and the American Forces Network.
We want to thank our cosponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, representing 16 western states and territories. Western voters will play an active role in tonight’s debate. Voters here in our audience will have a chance to put questions directly to the candidates on this stage.
Let’s meet the 2012 Republican presidential contenders.
Joining us on stage, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Governor Rick Perry.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican candidates for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Well, the crowd is on its feet. Everyone, please remain standing. It’s time now for our national anthem performed tonight by Tony award-winner Anthony Crivello, starring as the Phantom in “Phantom Las Vegas,” the Las Vegas spectacular. Please stand for the national anthem.
(APPLAUSE)
CRIVELLO: (SINGING NATIONAL ANTHEM)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: I want to ask the candidates to please take your podiums. While the candidates are taking their podiums, I just want to tell you a little bit more about how tonight’s debate is going to work. I’ll be the moderator. I’ll ask questions on a wide range of issues. And I’ll work to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of questions.
Also, Western voters right here in the hall will be asking questions, as well, and viewers watching at home can participate, also. We’re accepting questions for the candidates on Twitter. If you send a question for the candidates on Twitter, make sure to include the hash tag #cnndebate, on Facebook at facebook.com/cnnpolitics, and on cnnpolitics.com.
Now, each candidate will have about one minute to answer the questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. I’ll make sure candidates get time to respond if they’re singled out for criticism. There are no buzzers. There’s no bells. I’ll just politely inform the candidates when they need to wrap things up.
We want everyone watching to emerge from this debate more informed about the candidates, more able to judge who should be the next president of the United States.
Now that everyone is in place, it’s time for the candidates to introduce themselves to our audience. All the candidates are going to keep it short. Here’s an example. I’m Anderson Cooper. I’m usually anchoring “AC 360″ on CNN, but I’m honored to be here in Las Vegas at the Western Republican Presidential Debate. That will be my introduction.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Senator Santorum, you’re first. Let’s start with you.
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Anderson. I’m Rick Santorum. My wife, Karen, and I are the parents of seven children. And my little girl, Isabella, 3 years old, had some surgery today. She’s doing fine. But I just wanted to send to her a little “I love you” and I will take the red eye home to be with you tomorrow and make sure that you’re feeling fine.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. I’m the champion of liberty. I am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in — in a sincere method. And also, I present the case for a free society as being the best defense for peace and prosperity.
(APPLAUSE)
HERMAN CAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am businessman Herman Cain. I’ve been married to my wife, Gloria, for 43 years. And I’m a 42-year businessman, which means I solve problems for a living.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I’m Mitt Romney. I was a businessman for 25 years. Then I had the fun of getting the chance to help run the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City next door. And then I had the fun also of being governor of Massachusetts. I also solve problems, sometimes for a living, sometimes for other people to make things better. And I hope to be your president. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
PERRY: Good evening. I’m Texas Governor Rick Perry, a proven job-creator and a man who is about economic growth, an authentic conservative, not a conservative of convenience.
(APPLAUSE)
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m Newt Gingrich. And unlike President Obama, I’m glad to be in Las Vegas. I think it’s a great place to have a convention.
(APPLAUSE)
And — and when I am president, we’re going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all Americans can get off food stamps and onto paychecks.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, my name is Michele Bachmann. I am thrilled to be able to be with you tonight in Las Vegas. And this is one night when I hope what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Let’s — time to begin. We’ll begin with actually a question in the hall.
QUESTION: This is for all candidates. What’s your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?
COOPER: I’ll direct that to Congresswoman Bachmann. You’ve been very critical of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9 percent sales tax, a 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent corporate tax. In fact, you’ve said it would destroy the economy. Why?
BACHMANN: Well, I am a former federal tax litigation attorney. And also, my husband and I are job-creators.
One thing I know about Congress, being a member of Congress for five years, is that any time you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn’t go away. When we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980, the top rate was 70 percent. If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent? Who knows?
What I do know is that we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you’d be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit. That’s the worry.
In my plan — again, that’s a tax plan, it’s not a jobs plan — my plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now. I have a tax plan. I have a jobs plan. I have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high-paying jobs.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, a lot of prominent conservatives now are coming forward saying that your 9-9-9 plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class voters, on lower-income voters.
CAIN: The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at hermancain.com. It was performed by Fiscal Associates. And all of the claims that are made against it, it is a jobs plan, it is revenue-neutral, it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. All of those are simply not true.
The reason that my plan — the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don’t want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that’s simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess.
Let’s throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan, which will liberate the American workers and liberate American businesses.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, will his plan raise taxes?
SANTORUM: Herman’s well-meaning, and I love his boldness, and it’s great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That’s the analysis. And it makes sense, because when — when you don’t provide a standard deduction, when you don’t provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we’re talking about major increases in taxes on people.
He also doesn’t have anything that takes care of the families. I mean, you have — you have a situation where, under Herman’s plan, a single person pays as much in taxes as a — as a man and a woman raising three children. Ever since we’ve had the income tax in America, we’ve always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to — to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes — we gave some breaks for families. He doesn’t do that in this bill.
And we’re going to — we’ve seen that happen in Europe. And what happened? Boom, birth rates went into — into the basement. It’s a bad tax for — again, it’s bold. I give him credit for — for starting a debate, but it’s not good for families, and it’s not good for low-income…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I’m going to give you 30 seconds to respond. That 84 percent figure comes from the Tax Policy Center.
CAIN: That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available.
Secondly, the — the point that he makes about is a value-added tax — I’m sorry, Representative Bachmann — it’s not a value-added tax. It’s a single tax.
And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least.
The so-called War on Poverty has failed. Making government bigger and creating more federal redistribution programs has been bad news for taxpayers. But the welfare state also has been a disaster for the less fortunate, creating a flypaper effect that makes it difficult for people to lead independent and self-reliant lives. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the poverty rate was falling after World War II — but then stagnated once the federal government got involved. www.freedomandprosperity.org
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Baseline Projections Are Optimistic
In support of building a large “fiscal buffer,” policymakers should recognize that both short-term and long-term CBO projections are optimistic in various ways. Perhaps the future will include some positive budget surprises, but the big risk factors seem to be on the negative side.
In CBO’s baseline, federal deficits fall substantially over the coming decade, partly due to changes under the recent Budget Control Act. However, spending will be higher than projected if:
Policymakers lift caps in the Budget Control Act.
Policymakers launch new spending programs or respond to unforeseen crises or wars.
Higher interest rates push up interest costs, which is a risk that gets magnified as federal debt grows larger.
A major recession causes large cost increases in programs sensitive to economic cycles, such as unemployment insurance.
Policymakers respond to another recession with costly new “stimulus” plans. The persistence of Keynesian policy ideas in Washington is an important risk to the outlook for federal debt.
There are likely to be negative shocks in coming years that we don’t foresee. Consider that in its January 2008 budget outlook, CBO projected that U.S. economic growth would slow in 2008 but then rebound fairly strongly in subsequent years.15 CBO discussed the risk of a recession, but didn’t foresee the calamity that was already starting. The upshot is that policymakers should take a conservative approach and build a “fiscal buffer” with large spending cuts now before another recession causes the deficit to soar again.
CBO’s long-range projections — such as the “alternative fiscal scenario” (AFS) shown in Figure 1 — are also optimistic. In its basic projections, CBO does not factor in the negative effects of rising spending, debt, or taxes on GDP after 2021, but it does do that in a separate analysis.16 If spending actually followed the course shown in Figure 1, CBO estimates that GDP in 2035 would be up to 10 percent less than shown in the AFS, and GNP would be up to 18 percent less. In turn, spending-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios would be worse than usually shown in long-range budget charts.
Under the AFS, rising deficit spending could reduce American incomes. The CBO finds that real GNP per capita could stop growing in the late 2020s, and then start falling after that. In a historic reversal, future generations of Americans would become successively poorer.
The way to ensure our continued prosperity is to cut federal spending and reduce debt. In a 2010 analysis, the CBO compared the high-spending AFS with Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan.17 The Ryan plan would restrain federal spending to roughly current levels for the next few decades, and then start reducing it. By the late 2020s, GNP per capita under the Ryan plan would begin rising above the flat and then falling levels under the AFS. By the late 2050s, GNP per capita would be 70 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under the AFS.18
15 Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2018,” January 2008, Chapter 2. 16 See Chapter 2 in Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 17 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf. 18 Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf letter to Paul Ryan, January 27, 2010, p. 16.
I confess I am a huge film buff. But I’ve never really been a Woody Allen fan, even though most film critics consider him to be one of the most gifted and influential filmmakers of our time. Of course, some of my film savvy friends who are aficionados of Allen’s work have been recommending some of his more interesting films. Although often very dark, many of him movies have some interesting worldview themes.
Woody Allen’s personal life has certainly been checkered with controversy. Last week Chuck Colson discussed Allen’s life and work and recent interview in the Washington Post:
“The heart wants what it wants.”
You may remember those words. They’re the excuse Woody Allen offered in 1992 for leaving his longtime lover to run off with her daughter. Even many of Allen’s fans were repulsed by the affair and by Allen’s cavalier attitude…
So Allen’s heart got what it wanted. According to the unwritten laws of our culture–and according to the philosophy he expressed in that infamous sentence–he ought to be happy.
Only he’s not, according to a new interview in the Washington Post. Interviewer David Segal quips that Allen’s worldview “is so bereft of meaning, so godless and absurd, that the only proper response is to curl up on a sofa and howl for your mommy.”
Not the kind of talk you would expect from one of the most successful men in film. By any secular standard Allen should be on top of the world. Apparently this is not the case. According to Colson:
As Allen confesses, movies were only a “means” for him to live the kind of lifestyle he wanted, but now that he has it, he has to keep making movies to distract himself from it. Like the writer of Ecclesiastes, who “withheld not [his] heart from any joy,” Woody Allen apparently has concluded that “all is vanity…”
Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
Coldplay – 42 Live Coldplay perform on the french television channel W9. In 1992 Woody Allen took up with one of his adopted kids and lived in with her. He was given over to the pursuit of pleasure. Actually he has made that a major focus of his life. In the latter part of his […]
The Bible and Archaeology (1/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. _________________________- I want to make two points today. 1. There is no […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]
Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]
Midnight in Paris Not Dove Family Approved Theatrical Release: 6/10/2011 Reviewer: Edwin L. Carpenter Source: Theater Writer: Woody Allen Producer: Letty Aronson Director: Woody Allen Genre: Comedy Runtime: 100 min. MPAA Rating: PG-13 Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kurt Fuller, Kathy Bates Synopsis: Midnight in Paris is a romantic comedy that follows a family travelling […]
Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print 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. […]
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
I have gone to see Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris” three times and taken lots of notes during the films. I have attempted since June 12th when I first started posting to give a historical rundown on every person mentioned in the film. Below are the results of my study. I welcome any […]
Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased
More Than Half of the President’s Budget Would Be Spent on Entitlement Programs
The Daily Hatch 