This is the text of the Continental Congress November 1, 1777 national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress.
Saturday, November 1, 1777
The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, to set apart a day of public thanksgiving, brought in a report; which was taken into consideration, and agreed to as follows:
Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5 Uploaded by ToRenewAmerica on Apr 9, 2010 Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built. ___________ David Barton did […]
John Brummett in his article, “Praying for Bachmann’s America,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 18, 2011 notes: Speaking of incredibly ridiculous things, she said in another television interview that she had been right to assert that our founding fathers fought tirelessly against slavery. She cited John Quincy Adams, a little boy and teen in revolutionary days. […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
n pictures: Japan earthquake and tsunami In association with // // In the Miyagi port city of Kesennuma, which has a population of 74,000, the waves smashed cars up against houses. Steeling the Mind Bible Conference Pt 5 of 6 David Barton In Washington’s own words: In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
I do not think that John Quincy Adams was a founding father in the same sense that his father was. However, I do think he was involved in the early days of our government working with many of the founding fathers. Michele Bachmann got into another history-related tussle on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, standing […]
On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted: On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published […]
The gang loves Grandma, but her slimy son-in-law loves her money.When Dirty Dan tries to take away her retirement fortune, it’s the kids (and Pete the Pup) to the resue! Soon, the chase is on and Dan is caught faster than you can say “Granny get your gun”!
__________________________________
I enjoyed seeing that “Dirty Dan” got what was coming to him at the end of the episode below. If you listen to President Obama, and other liberals like John Brummett and Max Brantley then would get the impression that the mean rich folks don’t need to be so selfish and hand over the money to run the government for the rest of us.
Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another “Economics 101″ video, and this one […]
It is truly said how far to the left our country has gone. Happy Fiscal New Year (with an Unhappy Obama Hangover) Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Today, October 1, is the first day of the 2012 fiscal year. And if you’re wondering why America’s economy seems to have a hangover (this cartoon is a perfect illustration), it’s because […]
Is soaking the rich fair? Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate […]
Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms? Sometimes I wonder what are the motives of those who oppose free trade. Eight Questions for Protectionists Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as […]
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. […]
Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on Aug 6, 2010 Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) filling in for Chris Jansing on MSNBC talks to Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute to compare Reaganomics to Obamanomics. __________________________ What should we do when we are caught in a slow economy? What did Reagan do in 1981? He lowered […]
Maybe the tide is turning. Americans do not hate the rich like liberals would have us believe. Take a look at this article: Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair by Jeffrey A. Miron This article appeared on The Huffington Post on September 2, 2011. What is the “fair” amount of taxation on high-income taxpayers? To liberals, the […]
Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 5 of 6.
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
Are your voucher schools going to accept these tough children?
COONS: You bet they are. (Several talking at once.)
COONS: May I answer the question?
SHANKER: If they accept those children, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen.
COONS: Okay, you tell me and then I’ll tell you.
SHANKER: What’s gonna happen is that the parents of all the other children are gonna move right out and go to another school, because ultimately you’re going to have to deal with hardcore problems__
McKENZIE: John Coons.
SHANKER: __ whether it’s in a private school or whether it’s in a public school.
COONS: In other words, that kid isn’t tough in the school that he’s in because he’s stuck there, he’s just a rotten, tough kid.
SHANKER: He may be a kid with a lot of problems, not rotten, a kid with a lot of problems.
COONS: And it will never __ you can’t imagine a situation where if he were given choice, and allowed to go to a school that he liked, and to which he would connect emotionally that he would no longer be a troublemaker, but that he would like to stay in a place where he has chosen and would therefore do what is necessary to stay there and to learn.
SHANKER: You know, I don’t think you’ve been near schools or classrooms for a heck of a long time.
COONS: Thanks a lot.
(Laughter and applause.)
COONS: I happen to have five kids who’ve done a lot of time in public and private schools both.
SHANKER: We’re not talking about the problems of your children, though.
McKENZIE: Let’s get around the table, I want to __
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I have to get to this point, because I think it’s a very crucial one. I don’t think Mr. Shanker is saying that you should never use a doctor if you have cancer who hasn’t himself had cancer.
SHANKER Oh, I didn’t say that.
FRIEDMAN: Let’s get rid of the idea that the only people who are competent to judge about whether a school is good or bad is a parent who at the moment has children in that school. The plain fact is that children are not born troublemakers. They do not emerge from the womb __ some of them do, of course, but most of them do not. Most of the cases of the tough kids in the schools you’re talking about are tough kids because they’re lousy schools. Because the schools do not evoke their interest. Because the school does not __
SHANKER: You’re dead wrong. You’re dead __
(Several talking at once.)
McKENZIE: Now wait a minute now, Greg Anrig on this one. Milton, let __
ANRIG: It’s not often I have a chance to tell a professor he’s wrong. With all respect, Professor, the problems that you see in the urban schools of this country are not problems of the schools, they are problems of poverty. And they are problems of what do you do when for demographic and sociological and economic reasons, in a country like ours, you begin to concentrate those people who are poor in the inner and older parts of the cities of our country. That’s when the problem comes, and it’s not just a problem with schools. It’s a problem of housing, of jobs, of medical care, of social services, and the same problems crop up, and to say that the answer to that is take one part of that element and say, just set up a competitive marketplace, is not dealing with the problem. The problem is the problem of poverty.
FRIEDMAN: We’ve dealt with the problem __
SHANNON: I am struck the anomaly. The anomaly that rises out of this discussion of the voucher system. The facts are that government support __ call it subventions, call it direct aid, call it grants in aid, call it vouchers, call it anything, will lead ultimately to government control of the private schools, thus undercutting the alternative nature of private schooling and hurting it at its very source.
VOICE OFF SCREEN: Well, then you ought to look at our initiative.
FRIEDMAN: We’ve had long experience with that on the higher education level. You have the whole GI Bill. Did the GI Bill really lead, fundamentally, to control of all the schools. There’s a fundamental difference between government giving money to an institution, to a school, that does lead to control directly, and government giving money to people to use, the food stamps don’t determine what people buy with their food stamps. They may be a good or a bad program, that’s not my point. My point is that don’t underestimate the crucial difference between making money available to parents to spend as they choose to exercise their judgment, and making money available to institutions like schools, which they spend subject to all the conflicts which they have with school teachers and others.
ANRIG: You use Dartmouth as an example, and I think the concerns that I have about the voucher systems, the various ones proposed, is not with the one applicant that can get accepted to Dartmouth, but with the eight applicants that don’t get accepted to Dartmouth. What’s going to happen to those __ or that group of youngsters. You can have a situation in the free marketplace where everybody takes the cream, but what about the youngster that doesn’t measure up? What about the youngster that’s a risk? It seems to me that some of the greatest leaders of this country were people that would have been rejected by Dartmouth, and most of the Ivy League schools.
McKENZIE: Let’s get other views on this, then we’ll come back to you, Milton.
FRIEDMAN: No, no. I just want to comment, because I have to comment on two points, the one he made earlier about poverty and this one. But on this one. Dartmouth is one of the best examples of the private schools. UCLA is one of the best examples of the state schools. That’s why we chose it. There are many other private schools which are not as selective and do not __ are not available to people who can’t make the Dartmouth cut. There are many other public schools, state schools, that are less advanced than UCLA and the California system. There are all sorts of grades of schools. But the difference between the two is the same at lower levels. Now I do want to make one comment going back to your poverty thing; and that is that, first of all, other programs in this series deal with the issues you’ve raised. But, second, do not underestimate the role which bad schooling, provided by our present governmental mechanism has played in creating poverty. It’s been a major source, particularly among black and white teenagers coming up in the slums, it’s been a major source of their difficulties of getting out of the trap of poverty. So it’s not a one-way relation between poverty and the schools, the schools themselves bear a great deal of responsibility.
SHANKER: Well, the reason the schools bear it, and it isn’t the schools directly, it’s that we don’t put enough resources in for children who need special and additional help because they are not getting it in their homes or they’re not getting the same sort of support in home and community as middle class kids do, and then we wait until the child is 16 or 17 and drops out, and then we provide a youth employment program for them where we spend between five and ten thousand dollars to try to undo what could have been undone in the first, second and third grade if we had a decent investment in the public schools.
FRIEDMAN: I have never yet known anybody who was trying to defend a government program who didn’t say all it’s evils came from the fact that it wasn’t big enough. Now the facts are __
SHANKER: Would you think the children with problems need the same amount of education __
FRIEDMAN: No, no.
SHANKER: __ the same amount as children who don’t have special problems?
FRIEDMAN: No, but I just want to tell you some facts. The number of students in schools has been going down. The total expenditures on schools, allowance being made for inflation, after allowing for inflation has been going up. The number of pupils has been going down, the number of teachers have been going up, and by all accounts the quality has been going down.
SHANKER: But I have to explain __
(Several talking at once)
McKENZIE: Milton, just a minute. I want to hold you __ Mr. Shanker, Mr. Shanker. We got onto higher education and I don’t want to leave it without getting the rest of Milton’s thoughts on it. In particular, you seem to be coming to say at the end of the film that the right answer is a system of realistic loans where people, therefore, know what it’s costing, rather than trying to hold down college fees and that kind of thing.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
McKENZIE: Yeah. And__
FRIEDMAN: I think that the higher education is the most disgraceful example on the record. I know of no governmental program that seem to me is so unfair and disgraceful in imposing costs on low income people to benefit high-income people. We in the upper and middle income classes have conned the poor in this country to supporting our children in going through college and university and we don’t __ and we scream to the treetops about how disinterested and how public-spirited we are. We ought to have a system under which everybody who wants to go to college can go there. He has to pay his own way, either now or later on, and the schemes I have in mind, if we developed them more fully, and as I have in other contexts in other areas, are along the line of the educational opportunity bank, that Professor Zacharias of MIT and a commission appointed by President Johnson came up with as a way of enabling students to finance their own higher education without facing the problem you raised of ending up with a large dollar debt.
ANRIG: I do think __
McKENZIE: Dr. Anrig.
ANRIG: With some trepidation, Professor, I raise a question of taxation. That is that I agree that we need better loan systems than we have, but as I understand the American tax system in general, as a generality, it is a graduated system.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
ANRIG: It is an equalizing system.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
ANRIG: And to reach the conclusion that the __
FRIEDMAN: No, no, it is not. It’s on paper, but you’ve got to look at the facts.
McKENZIE: Let him make his point, yes.
ANRIG: Well, I’m trying to __ it is a system which the wealthier get __ or the middle class get taxed more than somebody who’s making a lesser salary. To say then that the poor are funding __
FRIEDMAN: That’s true.
ANRIG: __ public higher education, where middle class youngsters and by the way a lot of poor youngsters go as well, it doesn’t fit with my understanding at least of the tax system. Now I’m not an economist, I admit it.
FRIEDMAN: Well, it turns out that there have been some very careful studies made of exactly what you’re describing. There’s one particularly careful one for California. There’s one for Florida. These show __ it’s not a minor item, that if you take the total receipts from expenditures on higher education going to the lower classes, and the total taxes they pay that are used for higher education, the lower classes are paying more than they’re getting, and the higher classes are getting more than they are paying for.
(Several talking at once.)
FRIEDMAN: Now I myself am a beneficiary of this subsidy. I’m one of the worst cases on record. I went to a state school, Rutgers University. I went on a state scholarship. The poor suckers in the State of New Jersey paid for my going to college. I personally think that was a good thing, there are many people who have different opinions about that. (Laughing)
COOPER: I want to bring in Congresswoman Bachmann since she was referenced by you.
BACHMANN: But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.
And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It’s a hidden tax. And any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the American people think that it’s — that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it’s the government that creates the tax.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, in your state, you have a 6.25 percent sales tax. Would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?
PERRY: No.
Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something, you don’t need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire, where they don’t have a sales tax, and you’re fixing to give them one.
They’re not interested in 9-9-9. What they’re interested in is flatter and fairer. At the end of the week, I’m going to be laying out a plan that clearly — I’ll bump plans with you, brother, and we’ll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again.
And one of the ways, right here in Nevada you’ve got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that, and nine cents on a new home — or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more?
I don’t think so, Herman. It’s not going to fly.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it’s not correct to mix apples and oranges.
Secondly, it is not a value-added tax. If you take most of the products — take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent.
So you’re absolutely wrong. It’s not a value-added tax.
Now one other quick thing.
COOPER: Your time’s up, I’m sorry.
CAIN: This whole thing about –
COOPER: You’ll have another 30 seconds. Trust me, they’re going to go –
CAIN: Tonight?
COOPER: Yes, I guarantee it. In about a minute.
Congressman Paul, you called his plan dangerous today.
PAUL: Oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it’s regressive. A lot of people aren’t paying any taxes, and I like that. I don’t think that we should even things up by raising taxes.
So it is a regressive tax. So it’s very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues.
But the gentlemen asked the question — he didn’t even ask what we’re talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That’s what we should replace it with.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it’s a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money.
And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax.
So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Mr. Cain, in 30 seconds?
CAIN: Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They’re wrong about it being a value-added tax.
We simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate 9 percent. I invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic.
COOPER: Governor Romney, you have your only 59-point plan. In the last debate, Mr. Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?
ROMNEY: Oftentimes simpler is better. And I know we’re not supposed the ask each other questions, but if you permit.
Herman, are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?
CAIN: No, that’s an apple.
ROMNEY: OK.
CAIN: We’re replacing a bunch of oranges.
ROMNEY: OK.
So, then Governor Perry was right that –
CAIN: No, he wasn’t. He was mixing apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Well, but will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9 percent tax? CAIN: Governor Romney, you’re doing the same thing that they’re doing. You’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re going to pay –
ROMNEY: I’m –
CAIN: No, no, no, no. You’re going to pay the state sales tax, no matter what.
ROMNEY: Right.
CAIN: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you’re still going to pay that. That’s apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Fine. And I’m going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I’ve got to pay both taxes, and the people in Nevada don’t want to pay both taxes.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Now let me make this comment. Let’s just step back here. We’ve got a lot of people in America that are out of work. We’ve got a lot of people in this state, 13.4 percent of the people in this state out of work. We’ve got home prices going down. We’ve got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes, and tax is part of it.
I want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle income families. I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.
If it’s lower for the middle class, that’s great. But that’s not what I saw. I have to tell you, I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector as opposed to putting a damper on it.
I want to get trade, opening up new markets for America. I want to also find a way to get our energy resources — and they’re all over the world, are all over this country, used for us. This is time to get America growing again. And that’s what this campaign ought to be about.
COOPER: Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Speaker…
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain’s 999 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?
GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.
(LAUGHTER) GINGRICH: I mean, look, there are — first of all, I think that Herman Cain deserves a lot of credit. He has had the courage to go out and take a specific very big idea at the right level.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: And he has us at least talking about something that matters as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politics in this country. So I think that’s important.
There are two parts to this. The first is, if you take his plan, and I think it’s in the interest of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step. There are much more complexities than Herman lets on. OK. I mean, 999, when you get into details like you pay it on a new product, you don’t pay it on an old product, et cetera, there’s a lot more detail here than he lets on.
Second, I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100 percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you said in the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don’t pay taxes?
BACHMANN: I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: Everyone needs to pay something in this country. That’s why with my tax plan, I take a page out of not theory but what’s provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That’s the plan that I look at.
I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.
Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost.
So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure.
COOPER: Thank you.
BACHMANN: I plan to change that with real jobs right now at michelebachmann.com.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We’ve been talking about Herman Cain’s plan. Let’s talk about Governor Romney’s plan.
Governor Perry, you have said that Governor Romney was an abject failure at creating jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts. If you’ve read his 59-point plan, has it changed your mind?
PERRY: Well, here’s the nine that we need to get focused on. And it’s not 999, it’s not 59. It’s that 9 percent unemployment in this country. And that’s where we’ve got to get focused in America, is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work.
It’s the reason I laid out a plan, Newt, this last week to get this energy that’s under our feet. We’ve got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. Yet we’ve got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it’s our petroleum, our natural gas, or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work.
Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say: Listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job. And that’s exactly what I did with my plan, laid it out where Americans understand we don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, does Governor Perry have the answer?
ROMNEY: Well, he’s absolutely right about — about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We’re an energy-rich nation that’s acting like an energy-poor nation. And that’s something I’ve been talking about for some time, as the governor has. He’s absolutely right.
But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing, and high-tech jobs, and good service jobs, technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that’s very, very broad. And that’s why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and — and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget, and that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, does Mitt Romney have the answers for jobs? SANTORUM: I agree with — with all of what Governor Romney and both — and Governor Perry said. I would add the fact that — that I’ve put forward the plan that’s going to allow for income mobility. That’s a new term, but I’ve been using it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society.
Believe it or not, studies have been done that show that in Western Europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale actually have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in America. And I believe that’s because we’ve lost our manufacturing base. No more stamp “Made in America” is really hurting people in the middle.
And that’s why I focus all of the real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing. I cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero, repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over $100 million and replace them with something that’s friendlier, they can work with. We repatriate $1.2 trillion that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here, if they invest in plants and equipment. They can do it without having to pay any — any excise tax.
The final point I would make to Governor Romney, you just don’t have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. You are — you are — your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you’re going to repeal it, you just — you have no track record on that that — that we can trust you that you’re going to do that.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: You don’t.
ROMNEY: You know, this I think is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I’ve — I’ve had to talk about Obamacare, I’ve made it very clear, and also in my book. And at the time, by the way, I crafted the plan, in the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.
SANTORUM: That’s not what you said.
ROMNEY: You’re — you’re shaking — you’re shaking your head.
SANTORUM: Governor, no, that’s not what you said.
ROMNEY: That happens — to happens to be…
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: It was in your book that it should be for everybody.
ROMNEY: Guys… PERRY: You took it out of your book.
SANTORUM: You took it out of your book.
ROMNEY: Hey, his turn. His turn, OK, and mine.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I’ll tell you what? Why don’t you let me speak?
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: You’re allowed — you’re allowed to change — you’re allowed to change…
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You can’t change the facts.
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You’re out of time. You’re out of time.
COOPER: He ate into your time.
(BOOING)
Rick…
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I haven’t had a chance to respond yet, because you were interrupting the entire time I was trying to speak.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me make it very clear.
COOPER: I’ll give another 20 seconds.
ROMNEY: And — look — look, we’ll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I’d impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not.
It was something crafted for a state. And I’ve said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It’s unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I’m president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs.
What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you’ve got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance…
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.
The federal government is spending more per household than ever before. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.
INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)
Download
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional Budget Office.
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:
_______________
Here’s How to Pay Your “Fair Share,” Mr. Buffett
President Obama proposes the “Buffett Rule” to make sure the rich pay their “fair share.” However, there is already a system in place for Mr. Buffett and all the other millionaires and billionaires to pay more without a new job-killing tax hike.
There they can follow these simple instructions for sending more of their money to the Treasury to reduce the national debt:
How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040.
It is as simple as that. Now how can we stop seeing poor Warren every time we turn on the television incorrectly whining about his taxes are lower than his secretary?
Curtis Dubay
Where Will the Tax Hike REALLY Go???
Obama’s economics are at times stunning. Proposing tax hikes in the midst of the highest and most persistent unemployment in decades is stunning. Doing it to pay for a massive jobs package is also stunning. But for a moment, set all that aside.
Set aside the terrible effect these tax hikes would have on jobs in America. On investors. On job creators. On American competitiveness. Set aside the cigarette tax that went to pay for expansion of SCHIP at the very beginning of the President’s term. Set aside the 18 new or increased taxes in Obamacare. Set all that aside and consider this.
Do you believe for one simple moment that these new taxes will be used for paying down the deficit? Or do you believe that past is prologue? The President’s own jobs package is proof: New taxes go to pay for new spending.
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17)
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.
Washington –Congressman Phil Gingrey (GA-11) today issued the following statement after the passage of S. 365, the bill to provide for an increase in the debt limit.“I commend our leadership for so steadfastly pursuing a deal that results in spending cuts that exceed the level of the debt ceiling increase. Since Republicans took over the House, the tenor in Washington has changed from how much are we going to spend to how much are we going to cut. This is a victory in and of itself for the American people.However, I am firmly committed to the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, and while this bill moves the ball in the right direction, it does not make the debt ceiling increase contingent upon passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It further concerns me that tax increases could come into play as the newly created commission formulates its proposal and that the Department of Defense could be disproportionately affected by the process of sequestration. While I applaud some aspects of this agreement, I believe that this is the time to amend to our Constitution to finally force Washington to live within its means—and I encourage my colleagues to continue their efforts to advance this principle.”
In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax be imposed on the amount of income needed to “pay for” promised benefits. But more important, at least from an economic perspective, the Senator’s initiative would increase the top tax rate on productive behavior by as much as 12 percentage points – and this would be in addition to his proposal to kill the 2003 tax rate reductions and further boost the top rate by 4.6 percentage points. This mini-documentary explains why a big tax rate increase on highly productive people would be very damaging to America’s prosperity, especially in a competitive global economy. Simply stated, pushing top tax rates in the United States to French and German levels means at least some degree of French-style and German-style economic stagnation. Visit http://www.freedomandprosperity.org for more information.
Herman Cain is the hot Republican candidate at the moment, so Ernest Dumas’ examination of some of his ideas is timely. His easy 9-9-9 tax plan? The details aren’t so hot. More like appalling.
He would replace all federal taxes—individual and corporate income taxes, and social security, Medicare, disability, unemployment, gasoline, cigarette and all other excise taxes—with three simple tax rates: 9 percent on personal income, 9 percent on business income and a 9 percent sales tax on all commercial activity. That sounds fair enough. There would be no exemptions and deductions. Well, only a few. Investment income—capital gains, interest and dividends, the income of the leisure class—wouldn’t be taxed at all. Your social security? Yes, tax it. As for the 9 percent business tax, it would apply only to the share of a company’s revenue that was spent on wages.It would be a mammoth tax cut for the rich and corporations and a giant tax increase for the middle class, the elderly and disabled.
_________________
I have to say that I am not able to go along with the sales tax portion myself. My views are closer to those of the Cato Institute below:
PrintPresidential candidate Herman Cain has made a splash with his 9-9-9 tax reform plan. I love his 9 percent income tax, but the skunk at the tax reform picnic is his 9 percent retail sales tax. Mr. Cain is an articulate advocate of free enterprise and I wish him well in the contest, but he should ditch the sales tax.Adding a retail sales tax to the federal government’s powerful tax armada would be a terrible idea from a small-government perspective. Democrats are desperate to find ways to fund soaring entitlement costs, so it’s dangerous to give them conservative political cover to add a new federal funding source.Cain’s 9 percent business tax is also a problem. It is similar to a value-added tax (VAT) because would it disallow a business deduction for wages, which would make the base much broader than the corporate income tax base. And like a VAT, Cain’s business tax would apparently be imposed on all businesses, not just those currently paying the corporate income tax.The result would be that American businesses would be collecting a large tax on workers’ wages — but workers wouldn’t see this major government grab. One caveat is that the Cain business tax would allow a deduction for dividends paid, which would narrow the base compared to the standard VAT.
In sum, two of Cain’s three 9’s are bad ideas. His advocacy of lower marginal rates and reduced taxes on savings and investment are great, but he should drop the 9-9-9 plan.
Instead, Cain and other candidates should consider a 15-15-15 plan. At first blush, that doesn’t sound very appealing because the rates are higher than Cain’s. But the business tax base would be much smaller than Cain’s, and the plan would make existing revenue sources more visible and efficient. Here’s the 15-15-15 plan:
15 Percent Payroll Tax. Cain would abolish the current 15.3 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. That’s odd because Cain — to his credit — is proposing a Chilean-style Social Security system with personal accounts. I’d keep the current payroll tax, but move to a Chilean-style system by allowing workers to put 6 percentage points or more of the tax into a personal account. That would feel like a tax cut for workers because they would retain ownership of the money. I would also require that all 15.3 percent of the tax be listed on employee pay stubs so that the burden is highly visible. Currently, workers only see half of the payroll tax, and thus might be unaware of the high cost of these retirement programs.
15 Percent Personal Income Tax. Like Cain, I’d get rid of just about all deductions and other breaks under the income tax, except pro-savings features such as the 401(k) rules. It’s also reasonable to retain a substantial basic exemption for low-income filers, as under the Dick Armey/Steve Forbes “flat tax” plans. The Armey/Forbes plans had rates in the range of 17 to 20 percent, but they only taxed labor income at the individual level, not capital income. Technically, that is the right way to go under a flat tax, but as a bow to today’s political realities, we might want to tax wages, dividends, interest and capital gains all at 15 percent.
15 Percent Corporate Income Tax. We should cut the 35 percent corporate income tax rate to 15 percent. People say we should trade a rate cut for loophole closing, but loophole closing is not worth the effort. Corporate loopholes are far smaller than loopholes in the individual code, and trying to scrap them just creates a blockade of business opposition to reform. Also, if we dropped the rate to 15 percent, the base would automatically broaden as businesses reduced their tax avoidance and evasion. Corporate profits parked offshore would flood back into the United States, and capital investment would get a huge boost. In the long-run, policymakers should consider switching to the simpler cash-flow business base under the Armey/Forbes flat tax, but if we cut the rate to 15 percent, the distortions caused by the current base would be greatly reduced anyway.
How much revenue would 15-15-15 raise? You could probably make it revenue-neutral by adjusting the basic exemption amount under the individual income tax. Dick Armey’s flat tax exemption was huge at about $35,000 for a family of four. A lower exemption amount makes more sense, but this is a variable that could be fine-tuned.
Of course, tax reform would be much easier if it created an overall tax cut. And that would be much easier to achieve if Congress cut spending. So I’d encourage Mr. Cain and the other candidates to roll up their sleeves and give us their detailed spending-cut plans. As a modest first step, how about a 9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9 plan to slice 9 percent off the budget of every federal agency?
Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 10, 2011 There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This […]
Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan John Brummett is critical of Republicans for opposing the payroll tax reduction and I have to agree with him on this. In an interview shortly after the Bush Tax Cuts passed Milton Friedman was asked: John Hawkins:Do you think George Bush, with the economy being as it was, did the […]
Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Here is the first part of the interview: Written By : John Hawkins Yesterday, I did a twenty minute interview by phone with Milton Friedman. Of course, Mr. Friedman has an INCREDIBLE resume. He won the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, won the “Presidential Medal of […]
U.S. Senator Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011 Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 6, 2011 http://www.cato.org/multimedia/subscribe.php U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at this year’s Cato University on everything from national healthcare and the commerce clause to spending cuts and social security reform. Cato University is the Cato Institute’s premier educational event of the […]
Dan Mitchell on Social Security Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Aug 19, 2010 Discussing the troubles facing social security, with Mark Walsh, Left Jab host and Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 4) Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with […]
Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]
Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Mar 5, 2010 Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. […]
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 he is not ever going to do his habit again? Congress is addicted to spending too much money. Lee Edwards wrote in his article “Golden Years” about Ronald Reagan:
Sometimes Reagan went along with a pragamatist like chief of staff James Baker, who persuaded the president to accept the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which turned out to be the great tax increase of 1982 — $98 billion over the next three years. That was too much for eighty-nine House Republicans (including second-term Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia) or for prominent conservative organizations from the American Conservative Union like the Conservative Caucus and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which all opposed the measure.
Baker assured his boss that Congress would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good “70 percent” deal. But Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 surrender. Ed Meese described TEFRA as “the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration,” although it did leave untouched the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year. (TEFRA was built on a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions.)[xxx]
The basic problem was that Reagan believed, as Lyn Nofziger put it, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.”[xxxi] As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.
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 […]
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. […]
Rick Perry says Social Security is a Ponzi scheme Rick Perry and Mitt Romney went after each other at the debate over this term “Ponzi scheme.” Over and over Rick Perry has said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I agree with him. John Brummett asserted,”Rick Perry was last week’s savior, but then he […]
Dan Mitchell is right about the “Occupy Wall St crowd”
Here is some video and pictures of the Occupy Arkansas March of October 15, 2011 followed by an excellent article by Jason Tolbert. Steve Brawner has rightly said:
For now, the Occupy movement doesn’t seem to be offering a lot of concrete solutions for the nation’s problems, and until it does, it won’t accomplish much.
In this video clip there is mention of the peaceful march. It was peaceful but one of the targets, the Bank of America, did get attacked with a large rock that busted the window out front.
Few will deny that the Tea Party has had a dramatic impact on politics the last couple of years. What has been interesting to watch is the reaction from the left, which has gone from dismissing them, to demonizing them, to finally trying to copy them.
The Tea Party — which stands for Taxed Enough Already — began around the country on April 15, 2009. Although it is a movement made up of a number of viewpoints, its participants are united behind one simple idea — taxes are too high and government spending is too big.
When this group burst onto the scene, they were dismissed by most as a flash in the pan — little more than Republicans disgruntled over President Obama’s landslide 2008 election.
But then curiously they did not go away. So instead, we were told that they must be right-wing extremists or, worse, racists. But little to no evidence of that ever turned up.
A recent poll conducted by Talk Business and Hendrix College showed that at least in Arkansas the Tea Party movement is quite popular, with 41 percent having a favorable view compared to 37 percent with an unfavorable view. Among self-identified independent voters, the favorable rate goes up to 50 percent and unfavorable, 30 percent.
So if you can’t beat them, imitate them. By all appearances, that is what the new Occupy Wall Street movement is attempting to do. But they are going about it all wrong.
For one thing, Occupy Wall Street and their local spin off protests, Occupy Arkansas and Occupy Little Rock, have little idea what they are protesting. It appears to be a group of angry liberals spurred on by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and labor unions that are mad about the general poor state of the economy.
Videos from the organizational meetings in Little Rock showed them debating what they are upset about and what they want to advocate.
But they did not let that get in the way of a good march. So perhaps I could offer some suggestions, lest this new group become little more than an urban hiking club.
First, if Occupy Wall Street really wants to be as effective as the Tea Party, the protesters should learn from the Tea Party’s successes. The Tea Party’s primary influence has been to move the political discussion to the right. They have done that by not just holding big rallies and marches but by getting involved in the political process, many for the first time.
Occupy Wall Street could do the same thing by moving the political discussion to the left.
Republican officials became increasingly aware that a move toward the middle could get them a primary Tea Party challenger forcing them to battle a flank from their right. The mere threat of that has been strong enough to force most of them to shift markedly to a more conservative position.
If Occupy Wall Street wants to have the same impact, they should quit marching on the stock exchange and corporate headquarters and move their attention to the White House and the statehouse. If they want to shift the country to their left-leaning positions, go recruit some primary opponents for some moderate Democrats. Candidates definitely will listen then.
Second — and this is key — the OWS folks should figure out what they are for and keep it simple. The Tea Party’s success was largely because it was organized around one simple idea with broad appeal. It is not hard for many to understand that Americans are over taxed and that government has grown too big.
If Occupy Wall Street figures these two things out, perhaps they will have success. In the meantime, my Tea drinking friends, sit back and enjoy the show. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Demonstrators march through the streets of Little Rock on Saturday in a protest organized by Occupy Little Rock. (John Lyon photo) Occupy Arkansas got cranked up today in Little Rock with their first march and several hundred showed up. It was unlike the pro-life marches that I have been a part of that have had […]
COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]
I found this article interesting from the Wall Street Journal: OCTOBER 10, 2011 The Corporate Exec: Hollywood Demon Nazis are getting old, moviemakers don’t want to offend foreign audiences, so corporate types top the list of evil stereotypes By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN It is not surprising that pop-culture protesters are now intent on occupying Wall […]
Left leaning blogs like Blue Arkansas have praised the “Occupy Arkansas” but I wonder if they know about some of the crazy things the leaders of this movement have said. Jason Tolbert noted on October 7, 2011: Max Brantley with the Arkansas Times reports on the efforts currently under way to organize an “Occupy Arkansas” […]
Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
The Daily Hatch 