It certainly seems quixotic to try to reverse the federal invasion of American education—it’s “for the children,” for crying out loud!—but there are signs that the forces of constitutional and educational good might be making progress. The fact of the matter is that people seemingly across the ideological spectrum have had it with the illogical, rigid, and failed No Child Left Behind Act, and very few people want to keep that sort of thing in place.
What’s the evidence of this?
For one, both Senate Republicans and Democrats are putting out NCLB reauthorization bills that would significantly reduce the mandates the current law puts on states, including the hated and utterly unrealistic full-proficiency-by-2014 deadline. On the House side, Republicans have for months been advancing bills aimed at reducing the size and prescriptiveness of Washington’s edu-occupation. The White House, too, has been arguing that NCLB is far too bureaucratic. Finally, GOP presidential candidates are returning to what was, before the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush, an obvious Republican position: there should be no U.S. Department of Education whatsoever.
So perhaps NCLB will be remembered as the high-water mark of federal school control.
Perhaps, but we’re nowhere near the promised land yet.
First, there is the extremely troubling way the Obama administration is pushing NCLB aside: issuing states waivers from the law, but only if they implement administration-dictated measures, including ”college and career ready standards,” a euphemism for federal curriculum control. But even if they were demanding that states adopt universal private school choice, this would be extremely dangerous, and far beyond just education. The administration is for all intents and purposes unilaterally making law: no separation of powers, no Congressional approval—nothing! Essentially, the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of man, and no one should stand for that even if they think, as I do, that No Child Left Behind is an absolute dud. It reminds me of of one of my all-time favorite movie scenes.
And then there are those federal standards, the supposedly “state-led and voluntary” Common Core standards that Washington just happens to have repeatedly shoved onto states, whether through Race to the Top or waivers. They are perhaps the greatest threat to educational freedom we’ve yet seen, holding the potential to let Washington dictate what every child in America will learn, no matter how controversial, or unproven, or unfit for any kids who are not “the average.”
Fortunately, resistance to these, too, seems to be gaining traction. Perhaps the most heartening evidence is Prof. Jay Greene having been invited a few weeks ago to testify on national standards before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Jay terrifically summarized the myriad logical and empirical failings of national standards generally, and the Common Core specifically, and having his testimony out there is useful in and of itself. But more important is that at least some people in Congress are paying attention to this largely—and intentionally—under-the-radar conquest. Meanwhile, there is evidence that in at least somestates that have adopted the Common Core people are becoming aware of it and starting to ask questions. At the very least, these happenings offer reason to hope that national standards supporters won’t keep getting away with just repeating the fluff logic of “a modern nation needs a single standard, and don’t worry, the Common Core has been rated as good by all us Common Core supporters.”
What has for a long time seemed impossible is suddenly feeling a bit more plausible: withdrawing the Feds from our kids’ classrooms. But there’s a huge amount still to do, and gigantic threats staring us in the face.
This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives seven reasons why the political elite are wrong to push for more taxes. If allowed to succeed, the hopelessly misguided pushing to raise taxes would only worsen our fiscal mess while harming the economy.
The seven reasons provided by the video against this approach are as follows:
1) Tax increases are not needed;
2) Tax increases encourage more spending;
3) Tax increases harm economic performance;
4) Tax increases foment social discord;
5) Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected;
6) Tax increases encourage more loopholes; and,
7) Tax increases undermine competitiveness
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
If you listen to the discussion of the deficit in the mainstream media or the talking points from leading Democrats on the Hill (but I repeat myself), the refrain is that tax increases must be part of any deficit fix.
There is a superficial moderation to that appeal, a sort of splitting the difference between Republicans who want to cut spending and Democrats who want to pay for popular programs. And, frankly, some tax breaks and loopholes should be eliminated — ethanol subsidies, for example — not as revenue raisers, but because they are such bad economic policies.
But raising taxes to reduce the deficit would be bad policy for several reasons:
There’s not really a revenue problem. Democrats correctly point out that federal tax revenues are now just 16.5 percent of GDP, well below the post–World War II average of roughly 18 percent. This would have meant a bigger budget deficit than usual even if spending hadn’t exploded in recent years. But much of that decline is due to the economic slowdown, not to the Bush tax cuts or other policy changes. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that as economic growth returns, federal tax revenues will grow by an average of 7.3 percent annually over the next ten years. By the end of the decade, taxes will have pushed back through the 18 percent level, and be headed toward 20 percent — all without any changes in tax policy.
Government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. It doesn’t take more taxes to fix that.
There is a spending problem. Focusing on taxes implies that the problem is how to pay for spending — taxes or debt — not the spending itself. But, as Milton Friedman constantly pointed out, the real cost of government is the size of government. According to the CBO, the federal government is on track to consume 42 percent of GDP by 2050. (State and local governments will consume another 10 to 15 percent of GDP.) Would we really be better off if we raised taxes enough to pay for all that spending?
You can’t tax enough. The president keeps talking about solving our deficit problems by taxing millionaires and billionaires. Congressional Democrats throw in oil companies. But you could confiscate — not tax, confiscate — every penny belonging to every millionaire in America and cover barely one-tenth of our government’s total indebtedness (including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare). Meanwhile the tax breaks for oil and gas companies amount to about $1.4 billion annually. Those tax breaks may or may not be defensible, but they amount to less than 1 percent of this year’s budget deficit.
Bait and switch. If you look at most of the deficit-cutting proposals, including the president’s, they call for tax increases today in exchange for spending cuts somewhere in the future. I think we’ve seen that movie before. In fact, the president’s proposal actually makes the bait-and-switch game worse. His proposal says that if Congress didn’t actually make those spending cuts, there would be additional tax increases. So Republicans would be agreeing to tax increases today in exchange for . . . more tax increases tomorrow.
Tax hikes are bad for the economy and for freedom. Of course it’s an exaggeration to suggest that all tax cuts pay for themselves, but there is no doubt that high taxes discourage the type of investment and risk-taking necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. Every dollar that the federal government takes in taxes is one less dollar that the private sector can save, invest, or spend as it sees fit. Unless you believe that the government knows better than the private sector what to do with that money, this exchange hurts the economy. And unless you believe that our money really belongs to the government, it means we are less free to make use of the fruits of our labor as we see fit.
Republicans should not fall into the trap of reflexively defending every special-interest loophole in the tax code. But neither should they be seduced by the argument that we need a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction that includes tax increases. Government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. It doesn’t take more taxes to fix that.
Bacon’s work epitomizes the spirit of twentieth century man—a grasping for meaning and dignity within an environment of dehumanization and meaninglessness. He once said: “Nietzsche forecast our future for us—he was the Cassandra of the nineteenth century—he told us it’s all so meaningless we might as well be extraordinary.”
____________
Below is a portion of an article by Os Guinness
“I come too early. My time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way.” Nietzsche“To be a man means to reach toward being God.” Jean Paul Sartre“In seeking to become angels we may become less than men.” Pascal“True civilization does not lie in gas, nor in steam, nor in turntables. It lies in the reduction of the traces of original sin.” Baudelaire“It is becoming more and more obvious, that it is not starvation, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is mankind’s greatest danger.” Carl Jung
“It is in our hearts that the evil lies, and it is from our hearts that it must be plucked Out.” Bertrand Russell
“Oh great gods, how far he lies from his destination!” Fillini, Fellini’s Satyricon1
Western culture is marked at the present moment by a distinct slowing of momentum, or perhaps, more accurately, by a decline in purposefulness and an increase in cultural introspection. This temporary lull, this vacuum in thought and effective action, has been created by the convergence of three cultural trends, each emphasizing a loss of direction. The first is the erosion of the Christian basis of Western culture, an erosion with deep historical causes and clearly visible results. The second is the failure of optimistic humanism to provide an effective alternative in the leadership of the post-Christian culture. And the third is the failure of our generation’s counter culture to demonstrate a credible alternative to either of the other two — Western Christianity and humanism.
The convergence of these three factors in the late sixties marks this period as especially important. What is at stake is nothing less than the direction of Western man. Only a few years ago the dismissal of Christianity was held to be a prerequisite for cultural advance. The decline of Christianity thus represented a cure for man’s problems, not a cause. So with the dawning of optimistic humanism the decline of Christianity was welcomed. Its adherents would be the only losers.
But that was yesterday. And contemporary yesterdays have a habit of suddenly seeming a hundred years ago. Today the cultural memory of traditional values hangs precariously like late autumn leaves, and in the new wintry bleakness optimism itself is greying. Now it appears that all of Western culture may be the loser.
My purpose is first to examine humanism, partially as a movement in itself but even more as a backdrop against which to appreciate the need for an alternative; then to chart the alternative offered by the counter culture with all its kaleidescopic variety; and finally, to present a third way as a more viable option in the light of man’s current situation. The weaknesses in both humanism and the counter culture are pointed out, not to negate much that has been extremely sensitive and intensely human, but to show the inevitability of their failures. The critique at least serves to illustrate certain mistakes that must not be repeated, and it highlights important questions and dilemmas with which further alternatives must grapple.
A third way is desperately necessary because the present options are growing more obviously unacceptable. And, in fact, there is a Third Way — one which is becoming increasingly welcome to a large number of sensitive searchers and free-spirited individuals who make up a major part of those dissatisfied with things as they are. This Third Way holds the promise of realism without despair, involvement without frustration, hope without romanticism. It combines a concern for humanness with intellectual integrity, a love of truth with a love of beauty, conviction with compassion and deep spirituality. But this is running ahead.
The Surfacing of Pessimism
Now we can see an important point more clearly. Optimistic humanism was only one stream of secular humanism. Its reverse was pessimistic humanism, and if the optimism was characteristically strong in academic circles, it is now evident that pessimism was more prevalent in the wider reality of life. Pessimistic humanism was always there, like a subterranean stream, murky in its depths and dark in its apprehension of dilemmas. It is this subterranean stream that is now threatening to surface and usurp the dignity and dominance of optimistic humanism.
Again we must go back in history to realize the full importance of this surfacing pessimism. Its genius was to see that behind the apparent stability of the nineteenth-century world in which modern humanism was born stood a different reality. Both Nietzsche and Kirkegaard were men who lived in passionate revolt against the smugness of the nineteenth century, particularly against the cheapness of its religious faith and the brash confidence of its secular reasoning, or generally against its shallow optimism, wordy idealism and tendency to conform. Such a smug world was not just false but dangerously foolish, if the true nature of reality lay elsewhere.
It is amazing that this subterranean pessimism was not taken more seriously earlier. But it was derided as the “Devil’s Party” — the poets, philosophers and prophets of chaos and catastrophe — and all too easy to dismiss.13 Some were ignored. Their repeated warnings were simply relegated to the status of cultural myth having only an innocuous respectability. In 1832 Hemrich Heine had said, “Do you hear the little bell tinkle? Kneel down — one brings the sacraments for a dying God.”14 Nietzsche’s later cry of the death of God and his searching diagnosis (“Everything lacks meaning. What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The goal is lacking; the answer is lacking to our ‘Why?’”)15 were not taken seriously either. After all, wasn’t Heine a poet, and wasn’t Nietzsche later deranged?
Other warnings were dismissed as only to be expected from the theory or temperament of their particular authors. Repeatedly in the 1930s, George Orwell depicted Western intellectuals as men who in blithe ignorance were sawing off the very branch on which they were sitting. Malcolm Muggeridge in his articles lanced open the “death wish of liberalism.” C. S. Lewis carefully made his exposures in “The Funeral of a Great Myth.”16 But the serious disquiet of Orwell, the humorous if testy honesty of Muggeridge and the gentle clarity and utter reasonableness of C. S. Lewis were before their time. They were predictable. They were ignored.
But the rising tide of disquiet cannot now be ignored. It is becoming the accepted mood of much recent judgment, as a hundred illustrations could quickly show. Writing in 1961 specifically on problems of Western culture, Frantz Fanon mocked, “Look at them today, swaying between atomic and spiritual disintegration.”17 In the same context, Jean Paul Sartre challenged, “Let us look at ourselves if we can bear to, and see what is becoming of us. First we must face that unexpected revelation, the strip tease of our humanism.”18 These two men could easily be dismissed as pessimistic, prejudiced politically and philosophically, but the disquiet does not stop there. Coming closer to the heart of humanism and speaking almost as an heir to a distinguished humanist house, Aldous Huxley described himself this way: “I was born wandering between two worlds, one dead and the other powerless to be born, and have made in a curious way the worst of both.”19 From the world of science John Rader Platt, the American biophysicist, said, “The world has now become too dangerous for anything less than Utopia.”20 Norman O. Brown, a man famous for the lyrical romanticism of his visions, admitted, “Today even the survival of humanity is a utopian hope.”21
There can be no stable equilibrium between optimism and pessimism but only an uneasy oscillation between the two. Optimistic humanism is strong in its stress on the aspirations of man but weak in its understanding of his aberrations. Accordingly, it lacks a base for the fulfillment of the former and its solutions to the latter are deficient; thus its ultimate optimism is eternally romantic. Pessimistic humanism, on the other hand, insists on the absurdity of man’s aspirations and speaks to the heart of his aberrations, but the price of its realism is the constant pull toward despair. This clear contrast throws further light on the current crisis.
Four Pillars of Optimistic Humanism
Optimistic humanism is being exposed as idealism without sufficient ideals. More accurately, its ideals are impossible to attain without a sufficient basis in truth, and this is just what its rationalistic premises are unable to provide. This is the key weakness of each of the four central pillars of optimistic humanism.
The first pillar is the belief in reason. Here optimistic humanism is forced to its initial leap of faith… Much of what was called reasoning is now more properly called rationalizing.
Modern philosophy also has reduced the pretentions of reason. For man, speaking from a finite reference point without divine revelation, to claim to have found a “universal” is not just to be mistaken. The claim itself is meaningless. For most modern men, objectivity, universals or absolutes are in a realm beyond the scope of reason; in this realm there is only the existential, non-rational, subjective understanding of truth.
Both psychology and philosophy have thus clipped the proud wings of rationalism and the unlimited usefulness of reason by itself. By rationalism I do not mean “rationalism” as opposed to “empiricism” but rather the hidden premise common to both — the humanist’s leap of faith in which the critical faculty of reason is tacitly made into an absolute and used as a super-tool to marshal particulars and claim meaning which in fact is proper only to the world of universals.
The second pillar is the belief in progress. The orientation toward the future introduced into Western culture by Christian linear teleology was secularized by the Enlightenment. Ostensibly it had been given objective scientific support by the evolutionary theory. It was widely believed that nature was marching forward inevitably to higher and higher views of life (as expressed, for instance, in the philosophy of Herbert Spencer). But this is now being drastically undermined. Many point to evidence of an evolutionary crisis, somewhat tarnishing the comfortable image of inevitable progress with man at the center of the stage controlling his own evolution. Some even predict the extinction of the human species.
The third pillar is the belief in science as the guide to human progress and the provider of an alternative to both religion and morals. If “evolution is good,” then evolution must be allowed to proceed and the very process of change becomes absolutized.
The fourth pillar is the belief in the self-sufficiency of man. A persistent erosion of man’s view of himself is occurring. The fact that man has made so many significant scientific discoveries points strongly to the significance of man, yet the content of these same scientific discoveries underscores his insignificance. Man finds himself dwarfed bodily by the vast stretches of space and belittled temporally by the long reaches of time. Humanists are caught in a strange dilemma. If they affirm the greatness of man, it is only at the expense of ignoring his aberrations. If they regard human aberrations seriously, they have to escape the dilemma raised, either by blaming the situation on God (and how often those most strongly affirming the non-existence of God have a perverse propensity to question his goodness!) or by reducing man to the point of insignificance where his aberrations are no longer a problem. During World War II, Einstein, plagued by the mounting monstrosity of man against man, was heard to mutter to himself, “After all, this is a small star.”23 He escaped the dilemmas of man’s crime and evil but only at the price of undermining man’s significance.
Notes
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 125, in The Portable Nietzsche (New York: The Viking Press, 1954), p. 96; C. G. Jung. “Epilogue,” Modern Man in Search of a Soul (New York: Routledge Books, 1933); Bertrand Russell, Has Man a Future? (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 110; Federico Fellini, Fellini’s Satyricon, ed. Darlo Zanelli, trans. Eugene Walters and John Matthews (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970), p. 269.
Quoted in Kenneth Clark, Civilisation (London: John Murray Ltd., 1971), p. 104.
Quoted in ibid., p. 101.
Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1966), p. 44.
Ibid.,p.417.
Michael Harrington, The Accidental Century (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), p. 31.
Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself (New York: Mentor Books, 1951).
Julian Huxley, ed., The Humanist Frame (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1961), p. 44.
Ibid.,p.7.
Algernon Charles Swinburne, “Hymn of Man.”
J. Huxley, p. 6.
Ibid., p. 26.
Harrington, p. 35.
Heinrich Heine, quoted in WaIter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 375.
Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1-2, quoted in Kaufmann, p. 103.
C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd., 1967), p. 82.
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), p. 251.
lbid., p.21.
Letter of Aldous Huxley to Sibylle Bedford quoted in Time, May 4, 1970.
J. R. Platt, The Step to Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1966), p. 196.
Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death (London: Sphere Books Ltd., 1968), p. 267.
See discussion in Nigel Calder, Technopolis (London: MacGibbon & Kee Ltd., 1969), pp. 98-99.
Arnold Toynbee, “Changing Attitudes towards Death in the Modern Western World” in Arnold Toynbee and others, Man’s Concern with Death (London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1968), p. 125.
Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1967), p. 15.
Viktor E. Frankl, “Reductionism and Nihilism” in Beyond Reductionism, ed. Arthur Koestler and J. R. Smythies (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1969), p. 398.
Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Ltd., 1967).
Quoted in T. M. Kitwood, What Is Human? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970), p. 49.
Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, IV, 1, as quoted in Kaufmann, pp. 83-84.
Harrington, p. 26.
Koestler, p. 313.
Fanon, pp. 251-52.
Harrington, p. 36.
Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, Standard Works of Freud, 21 (London: The Hogarth Press Ltd., 1961), p. 91-92.
Albert Camus, The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962), pp. 243-44.
Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 125.
Quoted in Gay, p. 65.
Quoted in Kitwood, p. 54.
Erich Heller, The Disinherited Mind (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 75.
Nietzsche, p. 409.
Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, I, 11, in The Portable Nietzsche, p. 160.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Possessed (New York: Signet Classics, 1962), pp. 384-85.
Camus, The Rebel, p. 199.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Inc., 1968), p. 733.
Quoted in Camus, The Rebel, p. 58.
Quoted in ibid., p. 62.
Quoted in ibid.
Quoted in ibid.
Heller, p. 76.
Nietzsche, Zarathustra’s Prologue, 4, in The Portable Nietzsche, p. 126.
Jean Paul Sartre, Nausea (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 191.
Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 566.
Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1956).
Samuel Beckett, Krapp’s Last Tape (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1958).
Yoko Ono, Grapefruit (London: Peter Owen Ltd., 1970).
Paul Simon, The Paul Simon Songbook, C.B.S. 62579.
Jean Luc Godard, La Chinoise, filmed 1967.
Quoted in H. R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970), p. 174.
Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, trans. John Wilkinson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), p.321.
Chores and Roy Medvedev, A Question of Madness (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971).
“Psychoadaptation, or How to Handle Dissenters,” Time,September 27, 1971, p. 45.
lbid., p.44.
Quoted in Harrison Salisbury, “Introduction,” The Prison Diary of Ho Chi Minh (New York: Bantam Books, 1971), p. ix.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot (New York: Bantam Books, 1958), p. 71.
Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 123.
Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: Routledge Books, 1956).
R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), p. 24.
Ibid., p.24.
David Cooper, ed., The Dialectics of Liberation (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968).
Malcolm Muggeridge, Tread Softly for You Tread on My Jokes (Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.), p. 28.
Ibid., p. 29.
Christopher Booker, The Neophiliacs (Glasgow: Fontana, 1970), p. 70.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 339.
Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art, trans. Anna Bostock (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1963).
Lewis Feuer, “What Is Alienation? The Career of a Concept,” New Politics, Spring 1962, pp. 116-34.
Fischer, p. 80.
Erich Frornm, Marx’s Concept of Man (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1961).
Hermann Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, 4 vols. (Nutley, N.J.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1957); The Twilight of Western Thought (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1960).
Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1968); Escape from Reason(Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 1968).
J. A. Rushdoony, “Preface,” Dooyeweerd, The Twilight of Western Thought, p. 9.
Camus, The Rebel, p. 16.
Nietzsche in a letter to Gersdorff, November 7, 1970, quoted in Erich Heller, p. 70.
Ibid., p.181.
Fromm, Sane Society, p. 360.
Laing, The Politics of Experience, p. 118.
Author
Os Guinness is an Englishman born in China during the war with Japan and educated at the University of London. He has traveled widely in the East and lectured to student groups in Europe, the United States and Canada. His major work was with Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland.
Today I read an article in the New York Times, “Son of Evangelical Royalty, turns his back and tells the tale,” August 19, 2011. The liberal Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog called this article by Mark Oppenneimer “the best reading of the morning.” Oppenneimer asserted: Edith Schaeffer also wrote books, and in 1977, Frank, an amateur filmmaker, […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]
Total Tax Burden Is Rising to Highest Level in History
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 about the Laffer Curve. In a year and half (end of 2012) the Bush Tax Cuts will expire. However, is that wise? Not if you understand the Laffer Curve.
Taxes are projected to increase rapidly under various policy scenarios. If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels. The tax burden will climb even if those tax breaks are extended. President Obama’s budget, which cuts some taxes and raises others, also increases the overall tax burden.
PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Download
Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on Congressional Budget Office and White House Office of Management and Budget data.
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
Narrated by Hiwa Alaghebandian of the American Enterprise Institute, the mini-documentary explains how needless complexity creates an added burden – sort of like a hidden tax that we pay for the supposed privilege of paying taxes.
__________
The Onerous Compliance Cost of the Internal Revenue Code
The tax system is a complicated nightmare that forces taxpayers to devote ever-larger amounts of time, money, energy, and other resources in hopes of complying with the internal revenue code and avoiding IRS persecution. This CF&P Foundation video shows that this corrupt mess is the result of 97 years of social engineering and industrial policy that began almost immediately after that dark day in 1913 that the income tax was created. www.freedomandprosperity.org
______________________
Two things from the video are worth highlighting.
First, we should make sure to put most of the blame on Congress. As Ms. Alaghebandian notes, the IRS is in the unenviable position of trying to enforce Byzantine tax laws. Yes, there are examples of grotesque IRS abuse, but even the most angelic group of bureaucrats would have a hard time overseeing 70,000-plus pages of laws and regulations (by contrast, the Hong Kong flat tax, which has been in place for more than 60 years, requires less than 200 pages).
Second, we should remember that compliance costs are just the tip of the iceberg. The video also briefly mentions three other costs.
The budgetary burden of the IRS, which is a staggering $12.5 billion. This is the money we spend to employ an army of tax bureaucrats that is larger than the CIA and FBI combined.
Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security
Governor Rick Perry got in trouble for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and I totally agree with that. This is a series of articles that look at this issue.
The article originally appeared on Techcentralstation.com on July 5, 2005
Republican leaders in Congress have been struggling to come up with Social Security legislation that will attract the broadest possible support. That’s apparently proving difficult because of lawmakers’ wide range of preferences on retirement policy, private pensions, tax-favored saving plans, taxes and so on. The latest buzz is about restricting personal accounts to just save Social Security’s surplus payroll taxes — by crediting only that amount each year to personal accounts. After the dust settles, we may get a bill that’s extremely complicated and broad, but with very small accounts.
Two things are worth reiterating: First, postponing reforms that fix the system’s financial shortfall would be a mistake. Second, addressing solvency by hiking taxes under the current set of Social Security institutions would be an even a bigger mistake: Those institutions won’t save any additional resources devoted to Social Security. The value of a properly crafted personal accounts system would be in its ability to genuinely save and invest funds meant for Social Security.
The resistance to adopting personal accounts is not just political. Lawmakers appear to believe that the decision to adopt personal accounts is completely separable from the choice about how to fix the system’s insolvency. Some economists argue that carve-out personal accounts — as championed by President Bush — do not contribute at all toward fixing the system’s insolvency. They claim that carve-out personal accounts generate no new savings. That impression, unfortunately, is the result of an inappropriate comparison of the alternatives. Here’s why:
To begin, suppose that mandatory “add-on” personal accounts were introduced to fund that part of scheduled Social Security benefits that are unfunded — that is, benefits promised but not covered by present law payroll taxes. Because workers would own personal accounts, their “add-on” contributions would not appear as additional incentive-reducing taxes and would not reduce labor supply. If borrowing against personal accounts were prohibited, as would be appropriate, they will likely lead to higher national saving and investment. As a result, future output, incomes, and the payroll tax base would all be larger. Therefore, present law payroll taxes would fund a higher level of future Social Security benefits.
This higher level of benefits, funded out of present law payroll taxes under “add-on” accounts, would not be available were we to adopt the “status-quo” alternative of simply hiking payroll taxes to finance presently scheduled but unfunded Social Security benefits. That’s because, today, payroll tax surpluses are turned over to the Treasury and are consumed by the government rather than saved and invested.
Recent studies show that government consumption expenditures increase more than dollar-for-dollar as Social Security surpluses accrue in the government’s coffers. If true, the lower saving and reduced work incentives from higher payroll taxes would shrink national output, incomes, and the payroll tax base, and present law payroll taxes would fund smaller future Social Security benefits.
The difference between the two projections of future benefit levels funded out of present law payroll taxes — higher ones under “add-on” personal accounts versus lower ones under a “status-quo” hike in payroll taxes — constitutes the basic case for “carve-out” personal accounts. How come? If “add-on” accounts to pay for benefits that are promised but unpayable under present law effectively increases saving and investment and preserves work incentives, the (lower) level of payable benefits under a “status quo” payroll tax hike could be financed with a less than 12.4 percent payroll tax rate under the “add-on” policy. That implies room for a “carve out” — that is, for diverting a part of present law payroll taxes into personal accounts.
How large would be the size of a feasible carve out? Would it ultimately completely do away with the need for “add-on” contributions? These are difficult questions to answer. Two considerations suggest, however, that the scope for carve-outs could be large. First, several studies report that payroll taxes add significantly to marginal tax rates — especially for households’ secondary earners — and that labor supply is quite sensitive to higher taxes. Noteworthy here is a recent study by economics Nobel laureate Edward Prescott that attributes the significant decline in European labor supply relative to the United States since the 1970s to higher European social insurance taxes.
Second, loss in annual output because of the savings-reducing impact of the current Social Security system’s pay-as-you-go financing structure is estimated to be of the same size as total current outlays on Social Security. That is, were the existing system based entirely on “add-on” personal accounts, the gain in annual output due to higher saving and capital formation would have been about as large as total current outlays on Social Security.
Introducing personal accounts (“add-on”, or “carve-out”) involves an institutional change in the way Social Security funds are allocated compared to the current system. If conferring asset ownership to individuals rather than to the government can effectively increase national saving and investment without reducing work-incentives, the future benefits funded by present law payroll taxes could be higher or those taxes could be reduced. Hence, separating the issue of fixing Social Security’s insolvency from that of introducing personal accounts is inappropriate. Ownership and management of retirement assets by the government has been shown to be ineffective. It’s time to adopt a new approach.
Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965
Overall tax revenues have risen despite a recent decline due to the recession. Congress cut income taxes and the death tax in 2001 and capital gains taxes and dividends in 2003, yet revenues continued to surge even after the tax cuts were passed.
INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)
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 Edito
It is not surprising that pop-culture protesters are now intent on occupying Wall Street. For the past decade, Hollywood has been casting financiers as the demonic villains of society. In the multiplexes, businessmen have replaced even terrorists as villains.
In the Warner Bros. political thriller “Syriana,” for example, the villain is not al Qaeda, an enemy state, the mafia, or even a psychotic serial killer. Rather, it’s the big oil companies who manipulate terrorism, wars and social unrest to drive up oil prices.
Tracks of the root-of-evil corporate villain are everywhere in post-Cold War Hollywood. Consider Paramount’s 2004 remake of the 1962 classic, “The Manchurian Candidate.” In John Frankenheimer’s original film, the villain-behind-the-villain is the Soviet Union, whose nefarious agents, with the help of Chinese Communists, abduct an American soldier in Korea and turn him into a sleeper assassin. In the new version, the venue is transposed from Korea in 1950 to Kuwait in 1991, and the defunct Soviet Union is replaced as the resident evil. The new villain is—you guessed it—the Manchurian Global Corporation, an American company loosely modeled on the Halliburton Corporation.
As the director, Jonathan Demme, explains in his DVD commentary, he avoided making the Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein the replacement villain, because he did not want to “negatively stereotype” Muslims. Not only was neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq mentioned in a film about the Iraq-Kuwait war, but the Manchurian corporation’s technicians rewire the brains of abducted U.S. soldiers with false memories of al Qaeda-type jihadists so that they will lay the blame for terrorist acts committed by American businessmen on an innocent Muslim jihadist. So Hollywood lays a new rap on greedy corporations: deluding the public about terrorism.
Why don’t the movies have plausible, real-world villains anymore? One reason is that stereotype-sensitive advocacy groups, representing everyone from hyphenated ethnic minorities and physically handicapped people to Army and CIA veterans, now maintain a liaison in Hollywood to protect their image. The studios themselves often have an “outreach program” in which executives are assigned to review scripts and characters with representatives from these groups, evaluate their complaints, and attempt to avoid potential brouhahas.
Finding evil villains is not as easy as it was in the days when a director could choose among Nazis, communists, the KGB and Mafiosi, though they have served in a pinch. The 2002 apocalyptic thriller, “Sum of All Fears,” was based on the Tom Clancy novel in which Muslim extremists explode a nuclear bomb in Baltimore. But Paramount decided to change the villains to Nazi businessmen residing in South Africa to avoid offending Arab-American and Islamic groups. “The list of non-offensive villains narrows quickly once you get past the tired clichés of Nazis,” a top talent agency executive pointed out to me in an email. “You’d be surprised at how short the list is.” And even Nazis have now aged out of contemporary-movie contention.
Since international markets provide Hollywood with 70% of its action-movie revenue, studios are finding it risky to use villains from potentially valuable markets such as China. When MGM set out to remake John Milius’s 1984 classic about Soviet invaders in America, “Red Dawn,” the new invaders were Chinese. Yet the version MGM plans to release in 2012 has been digitally altered and re-edited to make the primary villains North Koreans. North Korea is one of the few countries in which Hollywood does not distribute its movies.
For sci-fi and horror movies, there are always invaders from alien universes and zombies from another dimension, but even here it doesn’t hurt if they are in the greed business. In the 2009 movie “Avatar,” an avaricious mining corporation is behind the use of avatars to destroy the environment, culture and natives of the planet Pandora. This proved a lucrative decision since the movie earned a large share of its revenue in foreign countries, such as Brazil and China, where there is concern about corporate exploitation of their resources and environment.
Yet for reality-based politico-thrillers, the safest remaining characters are lily-white, impeccably dressed American corporate executives. They are especially useful as evildoers in films set abroad since their demonization does not risk gratuitously offending officials in countries either hosting the filming or supplying tax or production subsidies. “Mission Impossible 2” thus replaced the Russian and Chinese heavies that populated the old TV series with a Wall Street-type financier who controlled a pharmaceutical company that aimed to make a fortune by unleashing a horrific virus on the world. How? It owned the antidote. Here, as in other thrillers, businessmen’s crimes and killings are not just figurative.
Unlike other stereotype-challenged groups, CEOs and financiers have no connection with the studios’ outreach programs. Unprotected and unfeared—even as they finance movies—they’ve become an essential part of Hollywood’s casting. They are the new all-purpose money demons.
Mr. Epstein is author of “The Hollywood Economist” (Melville House, 2010).
Politico reports here that a group of celebrities, including former Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee, shouted a four-letter obscenity for cameras in a promotion to speak up against famine. Bleeps and labels to cover mouths obscure the actual word.
In the PSA, our celebrity supporters shout out one four letter word that the majority of viewers will find offensive, in order to shine a light on something only a minority seems to be offended by. I know the tone is a bit rough for ONE — that’s no accident. If it feels like a punch in the face, then good — mission accomplished. It’s time for a wakeup call and here’s the alarm. Love it? Great. Hate it? OK. Just don’t ignore it.
I’m not sure I believe Huck did precisely as described.
Economic freedom and free trade need to be major pieces of the puzzle to solve this problem but President Obama and Bono do not get that.
Cato recently held a book launch for South African development expert Greg Mills (you can pre-order at Amazon). This is a very smart book by a man who has spent his professional life in the thick of the problem (bad governments making bad policy choices).
Economic growth does not require a secret formula. While countries from Asia to Latin America have emerged from poverty, Africa has failed to realize its potential in the 50 years since independence. Greg Mills, the former director of the South African Institute of International Affairs and one of South Africa’s most respected commentators, confronts the myths surrounding African development. He shows that African poverty was not caused by poor infrastructure, lack of market access or insufficient financial resources. Instead, the main reason Africans are poor is because their leaders have made bad policy choices. Please join us to hear why a growing number of African opinion makers and ordinary citizens believe that to emerge from poverty, Africa must embrace a far greater degree of political and economic freedom.
I recommend the podcast of the event (download MP3). Excellent comments by Marian L. Tupy, a policy analyst with the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
One of my favorite development economists wrote the lead blurb
“Poverty is now optional” is Greg Mills’ invigorating message’, Paul Collier, Oxford University, Author of The Bottom Billion and The Plundered Planet
African poverty has been optional for fifty years — just keep in mind that the African elites do just fine under the status quo. And so do the NGOs, who effectively get a commission cut of the western aid budgets (as does the consulting industry housed around the DC beltway).
Good job Cato! Now, if we can just inject some sanity into the NGOs and OECD aid agencies. The billowing aid continues to insulate the African leaders from the consequences of their policies (and of course insulates them from their own populations).
On aid, I was pleased to hear Greg Mills respond to questions, with, paraphrasing:
Obama said his Africa policy was to “double the aid”. In fact that is a clear signal that there is no Africa policy. An effective, Africa policy is far more nuanced and complex than “double the aid”. What is the point of aid if you do not have tools for measuring the effectiveness of that aid?
While we are at it, let’s measure the effective of NGOs! I would be perfectly happy to have the organization that I run measured. Also, measure the effectiveness of consultants.
(…) The average age of African leaders is 75. The average age of Africans is 25. The numbers for Europe are about 55, 45. I am stupified by how passive African electorates are. How long would Robert Mugabe have lasted in Serbia?
2004 saw the debut of one of the most promising new acts in the Christian music scene. The demise of rock band Earthsuit gave birth to Mute Math, a then-three piece alternative act that brilliantly blended electronic and ambient elements with pop hooks and meaningful lyrics. Their debut project, Reset EP, was a slim but tight collection of seven tracks (with two being instrumental), seizing the attention of thousands of new fans and helping create an underground buzz that would soon prove itself to be a force to be reckoned with.In 2005, the much anticipated and promised full-length follow up never made its Summer release and fans only became hungrier for a debut LP. What most didn’t know was the band’s discontent for the way things were going. Mute Math’s intentions for the Reset EPwere different, with hopes for greater mainstream distribution. Instead, the Christian market moved faster on the EP than the mainstream, and before they knew it, Mute Math was, against their desire, tagged a “Christian band.” Frustrated, the band has finally had the LP pressed, but is only making it available at live shows, with no intentions of releasing it to the Christian market. So, Christian music listeners in large numbers are still wondering, and rightfully so, what is the band’s debut LP like anyway? Keeping in mind that Mute Math, which remains made up of members who share our faith, does not want to be labeled a “Christian band” so to speak, how does their self-titled full length album compare to the EP? Mute Mathopens with a signature drum-driven intro entitled “Collapse,” before breaking into the U2-esque “Typical.” From the album’s start, a more raw sound is noticeable. The production is a little less polished and bears a little more of a “live” feel. In fact, at times, it almost sounds like a different band entirely. More U2 and even Police influences can be drawn throughout the album’s duration, with a distinct absence for the ambience the EP introduced. A harmonic interlude entitled “After We Have Left Our Homes,” precedes the stellar “Chaos,” a song that could be heard live about as long as the band has been around but hadn’t been available in recorded form until now. Melodic pop follows in the form of the ambiguously spiritual “Noticed,” and the anti-worldly anthem “Without It.” Another highlight, the synth-kissed “Stare At The Sun” is sandwiched between two modest instrumental tracks, “Polite” and “Obsolete,” with the latter being the more memorable of the two. The EP contained the incredible techno-fueled title track that remains a live show highlight for the band’s set, and each instrumental offering on Mute Mathpales in comparison.
“Break The Same” is a synth-heavy rock track that fairs better live, being somewhat tainted by distracting background effects, but is a nice addition to the album’s track list. The album winds down with the soft “You Are Mine,” which is somewhat reminiscent to the EP’s “OK,” and the synth-driven love song “Picture,” before coming to a strong finish with the serenading declaration “Stall Out.” Comparing Reset with Mute Math is tricky. Reset is a leaner offering with each track adding to the diverse and impressive abbreviated package, while the band may seemingly bite off a bit more than they can chew for some of Mute Math. On its own, however, Mute Mathis still an impressive alt rock album with a lot to offer. Too bad the only way any fan can get it right now is at the band’s live show or online at Zambooie. And even if the band intends to leave the Christian market behind, their beliefs shine through their music, if even just subtly, making Mute Math still a relevant and redeeming mainstream listen.
I am going to see Mutemath tonight at 8:30pm tonight at the Revolution Music Room in downtown Little Rock. Here is an old review I dug up on them: 2004 saw the debut of one of the most promising new acts in the Christian music scene. The demise of rock band Earthsuit gave birth to […]
I have loved the music of Mutemath since the first time I heard them. I wanted to pass on a great review of their band. Mute Math: Is It Christian Music? posted by Patton Dodd | 11:50am Thursday August 2, 2007 A Burn or Burn profile of Mute Math almost writes itself. This is a band […]
“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 5) This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: Hunter picked “Don’t Panic,” as his number 16 pick of Coldplay’s best […]
CHICAGO (AP) — Former Weezer bass player Mikey Welsh, who also found success in his second career as an artist, died in aChicago hotel room, police said Sunday. Chicago police spokeswoman Laura Kubiak said Welsh was supposed to check out of the Raffaello Hotel at 1 p.m. Saturday. When he didn’t, hotel staff went to his room, entered it and […]
Dave Hogan/ Getty Images This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: For the 17th best Coldplay song of all-time, Hunter picks “42.” He notes, “You thought you might […]
The best band in the world. Below I have linked some articles I have earlier about the search for meaning in life the band seems to involved in. Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman, and Will Champion formed Coldplay in 1996 while going to University in London. The young band quickly established themselves in the […]
U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is Uncompetitive
National Debt Set to Skyrocket
The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Federal Revenues by Source
The Daily Hatch 