When I think of all our hard earned money that has been wasted on stimulus programs it makes me sad. It has never worked and will not in the future too. Take a look at a few thoughts from Cato Institute:
On Thursday night, the president laid out his plan for job creation, a $447 billion stimulus proposal, most of which we have seen before. After all, if Congress passes this new round of government spending, it would be the seventh such stimulus program since the recession began. George W. Bush pushed through two of them, totaling some $200 billion, and Obama already has enacted four more, with a total price tag of roughly $1.3 trillion.
The result: Three years and $1.5 trillion of spending later, we are back to the same gallimaufry of failed ideas. Among the worst:
3. Bailing Out the Teachers Unions. The president’s plan calls for spending $35 billion in grants to states to hire or retain some 280,000 teachers. The president wants to spend another $30 billion to repair and modernize school buildings, with the catch that school districts that accept the funds are prohibited from laying off any teachers. Spending on school building and repair has already increased by 150% over the last two decades, without either improving education or generating many jobs. And the greatest threat to teacher retention is not a lack of federal aid, but burdensome labor contracts.
4. More Infrastructure Spending. Like all the stimulus bills before it, the president’s latest proposal calls for still more pork barrel spending for “infrastructure.” One begins to wonder why we haven’t paved over the entire country by now. No doubt there are roads and bridges in need of repair, but the ability of the federal government to sort out good projects from bad is debatable at best. And the president is once again planning to plow money into such dubious projects as high-speed rail.
5. More Tax Hikes. Worst of all, the president plans to pay for all this new spending by — you guessed it — raising taxes on businesses and high-income Americans. The president, once again, referred to “millionaires and billionaires” in his speech, but his actual proposal calls for raising taxes on families earning as little as $250,000 per year. In places like New York, that’s not the “super rich.” In addition, many of these tax hikes would fall on small businesses. The president’s jobs plan, then, is to tax exactly those people and businesses that create jobs. And all this is on top of the new taxes and regulations that the Obama administration has already pushed through.
It’s not just the details of the president’s proposal that are wrongheaded, it’s the basic concept. The real drags on our economy have nothing to do with the failure of government to spend enough. The federal government is now spending roughly 24% of GDP. State and local governments are spending another 10% to 15%, meaning government at all levels is spending roughly 40 cents out of every dollar produced in this country. If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.
The president’s plan is a bit like having someone break your leg then give you a crutch and call it a stimulus. Might it not be better to avoid breaking your leg in the first place? It’s time to stop spending, cut taxes, reduce our debt, and rollback burdensome regulation. That will generate far more jobs than any government jobs program.
When it comes to stimulus, the seventh time is not the charm.
Sam Phillips, born Samuel Cornelius Phillips (January 5, 1923 – July 30, 2003), was a record producer and the man responsible for the emergence of rock and roll as the major form of popular music in the 1950s. A native of Florence, Alabama, and a graduate of Coffee High School, Phillips is, perhaps, most notably attributed with the discovery of music legend Elvis Presley.
On January 3, 1950, Sam Phillips opened the doors at 706 Union Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee, to what would become one of the more famous recording studios in the world, the Sun Records label studio. Originally known as “Memphis Recording Service” throughout the 1950s when the building also housed the Sun Records label, the studio was later redubbed “Sun Studio” when the building reopened to the public in 1987. The studio had previously moved to a larger facility on Madison Avenue in 1960, and the Sun Records label had been sold in 1969 to Shelby Singleton’s Sun International group.
According to some, notably, music historian Peter Guralnick, the first rock and roll record was “Rocket 88,” recorded by Jackie Brenston and his Delta Cats, a band led by 19-year-old Ike Turner. Turner also wrote the song, which was recorded by Sam Phillips and released on the Chess/Checker record label in Chicago, in 1951. From 1950 to 1954 Phillips recorded the music of black rhythm and blues artists such as James Cotton, Rufus Thomas, Rosco Gordon, Little Milton, Bobby Blue Bland and others. Blues legends like B.B. King and Howlin’ Wolf made their first recordings at his studio.
Throughout this same period, Sam Phillips was looking for a white singer with a special “sound.” Phillips soon changed the face of popular music when he brought together the diverse elements that created rock and roll. When Elvis Presley played his version of “That’s All Right Mama” at his studio, a whole new era in music began.
Presley’s success would be a drawing card for Sun Records as singing hopefuls soon arrived from all over the Southern USA. White singers such as Sonny Burgess (“My Bucket’s Got A Hole In It”), Charlie Rich and Billy Lee Riley recorded for Sun with reasonable success while others such as Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, and Carl Perkins would become superstars.
In late 1955, Sam Phillips studio was in need of money and he had little choice but to accept an offer for Presley’s contract. Atlantic Records tendered $25,000, but the powerful RCA Records secured Presley’s services with an offer of $35,000.
On December 4, 1956, Jerry Lee Lewis was playing piano for a Carl Perkins recording session at Sun Records studio. While Johnny Cash stood by watching, Elvis walked in, and the impromptu jam session was soon nicknamed the “Million Dollar Quartet”.
In 1986 Sam Phillips was part of the first group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In 1987, he was inducted into the Alabama Music Hall of Fame. He received a Grammy Trustees Award for his lifetime achievements in 1991. In 1998, he was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame, and in October 2001 he was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.
Phillips died of respiratory failure at Francis Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee on July 30, 2003.
Many people think of former President Bill Clinton when they think of Arkansas, and they think of Elvis when they think of Memphis. However, the great Mississippi River separates both Arkansas and Tennessee. It’s history is worth looking into. CNN’s David Mattingly describes how high and wide the Mississippi River is in Memphis, Tennessee. Everybody […]
Memphis has such a rich history of music and the other night I saw the David Letterman Show with Freesol. They are a new group out of Memphis. Below is an article about them from People Magazine. Justin Timberlake’s Signed Band FreeSol: All About the Group By Catherine Kast Tuesday September 06, 2011 06:35 PM […]
Memphis has such a rich history of music and the other night I saw the David Letterman Show with Freesol. They are a new group out of Memphis. Below is an article about them from People Magazine.
In just two nights in New York City, a new band called FreeSol has made quite a name for themselves.
The five-some, who are signed to Justin Timberlake‘s upstart label, Tennman Records performed in a surprise concert this week at Manhattan’s Southern Hospitality, and again at Irving Plaza to celebrate 901 Silver Tequila.
The group, which first formed their band in 2003 in Memphis, consists of lyricist Free, keyboardist and bassist Premo D’Anger, guitarist and lyricist Elliot Ives, drummer Kickman Teddy, and DJ Charlie White.
A friend of Free’s later hooked them up with Timberlake, who joined them for a few jam sessions. From there, it was a case of perfect timing.
“We were about to take a deal in Atlanta,” Free tells PEOPLE. “[Justin] called us up while we were on the way to look at a condo in Atlanta. He said, ‘I don’t want to lose y’all, please stay in Memphis.’ So, we turned the car around and went back!”
With an album out this fall, and a new video for their song “Hoodies on, Hats Low” directed by and costarring Timberlake, FreeSol is hitting the music scene fast.
1. They nicknamed JT!
“With Justin, he’s the boss, you gotta be a little careful with that one,” says Free. But the band went ahead and assigned him a moniker anyway: “J. Boogie.”
2. They love their Southern food
Though guitarist Ives admits to missing his dogs back home in Memphis, what the guys seem to miss most while traveling is Gus’s World Famous Fried Chicken. “It really is world renowned chicken, by the way,” says Ives. Adds Free with a laugh: “I’m in love with Gus.”
3. They’re hip hop artists, but they’re fans of…
“I love Adele,” said DJ Charlie White. Free is a fan of Lady Gaga, Tweeting after her VMA performance, “Ga ga is the TRUTH!”
4. They get star struck
“I met Alicia Keys last night, so I’m on a high right now,” says Free, who was surprised when the singer turned up at their listening party last week. “I talked to her for about five minutes … I haven’t told my niece yet, she’s in love with her.” And drummer Kickman Teddy was thrilled to meet rapper B.o.B. at Memphis Music Fest. “He actually came to check out our music and gave us a shout out in a video we did in Memphis,” he says.
5. Justin helped them adjust to their fame by… going out for Chinese?
Timberlake, along with rapper/producer Timberland went to dinner with Free at P.F. Chang’s – and fans went wild. “It was like a feeding frenzy!” Free Tweeted. “When we finally escaped the frenzy, JT turned to me & said, “are u sure that’s what u want?’ ” But Premo D’Anger says their super-famous mentor has boosted their confidence. “He always made us feel like, ‘You guys got it. Do what you do.’ He played coach.”
Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 4 of 6.
Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools
Transcript:
It seems to me that if one is truly interested in liberty, which I think is the ultimate value that Milton Friedman talks about, one has to be very careful how he structures the kinds of subsidies that are proposed for education so that you do not wind up with the poor in one kind of school and the rich all in the other, and very little liberty for low-income people left over, which is what is what I think he has in mind. That is, I don’t think he has that result in mind. He has the hope in mind of liberty, but that it’s going to need a certain kind of tailoring before it works that way.
SHANKER: I think your remarks about free competition are very unfair for a very simple reason. You cannot have free competition where one group of schools must accept every single student who comes along, no matter what his physical or emotional handicaps or other problems; whereas the very essence of a private school and your voucher school is that they’re going to be able to keep out the students and the finest schools that you saw in that film were schools that deliberately kept out the most difficult students. Of course you can have a wonderful school if you pick students whose parents __
(Several talking at once)
SHANKER: __ no, no. Whose parents are so highly motivated that they’re willing to spend more money and willing to go out of their way to do something like that. Now the public schools have to take the handicapped, must provide bilingual education, must engage in bussing or other programs in terms of integration, must do all of these things. Whereas the private school can come along and say, well if your child has no problems, you know what we can do? We can offer you a school where you don’t have to sit next a child with these other problems. We’re gonna put you next to other children who are advantaged.
SHANNON: I think in the real world there is no competition between private schools and public schools because private schools, especially parochial schools, do not have to comply with Federal and State mandates and constitutional limitations and things of that sort.
McKENZIE: Dr. Anrig.
ANRIG: I think the part of the film that speaks to the greater parental involvement, I agree with very enthusiastically. However, I think the solution is the wrong solution for the problem that you identify. I think the role of public education in a democracy is not akin to that of the marketplace. The purpose for the common school is not the same as the purpose for the marketplace. We are trying in our public schools to create a democracy, to create an educated electorate. If you’re going to do that, you have to have the common school.
McKENZIE: How far do you accept his analysis of the present condition of the public education system? A pretty drastic analysis.
ANRIG: Well, I think he’s established three straw men that I think have to be challenged with all respect, Professor Friedman. The first is that there is a profession of education out there which has run amuck. We have the most decentralized system in the world in the American education. Sixteen thousand school districts that are governed not by the profession, but by elected citizen representatives, most of whom are parents. Secondly, you long, as I would, for the good old days of the one-room school in Vermont. That school served a small proportion of the youngsters for a short period of time, and those days will never come back. Third, you as an example of American education, a troubled high school in an urban center.
McKENZIE: In your bailiwick.
ANRIG: In my bailiwick, which is not typical of where the American student goes to school, first of all; and secondly is not typical of the City of Boston. And I do think it’s important to point out that that particular school, at the time that you took filming there, or your production crew did, was in the middle of a desegregation process that was not anywhere remarked about in the film. So it was not a typical example either of education in America or of education in Boston.
McKENZIE: The one unsurprising thing about these comments is that all of the opposition to allowing the market work comes from people who have a very strong vested interest in the present public school system. I am not proposing, we are not proposing to destroy the public school system. We are only asking that the public school system should be free to compete, should be open to competition, if it is really as good as you people make it out to be, it has nothing to worry about. Now, in terms of your comment, of course there’s a great deal of decentralization. We showed a very good school in this film as well as a very bad school. There are many good schools, and the more decentralized the control, in my opinion, the more satisfactory is the schooling. The real problem is concentrated in those areas where decentralization is broken down. Where you have moved to much greater centralization, much greater control, and the main trouble areas are in the large cities. That’s why we picked that school to show. In response to the question of the excellence of the schooling that’s coming, I think there is nobody who can question the declining SAT scores, the declining scores on exams, the declining performance in the schools, the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction, that many schools, not all schools, some schools, in urban areas are more accurately described as centers to keep people off the street than as educational institutions.
SHANKER: When you have a free market, there are dangers that go along with that market. Now, we know that there are people in our society who buy consumer’s reports, and there are people who do a great deal of research before they buy something, and there are other people who are taken in by the Crest commercials and instant appeal to give them some sort of a gimmick with a thing. And I think that the evidence is pretty clear that if you take middle class and wealthier families they are gonna do a good deal of research. They may very well be able to invest some additional money of their own to take some inconvenience. And if you have an open system of this sort it may very well be that the poorest parents are gonna have to take what is most convenient for them. What is going to fit in with their own work schedules, what is not going to require additional sums of money. And there is no doubt in my mind that you set up a system of free choice of this sort, you’re going to end up with the poor in one set of schools of their own on the basis of a good deal of gimmicks that will be offered to them.
COONS: They can’t learn, right? They’re __
FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Shanker. I want to ask you one question: How do you explain the fact that there is no area of the free market, no area of the private market, in which the poor people who live in the ghettos of our major cities are as disadvantaged as they are with respect to the kind of schooling they can get. I want you to name me any aspect in the kind of supermarkets they can go to. They’re not as disadvantaged even in the kind of housing they can occupy as they are in respect of the kind of schooling their children can go to. How does __
SHANKER: What’s your evidence for that? I don’t think you have any evidence for that.
COONS: But, they’re trying to get out.
FRIEDMAN: They’re trying desperately to get out. Families with very low incomes are trying to get into the parochial schools that you’re talking about.
SHANKER: Exactly. And they’re trying to get out of the slums, and they’re trying to get into different neighborhoods __
FRIEDMAN: They are trying to, sure.
SHANKER: __ they’re trying to do all sorts of things.
FRIEDMAN: They’re doing better on that. They’re doing better on that. And instead, in a free choice system you would have more heterogeneous schools in my opinion, far less segregation by social and economic class than you now have. Because __
(Several talking at once.)
McKENZIE: Dr. Anrig.
ANRIG: It just doesn’t hold up by the very examples he’s used.
FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. It so happens that right now, the parochial schools are the only alternative really available to low-income people.
SHANKER: Do they take all the children who want to get in?
FRIEDMAN: And the reason for that is that it’s very hard to sell something when other people are giving it away. Anybody who wants to send his child to a nonpublic school has to pay twice for it. Once in the form of taxes and once in the form of tuition. Under the kind of voucher scheme that Jack Coons and I would support, that difficulty would be eliminated. You would now have a situation in which the low-income people would have the kind of bargaining power, the kind of possibility of choice, that those of us who are in the upper-income groups have had all along. (Several talking at once.)
McKENZIE: I want to move __ Jack Coons. Jack Coons, I want you to come in now. I know you’re in principle advocating the voucher system. Could you give us the case as you see it. I know you’ve got your differences with Milton on it, but let’s have the case.
COONS: What we are doing in California is establishing a form of change, possible change, proposing a change, in which lower-income people will get information along with the opportunity to go to any school of their choice and transportation to get there. Of course they need information. Anybody needs information in a market. And they need information from independent sources, not from the schools themselves, and that’s the way the initiative is designed, to come from independent sources. Now, we believe that ordinary people can make the best judgments for their children about where they should go, if they’re given good professional advice. And it also helps teachers because they can, for the first time, be professionals. They can act like real professionals, because they don’t have a captive audience. They don’t dominate their client, they respect their client, and they deal with them on the basis of a contract. What could be better for teachers than for the first time to become people who are dealing in a democratic and respectful way with clientele instead of with captives.
SHANNON: I am concerned that a voucher system will lead towards havens for white flight, will lead towards a duel school system in the sense that you have one school system operating under one set of rules, the other school system, public school system, operating under carefully articulated educational policy in any given state. And that’s why I think it’s __
COONS: Exactly, in Los Angeles County the movement to private schools last year was less, a smaller percentage than in the statewide pattern.
SHANKER: You may have five or ten percent of the students __
FRIEDMAN: Right, right.
SHANKER: __ you have very severe problems and come from families with very severe problems, and those students take up 95 percent of the time of the teachers and the administrators and the other children aren’t getting an education. Now, you’re gonna set up your voucher school. Are your voucher schools going to accept these tough children?
In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t create new employment.
Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.
___________________________
When I think of all our hard earned money that has been wasted on stimulus programs it makes me sad. It has never worked and will not in the future too. Take a look at a few thoughts from Cato Institute:
On Thursday night, the president laid out his plan for job creation, a $447 billion stimulus proposal, most of which we have seen before. After all, if Congress passes this new round of government spending, it would be the seventh such stimulus program since the recession began. George W. Bush pushed through two of them, totaling some $200 billion, and Obama already has enacted four more, with a total price tag of roughly $1.3 trillion.
The result: Three years and $1.5 trillion of spending later, we are back to the same gallimaufry of failed ideas. Among the worst:
1. Temporary Tax Cuts. The president wants to extend and expand the temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that Congress enacted last December. The president also called for a grab-bag of tax credits for businesses that buy new equipment, hire veterans or even give workers a raise. There is obviously nothing wrong with letting workers keep a bit more of their money. And some of the tax breaks might encourage businesses to speed up otherwise planned hiring or purchases, providing a short-term economic boost. But neither people nor businesses tend to make the sort of long-term plans needed to boost production, generate growth and create jobs on the basis of temporary tax changes. This is especially true when businesses can look down the road and see tax hikes in their future.
If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.
2. Further Extending Unemployment Benefits. The president wants to spend $49 billion to provide another extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Of course everyone can sympathize with the plight of the long-term unemployed. But, the overwhelming body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits may actually increase unemployment and keep people out of work for longer. In fact, many economists believe that current extensions of unemployment benefits have already extended the average length of unemployment by three weeks or more.
AND ON BOBBY: Schlabach, on Arkansas’ coach: “I said when he was hired that Bobby Petrino would make Arkansas a contender for the national championship in three years. And hey, I’m from Atlanta and not many people there like the guy.”
BEEN THERE: Much talk and reflection among Touchdown Club hosts David Bazzel and Rex Nelson and prayer leader Gary Underwood were over Garrett Uekman’s untimely death Sunday in a University of Arkansas dormintory less than 24 hours after he’d been a part of the Hogs’ 44-17 win over Mississippi State in Little Rock.
ESPN’s Schlabach said he was encamped with the University of Miami’s football team five years ago when Bryan Pata was murdered during the season. Pata was gunned down in broad daylight outside his apartment as the season was winding down; five years later, no one has been arrested in the case.
“It’s one of the worse things that can happen,” said Schlabach, who had seen the reports the past 24 hours of the Little Rock native’s sudden passing, the cause of which hasn’t been determined. “It’s always said to see [a dream] end that way.”
As for how Arkansas’ players might react through the week and at LSU on Friday, Schlabach said, “Kids are very resilient at age 18 to 21.”
Several pieces of the puzzle have to come together for Arkansas to have a chance at the national title. This was a big piece!!! Mark Schlabach of ESPN wrote this article below: AMES, Iowa — So what happens now? We’ve spent the past few weeks wondering what would happen to the BCS national championship race […]
[+] Enlarge Before the BCS standings came out yesterday, it was the common belief that the Arkansas Razorbacks were possibly going to finish 11-1 and miss out on a BCS bowl, but now that has all changed. Arkansas is sitting pretty at number 3 and I no longer hope Auburn beats Alabama so we can […]
This is an article on the SEC week 12: By Chris Low As it turns out, the weekend was a productive one for the SEC, even if there were more than a few shaky performances around the league against lesser opponents.Here’s a look at what we learned in Week 12:1. BCS takes on SEC flavor: Brad […]
Above is a picture from my camera at the game. Photo I have wondered why this victory meant over Tennessee meant so much to our Razorback Nation. I guess the answer is simply that we have lost so many close heartbreaking games to the Vols over the years and the 1971 and 1998 games […]
Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 18 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)
Dear Senator Pryor,
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.
A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.
Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.
As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.
First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.
Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.
Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.
A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.
Wally Hall actually said on his radio program on Nov 22, 2011 that the Arkansas v. LSU game on Nov 25, 2011 is the most significant game in razorback history. I have to respectfully disagree. I will agree that it is in the top 5, but I will continue my list today of other games that were more significant.
The Razorbacks stormed into Dallas after going 10-0 and winning the Southwest Conference.[2] The Hogs defeated #1 Texas 14-13 in Austin to clinch the bowl berth, and the conference championship. Longhorn coach Darrell Royalwent for two in the game and failed, giving the game, conference, bowl bid, and later the national crown to the Razorbacks.
Razorback guard Ronnie Caveness was named an All-American. Ken Hatfield again led the nation in punt return yards, with 518. Tom McKnelly scored 45 points kicking 27 extra points and 6 field goals, which tied him with LSU’s Doug Moreau for fourth place nationally.
Arkansas had also entered the bowl season on a sour note, losing bowl games in 1961, 1962, and 1963.
Nebraska went 9-1, losing only a 17-7 contest to Oklahoma. The Huskers previous bowl trips were split at 2-2, with the two most recent contests being Nebraska victories.
Arkansas and Nebraska met for the first time in this game in Dallas, Texas. Arkansas’ number-one rated defense was giving up only 5.7 points per game, where Nebraska’s #7 scoring offense was scoring 24.9 points per contest.
A standing room only crowd watched as the Hogs opened the scoring on a Tom McKnelly field goal, but the Huskers responded with a Harry Wilson punching it in from one yard out. The third quarter passed with no scoring before Arkansas quarterback Fred Marshall took over in the fourth quarter. Engineering an 80 yard drive with little time, Marshall pitched to Bobby Burnett, who scampered in from the three yard line with the game’s final touchdown.
The Razorbacks were selected as national champions by the Football Writers Association of America and the Helms Athletic Foundation as the #1 Alabama Crimson Tide lost their bowl game against the Texas Longhorns in the Orange Bowl.[6][7] Because the final AP and Coaches (UPI) Polls were released before bowl games were played at the time, the Crimson Tide was selected national champions by the AP and Coaches (UPI) Polls.[8] Because of the controversy, the AP Poll decided to wait until after the bowl games to select their champion in the 1965 season.
Arkansas improved to 3-4-2 in bowls with the win, while Nebraska’s record in the postseason dropped to 2-3. Nebraska ended sixth in the AP poll, while Arkansas ended the season second despite being the only undefeated team.[9]
Jerry Jones, the Arkansas co-captain, went on to build the stadium where the Cotton Bowl Classic is now played.
Ken Hatfield of Arkansas returned to the Cotton Bowl Classic in 1989 as the Razorbacks head coach, where Arkansas was defeated by UCLA (quarterbacked by Troy Aikman whom Jones signed for the Dallas Cowboys.)
The LSU Tigers and Arkansas Razorbacks battle it out Friday for the SEC West and a national championship bid, and it features the most interesting matchups of the year.
I’ve been saying it all season that I could not wait to see LSU’s amazing secondary going against the best wide receiving corps in college football, and here it is.
It’s going to be fantastic, and even though the Tigers’ defense looks nearly invincible, the Hogs possess enough talent on offense to put points on the board.
For those who complained about the defensive struggle between LSU and the Alabama Crimson Tide on Nov. 5, this game will be more pleasing to you.
The road to the BCS Championship Game has been full of unexpected turns and thrilling football games.
It’s only fitting that it comes down to this Friday’s top-three matchup between two of the best teams in the nation. Here are the five matchups that will decide Friday’s outcome.
Wally Hall actually said on his radio program on Nov 22, 2011 that the Arkansas v. LSU game on Nov 25, 2011 is the most significant game in razorback history. I have to respectfully disagree. I will agree that it is in the top 5, but I will start a list today of other games […]
Reading Louisiana newspapers makes me mad and this video doesn’t make me any happier. LSU says past 11 wins prepared them for Arkansas LSU coach Les Miles yells out to receiver Kadron Boone (86) during the first half of its game against Ole Miss Saturday in Oxford, Miss. Brett Martel The Associated Press Published: Tuesday, […]
Earlier I wrote about where I think Arkansas could win a national championship with just two more wins. Below is a portion of an article by Jim Harris of the website Arkansas 360: What kind of college football polling world do we live in now that a No. 3 Arkansas could win Friday at No. […]
Several pieces of the puzzle have to come together for Arkansas to have a chance at the national title. This was a big piece!!! Mark Schlabach of ESPN wrote this article below: AMES, Iowa — So what happens now? We’ve spent the past few weeks wondering what would happen to the BCS national championship race […]
[+] Enlarge Before the BCS standings came out yesterday, it was the common belief that the Arkansas Razorbacks were possibly going to finish 11-1 and miss out on a BCS bowl, but now that has all changed. Arkansas is sitting pretty at number 3 and I no longer hope Auburn beats Alabama so we can […]
Mangino at a 2007 KU basketball game Eric Mangino is a very good speaker. Here is a portion of an article by Jim Harris: Jim Harris’ Notebook: Mangino Ready To Return; Big Week For Central Arkansas by Jim Harris 11/14/2011 at 3:37pm It’s easy for fans who don’t follow Kansas football closely to forget just […]
Photo by Stephen B. Thornton I saw him play for Catholic against Bryant and I saw him run out on the field just yesterday, but he was found dead this morning in Fayetteville. The Arkansas News Bureau noted: I am proud of the way he represented our program,” Petrino said. “He did everything right and had […]
Uploaded by TheMemphisSlim on Sep 3, 2010 Johnny Majors from Huntland, TN tried out for the UT Football team weighing 150 pounds. His Father, Shirley Majors his HS Coach,encourage him and then 4 younger brothers all to be Vols. Johnny Majors was the runner-up in 1956 for the Heisman Trophy to Paul Horning, on a loosing Notre Dame […]
REPUBLICANS: BOTH SIDES NOW: Super committee budget talks having failed because of a Republic refusal to increase taxes on the rich, they have now set about having it both ways. They are now saying, contrary to evidence, that they indeed proposed to raise taxes on the rich.
____________________
When the federal government brings in 2.2 trillion and spends 3.7 trillion a year then it is time for dramatic cuts. Taxes should be off the table. He has gone on for months blaming the Republicans for not wanting to raise taxes but spending is the problem.
The budget problem is a spending problem. The Bush tax cuts accounted for just 14 to 16 percent of the massive shift from surplus to deficit over the last decade. According to the Congressional Budget Office future deficits will be massive and rising even with federal revenues above the 40-year average of 18 percent of GDP.
We are spending too much, and not spending wisely. The answer is to cut outlays. Not to give politicians more money, which they also will spend, and not spend wisely.
The failure of the supercommittee should not surprise anyone. Legislators never like making tough decisions. After spending wildly for years, they aren’t prepared to cut back.
But reducing outlays is not just an accounting exercise. It requires Americans to rethink what they want the U.S. government to do at home and abroad. Only if they decide to have Washington do less can Washington spend less.
First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program’s underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.
Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.
Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a “virtuous cycle” of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.
Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.
Solving Washington’s budget crisis is simple, but not easy. Only if the American people demand that Uncle Sam do less will he spend less. Ultimately we, not the super committee or anyone else, are responsible for our fiscal future.
In last week’s campaign speech disguised as an address to Congress, President Obama said, “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.”
Writing recently in The New York Times, the famed chairman of Berkshire Hathaway complained that his federal income tax last year was “only 17.4% of my taxable income” — less than $7 million on a taxable income of about $40 million.
Buffett claimed that, like himself, other “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earnings,” but that is not at all common. The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5% in 2009.
Obama used Buffett’s uniquely low 17.4% tax as proof that “a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” That is not true.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous.
Anyone whose income is almost entirely composed of realized capital gains or dividends would “pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earning.” Investors with modest incomes also pay a tax rate of 15% on dividends and capital gains, although that rate is scheduled to rise to 18.8% under the Obama health law (and much higher if Congress enacted the “reforms” Obama will propose next Monday).
Before 2003, when the tax on dividends was made the same as the tax on capital gains, Berkshire Hathaway was a handy tax dodge — a way to own dividend-paying stocks without paying taxes on the dividends. Buffett is famous for collecting stocks with a generous dividend yield without Berkshire itself paying any dividend.
The dividends Berkshire receives are reinvested in buying more stocks, so the holding company ends up with more assets per share which results in capital gains that would be taxable only if the shares are sold.
Warren Buffett is the second wealthiest person in America, but he reports surprisingly little taxable income for someone who owns more than $50 billion of Berkshire shares. Increasing the tax rate on salaries and interest income would barely affect him.
He pays himself a salary of just $100,000, which explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes. He dodged the estate tax by donating his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He doubtless reduces his taxable income with other donations to charity, which explains why he repeatedly refers to taxable income rather than adjusted gross income.
Mr. Buffett ends by appointing himself tax czar and declares he “would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more … (he) would suggest an additional increase in rate.”
Since he only reports $100,000 of salary, he has nothing to lose by advocating a higher tax rate on salaries. Nearly all of his income in 2010 consisted of capital gains on sales of Berkshire shares, because those shares pay no dividends. But Buffett could just as easily hang onto appreciated shares rather than selling them, or he could donate them to charity.
Raising tax rates on dividends and capital gains sounds easier than it is. Nobody with substantial wealth can be forced to realize taxable gains by selling appreciated assets. A realized gain is no more valuable than an unrealized gain. On the contrary, it is less valuable by the amount of the tax.
Nobody can be forced to hold dividend-paying stocks either. They can instead buy Berkshire Hathaway shares if the tax on dividends goes up, as Buffett understands.
Despite his personal and professional dependence on capital gains, Buffett nevertheless feigns total ignorance of who pays the capital gains tax and why. He says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”
Well, the Dow Jones industrial average was 831 at the end of 1977 — down from 969 at the end of 1965 — so somebody was having trouble finding investments that would still look sensible after paying a 39.9% tax.
In any case, for Buffett to focus on the act of buying stocks or property is all wrong. The capital gains tax is not a tax on buying assets. It is a tax on selling assets. If you don’t sell, there is no tax. And when the capital gains tax is high, very few people are willing to sell.
In 1977, when the capital gains tax was 39.9%, realized gains amounted to less than 1.57% of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the capital gains tax was 28%, realized gains rose to 2.3% of GDP. Since 28% of 2.3 is larger than 39.9% of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.
From 2004 to 2007, when the capital gains tax was 15%, realized gains amounted to 5.2% of GDP. Since 15% of 5.2 is larger than 28% of 2.3, the lower tax rate again raised more tax revenue. The government cannot afford to raise this tax, particularly on those most likely to pay it.
Buffett focuses on the 400 tax returns with the highest reported incomes, which are often one-time capital gains from the sale of a business or real estate.
“In 1992,” he writes, “the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”
In 1992 only 39% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because those tax rates were so high. With most reported income coming from salaries, the average tax rate was high.
By 2008, 67% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because both were taxed at 15%. That diluted the average tax rate, yet nevertheless resulted in much more taxes paid because the amount of reported income was so much larger.
The big change was not in actual income, but merely in what the IRS counts as income. People were hiding more of their wealth in 1992 than they did in 2006-2008, and they were hiding even more in 1977.
It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.
The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.
With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.
A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.
The Daily Hatch 