Yearly Archives: 2011

Arkansas Times Bloggers: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” (Part 1)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (1 of 14)

Christianity vs. Secular Humanism – Norman Geisler vs. Paul Kurtz

Published on Oct 6, 2013

Date: 1986
Location: The John Ankerberg Show

Christian debater: Norman L. Geisler
Atheist/secular humanist debater: Paul Kurtz

For Norm Geisler: http://www.normgeisler.com/

______________________

Origins of the Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler)

Published on Jun 6, 2012

Norm Geisler argues via Kalam Cosmological Argument for the origins of the universe with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much evidence Geisler gave, Paul Kurtz refused to fully acknowledge the implications of it, while NEVER giving evidence for his own interpretation of the universe’s beginning.

_____________________

Paul Kurtz pictured above.

August 11, 2011 on the Arkansas Times Blog many nonbelievers ranted about the requirement that an atheist group had to put down a $15,000 deposit in order to advertise the phrase “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

I personally know of many atheists who are very fine moral people who have a wonderful marriage and a great family life. I could go on and name a bunch of names. However, I will mention my good friend John George who passed away a couple of years ago after a battle with cancer.

He wrote a book published by Prometheus which was started by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz was the originator of the Humanist Manifesto II. I have corresponded in the past with him and I have found him to be a very kind man. I highly recommend his debate concerning humanism on the John Ankerberg Show. I have included clips of that show.

I do not question the fact that many atheists live moral lives. However, this idea that humanists and atheists can come up with a logical moral system that rules out murder is not realistic. Rationally they can not do it. Without God in the picture then you only have this world of time and chance. If evolution teaches us the survival of the fittest then why would “might makes right” ever be wrong?

The movie maker and atheist Woody Allen knows this best.

allen_woody

I am a big Woody Allen movie fan and no other movie better demonstrates man’s need for God more  than Allen’s 1989 film  Crimes and Misdemeanors. This film also brought up the view that Hitler believed that “might made right.” How can an atheist argue against that?  Basically Woody Allen is attacking the weaknesses in his own agnostic point of view!! Take a look at the video clip below when he says in the absence of God, man has to do the right thing. What chance is there that will happen?

Crimes and Misdemeanors is  about a eye doctor who hires a killer to murder his mistress because she continually threatens to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. Afterward he is haunted by guilt. His Jewish father had taught him that God sees all and will surely punish the evildoer.

But the doctor’s crime is never discovered. Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his father had with Judah’s unbelieving Aunt May during a Jewish Sedar dinner  many years ago:

“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazi’s, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says Aunt May.

Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”

Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”

Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”

Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”

Judah’s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”

The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it?  The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God  has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).

Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.

Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (11 of 14) (How to motivate people to be good without God?)

Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (3 of 14)

The stimulus did not work, Milton Friedman knew that 40 yrs ago (“Friedman Friday” Part 2)

Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman!

Author: Jonathan Wood

Milton Friedman, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, would have turned 99 on Sunday.  Though few individuals have been as deserving of praise, Milton Friedman was “much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas” than the person having them.  In that spirit, we celebrate his birthday by reflecting on some of his greatest ideas.  Unsurprisingly, this past year provides ample evidence of Milton Friedman’s continued genius.

Milton Friedman demonstrated that stimulus programs could not succeed because households would use the money to save or pay down debt.  In the wake of the financial crisis, the Federal Government ignored this lesson and passed a $787 billion stimulus package.  Despite extravagant promises, the stimulus package completely failed to spur demand or employment.  This past year, a paper by renowned economist John B. Taylor largely confirmed that Milton Friedman’s insights explain the failure of the stimulus:

[Stimulus] grants increased steadily from the first quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2010 before tapering off. But state and local government purchases hardly changed at all during this period. The biggest change during the period of the [stimulus] grants was a large decrease in state and local government net borrowing, or, equivalently, an increase in net lending.

Milton Friedman was also a vocal critic of centralized administration of education.  His groundbreaking article, “The Role of Government in Education,” set the stage for the modern school choice movement.

The result of [vouchers] would be a sizable reduction in the direct activities of government, yet a great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children. They would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others. Government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy.

This past year has shown that Milton Friedman’s criticisms are as valid today as they ever were.  The rampant cheating in the Atlanta public school system is just the most recent in a long string of events confirming that centralized education continues to fail both students and taxpayers. 

Let’s hope that when we celebrate his 100th birthday we can look back on the year and celebrate the benefits that were derived from heeding the lessons of Milton Friedman.  This past year has certainly shown the folly of ignoring his insights.

John Stossel: The Green Jobs Fallacy

Clip from ABC’s 20/20 http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/new-video-the-green-jobs-fallacy…

Politicians keep telling us they want to create Green jobs. It sounds good, but its nonsense. I have a new video column up on my webpage on that. The bottom line: If green jobs are a good idea, they will just happen. The give and take of free market competition will provide them. We wont need government to suck up more of our tax dollars to create them. Whatever Green jobs really are.

More at www.theminorityreportblog.com

 

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.1

2012 Presidential Republican Primary Debate In Iowa pt.1

Jason Tolbert on his blog made these comments:

The next couple of days will lead to major events in Iowa impacting the Republican 2012 Presidential race, including tonight’s Fox News debate and the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday. 

We have already seen Mitt Romney have an interesting “Corporations are people, my friend” moment with a heckler at the state fair, which sort of reminded me of Charlton Heston in Soylent Green.  Tomorrow, Sarah Palin will be making a surprise stop on her bus tour.  It is not completely clear exactly why – something about preferring fried butter-on-a-stick to peas.  Mike Huckabee will also be making the round airing his Fox News show live and playing the bass guitar at the booths of candidates that he likes.

Here is my take on how the events can affect the candidates from a right-leaning blogger located 600 miles away.  For insight from Iowa bloggers, I would recommend Iowa Independent and Iowa Republican.

Michelle Bachmann – Expectations for Bachmann are sky-high going down the stretch.  Since the last debate a couple of weeks ago, she has become the Iowa “non-Romney” front-runner.  Anything less than a first-place finish in the straw poll and a solid debate performance could burst her bubble.

Ron Paul – Mark my words, Paul will do well at the straw poll.  His supporters are die-hard and would walk through walls to vote for him.  The problem for Paul is that he shows no signs of being able to attract support from the other 80 to 90 percent of the party.  His supporters will have a big weekend, but it very well could be the high point of their campaign.

Tim Pawlenty – In my opinion, this weekend is “make-or-break” for Pawlenty.  He has completely fallen off the map in the last couple of months and a poor showing in Thursday’s debate and/or the straw poll will all but end his chances.  However, unlike Bachmann, the expectations for Pawlenty are very low.  A third place finish could be a glimmer of hope that keeps him alive for another day, but anything less and he really ought to drop out.

Breakout candidates – There is a chance for a long list of candidates to surprise folks with a strong showing.  Rick Santorum probably stands the best chance of doing this as he appeals to the socially conservative Iowa Republican voter.  Herman Cain could get a small boost from the FairTax group, although they are not providing him anywhere close to the support they provided Huckabee four years ago.  Newt Gingrich could also surprise people, but I doubt it.  I have not figured out why he is still running.

Mitt Romney – Romney is still the national frontrunner, but is making the conscious decision to ignore Iowa.  After tonight’s debate, he is leaving Iowa and heading to New Hampshire.  Iowans do not like to be ignored and he will probably pay the price at the straw poll

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 9)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 9)

Will Rogers has a great quote that I love. He noted, “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago”(Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 20.)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011

Washington, D.C., Aug 1 

Tonight, I voted against the Budget Control Act. It leaves real cuts in federal spending to another day. We don’t need congressional super committees and triggers to do the heavy lifting for which Members of Congress were elected.

_______________________________

Nunes favored the bill below:

Cut, Cap and Balance Statement
Debt Limit Plan

Washington, Jul 20 – Congressman Nunes issued the following statement on passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act:

“The Cut, Cap and Balance Act is not a perfect bill but it is certainly one that under any other circumstance would have garnered the unanimous support of conservatives across America. It contains a spending cap that would inoculate us against spending excess, while forcing budget reforms to ensure the federal government lives within its means. Leading up to the debate, I joined critics who desired more immediate spending reforms, including to our nation’s entitlements, and sought to have those reforms included. However, I ultimately sided with 233 of my Republican colleagues in supporting Cut, Cap and Balance recognizing the debate is not over. The bill will be considered in the Senate on Saturday.”

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”

E P I S O D E 8

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min

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, Seurat): appearance and reality.

1. Problem of reality in Impressionism: no universal.

2. Post-Impression seeks the universal behind appearances.

3. Painting expresses an idea in its own terms as a work of art; to discuss the idea in a painting is not to intellectualize art.

4. Parallel search for universal in art and philosophy; Cézanne.

B. Fragmentation.

1. Extremes of ultra-naturalism or abstraction: Wassily Kandinsky.

2. Picasso leads choice for abstraction: relevance of this choice.

3. Failure of Picasso (like Sartre, and for similar reasons) to be fully consistent with his choice.

C. Retreat to absurdity.

1. Dada , and Marcel Duchamp: art as absurd.

2. Art followed philosophy but came sooner to logical end.

3. Chance in his art technique as an art theory impossible to practice: Pollock.

II. Music As a Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Non-resolution and fragmentation: German and French streams.

1. Influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets.

2. Direction and influence of Debussy.

3. Schoenberg’s non-resolution; contrast with Bach.

4. Stockhausen: electronic music and concern with the element of change.

B. Cage: a case study in confusion.

1. Deliberate chance and confusion in Cage’s music.

2. Cage’s inability to live the philosophy of his music.

C. Contrast of music-by-chance and the world around us.

1. Inconsistency of indulging in expression of chaos when we acknowledge order for practical matters like airplane design.

2. Art as anti-art when it is mere intellectual statement, divorced from reality of who people are and the fullness of what the universe is.

III. General Culture As the Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Propagation of idea of fragmentation in literature.

1. Effect of Eliot’s Wasteland and Picasso’s Demoiselles d’ Avignon

compared; the drift of general culture.

2. Eliot’s change in his form of writing when he became a Christian.

3. Philosophic popularization by novel: Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir.

 

B. Cinema as advanced medium of philosophy.

1. Cinema in the 1960s used to express Man’s destruction: e.g. Blow-up.

2. Cinema and the leap into fantasy:

The Hour of the Wolf, Belle de Jour, Juliet of the Spirits, The Last Year at Marienbad.

3. Bergman’s inability to live out his philosophy (see Cage): Silence and The Hour of the Wolf.

IV. Only on Christian Base Can Reality Be Faced Squarely

Questions

1. Explain what “fragmentation” means, as discussed by Dr. Schaeffer. What does it result from? Give examples of it.

2. Apart from the fact that modern printing and recording processes made the art and music of the past more accessible than ever before, do you think that the preference of many people for the art and music of the past is related to the matters discussed by Dr. Schaeffer? If so, how?

3. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds… With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” Emerson wrote this over a century ago. Debate.

4. How far do you think that the opinion of some Christians that one should have nothing to do with philosophy, art and novels is a manifestation of the very fragmentation which is characteristic of modern secular thought? Discuss.

Key Events and Persons

Beethoven’s last Quartets: 1825-26

Claude Monet: 1840-1926

Poplars at Giverny, Sunrise: 1885

Paul Cézanne: 1839-1906

The Bathers: c.1905

Claude Debussy: 1862-1918

Wassily Kandinsky: 1866-1944

Arnold Schoenberg: 1874-1951

Picasso: 1881-1973

Les Demoiselles d’Avignon: 1906-7

Marcel Duchamp: 1887-1969

Nude Descending a Staircase: 1912

T.S. Eliot: 1888-1965

The Wasteland: 1922

John Cage: 1912-1992

Music for Marcel Duchamp: 1947

Jackson Pollock: 1912-1956

Karlheinz Stockhausen: 1928-

Sartre’s Nausea: 1938

Beauvoir’s L’Invitée: 1943

Camus’ The Stranger: 1942

Camus’ The Plague: 1947

Resnais’ The Last Year at Marienbad: 1961

Bergman’s The Silence: 1963

Fellini’s Juliet of the Spirits: 1965

Antonioni’s Blow-Up: 1966

Bergman’s The Hour of the Wolf: 1967

Buñel’s Belle de Jour: 1967

Further Study

Perhaps you have seen some of the films mentioned. You should try to see them if you haven’t.Watch for them in local art-film festivals, on TV, or in campus film series. They rarely return nowadays to the commercial circuit. The sex and violence which they treated philosophically have now taken over the screen in a more popular and crude form! Easier of access are the philosophic novels of Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir. Read the titles Dr. Schaeffer mentions. Again, for the artwork and music mentioned, consult libraries and record shops. But spend time here—let the visual images and the musical sounds sink in.

Listening patiently to Cage and Webern, for example, will tell you more than volumes of musicology.

T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland (many editions, usually in collections of his verse).

Joseph Machlis, Introduction to Contemporary Music (1961).

H.R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (1970).

Donald J. Drew, Images of Man (1974).

Colin Wilson, The Outsider (1956).

What is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrade? (Part 1)

moore

Movie Clip Canadian Bacon Prt 1

What is the cause of the U.S. credit downgrade? (Part 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

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

GOPers Romney, Bachmann, Huntsman, Santorum blame President Obama on S&P credit downgrade

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Saturday, August 6th 2011, 12:10 PM

The GOP‘s cadre of anti-Obama presidential candidates are hammering their nemesis for the first credit downgrade in U.S. history.Late Friday night, following months of bruising, rancorous debate in Washington over the debt ceiling and America’s future deficit, the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s sterling AAA credit rating to AA+. The other two major ratings agencies — Moody’sand Fitch — maintained the nation’s AAA rating.”America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama‘s failed record of leadership on the economy,” said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a statement.

“Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade is a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama. His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating.”

The Obama administration slammed the credibility of the analysis S&P used to downgrade the nation’s credit rating, insisting there was a $2 trillion error in S&P’s calculations. The ratings agency conceded the error, but did not alter its conclusion.

Tea Party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann — who voted against the debt-ceiling deal — also laid into Obama, declaring that the “President has destroyed the credit rating of the United States.”

She even went as far as calling for the resignation of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman described the downgrade as a result of a “lack of leadership in Washington,” adding that “for far too long we have let reckless government spending go unchecked and the cancerous debt afflicting our nation has spread.”

And ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum blamed Obama for not taking more responsibility.

“I understand the U.S. Treasury is going back to Standard and Poor’s to say that a two trillion dollar mathematical error by S&P contributed to the downgrade,” he said. “So, in addition to blaming President Bush for all of its problems, now the White Houseis blaming S&P – but this happened on the President’s watch – and he has to deal with it.”

 

Can Bill Halter beat Representative Tim Griffin?

With President Obama on the top of the ticket in 2012, I just don’t think that Bill Halter can beat Representative Tim Griffin. Red Arkansas seems to agree with me:

Today we consider Bill Halter, the former Lt. Governor of Arkansas who has a slightly creepy relationship with an old guy wearing polyester Bike coaching shorts and has instilled much love from such Arkansas Democratic luminaries as Marion Berry, Dustin McDaniel, Mike Beebe, Mike Ross and Keith Ingram.

You see, Mr. Halter has caused two looney leftie bloggers to get all ver clempt over the mishegoss that he might unseat Rep. Tim Griffin in 2012.

To wit, we offer the pie in the sky ramblings of the Blue Arkansas Blog:

I don’t see why a strong Democrat couldn’t run a competitive race outside of Pulaski and into Perry, Van Buren, Conway, and even Faulkner.  Halter would be that sort of Democrat for sure, and with the kind of fundraising he could manage and grassroots excitement he could generate he would definitely be a major threat to Tim Griffin.

We’d like to offer a slight edit to BAB’s post by changing the phrase “grassroots excitement” to “union-financed smurfturfing.” Furthermore, we’d also like to point out the following 2010 AR-02 election results from “Perry, Van Buren, Conway, and even Faulkner” counties:

We guess Joyce Elliott would not be considered a “strong Democrat” by the BABlers. That’s got to sting a little bit.

Now we move on to the left-headed stepchild at non-content partner Talk Business, former Halter staffer Michael Cook. Mr. Cook writes that “Bill Halter can beat Tim Griffin,” adding:

I’m told by multiple sources, outside of the Halter camp, that recent polling shows Griffin is beatable and weaker than many realize.

Of course, the new go-to liberal blogger for DPA (read: consultant) oppo-dumps and talking points offers no proof to back his claim. (Hey, didn’t he moan about a similar lack of proof recently?)

Mr. Cook also spins a creative story as to how “ticket-splitting is ingrained in our political culture.” He cites the following examples as proof:

In 2004, John Kerry lost the 2nd Congressional District, but Vic Snyder cruised to victory over a well-funded opponent.  In 2002, Arkansans voted out Republican U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson, but re-elected Republican Governor Mike Huckabee. In 2000, Al Gore lost Arkansas, but Mike Ross defeated Republican Congressman Jay Dickey for Congress.

Funny how that, according to Mr. Cook’s view, the only ticket-splitting occurs when Republicans are on the top of the ticket. We’ll put the fact that Mr. Beebe won the Second District 66%-32% while Mr. Griffin won 58%-38% out of our minds then. (BTW, it sure looks to us that there were a few Democrats who dared to stray from Da Guv–no telling what they’d do when Da O is atop the ballot.)

Shall we deconstruct in chronological order?

  • 2000: While Al Gore lost Arkansas, he won AR-04.
  • 2002: Do we really need to get into Tim Hutchinson’s marital issues and that Mark Pryor traded on his daddy’s name?
  • 2004: Vic Snyder raised $891,220. Marvin Parks raised $576,854. (By comparison, Mr. Griffin raised $1,855,578 in 2010.)

That was fun.

Since Mr. Cook likes to toss out info with nothing sourced, we’d like to follow suit by adding that–according something we heard from some guy–Mr. Halter’s “big donors” indicate that he may take a pass.

We’re not real sure if that is in reference to local donors or if it means Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO will not be spending another $4.5 million in independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. Halter like they did in 2010.

Cutting spending is the way to balance the budget despite what liberals say

President Obama really believes that we must raise taxes in order to balance the budget. Nevertheless, conservatives argue that the bloated federal spending should come down to a level where he can balance the budget. Take a look at the excellent article “Unbalanced,” by Michael D. Tanner 

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.

Added to cato.org on August 10, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 10, 2011

During his brief media appearance on Monday responding to S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and the subsequent stark market plunge, Pres. Barack Obama once again renewed his call for a “balanced approach” to debt reduction, combining modest entitlement reform with tax increases. This was the same formulation repeated endlessly by the president, Democrats in Congress, and much of the media throughout the recent negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.

But beyond raw ideology, there is no reason to believe that coupling tax hikes with spending cuts would solve our debt problems.

President Obama usually couches his call for tax hikes in terms of fairness. How, he asks, can we cut programs that help people without also asking the wealthy to “sacrifice” something as well? Setting aside the fact that this formulation establishes a false moral equivalence between giving less to people who have not earned it and taking more from the people who have, this ignores the fact that the wealthy in America already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.

The richest 1 percent of Americans earn 20 percent of all income in America but pay 38 percent of income taxes. The top 5 percent earn slightly more than one-third of U.S. income while paying nearly 59 percent of income taxes. At the same time, roughly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. One might suggest, therefore, that the wealthy already pay their fair share, and then some.

Of course other taxes, such as payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and the like, tend to be more regressive. But even if you include all types of federal, state, and local taxes, the wealthy pay a considerably higher proportion of taxes than their share of income would warrant.

Others less prone to moral posturing argue for including tax hikes along with spending reductions on the grounds that it is “impossible to balance the budget through cuts alone.” But the evidence strongly suggests that cutting spending alone may be the only way to really balance the budget. Indeed, by including tax hikes, we slow economic growth, thereby making it harder to balance the budget.

Simply look to those European countries today that have adopted such a “balanced” approach to debt reduction. Britain, Greece, Portugal, and Spain have all included major tax hikes as part of their austerity packages. The result across the board has been anemic economic growth and scant progress toward debt reduction. Britain, for instance, imposed a new 50 percent top income-tax rate, hiked the capital-gains tax rate from 18 percent to 28 percent, and increased the VAT rate from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. The result: During the first quarter of 2011, the British economy grew at just 0.5 percent, barely enough to offset the 0.5 percent decline during the last quarter of 2010.

Paul Krugman and others have argued that it was the spending cuts, not the tax hikes, that slowed economic growth. Others more plausibly have suggested that the continuing shocks that are buffeting the world economic system have reduced economic growth generally and made it difficult to judge the effectiveness of any particular policy or group of policies.

But the body of evidence from outside the current economic crisis tends to confirm the hypothesis that additional taxes would slow economic growth, making it harder to reduce the debt. For example, a study by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna looked at more than 100 debt-reduction efforts in 21 countries between 1970 and 2007. They found that a combination of spending cuts and revenue reductions was actually more likely to result in debt reduction than a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.

History shows us that countries as divergent as Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovenia successfully reduced the size of their governments relative to their economies and lowered their debt burden substantially. They did so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes.

In this country, look to the end of World War II. The U.S. government cut spending by nearly two-thirds, from $84 billion in 1945 to just $39 billion in 1946. While the country ran a budget deficit of nearly 21 percent of GDP in 1945, it was running a surplus by 1947. At the time, many economists predicted that cuts of that magnitude would destroy the U.S. economy and bring about Depression-era levels of unemployment. Instead, civilian employment actually grew, and an era of economic expansion began that would last throughout the 1950s.

All this implies that we should find a way to cut spending. And that brings us back to President Obama’s press briefing. At the end of his remarks, the president once again laid out his plans for the future, and called for more spending: more spending on education, more spending on unemployment insurance, more spending for an infrastructure bank, more, more, more.

Perhaps that, and not a mythical “balance,” is what really lies behind his calls for higher taxes.

Congress fails to deal with spending problem as we head to Greece

Steve Brawner in his article, “Congress’ failure not just the debt ceiling,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 10, 2011 noted:

And now, an embarrassing debt ceiling debate that resulted in our country losing its sterling credit rating while China justifiably wagged its finger in our direction. It’s time for voters to get their pink slips ready.

It was embarrassing because THERE ARE NO MEANINGFUL CUTS IN THIS DEBT DEAL. THIS MEANS WE WILL BE WHERE GREECE IS NOW IN A FEW YEARS!!!! If nothing is done about entitlements then federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the Baby Boom generation is fully retired. In 2001 it was 18.2% and currently it has risen to about 25%.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly noted:

The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

Take a look at this excellent article:m “The Next Greece” by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a think-tank based in Washington.

Added to cato.org on August 4, 2011

This article appeared in National Poston August 4, 2011.

America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the Baby Boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. The United States is now in its third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation’s US$14.3-trillion debt limit.

But it wasn’t easy getting there. Just as happened with the “government shutdown” debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than US$900billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a “super-committee” charged with proposing another US$1.5-trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favourite programs and created a super-committee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here’s why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their Tea Party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn’t matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the super-committee must use the “current law” baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the super-committee therefore can’t use repeal of the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here’s why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than US$100-billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defence spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the classwarfare crowd that there’s an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other “rich” people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its US$1.5-trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a super-committee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the highdollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

Tea Party representatives claim debt deal responsible for downgrade because it did not cut enough (Part 2, Tom Cotton weighs in)

The Tea Party members in the Republican Party voted against the debt deal and have even claimed that the debt deal did not cut enough out of the budget and that is why the USA got a downgrade in the  credit rating. Below I have the comments on the downgrade from two of those representatives.

First, I want to call attention to one of our local candidates. Yesterday Tom Cotton who is a Republican who is running for the congressional seat being vacated by Democrat Mike Ross commented on the debt deal. Here is a portion of the article concerning that by Jason Tolbert:

Tom Cotton, who is currently the only announced candidate for the Fourth Congressional District open seat for either party, appeared on KARN’s Dave Elswick show yesterday afternoon where he answered questions from listeners for over an hour

Responding to one question, he said he would not have voted for the final legislation voted on last week regarding the compromise to extend the debt ceiling while making around $2.3 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.  All four Arkansas Representatives and both Senators voted for the final bill.

Cotton explained that he would have supported the Cut, Cap, and Balance proposal passed by House Republicans before being defeated in the Senate, but that he had serious concerns over the details of the final debt compromise and could not have vote for it.  He pointed to the many closed-door, back-room meetings that went into the bill and said he would want to see a more transparent process.  In addition, he said the structure of the spending cut triggers have the potential to cause too many cuts to defense spending that could weaken our military.

Cotton said if he is elected, he would want to see not only spending cuts, but structural changes to the way the federal budgets are implemented.

Congressman Landry Statement on S&P Downgrade

Millard Mulé
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) issued the following statement after Standard & Poor’s (S&P) lowered the United States’ long-term credit rating:

“It should come as no surprise, that after Washington has recklessly spent, borrowed, and bailed out everything under the sun with taxpayer money, America’s credit rating has been downgraded. For the first time in 70 years, the United States is not the world leader in financial investment. And with the S&P slashing our credit rating from AAA to AA+, our markets are sure to be tested and our neighbors could face interest rate changes to their mortgages, credit cards, and car loans.

As I said when I voted against it and the S&P acknowledged when they made the downgrade, the Washington debt deal initiated by the Senate and signed into law by the President did not do enough to end the government’s addiction to spending. It is evident that Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats were wrong and should have followed the House’s lead with Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Making deals to continue kicking the can down the road is not the answer. We need a plan that cuts spending, simplifies and decreases the tax rates, reforms entitlement programs, and sends a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states; anything less will not solve the real budgetary problems Washington faces nor return our AAA rating.”

August 5, 2011

Congressman Huelskamp: S&P Downgrade Embarrassing, But Certainly Preventable

Says Lawmakers Ignored S&P’s Wake-Up Call

(DODGE CITY, KAN.) – Congressman Tim Huelskamp issued the following statement when Standard & Poor’s announced Friday evening that it had decided to downgrade the United States’ AAA credit rating:

In April, I said that the threat of downgrade should be a ‘wake-up call’, but unfortunately not everyone agreed,” Congressman Huelskamp said. “Now, the decision of the majority of Washington to hit the snooze button on Standard & Poor’s alarm will have major ramifications not just for Washington, but for the entire economy.”

“S&P gave Washington plenty of warning that lawmakers needed to deal with the debt, yet the warning went unheeded. Big spenders in Washington decided to interpret the markets’ warnings as an instruction to borrow more when instead the markets wanted Washington to stop the reckless borrowing and unchecked accumulation of debt.”

“This is embarrassing, but it certainly was preventable. Washington has known all along that markets needed a strong solution to deal with the country’s long-term spending and borrowing habits. The ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ Act was just such a plan with appropriate short-term cuts and caps on future spending the rating agencies said were needed. Yet, Washington produced a politically-expedient plan that was an insufficient answer to the real problem, a plan that tackled the need to borrow, but ignored the even greater need to reduce spending.”