Yearly Archives: 2011

President Obama still loves big government policies but our problem is the overspending.

President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits again and he would love to spend more money, but he says they are not “big government proposals.” He still does not get it. It is the spending and we will not always be a triple A country if we keep spending like this.

Rory Cooper

August 8, 2011 at 10:42 am

On Friday evening, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+. As we and other conservatives warned, the spending reductions in the deal negotiated by President Obama to raise the debt ceiling were inadequate, and S&P reacted as we predicted but sooner. Neither Moody’s nor Fitch, two other rating agencies, have downgraded federal debt yet, but they are not providing much rosier outlooks.

Decades of over-spending and over-borrowing by the federal government have damaged America’s creditworthiness. Congress after Congress, President after President, the federal government spent every penny it took in—and borrowed over $14 trillion on top of that—to try to keep happy the voters to whom the government made promises it could not afford. The government kept shifting the burden of paying the bills forward onto future generations.

Well, the future has arrived, and it is bleak. Our economy is weak, millions of Americans are out of work, and America is so deep in debt that we have lost our good credit rating. Our nation needs to drive federal spending, including our ever-growing entitlement programs, down toward a balanced budget while maintaining our ability to protect America and without raising taxes. That is the sound path forward to a stronger economy with smaller government and more real jobs.

The White House’s first reaction to this news was to blame S&P itself, claiming that their math was wrong as spokesmen pointed out S&P’s past rating failures. Correcting the math didn’t correct the problem, however, and so S&P went ahead with its downgrade. Debating S&P’s credibility misses the more important point, which is there for all to see: Projected deficit spending properly raises questions about U.S. credit quality.

We cannot waste time shooting the messenger when the message itself is impossible to ignore: It’s the spending.

Unsustainable entitlement programs have been built up over many Congresses and Presidents. Elected officials from both parties over many decades helped push us closer to this point. But the last chance to start correcting the problem before damage to America’s credit occurred was during the recent debate over the debt limit.

Regrettably, President Obama and the Senate liberals refused to allow reforms to any entitlement programs and refused to make significant cuts in other federal spending unless they could raise taxes on America. Conservatives rightly resisted increasing taxes, which is a recipe for economic disaster during an economic slowdown. The resulting deal on the Budget Control Act brought little in the way of spending cuts and lots in the way of increased borrowing, and it was the last straw that cost America its top credit rating. President Obama and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill brought America’s credit down

The White House claims that its tax-hike centered “grand bargain” would have prevented a downgrade, yet they still have not told us what was in that “bargain.” Even as Senate Democrats are nearing three years without a budget, President Obama has offered to the American people rhetoric and class warfare, rather than solutions and responsible leadership.

Other liberals went out of their way this weekend to blame this downgrade on the Tea Party, with Senator John Kerry (D–MA) going as far as calling it the “Tea Party downgrade“ on NBC’s Meet the Press. Former Obama advisor David Axelrod echoed that coordinated spin on Face the Nation. Besides proclaiming for all to see that the liberals have no solutions themselves, this argument ignores the facts.

The Tea Party’s primary focus is our nation’s fiscal health. If it were not for the Tea Party’s positive influence, Congress would still be spending, taxing, and borrowing with little regard for the burden it is placing on future generations. Only months ago, President Obama was demanding a so-called “clean” debt limit increase that would allow him to keep on borrowing without any cuts to spending.

As our colleague J. D. Foster points out in his expert analysis of Friday’s downgrade, the debate over the debt limit was the substantive ideas of the conservatives versus empty political rhetoric of liberals:

In the course of negotiations on the debt ceiling, congressional Republicans tried tirelessly to get the President and Senate Democrats to get serious about cutting spending. All Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) could do was carp about symbolic tax hikes on the rich, oil companies, and their latest silly affection—corporate jets. To be clear, despite the perilous state of the nation’s finances, the President’s sole objective was ideological and symbolic: Even if Republicans had caved on tax hikes, which they wisely refused to do, the revenue gains would have been inconsequential compared to the spending cuts that are necessary. The President played politics while the nation’s credit rating was set to burn, and now it has.

President Obama, congressional liberals, and their allies believe that if we remain silent on our fiscal future, then markets and credit agencies will not notice our perilous future. Thus we heard from liberal pundits and politicians who called the debt debate a “manufactured crisis”—as if everything would be fine with more blank checks. The problem of federal over-borrowing and over-spending was and is real, as the credit downgrade and market reactions reflect. Congress and the President must fix the problem and fix it now.

Liberals this week will try to equate revenue increases with tax hikes. But that is simply not factual. Government revenues increase when we have greater economic growth and more taxpayers in the workforce. That economic growth is impossible with job-killing tax hikes and increased regulation. Raising taxes on taxpayers earning $250,000 or more hits entrepreneurs, small business owners, and investors, thus slowing economic growth still further.

In the next 10 years, once the economy recovers, revenue will rapidly approach and will likely surpass its historical average of 18.5 percent of GDP, while spending is projected to shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent to 26.4 percent of GDP. Government spending will have increased by 22 percent just on President Obama’s watch.

Yet some liberals were still calling for more debt and deficits this weekend in the name of new “stimulus.” On Friday evening, Obama’s former economic advisor Christina Romer said the first failed stimulus she helped design should have been bigger and argued for a new and larger stimulus saying: “What I want is more now.”

That is, more of what President Obama has given us in the past—fruitless new spending programs. This would give us a bigger problem, not a solution. With America and the world in the grips of an economic slowdown, we need action to create economic growth and jobs and restore America’s credit. We do not need more government.

As dire is the domestic situation, as Foster notes, the consequences for the global financial crisis may be worse:

In today’s global economy, however, the U.S. credit rating downgrade may prove catastrophic. Prior to the credit rating downgrade, Europe was already teetering on the brink. Last week European stock exchanges plunged 10 percent, their worst weekly losses since November 2008. The long-building government debt crisis in Europe, which had been so unsuccessfully papered over just a few weeks ago by its leaders, is reaching the boiling point, threatening to wash over not just the worst offenders like Greece and Portugal but also some of the pillars of the European Union like Spain and Italy.

We cannot improve domestic or global economic conditions by becoming more like Europe. America can do better by adopting better ideas.

Heritage has offered its fiscal plan, “Saving the American Dream,” which would balance the budget in 10 years and lower our debt-to-GDP ratio to 30 percent (from the 100 percent it reached last week). It would accomplish this through responsible reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code.

As Foster concludes:

A number of sound incremental reforms can garner strong bipartisan support and can substantially improve these program’s sustainability and the nation’s finances. The President must lead his party to join hands with Republicans in the joint select committee to embrace these reforms and be ready to enact them, saving far more than $1.2 trillion and far sooner than November 23. The objective for the nation, the President, and the joint select committee is clear: drive down spending—including and especially on entitlement programs—toward a balanced budget while protecting America and without raising taxes. Properly done, this would lead to economic growth, more jobs, less government, and a restoration of the nation’s credit rating. It can be done.

It can be done.

Brummett: Across-the-board spending cuts will not work

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 
By Michael Ramirez – July 28, 2011
_________________
John Brummett in his article, “Neither trickle-down or tax-and-spend,” Arkansas News Bureau, August, 8, 2011, asserted, “…simple and non-strategic across-the-board spending cuts could well push an economy from idle to reverse.”
 
I disagree because our problem is overspending. We need to dramatically cut back on our spending. 100 years ago the federal government spent less than 3% every year unless it was during war time. In fact, it had been that way since the founding of our nation. Then why do we think it would crush our nation to reverse our spending trend?
 
If we do not start balancing our budget soon then we will be where Greece is in a few years. Take a look at this video and article below.

What Are the Consequences of the Downgrade?

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Even though I predicted it had to happen at some point because of the Bush-Obama spending binge and America’s giant long-run entitlement crisis, I confess that I’m somewhat surprised that the United States has suffered a debt downgrade for the first time.

That being said, I don’t think the downgrade will matter. Everyone knew the U.S. was heading in the wrong direction before the announcement by Standard & Poor. Moreover, big investors have very few attractive options for where to place their money – thanks to a weak global economy. As such, I suspect the federal government will still be able to borrow money at very low rates.

What does matter, however, is that the American economy is burdened with a bloated public sector that is sapping the nation’s economic vitality. And this problem will get worse every year because of a toxic combination of poorly designed entitlement programs and demographic change.

As the government gets bigger, this hinders growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. The damage is then compounded by the fact that the two main ways of financing the public sector – taxes and borrowing – both have additional adverse economic consequences.

In other words, the United States has fiscal cancer. Yet rather than try to cure the disease, politicians are – at best – kicking the can down the road.

The only glimmer of hope, as I wrote yesterday, is that House Republicans have made serious efforts to restrain the burden of federal spending.

Downgrade of US credit rating because of growing spending

This clip above and the article below really helped my understanding of the issue.

What’s Next After the S&P Downgrade

by Jagadeesh Gokhale

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).

Added to cato.org on August 8, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on August 8, 2011

What now, in the wake of Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt?

Well, the real answer is: nothing much.

Though the agency’s downgrade is being reported apocalyptically by news media — and had a corresponding effect on markets early Monday — the fact is that the S&P rating should be treated as but one datum in a vast sea of information about the financial sector and the overall economy.

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, member of the Social Security Advisory Board, and author of Social Security: A Fresh Look at Policy Options University of Chicago Press (2010).

 

More by Jagadeesh Gokhale

S&P is only one of three major agencies whose credit ratings are widely used by individual and institutional investors to set their asset portfolios. Despite S&P’s downgrade, the other two major ratings agencies — Moody’s and Fitch — affirmed their AAA rating of U.S. Treasury bonds.

S&P’s own suggested interpretation is that ratings are “one of several tools that investors can use when making decisions about purchasing bonds and other fixed income investments.” Indeed, S&P’s language here hints at a double standard: it issues the ratings, but then describes them as not very useful — suggesting a desire on the part of S&P to evade accountability when their ratings turn out to be misleading, as happened with mortgage-backed securities during the recent recession.

S&P’s ratings measure “relative risk,” informing investors about whether one financial asset is more (or less) likely to default compared to another. Thus, with the recent downgrade, U.S. Treasuries are now more risky than the sovereign debt of several other countries: Australia, Sweden, Canada and six others. However, none of those countries is large enough, with capital markets sufficiently deep or liquid, to replace U.S. Treasuries as the destination of choice for investors wishing to shield their capital from risks.

Moreover, because accruing federal revenues are considerably larger than federal debt service costs, the likelihood of an outright default on U.S. public debt remains remote. The only other way to default on U.S. Treasuries is through higher inflation — to erode the real value of federal debt, most of which is denoted in nominal (rather than inflation-adjusted) terms. The potential for rising inflation in the long-term remains high with banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, and regular private sector firms sitting on large hoards of liquid reserves. But the likelihood of an inflationary spiral in a sluggish economy with a high rate of unemployment appears to be very low. Therefore, a broad-based exit from U.S. Treasuries appears unlikely.

S&P says that its ratings do not amount to investment advice — to purchase, sell or hold particular financial instruments. They are simply one of many factors — such as companies’ business models, their revenue potentials, input costs, sector outlook, technologies in development, and so on — that should be considered when selecting financial investments. Indeed, this view was strongly emphasized by S&P and other ratings agencies after the financial sector collapse from exposure to sub-prime mortgages. Those loans were financially engineered to construct derivative financial assets — mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations — that were rated AAA, but which later failed spectacularly and still toxically infest many financial institutions’ portfolios.

That episode has cast considerable doubt upon the ability and reliability of ratings agencies’ risk evaluation methods. By S&P’s own admission, establishing ratings is not a science. Well, then: it must be an art at which the agencies have proved particularly inept. The $2 trillion error in S&P’s projections of U.S. federal debt — an error S&P admitted — is clear evidence that these agencies are unworthy of worship on a pedestal.

Finally, the ratings downgrade provides no new information about the fiscal condition of the U.S. federal government. Our aging population — increasing longevity, and the retirement of 76 million baby boomers — will boost government spending on entitlement benefits unless those programs are reformed to cut costs. Politicians’ unwillingness to reform them is well known. And it just happened again, as Congress and President Obama settled on a small budget deal that’s likely to leave the government’s finances in a deeper hole by the end of the decade. Investors and others knew it as soon as the budget deal was announced, as indicated by the almost universally negative market commentary on the adequacy of the deal. The recent market decline must be interpreted as a clear response to the disappointing outcome.

The S&P ratings downgrade only rubber-stamps the negative outlook on the federal government’s finances that markets have already expressed. This ratings downgrade, by itself, is unlikely to make much additional difference to market outcomes in the short term; markets had clearly decided on their own not to rely too much on S&P’s rating of U.S. Treasuries.

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 6)

 

Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 and he died November 16, 2006. I started posting tributes of him on July 31 and I hope to continue them until his 100th birthday.

Remembering Rose

By Kahryn Rombach

Rose Friedman was once described as “equal parts velvet and steel.” At once her husband’s wife and colleague, Rose was never the great woman behind a great man. She noted in a 1999 interview that “I’ve always felt that I’m responsible for at least half of what he’s gotten.”  From co-authoring three of his most influential works to providing the impetus for such ambitious projects as their television series and nonprofit foundation, Rose Director Friedman can rightfully be called Milton’s partner.

An influential economist in her own right, Rose greatly influenced Milton’s economic thought. “It was an extremely close intellectual fellowship, and she was not someone who got credit for things she didn’t do,” Milton’s student Gary Becker observes. “They discussed ideas constantly.” Another longtime friend of the couple remarks that, for Milton, Rose’s opinion was “the ultimate test.” Friedman eagerly sought his wife’s point of view when developing his own, and openly admitted that she was the only person who had ever won an argument with him. This intellectual equality rendered their professional collaboration a very natural one. Still, she said, “I was smart enough to know that he was smarter than me.” So while Milton focused his efforts on technical economics, Rose set out to bring their theory of freedom to the public.

PBS approached the couple about turning their co-written international best-seller “Free to Choose” into a television series. After convincing Milton to take on the project with her, Rose assumed the role of associate producer and was heavily involved in organizing the series, which achieved global success. Friends and relations also credit her with providing the inspiration for the Friedman Foundation. But while she is universally recognized as an expert economist with intelligence and drive, Rose is also remembered for the grace with which she balanced her roles as colleague and wife.

“She was a great lady, in every sense of the word,” an acquaintance recalls. Outspoken yet polite, patient yet uncompromising, Rose stepped confidently — never aggressively — into her husband’s spotlight and quickly bowed out again when appropriate. She complemented Milton, earning the admiration of her peers and setting a tremendous example of feminine strength, courage and love.

These virtues helped to sustain the Friedmans through an arduous fight for freedom. When they entered academia, the field was virtually void of principled conservatives. Their work reintroduced classical liberalism as a valid and critically important body of thought with the power to revolutionize society as well as the academy. Milton and Rose changed the world together, leaving a legacy that will flourish for generations to come.

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5)

Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto

 

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5)

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.

Rep. Quayle Votes No on Final Debt Ceiling Deal

Monday August 01, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Richard Cullen

202-225-3361

WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) released the following statement Monday after voting against the amended Budget Control Act:  

 “Last week I voted for the Boehner plan because— while imperfect—it made adequate strides to get our fiscal House in order. The final debt-ceiling bill, however, goes in a direction that I cannot support. Due to the design of the bill’s trigger mechanism, I am concerned that President Obama will be able to use the threat of tax hikes and drastic defense cuts to continue to amass record levels of spending.

 “Though I didn’t support today’s bill, I want to commend Speaker Boehner and the House Republican Leadership for changing the culture in Washington and compelling Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to finally recognize how central America’s debt problem truly is.

 “On another note, it was a very special moment seeing Congresswoman Gabby Giffords cast her vote on the House Floor tonight. Both sides of the aisle greeted her with a loud standing ovation. It was a nice way to end what has been a very tense few days in the House.”

 

###

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation”

How Should We Then Live 4-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature. 3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.” What a great difference this made in the world!!!

E P I S O D E 4

T h e

REFORMATION

I. The Reformation as a Reaction Against Medieval Religious Distortions of the Biblical and Early Christian Church’s Teaching

A. Illustration from Luther.

B. Luther—German; Zwingli—Zürich; Thomas Cromwell—England; Calvin—Geneva.

C. Biblical view of salvation (grace only) and its effect on certain aspects of church construction.

D. Real meaning of destruction of artwork in Reformation.

E. The Reformation rejected.

1. Medieval distortion of Church’s having made its authority equal to the authority of the Bible.

2. Medieval distortion of Church’s having added human works to the finished work of Christ for salvation.

3. Medieval distortion introduced by Aquinas: mixture of biblical thinking and pagan thought.

F. Summary of humanistic influence in church.

1. Illustrated by Raphael’s School of Athens and Disputà.

2. Illustrated by Michelangelo’s making pagan prophetesses equal to Old Testament prophets in Sistine Chapel.

G. For William Farel and the other Reformers it was the Scriptures only.

1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel.

2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with God, but concerning the meaning of life and what is right and what is wrong, and concerning mankind and nature.

3. The people of the Reformation did not have humanism’s problem, because the Bible gives a unity between God—as the ultimate universal—and the individual things.

4. The Reformation was no golden age, but it did aspire to depend on the Bible in all of life.

II. The Reformation and the Arts

A. German Reformation music tradition peaks in Bach.

B. Significance of Cranach’s and Luther’s friendship.

C. Dürer’s identification with Luther evidenced in his diary; significance of his work.

D. Rembrandt’s paintings show that he understood that his sins had sent Christ to the cross, and that Christ is the Lord of all of life.

E. Point is not to romanticize Reformation art but refute view that reformation was either hostile to art and culture, or did not produce art and culture.

F.Wittenberg Gesangbuch , Geneva Psalter, and revival of congregational singing.

III. Comparison of Renaissance and Reformation.

Both sought freedom. In the South license resulted from lack of absolutes; in the North freedom lasted through absolutes.

Questions

1. Can you clearly differentiate between the key ideas of the Renaissance and the Reformation, respectively?

2. “The Reformation is simply the last gasp of medieval Christianity. Once exhausted, the truly modern and humane force of the Renaissance dominated the West.” Comment.

3. “As a man thinketh, so is he”—the renewed emphasis upon the Bible’s teaching in the Reformation had practical results. If some of these results are no longer common among us, how far may this be attributed to a de-emphasis upon biblical teaching today?

Key Events and Persons

Erasmus: c. 1466-1536

Dürer: 1471-1528

Lucas Cranach: 1472-1553

Martin Luther: 1483-1546

Farel: 1489-1565

Johann Walther: 1496-1570

Calvin: 1509-1564

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament: 1516

Luther’s 95 Thesis: 1517

Reform at Zürich: 1523

Wittenberg Gesangbuch: 1524

England breaks with Rome: 1534

Calvin’s Institutes: 1536

Geneva Psalter: 1562

Rembrandt: 1606-1669

Raising of the Cross: 1633

Bach: 1685-1750

US credit rating downgraded

U.S. Credit Rating Downgraded: Now They’ve Done It

By J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
August 6, 2011

Late on Friday, August 5, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) downgraded the United States credit rating from AAA, and really best in class, to AA+. In one fell swoop, S&P sent two separate and powerful messages. First, as The Heritage Foundation and many others warned, the spending reductions in the deal negotiated by President Obama to raise the debt ceiling were entirely and woefully inadequate. Second, the global economy, the national economy, and state finances have all in their own ways been delivered a mighty and frightening body blow.

A Lost Standard of Excellence

For decades past memory, United States government debt was deemed the gold standard of credit quality. Textbooks referred to U.S. Treasuries as the “riskless asset” against which all others were compared. Those days have passed, at least for now, because the U.S. government has rapidly piled debt upon debt and ,on its current trajectory, evidences no inclination to stop. Under the circumstances, without a fundamental policy course correction, a repeatedly threatened credit rating downgrade became inevitable, with only the timing at issue.

President Obama and his allies in and out of Congress do not deserve all the blame for the downgrade. Unaffordable entitlement programs were built up Congress after Congress, President after President, and their imposing fiscal dangers for the future were ignored thereafter. To his credit, President George W. Bush tried to reform the lesser problem of Social Security, spending virtually all the political capital acquired in his strong re-election in doing so, yet even many of his allies in Congress wanted no part of it. And so the basic facts regarding the tens of trillions in unfunded obligations in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid remain and are not in dispute.

While not solely to blame, President Obama and his allies are most certainly preeminently to blame. Facing a rapidly growing budget deficit in 2009, President Obama pushed through a massive fiscal stimulus program followed by a succession of lesser efforts. As the anemic state of the economy attests quite clearly, those programs failed miserably—except in raising federal spending and national debt.

Then the President pushed through his disastrous and highly unpopular health care reform. On paper, these reforms give the appearance of improving the fiscal picture modestly. But as the Medicare trustees’ report has reminded us every year after Obamacare’s passage, this happy picture is an illusion. Aside from the damage it has done and will do to health care costs and services, from a fiscal perspective Obamacare ultimately is just yet another unaffordable entitlement piled on top of those already on the books.

A Lost Opportunity

In the recent debt ceiling fight, the President’s initial view was that Congress should pass a “clean” debt ceiling, allow yet more borrowing, and attend to whatever deficit reduction might be possible later. The reaction by S&P demonstrates undeniably how wrong the President was. And the nation knew it. Rarely have the American people been more engaged in and more concerned about a matter of federal fiscal policy. Yet after ignoring his own high-profile if fatally flawed fiscal commission, and after offering a budget in January that was utterly silent on these critical issues, the President told the Congress: Don’t worry, be happy.

In the course of negotiations on the debt ceiling, congressional Republicans tried tirelessly to get the President and Senate Democrats to get serious about cutting spending. All Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) could do was carp about symbolic tax hikes on the rich, oil companies, and their latest silly affection—corporate jets. To be clear, despite the perilous state of the nation’s finances, the President’s sole objective was ideological and symbolic: Even if Republicans had caved on tax hikes, which they wisely refused to do, the revenue gains would have been inconsequential compared to the spending cuts that are necessary. The President played politics while the nation’s credit rating was set to burn, and now it has.

Whether the congressional Republican leadership should have forced deeper spending cuts before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling is now a settled question. S&P settled it. Whether they could have forced deeper spending cuts in the face of a politics-playing President and Senate dominated by spenders will never be known. But the nation will soon see the consequences.

Failure Has Consequences

Taken in isolation, a credit rating downgrade will eventually mean higher interest rates on U.S. government debt. This may be hard to imagine given the recent drop in Treasury bond rates in response to events overseas. But higher future rates are certain, and that means that even more federal tax dollars must be dedicated to paying the interest on past government excesses. Higher interest rates and interest cost means greater deficit pressures, which can mean more debt, which can lead to higher interest rates. This is why it is termed a debt spiral.

How will the credit rating downgrade of U.S. government debt affect the states and municipal governments’ interest costs? Nobody knows for sure, but it cannot be good. As a practical matter, U.S. government debt is the foundation of the U.S. financial system, as a point of reference if for no other reason. Interest rates paid by state and local government can only go up as a result of the downgrade, unwelcome news indeed to states wrestling with their own massive deficits due in part to the failure of the economy and state revenues to recover.

In today’s global economy, however, the U.S. credit rating downgrade may prove catastrophic. Prior to the credit rating downgrade, Europe was already teetering on the brink. Last week European stock exchanges plunged 10 percent, their worst weekly losses since November 2008. The long-building government debt crisis in Europe, which had been so unsuccessfully papered over just a few weeks ago by its leaders, is reaching the boiling point, threatening to wash over not just the worst offenders like Greece and Portugal but also some of the pillars of the European Union like Spain and Italy.

This is a European government debt problem on top of a European currency problem on top of a European economic growth problem. But the 2007–2009 financial crisis taught an important lesson about the intense interconnectedness of global financial markets—and that a great many of these connections are little known and poorly understood.

What happens in Europe will not stay in Europe. What weaknesses in global finance and financial supervision will this crisis reveal? No one knows, but what a terrible time for the dominant financial actor in the global financial system, the United States government, to suffer an entirely preventable credit rating downgrade. The dangers to the global economy, and specifically to the U.S. economy, have increased markedly as the U.S. credit rating has been marked down.

Perhaps the Last Opportunity That Must Not Be Lost

President Obama and the Congress have the time and opportunity to change the course of fiscal policy. The United States can recover its AAA credit rating and begin to heal the damage, but it must not delay. The debt ceiling deal included the provision for the creation of a joint select committee of Congress to cut at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Clearly, that figure is much too low. The committee was to report by November 23. Clearly, that is too late. In the eyes of many, the committee was designed to fail. That must not happen.

President Obama must now do things he has been loath to do heretofore. First, he must lead. No more grand speeches, nor more politicking, no more finger-pointing while criticizing those who oppose him. Above all, leading now means corralling his forces to reach across the aisle to Republicans and work together.

Second, he should give up the ideological fight for higher taxes on anyone. For one thing, even suggesting higher taxes when unemployment is so high and economic growth is so low suggests a man more committed to politics than jobs. As The Heritage Foundation suggested at the start of his term,[1]President Obama should suspend his desire for higher taxes at least until the economy has moved far toward full employment. The wisdom (or lack thereof) of higher taxes can be debated when Americans are back to work.

Finally, the President should forego his inclination to use entitlement reforms for political purposes. Scaring seniors about Social Security checks and related “Mediscare” tactics, which are basic elements of the Democratic party playbook, must stop. The problem is too much entitlement spending now and even more so in the near future. Republicans know it. Democrats know it. Conservatives know it. Liberals know it. The nation now knows it.

A number of sound incremental reforms can garner strong bipartisan support and can substantially improve these program’s sustainability and the nation’s finances. The President must lead his party to join hands with Republicans in the joint select committee to embrace these reforms and be ready to enact them, saving far more than $1.2 trillion and far sooner than November 23.

It Can Be Done

The objective for the nation, the President, and the joint select committee is clear: drive down spending—including and especially on entitlement programs—toward a balanced budget while protecting America and without raising taxes. Properly done, this would lead to economic growth, more jobs, less government, and a restoration of the nation’s credit rating. It can be done. The Heritage Foundation has described in detail how to do it in “Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.”[2]

J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


Arnold Schwarzenegger inches back after child disclosure

Arnold Schwarzenegger inches back after child disclosure

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks after being honored by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce at the annual convention of the American Chamber of Commerce Executives (ACCE), Thursday in Los Angeles. MARK J. TERRILL/AP Photo

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks after being honored by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce at the annual convention of the American Chamber of Commerce Executives (ACCE), Thursday in Los Angeles. MARK J. TERRILL/AP Photo

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD AP Political Writer
Published: 8/5/2011  1:56 PM
Last Modified: 8/5/2011  1:56 PM

LOS ANGELES — Arnold Schwarzenegger is making a comeback.

The former California governor on Thursday made his first speech in the state since confirming in May that he fathered an out-of-wedlock son, the latest sign he’s gradually maneuvering back into the public eye.

Once among the most public of men, Schwarzenegger has appeared in public only sporadically in recent months.

In the days after he split with wife Maria Shriver, he told his talent agency to postpone his movie projects. His Twitter account — once busy with posts and photos from afar — fell out of use. He hired a divorce lawyer, and the former Hollywood star known to crave the spotlight went into a self-imposed exile to sort out his family problems.

That’s been slowly changing.

He started tweeting again in late June when he traveled to his native Austria for an environmental conference, far from his troubles in the U.S. Last month, he announced he will return to acting with a starring role in the Lionsgate film “Last Stand.” Schwarzenegger will play a border-town sheriff who unwittingly finds himself battling a notorious drug kingpin on the run.

He never mentioned his marital problems in his appearance before a business group at a downtown hotel, or his admission of fathering his now-teenage son with the former maid, Mildred Baena. The crowd gave him a standing ovation, and applauded him warmly after he recounted how he teamed with business leaders to reform the state’s workers’ compensation laws.

He gave a glossy recounting of his uneven years in Sacramento, cherry-picking accomplishments such as redistricting reform and never mentioning that the state economy has struggled for years.

Sporting a deep tan, he joked that he was running for president in 2012 — of a bodybuilding association. Speaking for about ten minutes, the moderate Republican warned about the dangers of political gridlock, telling the group that partisan division was choking progress in California and Washington. “We have too many of the legislators that are too far to the right or too far to the left, and therefore nothing gets done,” he said.

The speech comes in the midst of his divorce, which is unfolding largely behind closed doors. Last month he withdrew a request for a judge to terminate Shriver’s right to spousal support, and he clarified that he is willing to pay his estranged wife’s attorney.

Once a popular governor, Schwarzenegger returns to the public stage with his image badly bruised. One poll taken after disclosures about the out-of-wedlock son and his split with Shriver found nine of 10 voters in his home county of Los Angeles didn’t like him.

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 4)

We Need a Balanced Budget!

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 4)

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.

Franks Votes Against Debt Ceiling Hike

 
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02), on the heels of his vote against the debt ceiling plan proposed yesterday, released the following statement, reiterating his remarks last night on the House floor emphasizing the vital importance of a Balanced Budget Amendment:
 
“It is simply undeniable at this point that Democrats do not grasp the threat posed by our perpetual deficit spending and ever-ballooning debt. Even as the debt ceiling has been raised yet again, Democrats, who claim to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, despite having opposed BOTH Balanced Budget Amendment proposals that passed the House, have again made certain to include numerous exceptions into the debt ceiling legislation, so that a Balanced Budget Amendment to permanently fix our deficit spending problem is not a requirement, but an option they can opt out of at a later date.
 
“Lip service to a balanced budget it no longer enough. All financial budgets will eventually balance. That includes the budget of the United States government. The question before our nation now is whether our budget will balance due to proactive work by those of us sent to fix the broken system in Washington, or by financial calamity due to the unwillingness of so many to stop a looming disaster when we had the opportunity to do so.”
 
###
 
Congressman Franks is serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he serves on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Congressman Franks is serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he serves on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

###

2435 Rayburn HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-4576


Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”

How Should We Then Live 3-1

I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970’s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, or humanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous…Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.” That is exactly where we are today in 2011. Just left with no final answers, but just wtih statistical averages.

E P I S O D E 3

T h e RENAISSANCE

I. The Art of the Renaissance Is One of Mankind’s Glories

A. The artists reflect their culture.

B. The artists often provide the way for the next step in culture.

1. Positive emphasis on nature in Giotto’s art.

2. Significance of work of Masaccio.

3. Perspective as a form of humanism.

4. Parallel and supportive developments in Low Countries. Van Eyck’s Adoration of the Lamb, the substitutionary work of the crucified and risen Christ. Also an example of landscape naturalism.

5. Dante’s life and work.

a) Following Aquinas, he mixed Christian and classical elements.

b) Dichotomy in Dante and other writers between sensual and idealized, spiritual love.

6. Brunelleschi’s architecture and the conquest of space.

7. Trend to autobiography and self-portraiture a mark of emphasis on Man.

C. Italian Renaissance music.

1. Invention of orchestration.

2. Invention of movable type for music.

II. Increased Drift Toward a Total Humanism

A. Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in a real world which God had made, orhumanism could take over with its emphasis on the individual things being autonomous.

B. The die was cast: Man tried to make himself independent, autonomous.

C. A growing humanism sees what preceded the Renaissance as the “Dark Ages.”

D. Idea of a “Dark Age” and a “rebirth” in Renaissance.

E. Aquinas had opened the door for that which is the problem of humanism.

1. Illustrated by Raphael’s fresco in the Vatican:

The School of Athens.

2. Humanism’s problem: What is the meaning of individual things, including Man, if there is no final thing to relate them to? And how do we know what is right or wrong if there is no absolute to give us certainty? Humanism ends with only statistical averages.

F. Fouguet’s Red Virgin as an example.

1. At first, only religious values seemed threatened.

2. But gradually the threat spread to all of knowledge and all of life.

G. Man as hero: Michelangelo’s Prisoners and David . Change in his later work, however.

H. Leonardo da Vinci and the dilemma of humanism.

1. Logical conclusion of humanism as perceived by Leonardo.

2. Final pessimism of Leonardo an expression of inevitable progression of humanism towards pessimism.

III. Christianity’s Answer to Humanism’s Problem

Questions

1. In what ways is this treatment of the Renaissance different from other treatments with which you are familiar?

2. Attitudes toward nature and Man seem to be crucial to understanding the Renaissance. How far were these attitudes Christian and how far non-Christian?

3. Can you see any parallels between the evolution of humanism in the Renaissance—from hopeful dawn to ominous sunset–and the changing outlook on human and world problems during your own lifetime?

Key Events and Persons

Dante: 1265-1321

The Divine Comedy: 1300-1321

Giotto: c. 1267-1337

Brunelleschi: 1377-1446

Jan van Eyck: 1380-1441

Masaccio: 1401-1428

Fouquet: 1416-1480

Duomo, Cathedral of Florence: 1434

Leonardo da Vinci: 1452-1519

Michelangelo: 1475-1564

Michelangelo’s David: 1504

Francis I of France: 1494-1547

Further Study

There are so many good picture books of Renaissance art and architecture that, rather than try to select one or two, I will simply urge the importance of consulting some. With profit, one might also listen to

Renaissance music, such as the selection in The Seraphim Guide to Renaissance Music.

J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, 2 vols. (1958).

Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography (1966).

E. Gorin, Italian Humanism (1966).

E. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology (1962).

Georgio Vasari, The Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 4 vols. (1963).

W.H.Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators (1963).