Yearly Archives: 2011

“There is no free lunch” said Milton Friedman (“Friedman Friday” Part 1)

“There is no free lunch” said Milton Friedman (“Friedman Friday” Part 1)

Today is the beginning of a new series I am starting:

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY APPEARS EVERY FRIDAY AND IS HONOR OF THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST MILTON FRIEDMAN.

Milton Friedman – The Free Lunch Myth

No Free Lunch, Now We have to Pay

January 23, 2011 by John Beagle

Milton Friedman held that the government’s role in the guidance of the economy should be restricted severely.

Taking over car companies is not restricted government economics from any sense of the concept. A health care program which will cost taxpayers dearly and continuing to expand all social programs cut into the economic freedoms of everyone  working.

We should be cutting programs that Milton says,  ’enslave those who are supposed to benefit from the very program that is supposed to help.’

Unions continue to hurt much more than they help. Unions have a bad name in our country. More on that here: Milton Friedman on Labor Unions.

For too long we have lived with improper spending. Living as if lunch were free.

“There is No Free Lunch”

– Milton Friedman

Countries taking ‘no heed’ of proven Friedman economic fiscally responsible theories are now suffering with huge cuts in social programs resulting in violent protests from an under-informed public. Irresponsible governments are defaulting on financial obligations and are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Where does that leave US in Friedman’s eyes?

Right now all we have are Milton Friedman approved ‘promises’ from newly elected conservative lawmakers. If congress puts together a budget this year, that would be a good first step. Last year the democrat controlled congress failed to put forth a budget for the first time in history. Never before has the house failed to pass a budget, yet that same congress passed huge spending bills without a financial forecasted budget.

The next step to being more Milton Friedman-like would be to honor federal spending cut promises.

Here are some highlights, thanks Daniel Foster for putting this list together:

– Reducing the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and eliminating automatic pay increases for the next five years.
– Eliminating all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion
– Privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion
– Prohibiting any funding of the implementation — or legal defense — of Obamacare.
– Cutting the federal travel budget in half. $7.5 billion annually
– Cutting the federal vehicle budget by 20 percent. $600 million annually
– Eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting subsidy. $445 million annually
– Eliminating Amtrak subsidies. $1.565 billion annually
– Repealing Title X Family Planning. $318 million annually
– Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act (which sets “prevailing wages” for workers on federal projects). $1 billion-plus annually
– Prohibiting taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years

Next, let states declare bankruptcy. Lawmakers are working on a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debt, including pensions promised to retired public workers. The New York Times reported on Friday that House Republicans, and senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue.

More cuts and bankruptcies are needed. It will be a painful catharsis. You can’t pay for this lunch with “lunch money”. You’re going to need allot more.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Free Markets, Milton Friedman | Leave a Comment »

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age”

The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part1)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 2)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 3)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 4)

Francis Shaeffer – The early church (part 5)

How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)

#02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer

10 Worldview and Truth

Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970’s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first.

Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward problems. We have many of these same problems today in the USA.

The late Francis Schaeffer wrote of the significance of one’s world view, which, in the final analysis, represents one’s doctrinal perspective about God and life:

There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind—what they are in their thought world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity …

People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and their basis for their decisions.

“As a man thinketh, so is he,” is really most profound. An individual is not just the product of the forces around him. He has a mind, an inner world …

Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true …

It is important to realize what a difference a people’s world view makes in their strength as they are exposed to the pressure of life. That it was the Christians who were able to resist religious mixtures, syncretism, and the effects of the weakness of Roman culture speaks of the strength of the Christian world view. This strength rested on God’s being an infinite-personal God and his speaking in the Old Testament, in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in the gradually growing New Testament. He had spoken in ways people could understand. Thus the Christians not only had knowledge about the universe and mankind that people cannot find out by themselves, but they had absolute, universal values by which to live and by which to judge the society and the political state in which they lived …1

Apathy was the chief mark of the late Empire. One of the ways the apathy showed itself was in a lack of creativity in the arts. One easily observed example of the decadence of officially sponsored art is that the fourth-century work on the Arch of Constantine in Rome stands’ in poor contrast to its second-century sculptures which were borrowed from monuments from the period of Emperor Trajan. The elite abandoned their intellectual pursuits for social life. Officially sponsored art was decadent, and music was increasingly bombastic. Even the portraits on the coins became of poor quality. All of life was marked by the predominant apathy.

As the Roman economy slumped lower and lower, burdened with an aggravated inflation and a costly government, authoritarianism increased to counter the apathy. Since work was no longer done voluntarily, it was brought increasingly under the authority of the state, and freedoms were lost. For example, laws were passed binding small farmers to their land. So, because of the general apathy and its results, and because of oppressive control, few thought the old civilization worth saving.

Rome did not fall because of external forces such as the invasion by the barbarians. Rome had no sufficient inward base; the’ barbarians only completed the breakdown — and Rome gradually became a ruin.

It is important to realize what a difference a people’s world view makes in their strength as they are exposed to the pressure of life. That it was the Christians who were able to resist religious mixtures, syncretism, and the effects of the weaknesses of Roman culture speaks of the strength of the Christian world view. This strength rested on God’s being an infinite-personal God and his speaking in the Old Testament, in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in the gradually growing New Testament. He had spoken in ways people could understand. Thus the Christians not only had knowledge about the universe and mankind that people cannot find out by themselves, but they had absolute, universal values by which to live and by which to judge the society and the political state in which they lived. And they had grounds for the basic dignity and value of the individual as unique in being made in the image of God.

Perhaps no one has presented more vividly to our generation the inner weakness of imperial Rome than has Fellini (1920-) in his film Satyricon. He reminds us that the classical world is not to be romanticized, but that it was both cruel and decadent as it came to the logical conclusion of its world view.

A culture or an individual with a weak base can stand only when the pressure on it is not too great. As an illustration, let us think of a Roman bridge. The Romans built little humpbacked bridges over many of the streams of Europe. People and wagons went over these structures safely for centuries, for two millennia. But if people today drove heavily loaded trucks over these bridges, they would break. It is this way with the lives and value systems of individuals and cultures when they have nothing stronger to build on than their own limitedness, their own finiteness. They can stand when pressures are not too great, but when pressures mount, if then they do not have a sufficient base, they crash-just as a Roman bridge would cave in under the weight of a modern six-wheeled truck. Culture and the freedoms of people are fragile. Without a sufficient base, when such pressures come only time is needed and often not a great deal of time-before there is a collapse.

E P I S O D E 1

ROMAN AGE

I. Introduction

A. Problem: dilemma of social breakdown and violence leading to authoritarianism which limits freedom.

B. We are, however, not helpless. Why?

C. Answer approached through consideration of the past.

D. Any starting point in history would be good; we start with Rome because it is direct ancestor of modern West.

II. Rome: The Empire Triumphant

A. Size and military strength of Empire.

B. Imperial sway evoked by Aventicum (Avenches), Switzerland.

III. Rome: Cultural Analysis

A. Greece and Rome: cultural influences and parallels.

1. Society as the absolute, to give meaning to life.

2. Finite gods as ground of accepted values.

B. Problems arising from Roman culture.

1. No infinite reference point as base for values and society.

2. Collapse of civic ideals therefore inevitable.

C. Results of collapse of ideals.

1. Dictatorship of Julius Caesar a response to civil disorder.

2. Firmly established authoritarian rule of Augustus.

D. Characteristics of regime introduced by Augustus.

1. Claim to give peace and the fruits of civilization.

2. Care to maintain facade of republican constitution.

3. People ready to accept absolute power in return for peace and prosperity.

4. Religious sanction for emperor-dictators: the emperor as God.

E. Christian persecution

1. Religious toleration in the Empire.

2. Christians persecuted because they would worship only the infinite-personal God and not Caesar also. They had an absolute whereby to judge the Roman state and its actions.

F. Viability of presuppositions facing social and political tension.

1. Christians had infinite reference point in God and His revelation in the Old Testament, the revelation through Christ, and the growing New Testament.

2. Christians could confront Roman culture and be untouched by its inner weakness, including its relativism and syncretism.

3. Roman hump-backed bridge, like Roman culture, could only stand if not subjected to overwhelming pressures.

IV. Rome: Eventual Decline and Fall

A. Growth of taste for cruelty.

B. Decadence seen in rampant sexuality and lust for violence.

C. General apathy, as seen in decline in artistic creativity.

D. Economic decline, more expensive government, and tighter centralization.

E. Successful barbarian invasions because of internal rot.

V. Conclusion

There is no foundation strong enough for society or the individual life within the realm of finiteness and beginning from Man alone as autonomous.

Questions

1. Dr. Schaeffer claims that, through looking at history, we can see how presuppositions determine events. Does his discussion bear this out and, if so, how?

2. How can a survey of Roman history in one-half hour be either useful or responsible? Discuss.

3. “History does not repeat itself.” —The parallels between the history of Rome and the twentieth century West are many and obvious.” How may these statements be reconciled?

Key Events and Persons

Julius Caesar: 100-44 B.C.

Augustus Caesar (Octavian): 63 B.C.-A.D. 14

Declared Pontifex Maximus: 12 B.C.

Diocletian: (Emperor) A.D. 284-305

Further Study

Here, as in succeeding suggestions for further study, it will be assumed that if you want to devote a great deal of time to a topic you can consult a library or a good bookstore. Suggestions given below are made on the basis of relevance to the text, readability, and availability.

Not all the books will necessarily agree at all—or in all details—with Dr. Schaeffer’s presentation. But as in the general conduct of life, so in matters of the mind, one must learn to discriminate. If you avoid reading things with which you disagree, you will be naive about what most of the world thinks. On the other hand, if you read everything—but without a critical mind—you will end up accepting by default all that the world (and especially your own moment of history) thinks.

J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969).

E.M. Blaiklock, The Christian in Pagean Society (1956).

Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1962).

E.M.B. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (1970).

Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans: A Selection (1972).

Virgil, The Aeneid (1965).

Film: Fellini, Satyricon (1969).

In about A.D. 60, a Jew who was a Christian and who also knew the Greek and Roman thinking of his day wrote a letter to those who lived in Rome. Previously, he had said the same things to Greek thinkers while speaking on Mars Hill in Athens. He had spoken with the Acropolis above him and the ancient marketplace below him, in the place wherethe thinkers of Athens met for discussion. A plaque marks that spot today and gives his talk in the common Greek spoken in his day. He was interrupted in his talk in Athens, but his Letter to the Romans gives us without interruption what he had to say to the thinking people of that period.

He said that the integration points of the Greek and Roman world view were not enough to answer the questions posed either by the existence of the universe and its form, or by the uniqueness of man. He said that they deserved judgment because they knew that they did not have an adequate answer to the questions raised by the universe or by the existence of man, and yet they refused, they suppressed, that which is the answer. To quote his letter:

The retribution of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which is known of God is evident within them [that is, the uniqueness of man in contrast to non-man], for God made it evident to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made [that is, the existence of the universe and its form], even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse. [Roman 1:18ff.]

Here he is saying that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man speak the same truth that the Bible gives in greater detail. That this God exists and that he has not been silent but has spoken to people in the Bible and through Christ was the basis for the return to a more fully biblical Christianity in the days of the Reformers. It was a message of the possibility that people could return to God on the basis of the death of Christ alone. But with it came many other realities, including form and freedom in the culture and society built on that more biblical Christianity. The freedom brought forth was titanic, and yet, with the forms given in the Scripture, the freedoms did not lead to chaos. And it is this which can give us hope for the future. It is either this or an imposed order.

As I have said in the first chapter, people function on the basis of their world view more consistently than even they themselves may realize. The problem is not outward things. The problem is having, and then acting upon, the right world view — the world view which gives men and women the truth of what is.

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

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. Brooks on Fox Business: BBA and the Debt Ceiling Vote

Print

Share

 

Rep. Mo Brooks To Vote No On Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill

08/01/11

Washington, D.C. – Today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) made the following statement concerning his vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:

 

Summary

The Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill is bad for America, bad political process, bad for national defense, does not prevent unsustainable budget deficits, kicks the debt ceiling crises down the road to 2013 (when America will have more debt and less financial strength with which to fix the problem), and fails to satisfactorily decrease the risk of an American credit rating downgrade.

 

Overview

America must, and will, raise the debt ceiling.  The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how.  Regardless of when the debt ceiling is raised, every bill and obligation of America to its citizens and creditors will be paid in full (albeit, with the exception of creditors, some payments may be delayed).

I have voted to raise the debt ceiling provided the debt ceiling bill makes America’s financial condition better, not worse.

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 22, 2011, when I voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan (cutting FY 2012 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit; capping federal government expenditures within historically justifiable 18-20% ranges; and passing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that protect future generations of Americans from revisiting the financial mess we face).

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 29, 2011, when I voted for the Boehner Plan (which included a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment requirement).

I will not vote for the Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Bill (herein the “Debt Bill”) because it is not up to the financial challenges America faces. 

 

Background:  The Problem

Years of spending binges by the federal government have come home to roost.  America’s debt exceeds $14 trillion.  America has suffered three consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits (and faces trillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future).

Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.

In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis.  Over the longer term, America faces a debt crisis. 

If trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, America’s insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, thereby risking America’s national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else the federal government does.

 

Debt Bill Deficiencies That Compel a “No” Vote

The accumulative deficiencies in the Debt Bill compel me to vote “No.”  The deficiencies are:

1. Minimal Time for Consideration and Deliberation.

The Debt Bill is 74 pages of interwoven, complicated legal and budgetary terms.  I have read and studied the Debt Bill in the limited time available.  The Debt Bill forces onto our children and grandchildren another $2.4 trillion in debt burden, yet we are expected to vote on it with less than 24 hours notice.

This is insufficient time to thoroughly understand the Debt Bill’s nuances, for budget experts to digest the Debt Bill and offer their insights, for the public to analyze the legislation and share their insight, and for Congress to make a wise and deliberative decision.

While some argue the Debt Bill must pass by the White House’s August 2 deadline; I believe it is better to act wisely than in haste.  The economy will be much worse if Congress, in haste, makes a $2.4 trillion error. 

2. Significant Defense Cuts in FY 2012 & 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts national defense by $2 to $17 billion (the variance is due to different Debt Bill interpretations by the House Armed Services Committee).

The Debt Bill creates a 12-member Joint Select Committee (six Senators and six Congressmen; six Republicans and six Democrats).  By November 23, the Committee must recommend $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures (spending cuts and/or tax increases).  If the Committee makes a recommendation, Congress must vote on the recommendation on or before January 15

If the Committee splits 6-6 and makes no recommendation, or if either House of Congress rejects the Committee’s recommendation, then the Debt Bill mandates that the Defense budget be cut $60 Billion in FY 2013 (i.e. – in the fiscal year beginning 14 months from now, on October 1, 2013).

National defense is the top priority of the federal government.  If the Debt Bill passes, there is an unnecessary and substantial risk that it will trigger risky defense cuts in just 14 months that undermine the defense capabilities of America.

3. The Bill Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem.

The Bill makes America’s financial challenges worse by inadequately addressing unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and force debt ceiling increases.

The Debt Bill’s “cuts” bind no future Congresses.  Hence, the only “cuts” that count are those for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts discretionary federal government spending by only $7 billion (versus FY 2011 levels), while overall federal government spending actually increases (“discretionary spending” is less than 30% of total federal government spending). 

In FY 2013, the Debt Bill increases discretionary federal government spending by $4 billion (over FY 2012 levels).  Overall federal government spending again increases significantly.

Hence, in both FY 2012 and 2013, the federal government deficit is estimated to exceed $1 trillion/year if the Debt Bill passes and, under the best of scenarios, the Debt Bill’s “solution” increases America’s debt by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, which makes America’s debt problem much worse, not better.

4. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. 

The Debt Bill requires a vote of Congress on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment but does not require that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

The July 29 Boehner Bill required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before the Phase II debt ceiling increase would occur.  The Debt Bill eliminates the requirement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, thereby eliminating the only long-term fix to America’s unsustainable deficits. 

5. Punting the Debt Ceiling Crisis to 2013. 

Because of 2012 election considerations, the Debt Bill “kicks the can down the road” to 2013, when a financially weaker America will be less capable of facing yet another debt ceiling crisis. 

America will be weaker because debt service burdens will be $2.4 trillion more and the total debt of $16.7 trillion will likely be subject to higher interest rates and more onerous payment obligations.

America must face its unsustainable deficit issue while it is stronger, not weaker.  The longer America waits, the worse the economic outcome will be.

6. Credit Rating Cuts.

In my judgment, the Debt Bill substantially increases the long-term risk of a cut in America’s credit rating. 

Standard & Poor stated on July 14, 2011, that America’s credit rating is at risk if Washington has “not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and [is] not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.”  Standard & Poor president Deven Sharma reiterated this concern on July 27, 2011 when he testified before the House Financial Services Committee that, “The more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the debt… that is the more important issue at hand.”

Similarly, Moody’s stated on July 13, 2011 that, if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating outlook “would very likely be changed to negative… unless [there is a] substantial and credible agreement [on] long-term deficit reduction.”

The Debt Bill does not cut America’s short or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America’s credit rating… a downgrade that will, in turn, drive up America’s debt service cost and reduce funding for all other federal government programs.  To make matters worse, if America’s interest rates go up; state, local and private interest rates are likely to also go up… thereby hurting all Americans at every level.

 

The Solution

The best solution that protects America from the short term debt ceiling and long term insolvency threats is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that is phased in over a 5 year period.

Inasmuch as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America may not have, the debt ceiling should be raised in a two-step process.  The first step partially raises the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive and effective Balanced Budget Amendment.  If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.

The second step raises the rest of the debt ceiling requirement when the states ratify the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment.  This process gives the states an incentive to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment in less than one year (or trigger the effects of not raising the debt ceiling).

Michele Bachmann voted against Debt Deal (House Roll Call)

Bachmann Explains “No” Vote on Raising the Debt Ceiling

Uploaded by on Aug 2, 2011

On Monday, August 1, 2011, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared on “Hannity” to explain why she voted “no” on the plan to raise the debt ceiling.

_______________________________________

Full House roll call
By: Associated Press
August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

 

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, N.

Republicans – Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

 

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans – Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans – Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.

Republicans – Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans – Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, Y.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, N.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans – Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, Y.

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 5)

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 5)

 

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.

 

Here is an essay written to honor the 99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth:

An Ode to the Frie Market

By Elizabeth Ryan

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Memorial Prize in economics
But that isn’t all about this man; a lesson on him isn’t quick

Born in Brooklyn, New York in July of nineteen hundred twelve,
Milton Friedman was a brilliant economist; in this topic he deeply delved

For thirty years, teaching economic theory was his passion
At the University of Chicago he taught the youth of the nation

As “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century,”
His ideas spread like wildfire, to almost everyone, and were not elementary

Big government he said to shun,
Instead, free markets should have all the fun

The virtues of a free market system are so clear
Market intervention a nation should never have to bear

The government’s role in the economy should be greatly restricted.
Interference would only bring about poverty, depressions, and an economy constricted

A natural rate of unemployment he believed existed
No government could change this rate; it was healthy and should not be resisted

Though greatly opposed to the Federal Reserve,
Advice he still gives so the economy will be preserved

The advice: A small steady expansion of the money supply is the only way
If the central bank did otherwise, hyperinflation would never be kept at bay

Services offered by the government can be inefficient,
Should be performed by the private sector: that’s where they ought to be sent

One of these services is the production of money,
The private sector should produce it; and a gold base will lead to the highest stability

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” he claimed
The relation between inflation and the money supply is close, he proclaimed

A monetarist at heart: Control of price inflation should be done with monetary deflation
In addition, price deflation is best controlled by only monetary inflation

An economic adviser to Ronald Reagan,
He predicted the policies of Keynes were bad, close to pagan

Not only would they cause high inflation
But minimal growth; later called stagflation

“Capitalism and Freedom,” a book he co-authored in nineteen sixty two
Speaks for policies like volunteer military and education vouchers, just to name a few

“A Monetary History of the United States,” which he published in nineteen sixty three
Investigates the role of money supply and economics in U.S. history

“Free to Choose,” another book that he and his wife did write,
Is where on monetary policy they shed much light

A staunch supporter of libertarian ideas, he took a chance,
When he fought for legalization of drugs and prostitution, not a popular stance

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” is his quote,
Noting: Once a program is started, participants will do everything to keep it afloat

He coined the phrase, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
Someone always pays in the end, and will feel the punch

Milton Friedman taught many good economic lessons
Which if heeded, may have kept us out of horrid recessions

With a full life behind him and theories not previously in the mix,
Friedman died on November 16 of two thousand and six

Though he is gone, this week we honor the day Friedman was born
Today his advice to us would be, go free the market rather than mourn

Discretionary Spending Cuts Alone Are Not an Adequate Substitute for Entitlement Reform

Discretionary Spending Cuts Alone Are Not an Adequate Substitute for Entitlement Reform

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Annual spending on entitlement programs is massive compared to other federal spending priorities. Cutting discretionary spending is a necessary step, but cuts to foreign aid alone or pulling out of Afghanistan will not close the deficit. Entitlement spending must be reined in.

ANNUAL SPENDING (2011)

 
Download

Discretionary Spending Cuts Alone Are Not an Adequate Substitute for Entitlement Reform

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 38 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 99 B)

The centennial of Ronald Reagan’s birth earlier this year brought an unusual sight: a round of press reports noting President Obama’s admiration for his predecessor, including one he penned for this newspaper.

Despite their stark differences on policy, Obama praised Reagan for how he led the nation “through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders.” And, lo and behold, many pundits are now comparing what they call Reagan’s willingness to compromise on taxes to what they say is the intransigence of today’s GOP.

A cautionary tale

Leading the nation through hard times wasn’t easy. We’d like to suggest that President Obama take a closer look at how President Reagan dealt with that “economic hardship,” and how he steered the nation toward what would turn into its longest peacetime economic expansion. It’s a cautionary tale — one that involves the greatest domestic error of his administration.

In 1981, President Reagan’s plan for revitalizing the economy was a four-fold one:

1) Reduce tax rates across the board.

2) Decrease unnecessary regulations.

3) Work with the Federal Reserve to maintain stable monetary policy.

4) Slow the growth of federal spending.

President Reagan got his tax-rate cuts through Congress later that year. But because they were being phased in gradually, the economic pain they were designed to alleviate lingered well into 1982. High deficits persisted, and he faced enormous pressure to raise taxes.

The president had no interest in increasing taxes, but he agreed to consider some kind of compromise with Congress. His representatives began meeting with members of House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s team to find some way to hammer out a deficit-reduction pact. So began what, in our opinion, became the “Debacle of 1982.”

From the outset, the basic idea of the GOP participants was to trade some kind of concessions on the tax front for a Democratic agreement on spending cutbacks. The negotiators knew that Ronald Reagan would be hard to sell on any tax hikes. So they included a ploy they felt might overcome his resistance: a large reduction in federal spending in return for a modest rise in business (but not individual) taxes.

The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president’s colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.

The cuts never came

You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.

In fact, spending for fiscal year 1983 was some $48 billion higher than the budget targets, and no progress was made in lowering the deficit. Even tax receipts for that year went down — a lingering effect of the recession, which the additional business taxes did nothing to redress.

Fortunately, the individual income tax-rate reductions that had been passed the year before remained intact. And as they took effect, the economy began its remarkable turnaround. The recovery of 1983-84 was strong enough that it paved the way for President Reagan’s landslide election to a second term.

More than two years into President Obama’s presidency, however, the prospects of Reagan-style recovery seem remote, to say the least. Rather than learning pro-growth lessons from President Reagan, he is creating another 1982 moment, seeking to lure Republicans into accepting another tax increase for illusory spending cuts.

Taxing our way to prosperity isn’t the answer. It never has been. If our children and grandchildren are to live in a free and prosperous America, congressional Republicans must not negotiate and accept a deal that raises taxes. That’s why The Heritage Foundation last year created Heritage Action for America — to ensure that members of Congress fight for the advance of freedom and are held to account.

President Reagan “had faith in the American promise,” President Obama notes. Reagan demonstrated that faith by trusting the American people to do the right thing, not by confiscating their wealth and subjecting them to myriad rules and regulations that stifle their creativity and sap their innovation.

“He recognized that each of us has the power — as individuals and as a nation — to shape our own destiny,” President Obama wrote this past January. That destiny, however, can be realized only in an atmosphere of freedom. Will the current president learn from the lessons of 1982?

 

Former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Michael Needham is chief executive officer of Heritage Action for America.

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 1 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

On August 4, 2011 John Brummett wrote:

The point is that we don’t need to choke our government — or, more to the point, ourselves — with such simplistic devices as balanced budget amendments. The point is that we need to make our often-essential deficit and debt more sustainable, more manageable, more responsible and less massive, and that we should do that by addressing both income and outgo.

You’re right, my tea party friend, about how government must change its ways. You’re not right, though, in the over-simplicity of your assessment or in the impractical, even drastic, nature of your remedies.

Brummett’s view used to be the majority view, but  in a recent poll by CNN over 70% now favor a Balanced Budget Amendment. I am starting a series today on the Balanced Budget Amendment!!!

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.

You are right to ask for ideas to cut spending because that is the real cause of the deficit. John Stossel rightly noted, “Milton Friedman always said taxes don’t tell the whole story. What counts is how much of our resources government spends, however it acquires them. The doubling of spending under Bush and Obama hasn’t gotten enough attention.”

Senator Pryor, you asked for spending cut advice. Here is some from John Stossel:

It’s not hard to balance the budget. On my show, we made enough cuts to create a $237 billion surplus. I cut whole departments, like Education and Commerce. I cut two-thirds of the Defense Department (which still leaves it much bigger than China’s). I indexed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to inflation, raised the retirement age, and took away benefits for rich people. But I don’t have to run for office. Congressmen do, and they can’t even manage to cut ridiculous tax breaks like those for ethanol.

Thank you again for your time.

Everette Hatcher, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Balancing the Budget

By John Stossel

8/3/2011

 

The political class predicted “disaster” if Congress didn’t raise its debt limit.

I think that was a scam to get more money. See, the poor politicians don’t have enough, and they need to borrow more. We taxpayers are cheap. This year we’ll give them only $2.2 trillion. They want to spend $3.8 trillion.

The president said if he didn’t get more money, Social Security checks wouldn’t go out. Why not?

With $2 trillion, they can pay Social Security, Medicare, the interest on the debt and still have billions left. It’s billions more than the government spent when President George W. Bush took office. What’s the problem?

The problem is that Republicans and Democrats under Bush and President Obama doubled spending. Now, Obama wants more taxes.

Taxes shouldn’t be the answer when spending is the problem.

Grover Norquist, who heads Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), leads the charge to keep the focus on spending. Norquist and ATR are famous for asking officeholders and candidates to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. Some say he is the reason the debt-ceiling debate was so drawn out.

“I think the reason there isn’t a tax increase on the table,” he told me, “is that 235 members of the House of Representatives signed a pledge never to raise taxes, a pledge to their voters, and 41 senators did. …

“Only if you take tax increases off the table do you even begin to … focus on spending, and that’s what Obama wants to keep our focus off of. He wants us to talk about the deficit, not spending.”

I pointed out that Obama might have scored points with the public because new revenues he sought — even though they wouldn’t do much to shrink the deficit — would come from closing unpopular tax “loopholes.”

Norquist said he favors that — if tax rates are lowered at the same time.

“(We) want to simplify the code,” he said. “(We) want to take a lot of the goodies that politicians have laced into that code … as long as you reduce tax rates and it’s not a hidden tax increase.”

Milton Friedman always said taxes don’t tell the whole story. What counts is how much of our resources government spends, however it acquires them. The doubling of spending under Bush and Obama hasn’t gotten enough attention.

“We need to ask what it is government should do,” Norquist said. “But it’s going to be knockdown, drag-out. All government overspending creates the constituency for its own perpetuation. … Weaning people off, that is very difficult.”

He’s right. When politicians make little cuts in the rate of spending growth, every interest group mobilizes to protect its little piece of the pie. That’s why you must cut government like you take off a Band-Aid: quickly and all at once.

It’s not hard to balance the budget. On my show, we made enough cuts to create a $237 billion surplus. I cut whole departments, like Education and Commerce. I cut two-thirds of the Defense Department (which still leaves it much bigger than China’s). I indexed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to inflation, raised the retirement age, and took away benefits for rich people. But I don’t have to run for office. Congressmen do, and they can’t even manage to cut ridiculous tax breaks like those for ethanol.

Obama predicted disaster if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised. Some predict disaster if the ratings agencies downgrade Treasury bonds. I’m dubious. In 1995, President Clinton and Republican Congress couldn’t agree on a budget, so the government shut down twice, the second time for three weeks.

Did the economy grind to a halt? No. During the first shutdown, the stock market went up. During the second, it dropped then recovered.

The alarmists screamed that the fight over the debt ceiling would discourage lenders. Wrong. Ten-year Treasury bonds sold for a measly 3 percent interest (versus 15 percent in 1981).

I wasn’t worried that Congress would fail to raise the debt ceiling. But I am worried that Congress will keep spending.

John Stossel

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 4)

99th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birth (Part 4)

Stossel – “Free to Choose” (Milton Friedman) 1/6

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.

Here is another tribute actually written shortly after his death:

How Milton Friedman Influenced Michigan and the World

By Michael D. LaFaive | Nov. 20, 2006
 

(Note: This commentary appeared in The Detroit News on Nov. 16, 2006, just hours after it was announced that Milton Friedman had died).

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman died today at the age of 94. He was an intellectual giant — helping mightily to shift policy and thought away from state economic intervention and toward free people and free-market alternatives.

Friedman’s many books, scholarly papers, speeches and television appearances inspired countless people to rigorously debate and articulate a vision of a truly free society. It was Friedman’s best-selling book and Public Broadcasting Service program, “Free to Choose,” that inspired me to earn two economics degrees and join the Mackinac Center.

Friedman was born to immigrant parents in Brooklyn, N.Y., in July 1912. He would earn degrees at Rutgers, the University of Chicago and Columbia. Friedman later said the Great Depression helped influence his decision to become an economist because he was intrigued by the causes and consequences of such economic misery. He would later answer one of the most important questions of all: Why had it occurred?

Friedman cut his professional teeth in 1945 when he co-published a paper arguing that government licensing laws for doctors artificially raise the cost of becoming one, restricting supply and raising prices for consumers.

He would continue to publish scholarly papers but began to make a name for himself in wider circles by publishing his book “Capitalism and Freedom” in 1962. Friedman persuasively argued for market competition in education, an all-volunteer army and greater trade among nations.

In 1963, Friedman and co-author Anna Schwartz published “A Monetary History of the United States,” which showed that the Great Depression was caused by flawed monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. According to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics, Federal Reserve officials were so unnerved by Friedman’s work that they “discontinued their policy of releasing minutes from the board’s meetings to the public.” They also hired a scholar to write a rebuttal, but it had little impact. Friedman’s analysis remains the standard on America’s monetary history.

Friedman was in Michigan on Oct. 14, 1976, when he learned he had won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Friedman was traveling from Chicago to a press conference at the Detroit Athletic Club to tout Proposal C, a ballot initiative to cap what the state of Michigan could spend in a given year, when the announcement was made from Stockholm, Sweden.

“When we got to the press center, I was surprised by the number of photographers and reporters in the parking lot,” Friedman wrote later. “I knew that Proposal C was important but didn’t think my campaigning for it deserved that much attention.” Friedman quickly learned of the honor from the reporters in attendance.

Proposal C would fail that year, but a version of it would later pass as the Headlee Amendment, which restricts state revenue to 9.49 percent of personal income from all state sources.

Throughout his life, Friedman advanced his ideas with both intelligence and wit. When addressing a crowd of academics, he spoke as a professor would speak to fellow scholars. When speaking to the public, he simplified his arguments. His ability to link abstract theory with concrete detail and wrap both in velvet for his audience made the man an irresistible draw.

Reportedly, while traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep unemployment low. If they used tractors, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic.

“Then why don’t you give them spoons?” Friedman inquired. It was quintessential Friedman: Employment doesn’t make us wealthy — production does.

Milton Friedman, a great friend of freedom, rewrote the way economists and others look at economics and the world around them. He will be missed.

#####

Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.

“Woody Wednesday” Part 1 starts today, Complete listing of all posts on the historical people mentioned in “Midnight in Paris”

I have gone to see Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris” three times and taken lots of notes during the films. I have attempted since June 12th when I first started posting to give a historical rundown on every person mentioned in the film. Below are the results of my study. I welcome any comments you may have.

By the way I am starting Woody Wednesday today and every Wednesday after today will include a post about Woody Allen and his work.

Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in “Midnight in Paris.”

The New York Times

Ernest Hemingway, around 1937

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?, August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody Allen, July 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”, July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied, July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”, July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years, July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

(Part 1 William Faulkner) June 13, 2011 – 3:19 pm

I love Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, June 12, 2011 – 11:52 pm

https://i0.wp.com/www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/19.jpg

Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.”

Owen Wilson as Gil in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.”

Marion Cotillard, Alison Pill, Owen Wilson and Director Woody Allen on the set of "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Marion Cotillard, Alison Pill, Owen Wilson and Director Woody Allen on the set of “Midnight in Paris.”

Associated Press

F. Scott Fitzgerald, center, with his daughter Scottie, left and his wife Zelda in Paris in 1925