It’s understandable why — this was the 18th GOP debate since last May.
The candidates have been grinding it out on the trail for weeks, and South Carolina was a crescendo to a wild period that began with the Iowa caucuses.
All of the candidates — Gingrich, especially — looked tired and seemed subdued.
It is par for the course in a nominating process, but it tends to create fewer dramatic moments.
I used to like Newt back in the 1990′s but a lot has changed since then. Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute: Gingrich Rise Is Triumph of Style over Substance by Gene Healy Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult […]
It pays to remember history. Today I am going to go through some of it and give an outline and quotes from the great Southern Baptist leader Adrian Rogers (1931-2005). Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times started this morning off with some comedy: From pro golfer John Daly’s Twitter account following last night’s Republican debate, […]
EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul Has A Secret Plan To Win America I used to go to the Immanuel Baptist Church (Clinton was member there) Luncheon every week in Little Rock and in 1995 I visited the large Southern Baptist Church in the Atlanta where Newt was a member. Both men evidently shared some hypocritical habits […]
There is no other way around this problem for Romney. If he wins the Republican Nomination for President then the must embrace some of Paul’s ideas (as suggested below by Senator Demint) or get Rand Paul to be the VP candidate. GOP Should Heed Ron Paul by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior […]
The Arkansas Times jumped on this story as many other liberals outlets. Change in the marketplace is driven by the wants and needs of consumers. Are we to protect the jobs of those who work for companies that want to cling to the past? I posted about this before but I have decided to revisit […]
Great website below tracks the delegates for the Republican nomination: The delegate race There are 2,286 delegates up for grabs. A candidate needs 1,144 to win the GOP presidential nomination. Total delegates won, by candidate Delegates needed: 1,144 Romney 20 Santorum 12 Paul 3 Huntsman 2 Perry […]
Here is an excellent article: You can blame Mitt, but not for Bain By: Steven Rattner January 12, 2012 12:02 AM EST I’m all in favor of piling on Mitt Romney for any number of reasons: his come lately embrace of hard right conservatism, his periodic malapropisms (“I like being able to fire people”) and […]
Dr. Robert Jeffress a Featured Guest on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” (10/14/11) Uploaded by robertjeffress on Oct 15, 2011 Dr. Robert Jeffress was a featured guest on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night, October 14. The pastor talked with the controversial political satirist about the Protestant Reformation; being saved by faith, […]
What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go. DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]
Surprising facts about America’s poor. Instead of Mitt Romney and John Burris being out of touch, it is Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times that is out of touch. Take a look at this article:
In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.” And today, the U.S. Census released its annual poverty report, which declared that 46.2 million persons, or roughly one in seven Americans, were poor in 2010. What President Obama didn’t tell America as he was pleading for more spending–and what the Census Bureau didn’t report–is what it really means to be poor in America.
In a new report, Heritage’s Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield lay out what the U.S. government’s own facts and figures really say about poverty in the United States. The results might surprise you, especially if your view of poverty is the conventional one, perpetuated by the media–namely, destitute conditions of homelessness and hunger. In reality, though, the living conditions of those defined as poor by the government are much different than that popular image. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation
43 percent have Internet access
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo
As for hunger and homelessness, Rector and Sheffield point to 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food, 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42 percent of poor households actually owning their own homes. Want an international comparison? The average poor American has more living space than the average Swede or German. You can read even more of those facts in their report, “Understanding Poverty in the United States.”
None of this is to say that the poor have it easy. Sadly, one in 25 will become temporarily homeless during the year, and one in five poor adults will experience temporary food shortages and hunger at some point in a year. But exaggerating the conditions of poverty does not do America any good, as Rector and Sheffield explain:
The poor man who has lost his home or suffers intermittent hunger will find no consolation in the fact that his condition occurs infrequently in American society. His hardships are real and should be an important concern to policymakers. Nonetheless, anti-poverty policy needs to be based on accurate information. Gross exaggeration of the extent and severity of hardships in America will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.
Those exaggerations about the symptoms of poverty don’t solve the root causes of the problem, either. As Rector and Sheffield write, “Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and the erosion of work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty.” In order to truly benefit the poor, they say, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. And it should strengthen marriage in low-income communities, rather than ignore and penalize it.
Poverty is a serious problem that requires serious solutions. But policymakers and the public need accurate information about what poverty in the United States really means. Only then can they implement the right policies to help those Americans who are truly in need.
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows the middle ground between those who claim “all tax cuts pay for themselves” and those who claim tax policy has no impact on economic performance. This video, focusing on the theory of the Laffer Curve, is Part I of a three-part series. Part II reviews evidence of Laffer-Curve responses. Part III discusses how the revenue-estimating process in Washington can be improved. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site:www.freedomandprosperity.org
Bush tax cuts work? This is a series of posts aimed at answering that question.
Abstract:Despite evidence to the contrary, President Obama and his supporters insist that a tax increase will not impede economic recovery. They claim that the Clinton tax hikes spurred the boom of the 1990s and that the subsequent Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. Members of Congress must reject this faulty notion—and reject the President’s call for burdening Americans with higher taxes and an even slower economy.
President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress and elsewhere continue to press for tax increases, whether as part of a deal to raise the government’s debt ceiling, or for any other reason. Even though common sense would dictate not raising taxes in the face of a badly weakened economy and almost non-existent job growth, the President and his supporters argue that tax hikes will not imperil the still-nascent recovery because the economy grew during the 1990s after President Bill Clinton raised taxes. The inference being that today’s economy could also absorb the blow of tax hikes and grow despite them. They also argue the converse: that the tax cuts passed during President George W. Bush’s tenure slowed growth and cost jobs.
This cursory and errant analysis of recent history has serious implications for policymaking today. If Congress raises taxes based on the faulty notion that tax hikes have no ill effects on economic growth, it will impede the still-struggling recovery and keep millions of Americans on the unemployment rolls far too long.
Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth
A favorite liberal argument is to attribute the economy’s strong performance during the 1990s to President Clinton’s economic policies, chief among which was a huge tax increase. Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of being capped to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3-cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.[1]
The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit strong economic growth during the 1990s, but rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time.
As for the overall economic recovery—that started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991.
In addition to coming into office in the midst of an economic expansion, Clinton also benefited from a very unusual confluence of events that created a remarkably favorable environment for rapid economic growth:
The end of the Cold War brought a sigh of relief to the world and a powerful dose of growth-enhancing certainty to the global economy.
The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping below $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel, versus $100 per barrel today.[2]
The Federal Reserve had tamed inflation to an extent previously thought impossible, with inflation averaging 2 percent during the Clinton Administration.[3]
The biggest wind at the economy’s back was, of course, a tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing information technologies and the explosion of the Internet as a powerful tool for commerce and communication, further increasing productivity.
With these factors clearing the way, the economy should have displayed spectacular and accelerating growth in the years immediately after Clinton entered the White House, but growth of that magnitude did not materialize until later in the decade.
From 1993 until 1997, the economy grew at a pedestrian 3.3 percent per year.[4] While solid, this growth was certainly not exceptional. During that same time, real wages declined, despite the perception that the 1990s were an era of unmitigated abundance.[5]
It was not until after a 1997 tax cut, passed by the Republican-led Congress—a tax cut President Clinton resisted but ultimately signed—that the spectacular growth kicked in. While small in revenue impact, the 1997 cuts included a reduction of the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. This opened the capital floodgates necessary for entrepreneurs to develop, harness, and bring to market the wonders of the new information technologies.
Business investment skyrocketed after the tax cut,[6] and the economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.4 percent (33 percent faster than after the Clinton tax hike) from 1997 through the end of the Clinton presidency. Real wages reversed their downward trend and grew 1.7 percent per year during the same time.
Altogether, how much worse did the economy perform because of the Clinton tax hike? The data from the period do not provide a clear answer. What is clear is that the economy performed well below reasonable expectations given the favorable conditions existing in the years after the tax hike—and took off after the often-forgotten tax cut.
—Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Occupation of Clinton Presidential Library / Occupy Little Rock / LRPD Agrees With Occupation
__________________________
I enjoy reading the Saline Courier and there is a writer by the name of Clark Hopper that writes from a liberal perspective. He is the chairman of the Saline County Democratic Party and has been involved in politics in the county for many years.
I come from a conservative perspective, but I am always glad when a healthy debate can take place in a civil way. Hopper’s past articles have all been consistently logical from the liberal point of view and I hope to provide a conservative response on this occasion.
During the last few years I have helped conservative candidates in their campaigns by word of mouth and making phone calls. I have learned that it is very difficult to get volunteers to man the phones and go door to door or hold up signs. People are just too busy and very rarely can candidates get people to do things like this. However, in the last couple of years the most faithful volunteers for conservative candidates have come from the Tea Party ranks.
Tea Party members are upset at the bailouts which were available because of cronyism and they are very mad about all the federal deficit spending. Tea Party members blame the politicians in Washington D.C. primarily responsible for these deeds.
_________________________
According to the article, “Peaceful rally gives people right to express opinions,” Oct 22, 2011, Clark Hopper and his wife recently took part with 300 other people in the Occupy Little Rock March that took place on Oct 15, 2011 that began at the Riverfront Park amphitheater and ended up at the Capitol after stopping at the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, several banks and the Federal Building. The marchers chanted, “The banks got bailed out and we got sold out.”
Hopper noted:
It was really nice to be surrounded by people with the same thoughts of what is wrong with America and what is needed to correct its course. Americans have had enough of corporate greed as witnessed by the occupying of Wall Street and other marches taking place across America…
Corporations are not seeking consent to take wealth from the people, or the earth…This comes at a time when corporations run our government and place profits over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality….Those holding great wealth versus those living in poverty in America is way out of balance…
I think that unlike the Tea Party which is focused on just a full issues, the Occupy Wall Street crowd really is not sure about what direction is heading yet. Nevertheless, there are some statements and actions of their members that I would like to comment on.
First, I wonder how peaceful this movement is. Jim Lendall is one of the organizers and back in April he stood on the steps of the state capitol at a “Make Them Pay Rally” and called for erecting guillotines and placing them in front of corporations like Bank of America to remind these business leaders that the rich leaders of the French government of the 1700’s were beheaded during the French Revolution because of their greed. Also the downtown branch of Bank of America reported that a large brick was thrown into a glass window near the first floor entrance of the bank.
Second, how big is this movement compared to conservative movements? Every year I take part in the “March for Life” which is a pro-life march that takes place every January. Last January we had over 5000 marchers, but the Occupy Little Rock March had only 300 marchers.
Third, both the Occupy Little Rock crowd and the Tea Party both are mad that the bailout was available because of cronyism. This is one area that I have in agreement with the Occupy Little Rock group, but we must take the next step. The Tea Party has done that by discouraging the larger role the federal government has been taking in recent years by controlling our lives with increases spending. The Tea Party has correctly condemned the federal deficit spending of the politicians in Washington D.C. as the primary problem. The Occupy Little Rock crowd never mentions that issue because their answer is to spend more money. If the USA is to avoid the fate of Greece. Why does the federal government think it has the money to bail out anybody?
Fourth, the Occupy Little Rock crowd thinks we need more regulations and taxes on the big bad corporations. There are two points here. If we raise taxes on those corporations then they will raise their prices on their products and we end up paying the higher prices at the retail stores. Also more regulations will hurt upstarts like Steve Jobs who started as a poor teenager in a garage with an idea. Steve Jobs later grew his company to over 350 billion dollars in sales and the company made a lot of money for lots of Americans who worked for him. Furthermore, Steve Jobs also provided various products to the public that changed life for billions across the globe. Is that the type of progress that the Occupy Little Rock crowd is opposing?
Fifth, the Occupy Little Rock crowd talks about the system in our country that punishes the poor and helps the rich, but the facts clearly show that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world. Just consider Steve Jobs who was mentioned in the point above.
__________________
“Occupy Little Rock” wants to occupy your wallet
According to the article, “Peaceful rally gives people right to express opinions,” Oct 22, 2011, Clark Hopper and his wife recently took part with 300 other people in the Occupy Little Rock March that took place on Oct 15, 2011 that began at the Riverfront Park amphitheater and ended up at the Capitol after stopping at the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, several banks and the Federal Building. The marchers chanted, “The banks got bailed out and we got sold out.”
Hopper noted:
It was really nice to be surrounded by people with the same thoughts of what is wrong with America and what is needed to correct its course. Americans have had enough of corporate greed as witnessed by the occupying of Wall Street and other marches taking place across America…
Corporations are not seeking consent to take wealth from the people, or the earth…This comes at a time when corporations run our government and place profits over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality….Those holding great wealth versus those living in poverty in America is way out of balance…
I think that unlike the Tea Party which is focused on just a full issues, the Occupy Wall Street crowd really is not sure about what direction is heading yet. Nevertheless, there are some statements and actions of their members that I would like to comment on.
First, I wonder how peaceful this movement is. Jim Lendall is one of the organizers and back in April he stood on the steps of the state capitol at a “Make Them Pay Rally” and called for erecting guillotines and placing them in front of corporations like Bank of America to remind these business leaders that the rich leaders of the French government of the 1700’s were beheaded during the French Revolution because of their greed. Also the downtown branch of Bank of America reported that a large brick was thrown into a glass window near the first floor entrance of the bank.
Second, how big is this movement compared to conservative movements? Every year I take part in the “March for Life” which is a pro-life march that takes place every January. Last January we had over 5000 marchers, but the Occupy Little Rock March had only 300 marchers.
Third, both the Occupy Little Rock crowd and the Tea Party both are mad that the bailout was available because of cronyism. This is one area that I have in agreement with the Occupy Little Rock group, but we must take the next step. The Tea Party has done that by discouraging the larger role the federal government has been taking in recent years by controlling our lives with increases spending. The Tea Party has correctly condemned the federal deficit spending of the politicians in Washington D.C. as the primary problem. The Occupy Little Rock crowd never mentions that issue because their answer is to spend more money. If the USA is to avoid the fate of Greece. Why does the federal government think it has the money to bail out anybody?
Fourth, the Occupy Little Rock crowd thinks we need more regulations and taxes on the big bad corporations. There are two points here. If we raise taxes on those corporations then they will raise their prices on their products and we end up paying the higher prices at the retail stores. Also more regulations will hurt upstarts like Steve Jobs who started as a poor teenager in a garage with an idea. Steve Jobs later grew his company to over 350 billion dollars in sales and the company made a lot of money for lots of Americans who worked for him. Furthermore, Steve Jobs also provided various products to the public that changed life for billions across the globe. Is that the type of progress that the Occupy Little Rock crowd is opposing?
Fifth, the Occupy Little Rock crowd talks about the system in our country that punishes the poor and helps the rich, but the facts clearly show that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world. Just consider Steve Jobs who was mentioned in the point above.
I have enjoyed Mr. Hopper’s articles, and they are very good at engaging the main issues of our day from the liberal perspective. As a conservative his articles have always challenged me to be able to defend my own views. His praise of the Occupy Little Rock crowd overlooks that fact that their answer is to tax the “rich” more, but the fact is that once the government is through with the rich then they come looking for you and me. I am not happy about them trying to occupy my wallet more than do now.
I used to think that we must double the defense budget when we were in the cold war, but I did wonder why we were not letting Germany and Japan (who are two of our biggest trade partners) build up their defenses. I was given the old tired answer that we could not trust them because of what happened in World War II. However, there is no reason that should be a factor now. Take a look at an excellent article below:
This article appeared in CNN.com on February 3, 2012.
For some time now, Republican hawks like Sen. John McCain and Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon have been saying that our military budget is inadequate for the threats we face. They like to gripe that President Barack Obama is orchestrating the decline of American power.
Some of this is pure partisanship. Republicans criticize Democrats just as Democrats criticized President George W. Bush. The hawks, though, have a special devotion to the military budget. In their view, some military spending is good; more is even better. But if overspending on the military and promoting the United States as global policeman are benchmarks of approval, they should have little to complain about with our current president.
Contrary to his rhetoric of change, the president sounded like a neoconservative when he declared during his recent State of the Union address that the United States was, and would remain, the world’s “indispensable nation.” Obama’s proposed Pentagon budget, released last week, affirmed his intention to retain most of the U.S. military’s current missions, even when they aren’t needed to safeguard the United States’ vital security interests.
Our fiscal crisis has created an opportunity to revisit our commitments abroad.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s latest strategy document was carefully designed to convince allies and adversaries alike that the United States can continue to prosecute multiple armed conflicts in far-flung corners of the globe. Taken together, Obama’s strategy document, budget and State of the Union remarks articulate a coherent philosophy on military spending and global engagement that ought to hold a lot of appeal for the neoconservatives in the GOP.
But partisan politics aside, what our foreign policy leaders have consistently ignored is an argument that should have strong sway at a time of economic uncertainty: This country’s tax dollars can be better spent than on defending wealthy allies who are more than capable of protecting themselves.
The administration plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from Europe, but as many as 70,000 are likely to remain. Meanwhile, the number of troops in Asia will be increased. These troops serve to reassure our allies of our commitment to defend them. It is working as designed: Other countries do not spend enough to satisfy their defense needs.
The end result is that Americans pay more. The Obama administration’s budget will cost every American nearly $2,000 next year. The figure rises by hundreds of dollars when one accounts for homeland security, payments to veterans, and the few billion dollars tucked away in the Department of Energy for the nation’s bloated nuclear arsenal. All told, every American will likely shell out more than $2,700 on spending classified as national defense. That is at least 2½ times what the British spend, five times more than what the Germans spend, and six times what the Japanese spend.
It is hard to see how that is good news for Americans struggling to make ends meet. Obama’s magnanimity is especially ironic given his emphasis on “fairness” and “shared sacrifice.” His rhetoric apparently does not apply to people living outside the United States. American troops will continue to be tasked with policing the world, and American taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for it.
The administration has proposed to restrain the growth of military spending. But total U.S. military spending will remain well above pre-9/11 levels. The Obama administration is requesting $525 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget in 2013, plus another $88.4 billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan. To put this in perspective, that is more than the annual average during Ronald Reagan’s time in office (about $526 billion in today’s dollars). One seldom hears GOP hawks speak of Reagan as a misguided dove who left the country vulnerable to attack.
Focusing only on budget numbers, however, misses the big picture. Instead, we must focus on what we will spend and why. The answer is clear: Our military budget is large by historical standards because Washington is unwilling to revisit the premise that Americans are responsible for everything that happens in the world, even things that have no connection to American security or prosperity.
Our fiscal crisis has created an opportunity to revisit our commitments abroad. We should focus American power on our core interests, and call on other countries to take responsibility for their own defense.
Intuitively, that exercise should satisfy both liberal demands that “everyone pay their fair share” and conservative demands that our government “live within its means.” But given the rhetoric we have heard so far, it is doubtful that this election cycle will produce a leader who will seriously contemplate how we can most prudently provide for our common defense.
Richard Dawkins comments on Tim Tebow pro-life commercial.
I am sad today because Susan G. Komen reversed their decision and will continue to supports Planned Parenthood which the USA’s largest abortion provider. The Arkansas Times Blog reported that the leader of Susan G. Komen apologized and explained that Planned Parenthood would be receiving funds from them. It is ironic to me that they basically are apologizing for that they actually even considered taking up for the unborn babies.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation chose to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood. Lots of people didn’t like (and/or don’t believe) Komen’s reasons. Some declared they would stop giving to Komen. Others approved of Komen’s decision and started giving to Komen. Many declared they would start donating to Planned Parenthood to show their disapproval of Komen’s decision.
Notice what didn’t happen. Nobody forced anybody to do anything that violated their conscience. People who don’t like Planned Parenthood’s mission can now support Komen without any misgivings. People who like Planned Parenthood’s mission can still support it, and can support other organizations that fight breast cancer. The whole episode may end up being a boon for both sides, if total contributions to the two organizations are any measure. Such are the blessings of liberty.
Contrast that to Obamacare, which forces people who don’t like Planned Parenthood’s mission to support it.
Second, there seems to be a bottomless well of delusion from which supportersofPlannedParenthooddrawtheidea that this decision shows Komen has injected politics into its grant-making.
Assume for the sake of argument that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has been hijacked by radical abortion opponents who forced the decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Even if that is true, that decision did not inject politics into a process previously devoid of politics.
Millions of Americans believe that Planned Parenthood routinely kills small, helpless human beings. Believe it or not, they have a problem with that. When Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, it no doubt angers those Americans (and makes them less likely to contribute). When Komen decided that the good it would accomplish by funding Planned Parenthood’s provision of breast exams outweighed the concerns (and reaction) of those millions of Americans, Komen was making a political judgment.
Perhaps Planned Parenthood’s supporters didn’t notice the politics that was always there, since Komen had been making the same political judgment they themselves make. But if Planned Parenthood’s supporters are angry now, it’s not because Komen injected politics into its grant-making. It’s because Komen made a different political judgment and Planned Parenthood lost, for now anyway. (Then again, if donations to Planned Parenthood are the measure, the group may be winning by losing.)
I must confess to a little bit of Schadenfreude here, as those who are complaining about Komen’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood are largely the same folks who applaud President Obama’s decision to force everyone to fund it (and, without a trace of irony, describe themselves as “pro-choice”). I predict that when a future president reverses Obama’s decision, supporters of Obama’s policy will likewise delude themselves that the future president has “injected” politics into the dispute.
UPDATE: The Susan G. Komen Foundation has again adjusted its grant-making policies, and Planned Parenthood will once again be eligible for funding. A reporter asks me: “So what does it mean now that Komen’s reversed itself?” My reply:
It does not mean that politics has been banished from Komen’s decisions. It just means that Komen has again made a political decision that more closely reflects the values of Planned Parenthood’s supporters than its detractors. But that is how we should settle the question of who funds Planned Parenthood: with vigorous debate and by allowing individuals to follow their conscience. When Obamacare ‘settles’ the question by forcing taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood, it violates everyone’s freedom and dignity.
Ron Paul’s Pro-life view Ron Paul’s Pro-Life Speech in Ames, Iowa Uploaded by RonPaul2008dotcom on Aug 13, 2011 Free email updates: http://www.RonPaul.com/welcome.php Please like, share, subscribe & comment! http://www.RonPaul.com 08/13/2011– Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy. ___________________________________ Related posts: Crowd […]
This is the second of two posts. Here is the link to the first post. In this second post I will show that the pro-life Republicans hold the the Biblical pro-life view that Jesus would embrace if he were here today and the pro-choice view would be rejected (a minority of Republicans are pro-choice though and […]
This is going to take two posts to cover. Jason Tolbert hit the nail on the head in his recent post: It seems Democratic Rep. Garry Smith of El Dorado stepped into a bit of a mess this week when speaking to the newly formed Union County Democratic Club. Perhaps he wasn’t aware that intrepid […]
On the Arkansas Times blog in the comment section the person using username “Hackett” asserted: Life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, prior to that it is parasitical and lives at the discretion of the host. I responded with this post today: It seems to me the real argument lies in the […]
Richard Dawkins comments on Tim Tebow pro-life commercial. _________________________ On the Arkansas Times Blog, a person with the username “November” posted: You dont have the “choice” to kill and innocent child in the womb. No one gave the child a trial before killing it. The child is innocent, and the U S Constitution says you […]
PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL Marchers arrive at the state Capitol on Sunday after beginning the Arkansas March for Life in downtown Little Rock As in the past, the pr0-life March in Little Rock had at least twenty times the people in attendance that the pr0-abortion march did the previous day. In fact, last year Channel […]
Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. In Little Rock on January 21, 2012 in front of 100 pro-choice advocates met next to the Capitol to hear Loretta Ross speak. In that talk she pointed out something about her own experience. (Below is from another speech in which she recounts some of the same details.) […]
ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]
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
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has released a fiscal reform plan that would dramatically cut spending and rein in the size and scope of the federal government. My reaction to the proposal can be summed up in one word: hallelujah.
Republican policymakers – including the current GOP field of presidential candidates – talk a good game about reducing spending, but very few are willing to spell out exactly what they’d cut. As NRO’s Kevin Williamson puts it in the title of his write-up on the plan, “Ron Paul Dropping a Reality Bomb on the GOP Field.”
The following are some of the plan’s highlights:
Paul would immediately eliminate five cabinet-level departments: Commerce, Education,Energy, HUD, and Interior.
Paul says his plan would cut spending by $1 trillion in the first year alone, and balance the budget in three years without increasing taxes.
Funding for the wars would end. That’s not isolationism – it’s a common sense position that also reflects popular opinion. In addition, foreign aid spending would be zeroed out.
On entitlements, younger people would be given the freedom to opt out of Social Security and Medicare. Spending would be frozen for Medicaid and other welfare programs and they would be converted to block-grant programs.
That’s an ambitious agenda to say the least, and one that the press is likely dismiss as a pipe-dream. Then again, Paul has managed to single-handedly turn the Federal Reserve into a campaign issue, which nobody could have foreseen just several short years ago. In fact, several of Paul’s fellow candidates for the GOP nod have taken to echoing his anti-Federal Reserve sentiments. Hopefully, the other candidates will copy Paul again by getting specific on what they’d cut. If not, they should be prepared to explain to the electorate why taxpayers should keep funding the departments that Paul would ax.
Demonstrators march through the streets of Little Rock on Saturday in a protest organized by Occupy Little Rock. (John Lyon photo) Occupy Arkansas got cranked up today in Little Rock with their first march and several hundred showed up. It was unlike the pro-life marches that I have been a part of that have had […]
The Arkansas Times blogger going by the username “Sound Policy” asserted, “…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don’t you? Don’t you?” My response was taken from the material below: Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science […]
What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Jason Tolbert told a story about pro-life marchers and their tactic of prayer: OWNER TURNS SPRINKLERS ON PRO-LIFE PRAYER VIGIL In July, I wrote about a new movement springing up in Arkansas that seeks to combat abortion not with violent protest, but with peaceful prayer demonstrations. It is called “40 […]
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.” I just wanted to share with you one of the finest prolife papers I have ever read, and it is by President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have […]
I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]
President and Nancy Reagan talking to Mother Teresa in the Oval Office. 6/20/85. Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. Jason Tolbert wrote a great article this week about a pro-life meeting. He mentons William Harrison who I have written about before on this blog. I used to write letters to the editor a whole […]
I wrote a response to an article on abortion on the Arkansas Times Blog and it generated more hate than enlightenment from the liberals on the blog. However, there was a few thoughtful responses. One is from spunkrat who really did identify the real issue. WHEN DOES A HUMAN LIFE BEGIN? _______________________________________ Posted by spunkrat […]
Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. The Arkansas Times article, “Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right” by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series. click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: […]
The Arkansas Times article, “Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right” by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series. click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: Arkansas Right to Life director unswayed by […]
“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently has done a commercial about it. _______________________________ I have often wondered why we got to this point in our country’s life and we allow abortion. The answer is found in the words of Schaffer. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has […]
Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then took leaps into the area of non-reason to find some kind of meaning in life. Some people actually tried to look at communism and […]
Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then turned to trying to find answers in the area of non-reason. There were no fixed values and they just held on to the two […]
Richard Land on Abortion part 3 On the Arkansas Times Blog this morning I posted a short pro-life piece and it received this response: We have been over this time and again SalineRepublican, and I think we all know the issue: when does the right of a woman to control her own body yield to […]
Bob Jordan / Associated Press No. 13: Duke ends UNLV’s perfect season Final Four, March 30, 1991 — The Runnin’ Rebs returned four starters from the 1990 champions and rolled through the ’90-91 season. They entered the Final Four 34-0 and faced Duke, a team the Rebs beat by 30 points in the ’90 title […]
Vice Admiral C. Everett Koop, USPHS Surgeon General of the United States Francis Schaeffer Main page Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop put together this wonderful film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” and my senior class teacher Mark Brink taught us a semester long course on it in 1979. I was so […]
This is such a great video series “The Silent Scream.” I have never seen it until now and I wish I had seen it 30 years ago. Take a look at the video clip below. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about […]
Sherwood Haisty is taking my sons Hunter and Wilson to Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles area this morning where Dr. John MacArthur is pastor. They will be attending both Sunday School and Worship. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about […]
It only took one injury to expose how razor thin Tennessee was depth-wise at wide receiver last season. The impact of Justin Hunter’s torn anterior cruciate ligament put players all across the field in unexpected positions and the drop-off was significant.
So, coach Derek Dooley and the Vols did something about it. They recruited the problem away with their 2012 signing class, adding three four-star wide receivers — Alton Howard, Drae Bowles and Jason Croom — and a five-star cherry on top in the form of junior-college transfer Cordarrelle Patterson, who announced his decision early Wednesday morning.
The defensive line, which was steady but far from fantastic in 2011, has been similarly bolstered. Junior-college transfers Darrington Sentimore and Daniel McCullers have the potential to see immediate playing time while Danny O’Brien and Trent Taylor were both recruited heavily by college football’s elite.
A running back position that lacked any sort of playmaking threat in 2011 now has three new players with three completely different running styles. Alden Hill (power), Quenshaun Watson (speed) and Davante Bourque (little bit of both) provide, if nothing else, additional candidates for a job that should have a wide-open competition starting at spring practice.
“Got to have a lot of good football players to win in this league because other teams get injuries, too, and you can’t go blaming every year on an injury,” Dooley said. “You’ve got to go put the next guy in and go win. That’s what we were trying to do.”
It just wasn’t that easy at another position of need.
At linebacker, a spot that conceivably needed even more bodies than originally planned because of the anticipated implementation of more 3-4 formations, the Vols reeled in just two signees.
That group stood at four and featured two of the highest-ranked players at the position as recently as Sunday afternoon. It was what the Vols needed.
But on Sunday night, four-star Texas product Dalton Santos — who committed to the Vols during the summer but had his flirtation with other schools tracked like a soap opera — informed UT’s coaches that he would be signing with Texas. On Tuesday, longtime commitment Otha Peters (Covington, La.), who 247Sports considers the 13th best outside linebacker in the nation, dropped the Vols for Arkansas.
“Neither of them surprised us,” Dooley said. “We knew (with) those two guys it was going to be a tough road to close them out.”
Left were two three-star players who each come to UT with a learning curve ahead of them. Justin King was a do-everything athlete at Dunwoody High in Atlanta. LaTroy Lewis (Akron, Ohio), formerly a defensive end who missed most of his senior season with a broken bone in his foot, will make a transition to the “Jack” linebacker position.
“I think both of them will be really good football players,” Dooley said. “LaTroy probably wasn’t as good a fit in our old scheme and he knew it. He was getting a little shaky in December. I told him, ‘I’m going to fix it, be patient. You’re going to fit in perfectly with what we’re about to do.’ ”
Patience, though, wasn’t something UT’s coaches had at their disposal with fringe prospects because of the SEC’s new 25-man signing cap. The Vols were unable to “stockpile” players at positions of need like they could in the past because those spots needed to remain open for potential, last-minute signees. Players like Patterson.
In early January, when numbers started looking tight, one of the first commitments, linebacker Khalid Henderson of Austell, Ga., was told his spot might not be safe. Henderson promptly de-committed, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the situation was “a bunch of crap” and eventually signed with Kentucky.
“You get criticized for it,” said Dooley, who wasn’t speaking specifically about Henderson. “The fact of the matter is, you have to make those kinds of decisions and you can’t help them.”
There’s no disputing that the Vols do have quality players coming back at linebacker in 2012. Curt Maggitt and A.J. Johnson combined for 136 tackles and were shoo-ins for the All-SEC freshman team. Herman Lathers, who missed all of 2011 with a broken ankle, is “full go” and just one full year removed from a 75-tackle 2010.
Much like the wide receiver position in 2011, the question marks don’t swirl around the projected starters. It’s the next players off the bench — Dontavis Sapp, Nigel Mitchell-Thornton, John Propst, Christian Harris, Greg King and Raiques Crump — a group that combined for 37 tackles in 2011. A defensive end such as Jacques Smith and others could be in line for a move back to linebacker, but it’s far too early in the process to prognosticate.
Even after National Signing Day, possibilities remain on the recruiting trail. The Vols have room to sign four more players and Dooley said he expects a few, talented prospects to be still available because of the fallout from the signing cap.
“Time will tell,” Dooley said. “I wasn’t going to take a marginal player to fill out everything because I’m not sure we can get to 25 next year.”
The Vols have been very happy lately about all the great players they got but they are still crying about losing two 4 star linebackers on signing day. Late in the evening on signing day Andrew Gribble of Knoxville noted:
At linebacker, a spot that conceivably needed even more bodies than originally planned because of the anticipated implementation of more 3-4 formations, the Vols reeled in just two signees.
That group stood at four and featured two of the highest-ranked players at the position as recently as Sunday afternoon. It was what the Vols needed.
But on Sunday night, four-star Texas product Dalton Santos — who committed to the Vols during the summer but had his flirtation with other schools tracked like a soap opera — informed UT’s coaches that he would be signing with Texas. On Tuesday, longtime commitment Otha Peters (Covington, La.), who 247Sports considers the 13th best outside linebacker in the nation, dropped the Vols for Arkansas.
“Neither of them surprised us,” Dooley said. “We knew (with) those two guys it was going to be a tough road to close them out.”
Left were two three-star players who each come to UT with a learning curve ahead of them. Justin King was a do-everything athlete at Dunwoody High in Atlanta. LaTroy Lewis (Akron, Ohio), formerly a defensive end who missed most of his senior season with a broken bone in his foot, will make a transition to the “Jack” linebacker position.
Arkansas just wrapped up the 2011 season ranked No. 5 for on-field performance. Most college football analysts expect the Razorbacks to begin 2012 in the Top 10.
National recruiting rankings weren’t so favorable.
Only Scout.com ranked the Razorbacks among the Top 25 nationally for Wednesday’s 24-man signing class. No service that ranks conference recruiting standings put Arkansas in the top half of the league.
It is worth noting that Arkansas has routinely been on the outside looking in among signing day elite. Still, Coach Bobby Petrino has developed the talent on hand into teams capable of going 21-5 the last two seasons.
I was disappointed that Vandy had a better class than Arkansas but I was glad that we got a chance to get a quality linebacker to switch to the Hogs at the last moment. Otis Kirk’s Recruiting 360: Arkansas’ Peoples Key In Landing Otha Peters by Otis Kirk, Hawgs247.com 2/2/2012 at 1:06pm Arkansas struck late in […]
I am glad that Petrino got more defensive players than offensive players but time will tell if he can develop these three star players like he did in 2008 when that class later turned the hogs into a national contender in 2011. Below is an article from http://www.ajc.com Alabama (26): The national champs added to their […]
In the article below you can see that the player who lived in Texas that switched to Texas could be explained away and the one that lived in Virginia that switched to VA Tech could also but the Vols don’t have an explanation for why the 4 star linebacker Otha Peters switched from his commitment […]
I disagree with the article below that says that Vandy did not do well in recruiting. There is no way they are number 13 out of 14. National Signing Day around the SEC. 247Sports ranked the SEC team’s recruiting in this order: 1 Alabama, 2 Florida, 3 Georgia, 4 LSU, 5 Texas A&M, 6 South Carolina, […]
I have noticed that Arkansas never seems to have great recruiting years like Tennessee and Florida and Alabama do. However, the 2008 class that will graduate in 2012 for Arkansas included some great players like Joe Adams and has been re-ranked as the 5th best performing class. That class led Arkansas to a final ranking […]
It seems to me that there are a few surprises in the recruiting game this year. Below is a rivals article and the one below it is an article from 3 months ago. January 27, 2012 Rivals.com analyst Chris Neereviews recent rising and falling in the 2012 team rankings as National Signing Day nears. Five […]
It is true that USC’s Lane Kiffin has had two great recruiting classes at USC, but that was because he signed 25 players both in 2010 and 2011. He delayed “Judgement Day” by getting permission to avoid the 15 scholarship limits (imposed for 3 years) while the school appealed the NCAA’s decision. Therefore, all these […]
Runaway Spending, Not Inadequate Tax Revenue, Is Responsible for Future Deficits
The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
The Daily Hatch 