Monthly Archives: February 2012

An open letter to President Obama (Part 13 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

Before the Speech Begins – Emily Goff:

Previewing tonight’s speech this past weekend, Mr. Obama said: “We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for…building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

The President must not understand that an economy based on free-enterprise with limited government involvement will, in fact, work for and benefit more than just the wealthy. His administration’s idea of an economy that works involves imposing heavy-handed government regulations and threatening tax increases at every turn. Right now, the country is experiencing the tremendous uncertainty that such policies breed. It is the bad kind of uncertainty, the kind that keeps employers from hiring and entrepreneurs from launching new businesses. It keeps the economy stuck in slow, instead of revving it up. In place of more regulation, higher taxes, and increased government spending, the President should propose to take the country in a new direction in tonight’s speech. A direction that leads to less onerous government regulation, fundamental tax reform, and a government that spends taxpayer dollars responsibly.

____________________

The Free Market benefits everyone and somehow you don’t understand that. You should watch the film series “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman and the first episode would talk a lot about this.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

We got to cut this rapid increase of government spending

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

_______________________

We need to cut the rapid increase in spending.

President Obama’s Spending

Posted by Chris Edwards

The new federal budget includes a range of accounting maneuvers to cast the administration’s 10-year projections in the best possible light. Senate Republicans point out some of President Obama’s funky accounting here. But note that the George W. Bush administration also used tricks to make deficit forecasts look more optimistic.

That’s why it’s useful to look at a president’s spending numbers for the current year and next year, rather than the make-believe numbers for later years in the budget. The chart shows total federal outlays since 2000 and Obama’s estimated spending for 2012 and proposed spending for 2013. Data are for fiscal years. Also, I’ve excluded TARP spending because reestimates of TARP costs distort the data.

Spending has gone up from $2.98 trillion in 2008—the year before Obama came into office—to a proposed $3.80 trillion in 2013. That is a 28-percent increase in five years, which represents a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent. Because the economy has stagnated during this period, spending has increased as a share of GDP.

Note that the lack of an overall spending increase in 2013 is not a victory for frugality. For one thing, spending on the 2009 “stimulus” bill peaked at $235 billion in 2010 and is now falling. It will be roughly $30 billion in 2013.

Similarly, Iraq/Afghanistan war costs peaked at $163 billion in 2010 and are expected to fall to $97 billion by 2013. There have been similar drop offs in spending for recession-related programs such as unemployment insurance.

Thus, as stimulus, war, and recession-related costs are falling by hundreds of billions of dollars, President Obama is using the money to increase spending on other programs. We have run deficits greater than a trillion dollars four years in a row, and yet the president seems oblivious to the need for real spending cuts.

Here’s a better fiscal plan, which focuses on ways to cut spending and balance the budget.

An open letter to President Obama (Part 12 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Rep Michael Burgess response

Uploaded by  on Jan 25, 2012

This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address.

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

What’s Missing? Entitlement Reforms – Patrick Knudsen

Conspicuously absent from the President’s address was any acknowledgement of the government’s biggest challenge: the imperative of entitlement reform. This may not be surprising for a President who never tires of finding new ways to expand the federal government. But the omission reflects an unwillingness to face up to “the most predictable crisis we’ve ever had,” in the words of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan.

Runaway entitlements are the principal drivers of today’s record spending and debt. Over the next 10 years, entitlement spending will total about $26 trillion; and in2021, spending on all entitlements will total about $3.3 trillion, nearly the size of the entire budget today.

Spending on the three largest entitlements – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – will outpace inflation and the growth of the entire economy; and by the middle of this century, those three programs alone will spend as much as the total annual average of tax revenue over the past 40 years – putting the squeeze on all other policies (such as national defense and low taxes).

But the President, who must lead the drive for a solution, ignores it. Indeed, his premier achievement – nationalizing health care – will worsen the problem.

Nor can the problem be solved with modest trims around the edges of these programs. They need to be fundamentally restructured. The President’s failure to recognize and speak forcefully to this challenge suggests, regrettably, that his budget will skip it as well.

Even More Spending – Patrick Knudsen

As he has done throughout his tenure, the President keeps finding ways to advocate more spending – just the opposite of what the country needs. He clings to the view that innovation and economic growth require Washington’s direct involvement – without the nurturing and guidance of his progressive politics. He simply does not trust entrepreneurs, investors, and free markets.

He wants to pour more Washington money into education; more into science and research, and high tech manufacturing; more roads, bridges, and high-speed rail such as the ever-more-costly boondoggle in California.

He believes that Keynesian-style deficit spending is still needed to generate more demand and boost the economy – despite overwhelming evidence to the opposite. His 2009 stimulus bill is a monument to this failed economic thinking.

Besides, this spending will have to be paid for, and since Obama has yet to propose a serious reduction to federal spending that means it would likely be through higher taxes or more debt – and both will further drain the economy.

__________________________

You got to take the bull by the horns and reform entitlements. There is no other choice.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Keith Green’s article “Grumbling and Complaining–So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt?” (Part 3)

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt (live)

Uploaded by on May 25, 2008

Keith Green performing “So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt” live at West Coast 1980

____________

This song really shows Keith’s humor, but it really has great message. Keith also had a great newsletter that went out every month and I always enjoyed reading it. Below is a portion of an article he wrote  and I still remember some of the things he said over 30 years ago when I first read it.

Keith Green – So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt

Grumbling and Complaining —So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt?

By Keith Green

#2 Complaints Of Jealousy

Numbers reveals another dangerous complaint that’s buried in each one of us like a ticking bomb.

In Numbers 12:1 it says, “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married…” On the surface, their complaint seemed to be about Moses choosing a non-Jewish wife. But we know Moses was a praying man with a face-to-face relationship with God – and apparently God gave Moses the go-ahead to marry her. Actually, Miriam and Aaron were judging Moses and once they began to gripe, their real complaint came out. In the very next verse they said, “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?”

You don’t have to dig too deep to see the sin of jealousy. God had elevated Moses to a place of leadership, honor, and respect. And his own brother and sister couldn’t stand it! Their complaint didn’t come from physical appetite, like the people demanding meat. They complained because of hungry egos!

Unfortunately, egos didn’t become extinct at the close of the Old Testament. New Testament Christians like us, have New Testament ego problems. By that I mean we sometimes get jealous and complain against our brothers and sisters in the Lord. I’ve seen this kind of jealousy between close friends who get involved in ministry at the same time. One of them is put in a leadership position and you’d expect the other one to be happy for him because Paul says, “Rejoice with those who rejoice.” (Rom.12:15)

But all too often the response is a bruised ego. Then the grumbling starts. “Why does he get to lead the Bible study? I’ve been a Christian longer than he has. I led him to the Lord! Last night he took five minutes to find Haggai!”

Sadly, one reason we get jealous of Christian preachers, teachers, or performers is because we see others idolizing them. We should be offended, but if some of us get honest, we’ll admit we want that kind of respect and admiration too. Maybe you’ve never seen it in this way, but sometimes we want to be idolized!

Jesus had to settle this problem among his 12 closest friends the night before He was crucified. He’d already told them He was about to die, and they were grieving, right? Wrong. The week before they had watched Him hailed as King when He entered Jerusalem and now they were arguing over who would be the greatest in His Kingdom! (Lk. 22:24) I would’ve gone out and looked for 12 new disciples! But Jesus took a towel and a basin of water, and washed their feet one by one, like a common household servant. Then He said, “Do you know what I have done to you? You call me teacher and Lord; and you are right; for so I am. If I then… washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (Jn. 13:12-14)

Are you complaining because no one recognizes your gifts? Are you picking at the flaws in leaders? Are you murmuring because someone besides you is getting attention and praise?

Paul warned one group of Christians: “But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5:15) Jealous complaining is like a destructive cancer.

God allowed Miriam and Aaron to feel the cancerous effect of their complaints against Moses. In anger, the Lord struck Miriam with leprosy – the cancer of that age. (Num. 12:10) Though He cleansed her of the leprosy, she and Aaron were later forbidden to enter the Promised Land “because of rebellion.” (Num. 20:24)

The message is clear. Sometimes our complaints come from hungry egos we haven’t surrendered to the Lord. If you’ve been complaining because no one’s recognizing your gifts, surrender your ego to God before it becomes like a cancer, devouring your brothers and sisters in Christ, and consuming your own Spirit.

Your complete surrender will allow God to cleanse you. Then you will be ready to take your position in His Kingdom.

 

 

An open letter to President Obama (Part 11 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Sen. Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan. 24, 2012

Uploaded by  on Jan 24, 2012

Sen. Rand Paul delivered the following Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

Disappointing Housing Hype – David John

One of the disappointing aspects of President Obama’s speech was that the much hyped housing section was little more than a re-warmed proposal from last fall.  And that was just a re-working of several earlier failed versions that failed to work.  Sadly, this version is unlikely to be any more successful.

While details are lacking, the President promised to allow homeowners to refinance mortgages in a way that would reduce their payments by about $3,000 a year.  Earlier, there had been speculation that he would announce a way for homeowners to have the amount of their loan reduced, but after the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) noted that such a plan would cost taxpayers an additional $100 billion in subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that plan seems to have been dropped.

Housing remains a serious problem for our economy, but no matter what the President wishes, no federal program is likely to fix the problem.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

“Sproul Sunday” RC Sproul: Why Apologetics? – Defending Your Faith Part 2

I got a lot out of this and I got it off the internet.

Uploaded by on Jan 6, 2012

*I do not own this presentation. Used only for education purposes
All rights to Ligonier Ministries. (C) Ligonier Ministries
See the following links to purchase a High Quality Version of the presentation. Please support the ministry!
http://www.ligonier.org/store/defending-your-faith-dvd/
http://www.ligonier.org/store/defending-your-faith-paperback/

MESSAGE INTRODUCTION
Apologetics is positive and negative. It sets forth the reasons for belief, and it tears down the opposing arguments. But if you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom, why do it in the first place? Let’s find out from Dr. Sproul.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the offensive and defensive sides of apologetics.
2. To understand the difference between proof and persuasion.
3. To learn to appreciate and rely on the Scriptures and the rich tradition of apologetics as we confront the challenges of today.

QUOTATION AND THOUGHTS
Obstreperous (adj.): noisily resisting control or defying commands [from Latin, obstreperous, noisy]
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225—1274): Scholastic philosopher and theologian, born in Roccasecca, Italy. Most significant pre-Trent Catholic scholar other than Augustine. Three years after his death, a number of his views were condemned by Catholic authorities in Paris and Oxford, but in 1323, he was canonized by Pope John XXII, and in 1879, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical commending all his works to Catholic scholars.

LECTURE OUTLINE
I. Apologetics: Positive and Negative
a) We must state our position, positively affirming what the Christian church believes, if we are challenged. This can require much patience. b. We should also correct or tear down the false assumptions and irrationality present in other systems.

II. Where does apologetics start?

a) Some, like R.C., argue that apologetics starts with the existence of God.
Others say that you start with Scripture, or with history.
b) All apologetics systems that have any merit must affirm the depravity of man and the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s work in conversion.

III. Why do apologetics?

a) To obey the Scriptures—see 1 Peter 3:15.
b) To shame obstreperous non-Christians, as John Calvin stated.
c) “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
d) Christians should not surrender rationality and scientific inquiry to the secular world. The commonsense tools of learning can be used to corroborate the truth claims of Christianity.

IV. Proof and Persuasion

a) Proof can be offered, even irrefutable proof, but it does not necessarily lead to a change in belief.
b) The Holy Spirit causes the acquiescence into the soundness of the argument for the truth claims of the Christian faith. The role of the apologist is not persuasion, but proof.
c) Illustration: Charlie the Skeptic
d) “Those convinced against their will hold their first opinion still.”
e) While we are not able to change minds, we are able to give a faithful defense and thus add credibility to the Christian faith.

An open letter to President Obama (Part 10 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

Leader Cantor On CNN Responding To President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Uploaded by  on Jan 25, 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama  (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning your State of Union Speech on January 24, 2012 and here is a short portion of that article:

When is enough, enough? – Joe Luppino-Esposito

President Obama says that he wants even more fraud laws and penalties on the books for financial institutions.  Even putting aside all the new crimes in Dodd-Frank, there are already numerous laws prohibiting fraud on the federal books.  Indeed, back in 1999 Professor Ellen Podgor counted 92 uses of some form of the word “fraud” in federal criminal law!  As Paul Larkin has noted, Congress continues to pile on criminal laws regarding fraud, going as far as to propose that there should be an additional fraud law just for maple syrup.  Former Attorney General Ed Meese noted this in his Congressional testimony last month, asking “Will we, as a society, not be taken seriously about fighting fraud unless we double, triple, and quadruple the number of iterations of this crime?”

For Obama, the answer is a resounding, albeit ridiculous, “Yes.”

__________________________

More laws on the bank industry is not the answer.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Lionel Messi hat trick makes commentator shriek like he’s been tased (Soccer Saturday)

 

Dirty Tackle

 

 

Lionel Messi hat trick makes commentator shriek like he’s been tased

Lionel Messi momentarily overtook Cristiano Ronaldo as the top scorer in La Liga this season with a hat trick against Malaga on Sunday. Each of his goals was tremendous (the first was a header from considerable distance for someone who has been accused of not being able to use his head), but his third — Barcelona‘s final goal in the 4-1 win — was one of his trademark sublime runs topped off by a delicate finish while skipping over a challenge.

For former Newcastle/Ft. Lauderdale midfielder and current eccentric television commentator/professional Barcelona admirer Ray Hudson, this was all too much. So the only description he could offer of the goal was a gutteral yell you might expect to hear from someone with about a million volts coursing through their body. And, in its own way, it was perfect.

Once he calmed down a bit and changed his pants, Hudson sang Messi’s praises in his typically nonsensical way — something about Dr. Spock being “out of his Vulcan mind.” Then he hilariously topped it off by saying Messi was “running like he’s got a food mixer down his shorts.”

Boozman says Obama should cut spending

___

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending

Uploaded by  on Feb 14, 2011

In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced the CAP Act to dramatically cut federal spending over the next decade.

__________________________-

We are now on a fiscally irresponsible path here in the USA with the federal government spending 25% of GDP and having 4 straight budgets with over 1 trillion dollars a year in debt. That means our debt is now almost 16 trillion instead of the 9.9 trillion just 4 years ago.  Senator Boozman seems to be on the right track.

iscally responsible path

Feb 15 2012

Boozman Urges America to Reject the President’s Reckless Budget

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) took to the Senate floor today to urge America to reject President Obama’s reckless budget proposal and focus on passing a fiscally responsible budget.

“When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink.  The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again.  This is an unsustainable rate of spending,” Boozman said in his speech.

The full text of the speech can be found here:

Madam President: On Monday morning, the country was presented with President Obama’s budget proposal for the fiscal year.

If you were to only listen to the President and his surrogates, you would think this proposal is great for the nation.

The acting budget director says the President’s budget “makes the right investments.”

The head of the President’s National Economic Council used a litany of sports metaphors to make the case that “the president has very much stepped up to the plate.”

And the President himself said his budget makes “some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

The reason they are so excited about this proposal is that, they believe, in an election year, they have offered every ally something to woe their support.  This budget proposal truly does try to be everything for everyone.  The problem is, however, no one wins with it.

When you scratch the surface of this proposal, the shine quickly wears off.

The deficit reduction claims that the administration throws out to defend this proposal don’t hold water.

You can’t claim $1 trillion in cuts that Congress pushed through during the debt ceiling debate as new cuts.

Nor can you say with all honesty that $850 billion in war savings are real cuts.  This money was never going to be spent in the first place.

When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink.  The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again.  This is an unsustainable rate of spending.

On Monday, the President’s team was doing a full-scale PR push for this budget.  At one point during the rollout, a reporter asked the President’s top economic aides whatever happened to that pledge the President had made to the American people.

Gone from their answers was the tough talk of making “difficult decisions” and facing “challenges we’ve long neglected.”  Instead, his advisors were left to pull out the old standby excuse that the President and his team simply “didn’t realize how bad” the economy actually is when they first took over.

Clearly, they still don’t realize it now.

Not only does the President’s budget ignore the very real disarray our fiscal house is in, it makes the mess worse.

Since President Obama took office, our national debt has shot up 42%.   Under President Obama’s watch, the national debt has jumped to a jaw-dropping $15.1 trillion.

This is the fourth year in a row that the budget would run a deficit above $1.29 trillion.  When it comes to fiscal responsibility, this is not a record to be proud of.

America deserves better than a collection of tax hikes, phony savings and additional debt.

The President’s budget proposal is bad for seniors as it takes no steps to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, will hurt chances of an economic recovery through tax hikes and will add $11 trillion more to our already staggering national debt in a 10-year period.

We cannot continue to keep going down this road.   America’s fiscal health is at stake.  We’ve got to stop spending more than we take in.  If not, we risk going the direction of Greece, Portugal, Italy and other European countries that have spent their way to the brink of default.

As we head into the final year of President Obama’s first term, we have already witnessed the most rapid increase in debt under any U.S. President.  With our national debt already the size of our entire economy, the President has proposed a budget that calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.

If we followed through with this budget, deficit spending would exceed $600 billion every year but one over the next decade.  Our national debt would grow to $18.7 trillion.

President Obama would like you to believe that if we simply raise taxes we can solve all of our fiscal problems. A recent CBO report shows that spending is the primary cause of our fiscal crisis and supports spending cuts rather than tax increases to reverse this trend.  But the President is holding steadfast to his desire to raise taxes as an answer.

The President’s failed policy of borrowing, spending and taxing is just what the CBO is warning us to avoid.   It hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work in the future.

Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.  The fact that President Obama still believes we can tax our way out of the problem reveals a huge disconnect with the American people.

Madam President, when it comes to our country’s budget, Americans have a right to expect accountability, honesty and responsibility.  This proposal has none of those.

If President Obama refuses to acknowledge and address the very real economic crisis facing our country, let’s show America that we will.  We can do so by rejecting the White House’s proposal and passing a responsible budget that puts our nation back on a fiscally responsible path. 

4 reasons why big government does not work

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives four reasons why big government is bad fiscal policy.

I particularly like the explanation of how government spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from the productive sector of the economy.

Some cynics, though, say that it is futile to make arguments for good policy. They claim that politicians make bad fiscal decisions because of short-term considerations such as vote buying and raising campaign cash and that they don’t care about the consequences. There’s a lot of truth to this “public choice” analysis, but I don’t think it explains everything. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think we would have better fiscal policy if more lawmakers, journalists, academics, and others grasped the common-sense arguments presented in this video.

_______________

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government

Uploaded by  on Feb 7, 2011

This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains that excessive government spending undermines prosperity by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. Moreover, the two main ways of financing government — taxes and borrowing — cause additional economic damage. www.freedomandprosperity.org

____________________

And even if the cynics are right, we are more likely to have good policy if the American people more fully understand the damaging impact of excessive government. This is because politicians almost always will do what is necessary to stay in office. So if they think the American people are upset about wasteful spending and paying close attention, the politicians will be less likely to upset voters by funneling money to special interests.

For those who want additional information on the economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt (in other words, deficits are merely a symptom of an underlying problem of excessive spending).

Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays.