Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, speaks at Moving Forward on Entitlements: Practical Steps to Reform, NTUF’s entitlement reform event at CPAC, on Feb. 11, 2011.
This testimony was delivered on September 20, 2011.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My comments will examine the likely damage to the economy if federal spending and debt keep spiraling upward.
Rising Spending and Debt
Federal spending and debt have soared over the past decade. As a share of gross domestic product, spending grew from 18 percent in 2001 to 24 percent in 2011, while debt held by the public jumped from 33 percent to 67 percent. The causes of this expansion include the costs of wars, growing entitlement programs, rising spending on discretionary programs, and the 2009 economic stimulus bill.
Projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that without reforms spending and debt will keep on rising for decades to come.1 Under the CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario,” spending will grow to about 34 percent of GDP by 2035, as shown in Figure 1, and debt held by the public will increase to at least 187 percent of GDP.2
Hopefully, we will never reach anywhere near those levels of spending and debt. Going down that path would surely trigger major financial crises, as the ongoing debt problems in Europe illustrate. It is also very unlikely that Americans would support such a huge expansion of the government. The results of the 2010 elections suggest that the public has already started to revolt against excessive federal spending and debt.
Some policymakers are calling for a “balanced” package of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce federal deficits. But CBO projections show that the long-term debt problem is not a balanced one — it is caused by historic increases in spending, not shortages of revenues. Revenues have fallen in recent years due to the poor economy, but when growth returns, revenues are expected to rise to the normal level of about 18 percent of GDP — even with all current tax cuts in place. It is spending that is expected to far exceed normal levels in the future, and thus spending is behind the huge increases in debt that are projected.
1 Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” June 2011. 2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Economic Outlook Database,” September 2011, Annex Table 25, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls.
Ericka Andersen: Nearly four years ago, I read a profile piece on Andrew Breitbart in the New York Observer, calling him an “internet guru turned right wing messiah.”
I was enthralled by the energy of his quotes, they radiated off the page. This guy was fearless – completely unconcerned with offending anyone. I tracked down an email address and asked if I could interview him for a story, he responded within minutes “How about now?”, he asked.
In the next hour Brietbart answered every question about his personality and his activism with vigor and excitement. Thank god I was taping the conversation because he had a lot to say – really fast.
Little did I know, he’d soon be known by just about everyone. That inspiring energy I heard on the phone would be the first of many times that a hyperactive Breitbart would make me say, “Man, he’s good.” His passion and conviction were contagious. He moved fast but always apologized if he was wrong. In that interview four years ago, we discussed the dismissal of conservative beliefs in Hollywood. His disdain for big name Hollywood liberals was well known – and part of what fueled his drive to combat media bias.
“Everyone [in Hollywood] I meet makes me feel like I need to be louder more obnoxious to make sure their story is told so more people feel comfortable to come out of the woodwork,” Breitbart told me that day four years ago.
He always remembered me when I saw him after that interview, though I was usually one among many fighting a big crowd for a chance to say hello.
He was fighting for others, for liberty, for America. He did it with gusto and that big, vivacious personality will be sorely missed. Rest in Peace, Andrew.
Kate Nix: Coming to Heritage from one of the country’s most liberal college towns, I know it takes a lot of courage to stand up for your beliefs in the face of strong opposition. Andrew Breitbart was the poster child for fearlessness within the conservative movement, and was a great role model for myself and others who want to fight for what they believe in. The last time I encountered Breitbart in person, he was surrounded by young people, hearing and sharing ideas and encouraging everyone to make their voices heard. I hope his passion and unbreakable spirit will continue to inspire, shake things up, and advance the principles he fought for through those he leaves behind.
Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion […]
Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH Uploaded by bydesign001 on Feb 10, 2012 Courtesy of Mediaite via the Right Scoop. Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are […]
Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion And I Know Andrew Is In One Of Them I got a chance to meet Andrew once and it was on May 25, 2011. He was very gracious and I really enjoyed visiting with him. Below are […]
Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by GohmertTX01 on Mar 1, 2012 Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the life and legacy of his friend, conservative writer and American patriot, Andrew Breitbart. “Thank you, dear God, for sharing this extraordinary gift that was Andrew Breitbart with us. We […]
Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]
Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas Dave Elswick Chicago and Introduction.wmv Conservative film activist Andrew Breitbart spoke in Little Rock on Wednseday May 25th at the Hilton Hotel. The room was packed with conservative activist and Tea Party members. Breitbart talked about dealing with the liberal media […]
Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 to a packed room. The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]
Andrew Breitbart speaking in Little Rock on May 25, 2011. Andrew Breitbart – Taking Down the Corrupt and Biased, Leftist Mainstream Media Andrew Breitbart joined Hannity to talk about his new book “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!”, and about his mission to take down the corrupt and biased, leftist mainstream […]
Andrew Breitbart Andrew Breitbart CBS News reported on May 6, 2011: Conservative publisher Andrew Brietbart sat down for an extensive interview with CBSNews.com Friday in which he discussed his disdain for the mainstream media, offered his perspective on the Republican presidential field, said President Obama should have released a post-mortem photo of Osama bin Laden, and complained […]
THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77
_____________________________________
Friedman: Now what’s wrong with that? Two things are wrong. First place, nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. We talked about New York City. About seven or eight years ago (I’ve forgotten exactly when it was – Kenneth Galbraith in a n article in New York magazine said there were no problems in New York that could not be solved by the city spending enough money. If my memory serves me right, he said by doubling New York’s budget. Well, in the meantime, New York’s budget has quadrupled, and the problems have gotten worse, not better. And that’s cause and effect. Because when you say spend more money, whose money? The City of New York spent more money, but where did it get it? From its citizens. There is no more money in total to be spent. But nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. So you had more money being spent carelessly, and less money being spent carefully.
In the second place, equally important, you cannot spend somebody else’s money unless you first get it. How do you get it? Ultimately and fundamentally be sending a policeman to take it away from him. So the concept of doing good with somebody else’s money has force or coercion built into it as an essential feature. And those flows, the waste which arises out of spending somebody else’s money and the coercion which is unavoidable, destroy the good and the idea of doing good and convert it into doing bad.
HEFFNER: I’m interested in your second point because I’ve wondered, as you were addressing yourself to the subject, I’ve wondered whether it would be the philosophical climate that’s created, that of the policeman who comes and takes those tax monies, those funds, or is your opposition that of the economist? Is it that of the economist of that of the philosopher? Can we distinguish between them?
FRIEDMAN: We can distinguish between them very much. The economist, as economist, I can say what will be the consequences of doing something or other. As an economist, if you say to me – let me take a New York City problem – if I analyze to you the disastrous consequences of rent control in New York City, the effect which that has had on the deterioration of buildings, on the abandonment of buildings, on the reduction in the tax base, on slums, all of that is a predictable consequence of rent control. It’s a straight matter of technical economics that can be shown with a curve. Wherever rent control was introduced, whenever it was introduced, whether in Britain or in France or anywhere, it doesn’t matter; that’s purely a technical consequence of rent control. On the other hand, if I say, regardless of the consequences it is morally wrong for a government official to force me to rent a piece of property to you for less than the price at which I would voluntarily rent it, at that point I am now speaking as a man with values and philosophy. That is to say, you have both principle and expediency involved. The economist talks to the expediency; and the philosopher, the ethicist, the human being, talks to the principle.
HEFFNER: Now, the philosophers may disagree. Do the economists on this question of rent control and its relationship to New York’s…
FRIEDMAN: Oh, no, no. On rent control there’s no disagreement whatsoever. Oh, the interesting thing is that the public at large believes that economists disagree. The fact is that on most technical subjects in economics you’ll find almost no disagreement.
HEFFNER: All right.
FRIEDMAN: Rent control is certainly one example in which I will challenge you to find from the professional economists from the left to the right, I will challenge you to find anybody who will defend rent control from a technical economic point of view.
HEFFNER: All right. Now, when the program began, I was going to refer to you as this country’s foremost conservative economist. And you demerit that, you object to that characterization. And I can appreciate that. Is it not appropriate or proper though to say that there are economists in this country who fall into a camp that one might generally say is on the right, and others who fall into a camp that others might generally say is on the left?
FRIEDMAN: Yes.
HEFFNER: Or can we not say that economists disagree on major issues?
FRIEDMAN: Well, they disagree on major political issues. The question is whether they disagree on economic grounds or on noneconomic grounds. First, my objection to conservatives is not the same as the objections to what’s right or left. Right or left are very ambiguous terms. But conservative is a very definite, clear term. A conservative is somebody who wants to conserve, who keeps things as they are.
HEFFNER: And you don’t like the way things are.
FRIEDMAN: I don’t like things. I want to change them. I’m a radical. Who are conservatives today? The New Dealers, the people who are called in this country erroneously, liberals, the people who are in favor of big government. Mayor Beame’s a conservative. Hubert Humphrey’s a conservative. They want to continue along the path we’ve been going. You have two different dimensions along which, it seems to me, you can consider people. One of them they want to keep things the way they are, or change them. Conservative or radical. From that point of view I’m a radical. Second, insofar as things are changed, in what direction do they want to change them? You may have radicals who are people who are not conservative, who want to move farther in the direction we’ve been going, who want to have a completely socialized state, a completely collectivist state. And there is seems to me to the right terms are the ancient and honorable term “liberal” in its original sense and meaning of and pertaining to freedom; people like myself who want to maintain a free society. A word that has been much abused. And collectivists or stateists. People who want to have things organized through the state.
Now, the interesting thing about your question about economists is that there is a misleading impression of disagreement among economists. I’ve had this experience many times. Get a dozen people in a room together, some of them economists and some noneconomists, political scientists, sociologists, journalists, whatever they may be. Start any subject going. Within 15 minutes all the economists will be on the same side. Whatever their political persuasion is. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have different political views and different political attitudes. But those derive very little from their technical economic discipline, and a great deal from their values, their political orientations. Let me show you, again illustrate. When President Ford two years ago and more had a summit conference in Washington at which there were a collection of economists, to discuss the problems of that time, there was a manifesto issued by all the economists present with the exception I think of two, in favor of a long list of 28 (I think it was) measures at reducing governmental intervention into the economy. Economists from the left to the right were in favor of eliminating interstate commerce commissions in control of rail, of CAB control of airfares. And I now have forgotten of the… But there were, I think 28 such items on which they agreed. So I think the appearance of disagreement is very much greater than the reality.
What happens – let me take the energy problem we started about – suppose you were to ask economists – I don’t care whether they’re on the left or the right – “What would be the appropriate way to handle the energy problem if you could neglect all considerations of political feasibility? As technical economists, how should the energy problem be handled?” I will lay you a large wager that the bulk of the economists, 80, 90 percent will say, “Oh, well, that’s easy. You should let the market go. Let market price oil and market price natural gas.” Among the things that all the economists were agreed on at that summit was that you ought to get rid of the price ceilings on natural gas.
HEFFNER: Now, their differences will arise from what?
FRIEDMAN: At this level their differences will arise because they will say, “Oh, of course that’s the right solution.” But you know it’s not perfectly feasible. And so they go down the trap you were trying to drive me down before. Having accepted that it’s not politically feasible, then instead of being in favor of what I think is the right thing, I’m going to try to ask which is the least bad thing. So the economist comes out and says “Well, as the second best thing…” — he doesn’t even say this, but he thinks it – he says, “Well, I really have to be practical. It’s not feasible. You’re going to continue with price control on natural gas. You’re going to continue with price control of fuel crude oil. So maybe it would be a little better if we allowed those fixed prices to be higher, so we’ll come out in favor of higher prices and not attack the controls.”
HEFFNER: But now, Professor Friedman, you use the word “political.” You say this is a political decision. Is it political, or is it philosophical? Does it relate to the desire to have one’s party reelected? Elect, elect, elect; or spend, spend, spend and the elect, elect, elect? Or is it related to the sense of what we can impose upon the human beings who make up the electorate?
FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, you’re trying to put things into watertight categories that cannot be put there.
HEFFNER: Then take them out.
FRIEDMAN: Human beings are, every human being has a capacity of knowing what he believes is the right thing is also the right thing for the country.
In interview after interview, down through the decades Woody Allen has spoken repeatedly of his love of Ingmar Bergman and the influenece he’s had upon his films. While Interiors is clearly an homage to Bergman, Cries and Whispers in particular, to me his movies have been much more influenced by the films of Fellini. Stardust Memories is clearly a tip of the cap to 8 1/2, Celebrity to La Dolce Vita, Radio Days to Amarcord and Sweet And Lowdown to La Strada in that they both featured an emotionally crippled protagonist who realizes too late he’s fallen in love with a simple minded young woman.
Justin Biberkopf
about 3 years ago
Kenny, the La Strada connection is very perceptive. Sweet and Lowdown being less tragic, of course. But yes, I just rewatched Amarcord and was reminded of how much the whole structure of Radio Days borrows from it. Amarcord is such a dense text by comparison, though. At its funniest, I think it’s funnier than a lot of Allen’s movies, too. But then, Fellini is generally more of a comic director than Bergman, so that’s another connection with Woody.
Good points Justin. I was even tempted to compare Le notti di Cabiria to Mighty Aphrodite but decided their only real similarities is they both feature a prostitute as a main character.
Stardust memories is totally Woody’s 8 1/2. He said himself said in an interview, “I am not even half of the Fellini of 8 1/2”
Justin Biberkopf
about 3 years ago
Yes, the dream sequence that starts Stardust Memories is very Fellini-esque, with the sensuous woman and the party on the other train. Woody Allen isn’t half of Marcello Mastroinanni, either.
A few Woody Allen films are built around the conceit of a fake documentary (Zelig, Husbands and Wives, Sweet and Lowdown), a device that he may have gotten from Fellini (The Clowns, Roma, Intervista), although Bergman also uses this device at least once that I can think of: at the end of Hour of the Wolf. But Woody Allen’s borrowings aren’t limited to Fellini and Bergman. Manhattan Murder Mystery is basically Rear Window, for example.
That’s a great point Jeff D about the fake documentary device although Allen did also use it as early as 1969 with Take The Money and Run. Perhaps no director has used it as well as Fellini did with Roma.
Fellini seems to be the bigger influence primarily because of the fact that he was a lot more unneurotic, a lot less austere and not as rigorous as Bergman was. If u watch Fellini’s films there are always moments of quiet humor in them. Like in 81/2, u see Guido being sorrounded by his cast and crew asking him for directions, he sees a person coming ,quietly avoids talking to him by taking another guy in his fold and whispering in his ear, “I just called you, cos I did not want to talk to that guy”.. Also, Fellini’s films are soaked in a dream-like structure. Bergman’s films were probably born out of his own dreams, but they were then religiously fitted into a certain kind of worldly realism.
But then at the end of the day, I always watch Woody’s films to see the fun of it, to revel in the parody it brings with itself.
They should only be seen as approximations of something great that has been done before. To me, they are mere condensations..
Belle de Jour Presentation In a film class my partner and I did a video presentation on the film Belle de Jour and the filmmaker Luis Bunuel. Bunuel was a surrealist, so if the video doesn’t quite makes sense, its not supposed to. ___________________________________________________ I am presently going through the characters referenced in Woody Allen’s […]
I am currently going through the characters referenced in the Woody Allen movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am looking at Henri Matisse. Below is a press release from a museum in San Francisco: the steins were known for their saturday evening salons, where artists, writers, musicians, intellectuals, and collectors gathered to discuss contemporary art, […]
Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Modigliani’s mistress and later Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to the film story line. Actually Picasso had taken girls from others […]
An article from Biography.com below. I am currently going through all the personalities mentioned in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris.” Today I am spending time on Coco Chanel. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans […]
The Thinker (1879–1889) is among the most recognized works in all of sculpture. In fact, below you can see Paul who constantly is showing up Gil with his knowledge about these pieces of art. He shows off while describing Rodin’s life story when all four of them are taking in “The Thinker.” However, he is […]
Artists and bohemians inspired Woody Allen for ‘Midnight in Paris I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today we will look at Salvador Dali. In this clip below you will see when Picasso […]
2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle in “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to […]
How Should We Then Live 7#3 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” Paul Gauguin and Henri Toulouse Lautrec were the greatest painters of the post-impressionists. They are pictured together in 1890 in Paris in Woody Allen’s new movie “Midnight in Paris.” My favorite philosopher Francis Schaeffer […]
How Should We Then Live 7#1 Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin. 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am […]
Midnight In Paris – SPOILER Discussion by What The Flick?! Associated Press Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas in 1934 This video clip below discusses Gertrude Stein’s friendship with Pablo Picasso: I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that […]
2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Gad Elmaleh as Detective Tisserant in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Juan Belmonte was the most famous bullfighter of the time […]
Woody Allen explores fantasy world with “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 I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers […]
What The Flick?!: Midnight In Paris – Review by What The Flick?! 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony […]
The song used in “Midnight in Paris” I am going through the famous characters that Woody Allen presents in his excellent movie “Midnight in Paris.” This series may be a long one since there are so many great characters. De-Lovely – Movie Trailer De-Lovely – So in Love – Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd & Others […]
Photo by Phill Mullen The only known photograph of William Faulkner (right) with his eldest brother, John, was taken in 1949. Like his brother, John Faulkner was also a writer, though their writing styles differed considerably. My grandfather, John Murphey, (born 1910) grew up in Oxford, Mississippi and knew both Johncy and “Bill” Faulkner. He […]
I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” was so good that I will be doing a series on it. My favorite Woody Allen movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors and I will provide links to my earlier posts on that great movie. Movie Guide the Christian website had the following review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is the […]
Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]
Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]
I am an avid reader of the National Review and I remember watching those famous debates at Harvard between John Kenneth Galbraith and William Buckley. You probably were at some of those debates. Below is a portion of an article that talks about your recent State of the Union address:
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
This was a 2012 campaign speech poorly disguised as a State of the Union Address. But mostly, it was incoherent.
How far we have come in this mishmash from seas rising and temperatures cooling! Obama took credit for things that happened over his opposition, kept silent about his failures (especially the debt), omitted his “successes” (Obamacare) and largely made things up as he hoped and changed his way through. No one listening to Obama would ever dream that we are up to $16 trillion in debt, facing an implosion of Medicare and Social Security, and have a nonexistent housing market, high unemployment, and soaring gas and food prices.
Some details: The war on terror and Iraq are praised for having brought results, but unmentioned is that Obama once opposed all the very protocols and policies that he inherited — and now embraces.
September 2008 was just yesterday, frozen in amber as Obama’s talisman that wards off all responsibility for 2009–2012; the three-and-a-half years in between never happened.
The Democratic Congress’s $4 trillion-borrowing between 2009–2011did nothing; one year of a Republican House wanting a stop to the debt apparently means killing jobs.
The evil Chinese found a way to make things more cheaply than we did and must stop it.
Given soaring gasoline prices and Solyndra, green was sorta then, and natural gas is sorta now. So Obama takes credit for oil and gas production, but to do so shamelessly must tell untruths: Gas production is up only because of someone else’s private genius utilizing fracking and horizontal drilling — in spite of Obama’s cutting back on 40 percent of federal leases, EPA bullying, cap-and-trade utopianism, and his administration’s canceling things like Keystone — and gasoline demand is down because his economy has been so bad the last three years.
Wall Street greed must be watched. That’s why Obama has hired three straight Wall Street multi-millionaires who made their fortunes on Wall Street — much of it from the Freddie/Fannie bubble he serially faults others for.
Losing millions of jobs between 2009–12 was all Bush’s fault, gaining back less than half of them was all to the credit of Obama.
If the Hoover Dam is now Obama’s model, then canceling the massive Keystone Pipeline was his missed chance.
Every corporation must pay their fair share — perhaps even non-income-tax-paying Obama pal GE’s Jeffery Immelt?
Schools should be much more flexible — that’s why Obama opposed charter schools and backs teachers’ unions. Dropouts drop out not on their own volition, but because they can’t stay on the premises and therefore won’t be allowed out until they turn 18.
Obama wants job training instead of unemployment entitlements, but that’s why he vastly expanded the latter.
Outsourcing is bad, but we brag on a globalized Siemens when it outsourced European jobs to hire Americans. Somehow Wall Street (without help from Fannie and Freddie insiders and incompetent or risk-taking buyers) forced houses on the innocent who did not know what they were doing.
Illegal aliens somehow dropped in; none willingly broke the law getting or staying here.
Cutting deficits is critical; that is why Obama ran up $6 trillion in four years.
A man who tried to prevent up-and-down votes while was a senator no longer likes that as president.
Reaching out to Syrian dictator Assad and restoring diplomatic relations with him was part of the Obama plan to see him gone.
Reset with Iran was then, threatening it is now.
The worst relationship in history with Israel is really the strongest.
Massive defense cuts are proof of a brilliant Obama new strategic reassessment.
And on and on, with not a word about looming financial insolvency and a ruined health-care system. In Obama’s peasant idea of a limited good, a few bad guys get ahead only by ensuring lots of good guys don’t.
One bright note: In a brief, matter-of-fact rebuttal, Mitch Daniels said more in ten minutes than Obama did in over an hour — in over three years, in fact — and more than all the Republican candidates have said in four months.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the just-releasedThe End of Sparta. You can reach him by e-mailingauthor@victorhanson.com.
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
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
“Norah O’Donnell. How are you?”
Question:
“Thank you, Mr. President. Today is Super Tuesday, so I wonder if you might weigh in on some of your potential Republican opponents. Mitt Romney has criticized you on Iran and said, ‘Hope is not a foreign policy.’ He also said that you are ‘America’s most feckless President since Carter.’ What would you like to say to Mr. Romney?”
President Obama:
“Good luck tonight.”
(Laughter.)
Question:
“No, really.”
President Obama:
“Really.”
(Laughter.)
“Lynn, since you’ve been hollering and you’re from my hometown, make it a good one.”
Question:
“My question is about the switch of the G8 summit from Chicago to Camp David. A reason given from the White House is that now you wanted a more intimate summit. People of Chicago would like to know what do you know now that you did not know when you booked hometown Chicago for the G8 that led to the switch? And what role did security threats possibly play in the decision?”
President Obama:
“Well, keep in mind, Lynn, we’re still going to be showing up with a whole bunch of world leaders. We’ve got this NATO summit. Typically what’s happened is, is that we try to attach the G8 summit to the NATO summit so that the leaders in the G8 summit don’t have to travel twice to whatever location. So last year, in France, we combined a G8 with a NATO summit. We’ll do so again.
“I have to say, this was an idea that was brought to me after the initial organizing of the NATO summit. Somebody pointed out that I hadn’t had any of my counterparts, who I’ve worked with now for three years, up to Camp David. G8 tends to be a more informal setting in which we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way. And the thinking was that people would enjoy being in a more casual backdrop. I think the weather should be good that time of year. It will give me a chance to spend time with Mr. Putin, the new Russian President. And from there, we will then fly to Chicago.
“I always have confidence in Chicago being able to handle security issues. Whether it’s Taste of Chicago or Lollapalooza — (laughter) — or Bull’s championships, we know how to deal with a crowd. And I’m sure that your new mayor will be quite attentive to detail in making sure that everything goes off well.
“All right? Okay. Go ahead, last one, last question.”
Question:
“Thank you. Mr. President, just to continue on that — when the NATO leaders gather in Chicago in May, do you expect that they’ll be able to agree on a transition strategy? And are you concerned at all that the Koran burning and the episodes that have followed since then threaten your ability to negotiate with partners?”
President Obama:
“Well, keep in mind that the transition policy was in place and established at Lisbon, and we’ve been following that strategy that calls for us turning over increasing responsibility to Afghans and a full transition so that our combat role is over by the end of 2014. And our coalition partners have agreed to it. They are sticking with it. That continues to be the plan.
“What we are now going to be doing over the next — at this NATO meeting and planning for the next two years, is to make sure that that transition is not a cliff, but that there are benchmarks and steps that are taken along the way, in the same way that we reduced our role in Iraq so that it is gradual, Afghan capacity is built, the partnering with Afghan security forces is effective, that we are putting in place the kinds of support structures that are needed in order for the overall strategy to be effective.
“Now, yes, the situation with the Koran burning concerns me. I think that it is an indication of the challenges in that environment, and it’s an indication that now is the time for us to transition.
“Obviously, the violence directed at our people is unacceptable. And President Karzai acknowledged that. But what is also true is President Karzai I think is eager for more responsibility on the Afghan side. We’re going to be able to find a mechanism whereby Afghans understand their sovereignty is being respected and that they’re going to be taking a greater and greater role in their own security. That I think is in the interest of Afghans. It’s also in our interests. And I’m confident we can execute, but it’s not going to be a smooth path. There are going to be bumps along the road just as there were in Iraq.”
Question:
“Well, are these bumps along the road, or are you seeing a deterioration in the relationship, based on the Koran burning itself, the violence that has followed, that inhibits your ability to work out things like how to hand off the detention center?”
President Obama:
“No, I — none of this stuff is easy, and it never has been. And obviously, the most recent riots or protests against the Koran burning were tragic, but remember, this happened a while back when a pastor in Florida threatened to burn a Koran. In Iraq, as we were making this transition, there were constant crises that would pop up and tragic events that would take place and there would be occasional setbacks.
“But what I’ve tried to do is to set a course, make sure that up and down the chain of command everybody knows what our broader strategy is. And one of the incredible things about our military is that when they know what our objective is, what our goal is, regardless of the obstacles that they meet along the way, they get the job done.
“And I think that President Karzai understands that we are interested in a strategic partnership with the Afghan people and the Afghan government. We are not interested in staying there any longer than is necessary to assure that al Qaeda is not operating there, and that there is sufficient stability that it doesn’t end up being a free-for-all after ISAF has left.
“And so we share interests here. It will require negotiations, and there will be time where things don’t look as smooth as I’d like. That’s kind of the deal internationally on a whole range of these issues.
“All right? Thank you guys.
“Oh, can I just make one other comment? I want to publicly express condolences to the family of Donald Payne, Congressman from New Jersey — a wonderful man; did great work, both domestically and internationally. He was a friend of mine. And so my heart goes out to his family and to his colleagues.”
Obama’s Budget Sings a Golden Oldie: “Do You Believe in Magic?”– J.D. Foster Imagine if every President magically got an extra year. Budgets are always full of contestable assumptions and assertions, and President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget is no exception. But few budgets get an extra year—certainly none in recent memory, until now. It’s not that President Obama’s budget assumes his first term will last five years instead of four, or that a second term would last an extra year. But there is an extra year in the budget. It shows up in the economic assumptions, specifically, his assumptions for economic growth. Every budget rests on two basic pillars: the President’s policy proposals in conjunction with current law, and the economic assumptions that drive tax receipts and much of federal spending. A President can be forgiven a little optimism in formulating these economic assumptions, as every Administration believes its policies would produce a stronger economy. And, after all, these economic forecasts, while painstakingly developed, are nevertheless little more than SWAGs, which is budget speak for Silly, Wild-A** Guesses. Even so, ever since the humorous debates about rosey-scenario forecasts dating back to the 1980s, a budget’s economic forecasts rarely diverge substantially from the conventional wisdom as evidenced by the Blue Chip forecast, essentially an average of selected private-sector forecasters. It’s not that the Blue Chip forecast is more likely than any other to be right, but at least it does reflect something of a safe, prudent consensus. The January Blue Chip forecast as reported in the budget has growth in real output in 2012 of 2.2 percent, which agrees with the Congressional Budget Office forecast. The Administration shows a substantially higher forecast of 2.7 percent. That’s a big difference for the most important year—the current year. A pattern of the Administration projecting substantially stronger growth continues in the forecasts for every year up until 2017—what would be the end of President Obama’s second term if re-elected, when at last the Administration’s forecast returns to earth. The net effect of these uber-strong annual economic growth forecasts is that from 2012 to 2017, the Administration projects a whopping 3.9 percent more cumulative growth than does the Blue Chip forecast. In economic terms, that’s like adding an extra year of growth—an extra very good year of growth. And the effect of this irrational economic forecasting exuberance on the deficit in 2017? The budget tells us that, too, in a sensitivity table (3-1). According to the President’s own budget, the deficit in 2016 would jump by about $195 billion, from $649 billion to about $844 billion, if they used the more conservative Blue Chip forecast. If only we could count on this magical economic year of growth, maybe we could wish our fiscal troubles away. As the Lovin’ Spoonful sang it: “Do you believe in magic?”
_________________________________
I don’t know much about projections and the assumptions they are based on. However, I do know that it is impossible to claim that this budget proposal cuts anything when in fact it adds 8 trillion to the deficit in coming years.
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
Question:
“Thank you, Mr. President. Do you believe Rush Limbaugh’s apology to the Georgetown law student was sufficient and heartfelt? Do you agree with the decision of the growing number of sponsors that have decided to drop his show or stop supporting his show? And has there been a double standard on this issue? Liberal commentators have made similarly provocative or distasteful statements and there hasn’t been such an outrage.”
President Obama:
“I’m not going to comment on what sponsors decide to do. I’m not going to comment on either the economics or the politics of it. I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart, so I’m not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology. What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse.
“And the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens. And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want you to be engaged, and there’s a way to do it that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen.
“Jessica Yellin.”
Question:
“Bill Mahr apologized for what he said about — (inaudible) — should apologize for what they said about that?”
President Obama:
“Jessica.”
Question:
“Thank you, Mr. President.”
President Obama:
“Thank you.”
Question:
“Top Democrats have said that Republicans on a similar issue are engaged in a war on women. Some top Republicans say it’s more like Democrats are engaged in a war for the women’s vote. As you talk about loose talk of war in another arena and women are — this could raise concerns among women, do you agree with the chair of your Democratic National Committee that there is a war on women?”
President Obama:
“Here is what I think. Women are going to make up their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that they care most deeply about. And one of the things I’ve learned being married to Michelle is I don’t need to tell her what it is that she thinks is important.
“And there are millions of strong women around the country who are going to make their own determination about a whole range of issues. It’s not going to be narrowly focused just on contraception. It’s not going to be driven by one statement by one radio announcer. It is going to be driven by their view of what’s most likely to make sure they can help support their families, make their mortgage payments; who’s got a plan to ensure that middle-class families are secure over the long term; what’s most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete.
“And I believe that Democrats have a better story to tell to women about how we’re going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy, make sure everybody has a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, and we got a fair set of rules of the road that everybody has to follow.
“So I’m not somebody who believes that women are going to be single-issue voters. They never have been. But I do think that we’ve got a strong story to tell when it comes to women.”
Question:
“Would you prefer this language be changed?”
President Obama:
“Jessica, as you know, if I start being in the business of arbitrating –”
Question:
“You talk about civility.”
President Obama:
“And what I do is I practice it. And so I’m going to try to lead by example in this situation, as opposed to commenting on every single comment that’s made by either politicians or pundits. I would be very busy. I would not have time to do my job. That’s your job, to comment on what’s said by politicians and pundits.
“All right. Lori Montenegro.”
Question:
“Mr. President, thank you.”
President Obama:
“There you go.”
Question:
“Mr. President, polls are showing that Latino voters seem to be favoring your reelection over a Republican alternative. Yet some of them are still disappointed, others have said, about a promise that you’ve made on immigration reform that has yet to come to pass. If you are reelected, what would be your strategy, what would you do different to get immigration reform passed through the Congress, especially if both houses continue as they are right now, which is split?”
President Obama:
“Well, first of all, just substantively, every American should want immigration reform. We’ve got a system that’s broken. We’ve got a system in which you have millions of families here in this country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation. You’ve got American workers that are being undercut because those undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be observed, overtime laws may not be observed.
“You’ve got incredibly talented people who want to start businesses in this country or to work in this country, and we should want those folks here in the United States. But right now, the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here.
“So we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And it is not just a Hispanic issue — this is an issue for everybody. This is an American issue that we need to fix.
“Now, when I came into office I said I am going to push to get this done. We didn’t get it done. And the reason we haven’t gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue.
“I give a lot of credit to my predecessor, George Bush, and his political advisors who said this should not be just something the Democrats support; the Republican Party is invested in this as well. That was good advice then; it would be good advice now.
“And my hope is, is that after this election, the Latino community will have sent a strong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform that involves making sure we’ve got tough border security — and this administration has done more for border security than just about anybody — that we are making sure that companies aren’t able to take advantage of undocumented workers; that we’ve got strong laws in place; and that we’ve got a path so that all those folks whose kids often are U.S. citizens, who are working with us, living with us and in our communities, and not breaking the law, and trying to do their best to raise their families, that they’ve got a chance to be a fuller part of our community.
“So, what do I think will change?”
Question:
“What would you do differently?”
President Obama:
“What I will do — look, we’re going to be putting forward, as we’ve done before, a framework, a proposal, legislation that can move it — move the ball forward and actually get this thing done.
“But ultimately, I can’t vote for Republicans. They’re going to have to come to the conclusion that this is good for the country and that this is something that they themselves think is important. And depending on how Congress turns out, we’ll see how many Republican votes we need to get it done.
In this article below you will see that the American people do not want Obamacare but yet it is being crammed down their throats and all the regulations that go with that too.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
Never underestimate the brilliance of our federal bureaucracy.
The Department of Health and Human Services has announced that it must delay implementation of new reimbursement codes for Medicare. Those new regulations would have increased the total number of reimbursement codes from the current 18,000 to more than 140,000 separate codes. The delay will undoubtedly come as a relief for physicians who will have additional time to try to understand the bureaucratic complexity of rules that, for example, apply 36 different codes for treating a snake bite, depending on the type of snake, its geographical region, and whether the incident was accidental, intentional self-harm, assault, or undetermined. The new codes also thoroughly differentiate between nine different types of hang-gliding injuries, four different types of alligator attacks, and the important difference between injuries sustained by walking into a wall and those resulting from walking into a lamppost.
And Democrats wonder why Americans still resist having the government control our health care?
Less than a month before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the American people have already reached their judgment. According to the latest USA Today poll, fully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. And if the Court doesn’t throw Obamacare out, Americans want Congress to do so: Half of voters want the law repealed, compared to 44 percent who want it retained. Moreover, those who want it repealed feel much more intensely about it. Fully 32 percent “strongly support” repeal, compared to just 18 percent who “strongly oppose” it. This is consistent with other polls — for example, the latest Rasmussen poll has 53 percent of likely voters supporting repeal, with just 38 percent opposed — and virtually unchanged since the law passed.
[F]ully 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Despite constant predictions by the media and the laws supporters, Obamacare is not becoming more popular.
The public seems to understand that government intervention does not generally make things less expensive. And there are good reasons for the public’s skepticism. For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported in December that at least six programs that were supposed to save money under Obamacare not only don’t, but some actually are increasing costs. And Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of both Obamacare and its precursor Romneycare, now says that premiums are likely to rise under the new health-care law. In fact, Gruber warns that, even after receiving government subsidies, some individuals will end up paying more than they would have without the reform. Gee, thanks, Mr. President.
And the public understands that imposing new taxes, mandates, and regulations will do nothing to create jobs in a struggling economy. In fact, a poll released last month by the Chamber of Commerce showed that for 74 percent of small businesses they’re “causing an impediment to job creation.”
At the same time, the controversy over the administration’s contraception mandate has brought home to voters just how coercive the health-care law really is.
Most of all, Americans understand that, from the beginning, the debate over health-care reform has been about control. The Obama administration believes that decisions about health care are simply too important and too complex for the average American and his doctor to make for themselves. Only the experts in Washington can get those decisions right. After all, only Washington can understand the difference between a burn from a hot toaster (Code No. X15.1) and a burn from an electronic-game keyboard (Code No. Y93.C1).
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the American people just don’t believe them.
Transcript of President Obama’s press conference on March 6, 2012:
“Jackie. Where’s Jackie? There you are.”
Question:
“With the news this morning that the U.S. and its allies are returning to the table, are taking up Iran’s offer to talk again, more than a year after those talks broke up in frustration, is this Israel’s — Iran’s last chance to negotiate an end to this nuclear question?
“And you said three years ago — nearly three years ago, in a similar one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the time for talk — by the end of that year, 2009, you would be considering whether Iran was negotiating in good faith. And you said at that time that ‘we’re not going to have talks forever.’ So here we are nearly three years later. Is this it? And did you think you would be here three years after those first talks?”
President Obama:
“You know, there is no doubt that over the last three years when Iran has engaged in negotiations there has been hemming and hawing and stalling and avoiding the issues in ways that the international community has concluded were not serious. And my expectations, given the consequences of inaction for them, the severe sanctions that are now being applied, the huge toll it’s taking on their economy, the degree of isolation that they’re feeling right now — which is unprecedented — they understand that the world community means business.
“To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. They know how to do that. This is not a mystery. And so it’s going to be very important to make sure that, on an issue like this — there are complexities; it obviously has to be methodical. I don’t expect a breakthrough in a first meeting, but I think we will have a pretty good sense fairly quickly as to how serious they are about resolving the issue.
“And there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the international community and that are verifiable, that would allow them to be in compliance with international norms, in compliance with international mandates, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and provide the world an assurance that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They know how to do it, and the question is going to be whether in these discussions they show themselves moving clearly in that direction.
“Ed Henry.”
Question:
“Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on Israel and Iran because you have said repeatedly you have Israel’s back. And so I wonder why, three years in office, you have not visited Israel as President. And related to Iran and Israel, you have expressed concern about this loose talk of war, as you call it, driving up gas prices further. Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?”
President Obama:
“Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that — is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?
“Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices. I want gas prices lower because they hurt families; because I meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it’s a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks, and a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now.
“And it’s not good for the overall economy, because when gas prices go up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. And we’re in the midst right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we don’t want to reverse it.
“What I have also said about gas prices is that there is no silver bullet and the only way we’re going to solve this problem over the medium and long term is with an all-of-the-above strategy that says we’re going to increase production — which has happened; we are going to make sure that we are conserving energy — that’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars, which will save consumers about $1.7 trillion and take about 12 billion barrels of oil offline, which will help to reduce prices — and we’re going develop clean energy technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil.
“And we’ve made progress. I mean, the good news is, 2010, first time in a decade that our oil imports were actually below 50 percent, and they have kept on going down. And we’re going to keep on looking at every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use, while maintaining our living standards and maintaining our productivity and maintaining our economic growth, and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure that consumers aren’t hurt by it.
“Now, there are some short-term steps that we’re looking at with respect to — for example, there are certain potential bottlenecks in refineries around the country that we’ve been concerned about. We’re concerned about what’s happening in terms of production around the world. It’s not just what’s happening in the Gulf. You’ve had, for example, in Sudan, some oil that’s been taken offline that’s helping to restrict supply.
“So we’re going to look at a whole range of measures — including, by the way, making sure that my Attorney General is paying attention to potential speculation in the oil markets. I’ve asked him to reconstitute a task force that’s examining that.
“But we go through this every year. We’ve gone through this for 30 years. And if we are going to be competitive, successful, and make sure families are protected over the long term, then we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got a set of options that reduce our overall dependence on oil.
“And with respect to Israel, I am not the first President who has been unable, because of a whole range of issues, not to visit Israel as President in their first term. I visited Israel twice as senator, once right before I became President. The measure of my commitment to Israel is not measured by a single visit. The measure of my commitment to Israel is seen in the actions that I’ve taken as President of the United States. And it is indisputable that I’ve had Israel’s back over the last three years.”
The Daily Hatch 