The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)
_______________
3 Reasons Why The Debt-Ceiling Debate is Full of Malarkey
All anybody in Washington can talk about these days is the debt limit or debt ceiling — the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow at any given time. After a decade in which spending increased by more than 60 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars and the debt limit was raised no fewer than 10 times, the government is about to max out its $14.3 trillion credit line, leading to fears that Washington is going to default on its bonds, stop cutting Social Security checks, and destroy the economy more than it already has.
But the current debate over the debt ceiling is full of malarkey for at least three reasons.
1. August 2 is a phony deadline. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has pushed back the drop-dead date when the U.S. finally reaches its limit a bunch of times already: March 31, April 15, May 31 were all cited as deadlines before August 2 was inked in as Armageddon. But this time, he means it, man, really.
2. Reaching the debt limit is not the same as defaulting on our debt — which would indeed be catastrophic.
Think about it: You can max out your credit cards but as long as you keep paying the minimum amount due each month, your creditors don’t go crazy. Interest on the debt is a small fraction of total outlays and the government has a series of tools — from using cash on hand to selling assets to scrimping on nonessential payments — to make sure interest payments are made and seniors aren’t put on an all cat-food diet.
3. Legislating-by-Panic is no way to run a country. The reason we’re in this mess is because government can’t stop spending. And the government can’t even pass a budget on a year’s notice. But we’re expecting them to come up with a good plan for the country’s borrowing in a couple of weeks? Trying to force through an expansion of the country’s credit line by promising cuts in spending down the road is exactly why we’re in this situation to begin with.
It makes far more sense to do something like sell some TARP assets — the government is sitting on $320 billion in outstanding direct loans and equities investments — to cover interest payments through the end of the fiscal year then force Congress and the president to come up with a budget that cuts spending — and borrowing — for real, next year, not is some distant future.
Produced by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg, edited by Joshua Swain.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
_________________
It seems silly to keep spending like we are when we can clearly see what our future holds by seeing the problems that Greece is now having because of their socialism.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
In the immediate term, Congress should address this problem by pursuing a reform path that drives down federal spending and borrowing and gets to a balanced budget. Saving the American Dream is Heritage’s plan to do just that: balancing the federal budget in 10 years and keeping it balanced in the future—without raising taxes or neglecting our national defense. Starting immediately, Congress should take every opportunity to cut and cap federal spending, and that includes addressing the unsustainable costs of America’s entitlement programs.
A part of the long-term agenda to rein in government is an appropriate and sound amendment to the Constitution that would keep federal spending under control in subsequent years. Indeed, the principal reason for adopting a balanced budget constitutional amendment is to limit the size and scope of the federal government by limiting its spending.
Proponents have long advocated this extraordinary step because other methods of controlling spending—by rule or statute—have broken down. What was once considered part of the nation’s “unwritten” constitution—that as a rule the government should not spend beyond its means—has been lost. A constitutional rule, if properly written and enforced, would have more power than any legislative mechanism for maintaining a limit on spending.
As Heritage’s David Addington has previously stated, a BBA should do three core things.
First, it should control spending, taxation, and borrowing by capping annual spending and requiring Congress to act by supermajority votes if Members wish to raise taxes. These requirements are especially necessary under current circumstances—prior to having seriously reduced spending and reformed entitlement programs, the main drivers of the country’s debt.
Second, it should allow Congress by supermajority votes to waive temporarily compliance with the balanced budget requirement when it is essential to national security—the one core function that is the federal government’s exclusive constitutional responsibility.
Third, it should provide for its own enforcement, specifically excluding courts from any enforcement and preventing government from just borrowing more money to meet the BBA requirement.
A BBA without these provisions doesn’t address the underlying spending problem, puts pressure on Congress to increase taxes or issue more debt rather than cut spending or reform entitlements, and invites unelected judges to insert themselves even more in the policymaking process. Which is to say that, rather than simplifying matters, a weak BBA would likely make the situation much worse.
Notwithstanding the many admirable features of Sweden, I never thought they would be moving in the right direction on fiscal policy while the United States was heading in the opposite direction.
When Europe’s finance ministers meet for a group photo, it’s easy to spot the rebel — Anders Borg has a ponytail and earring. What actually marks him out, though, is how he responded to the crash. While most countries in Europe borrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. …Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right. ‘Look at Spain, Portugal or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,’ he says. ‘Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.’ Tax-cutting Sweden, by contrast, had the fastest growth in Europe last year, when it also celebrated the abolition of its deficit. …‘Everybody was told “stimulus, stimulus, stimulus”,’ he says — referring to the EU, IMF and the alphabet soup of agencies urging a global, debt-fuelled spending splurge. Borg, an economist, couldn’t work out how this would help. ‘It was surprising that Europe, given what we experienced in the 1970s and 80s with structural unemployment, believed that short-term Keynesianism could solve the problem.’ …He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with entrepreneurs. If cutting taxes for the rich encouraged risk-taking, then it had to be done.
The article notes that government is still far too large in Sweden, but it’s also clear that moving in the right direction generates immediate benefits.
I posted a video back in 2010, narrated by a Swedish economics student, and asked a rhetorical question of why Obama wants to make America more like Sweden when the Swedes are moving in the other direction.
Unfortunately, there was no good answer then and there’s no good answer now.
Let’s close with some irony. Last year, I cited a study showing how large public sectors undermine economic performance. The study was written by two Swedish economists. In addition to trading Geithner for Borg, perhaps we can ship Krugman to Stockholm and bring those economists to America.
Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.
The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.
Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income.
Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; James R. Dumpson, Chief Administrator, Human Resources Admin., NYC; Thomas Sowell, Professor of Economics, UCLA; Robert Lampman, Professor of Economics, Institute of Poverty; Helen Bohen O’Bannon, Secretary of Welfare, State of Pennsylvania
MCKENZIE: The discussion’s already underway here at the University of Chicago, so let’s join it.
DUMPSON: As I looked at the film, I had a growing sense of anger. Anger that that position failed to recognize that the system that was being attacked was necessary in our capitalistic, free enterprise system that by its own failure produces poverty, and therefore requires governmental intervention in the interest of those people caught in the traps of poverty. So, as I sat and looked at the film, and as I hear Dr. Friedman’s statement, I was aroused to the point, as I said, of anger because only half the story is told. We are really blaming again a victim, this time a system, the welfare system, for the failure of other systems to operate in the interest of people.
MCKENZIE: Let’s get other reactions now to that statement: “Trying to do good with other people’s money simply has not worked, the welfare system is rotting away the very fabric of society.” Tom Sowell.
SOWELL: My reaction was just the opposite from __ my anger was at what had been created in the city where I grew up, under very different conditions, during the period of capitalistic failure, during the period when there wasn’t this humanitarianism, and when it was possible for people to live better and to get out of that poverty. Now, I think someone who lived in the very same place where I lived would find it much harder to escape from that poverty because of all these things. Buildings were not abandoned like the buildings that we saw in that film when I lived in Harlem. The crime rate __ they’re all things that are blamed upon the failures of the previous method did not exist. I slept out on the fire escapes in Harlem. I would defy anybody to do that in any part of New York City today.
LAMPMAN: Traditionally in the United States we have tried to avoid some of the welfare trap that was referred to by denying eligibility to people who are able-bodied and not aged and so on. And we’ve therefore tried to close the welfare door to a good number of categories within the poor population. The second point that was emphasized and I think needs to be put in some perspective is that some, but not all, of what we might call welfare programs broadly, have this very strong take-back of benefits as you earn some more money and that I guess is what I would like to single out as the principal problem identified in the film but it is not common to any and all welfare programs that one might think of.
O’BANNON: When the family fails, when the private sector fails to create jobs at a fast enough rate you find that people are unemployed and drift into needing help in order to exist and the welfare system was created in the ’30’s to do exactly that. When the private sector, essentially, failed we have the development of a welfare system, and it’s not corrupting society, it is taking what society _ institutions have left behind: The family breaking up, the economy not expanding fast enough, the health system failing, the educational system not doing its job. We have untrained, unskilled people looking for jobs in a highly technical society or jobs that pay so low that people cannot in fact live at a decent level of humanity. I see the welfare system not corrupting, but in fact taking the remains and attempting to help people live in dignity.
MCKENZIE: So rotting away the fabric of society is not supported __ except perhaps by you, would you back that phrase or so.
SOWELL: Absolutely. You’re saying __ you’re talking about the failures of the other parts of society. What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail insofar as they fail they receive the money; insofar as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away. This is even extended into the school systems where they will give money to schools with low scores; insofar as the school improves its education the money is taken away, so that you are subsidizing people to fail in their own private lives and become more dependent upon the handouts.
O’BANNON: We have expectations built in today about the quality of life, the quality of jobs, the level if income for which one expects in return. Why? Because we look at the level around us that it takes us to have __
SOWELL: No, that’s not why. That’s not why. I may have all sorts of expectations, the question is: What can I do? If someone else is subsidizing my expectations, my expectations would be far higher. But insofar as the Center for Advanced Study was subsidizing my expectations a few years ago, I refused to work at UCLA for the normal full professor’s salary. Why should I when I can get the same money for being at the Center for Advanced Study with no hours, no duties and no classes.
MCKENZIE: Let’s look at another proposition in Milton’s case. The insidious effect on those who receive welfare. They lose their independence and dignity, are treated like children, and so on. Now, Dr. Dumpson, as a former Administrator of a major program, is that a great hazard?
DUMPSON: That is not a great hazard. As a matter of fact, that presumes that people get on welfare, stay on welfare, and therefore have the result that Dr. Friedman’s statement issues. The fact of the matter is that in our AFDC program throughout the country and particularly was this true in New York, there is a graduate __ a turnover of the welfare AFDC roles _ about a third of them go off each year. Now, if these people were so destroyed by the system, when they go off they wouldn’t go into employment, they wouldn’t hold employment, they wouldn’t stay off the roles for six months, eighteen months, twenty-four months, as long as they are able to stay off. So, there’s something wrong with that argument when one looks at people and what they do. People, you know, who are poor are no different from those of us who are not poor and their motivation for self-dependency, self-support and mobility in the economic scale is no different that those of __ than the motives we have, so that they will not let the system __ you remember, Dr. Friedman, the welfare rights organization who refused to let the system squash them down as it was attempting to do. We turned the policies around.
FRIEDMAN: You and I agree completely, that the people who are poor and are on welfare roles are no different from the rest of us. Of course not. They are human beings and they deserve every sympathy and every possibility of making their own way, but the welfare system makes them different.
DUMPSON: But you give them __
FRIEDMAN: It makes it in their interest to be different.
MCKENZIE: How do you account for them going off the roles, Milton?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, but figures are figures and you’ve got to be careful with figures. The fact that a third, there’s a turnover of a third does not mean that there aren’t half who are on all the time. People come on, go off; come on, go off. We’ve got to have the other figures __
DUMPSON: The latest statistic, Dr. Friedman, is that __
FRIEDMAN: __ fraction __
DUMPSON: __ 34 percent of the people on AFDC are on for five years or longer and when one thinks of the purpose of the AFDC program, which was the rearing and support of children, dependent children, minor children, I would submit to you that five years is not a terribly long time for a mother and children to have to be dependent if there’s no other source of income.
3 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American
Heritage Series / David Barton
Evangelical leader Ken Ham rightly has noted, “Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God.” I strongly agree with this statement by Ham.
Dr. Michael Davis of California has asserted that he has no doubts that our President is a professing Christian, but his policies are those of a secular humanist. I share these same views. However, our founding fathers were anything but secular humanists in their views. John Adams actually wrote in a letter, “There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost.”
In June of 2011 David Barton of Wallbuilders wrote the article, “John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians?Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness,” and I wanted to share portions of that article with you.
At WallBuilders, we are truly blessed by God, owning tens of thousands of original documents from the American Founding – documents clearly demonstrating the Christian and Biblical foundations both of America and of so many of her Founding Fathers and early statesmen. We frequently postoriginal documents on our website so that others may enjoy them and learn more about many important aspects of America’s rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage that are widely unknown or misportrayed today.
This is a very respectful reference to the dream Rush believed that God had given him. There is nothing derogatory or scornful in Adams’ reference to “prophecy” – a direct and positive product of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).
______________________
Chris Pinto, in his analysis of Adams letter, has managed to ignore more than a millennia of church and world history in his unreasonable attempt to brand John Adams a heretic and blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. And adding insult to his malpractice injury, he also ignored more than thirty volumes of Adams’ published writings, containing hundreds of positive letters and repeated favorable references to religion and Christianity. Thus, Pinto’s claim about Adams’ irreligion is directly refuted not only by the context of the letter itself but also by the powerful evidence of the lifelong proven faith and character of John Adams.
In fact, in the very next letter Adams wrote Rush following letter that Pinto attacks, Adams vigorously defended Christianity against the attack made upon it by Thomas Paine, telling Rush:
He [Thomas Paine] understood neither government nor religion. . . . His billingsgate [vile and vulgar attack] . . . will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have anything moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion. . . . will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man without a revelation could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all. 34
This letter certainly does not reflect either the tone or the attitude of an heretic who would attack and blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Consider some of the scores of other quotes by John Adams, and contrast them with the anti-religious image that Pinto wrongly attempts to draw of Adams:
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be! 35 1756
I sat next to John Adams in Congress, and upon my whispering to him and asking him if he thought we should succeed in our struggle with Great Britain, he answered me, “Yes – if we fear God and repent of our sins.” This anecdote will, I hope, teach my boys that it is not necessary to disbelieve Christianity or to renounce morality in order to arrive at the highest political usefulness or fame. 36 1777, Benjamin Rush, Reporting His Conversation with Adams
The idea of infidelity [a disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the Divine origin of Christianity 37 ] cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated [denounced] as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason. 38 1778
[All persons elected must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasion of its truth.” 39 1780, Constitution of Massachusetts (Adams wan an Author of this Clause)
On motion of the Hon. Mr. [John] Adams, Voted, That the Convention will attend morning prayers daily, and that the gentlemen of the clergy of every denomination be requested to officiate in turn. 40 1788, Massachusetts Convention to Ratify the U. S. Constitution
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will. 41 1796
As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him. . . . I have therefore thought fit to recommend . . . a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer that the citizens of these States . . . offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies. 421798
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 43 1798
The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy that ever was conceived upon earth. . . .The curses against fornication and adultery, and the prohibition of every wanton glance or libidinous ogle at a woman, I believe to be the only system that ever did or ever will preserve a republic in the world. . . . I say then that national morality never was and never can be preserved without the utmost purity and chastity in women; and without national morality a republican government cannot be maintained. 44 1807
I think there is nothing upon this earth more sublime and affecting than the idea of a great nation all on their knees at once before their God, acknowledging their faults and imploring His blessing and protection. 45 1809
[I]t is notorious enough that I have been a church-going animal for seventy-six years from the cradle. 46 1811
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were . . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed (and now believe) that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. 47 1813
I have examined all [religions], . . . and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. 48 1813
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell. 49 1817
There are numerous similar quotes by Adams. This certainly is not the profile of an individual who would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Christianity, or religion.
One other point that illustrates the absurd results which occur under Modernism is John Adams’ request that Rush burn the letter after he reads it:
This letter is so much in the tone of my friend the Abbe Raynal [a French writer] and the grumblers of the last age, that I pray you to burn it. 50
Critics also point to this phrase as yet another proof that Adams was blaspheming Christians – that he did not want his true sacrilegious opinions to be known, so he asked Rush to burn the letter. But just as Pinto apparently had no idea what Adams meant when he referenced the oil at Reims or in the Tower of London, apparently critics did not know that a request to burn letters was a common practice in that era (especially for former presidents), regardless of the topic covered in the letter.
For example, after the death of George Washington in 1799, Martha burned all of the letters that had passed between them (only three remain today).51 George also asked friends to burn letters he sent them. 52
It was the same with Thomas Jefferson. Even with individuals whom he completely trusted, he would often ask his friends to return the letter after they read it, 53 or else burn, destroy, or keep its contents private. 54
James Madison also destroyed much of his correspondence, and Dolly Madison did the same with hers. In fact, in much of her correspondence that did survive, she often asked her recipients to burn her letter after reading it.55 Even individuals who wrote to Madison asked that he burn their letter. 56
Pinto’s preposterous analysis of Adams’ letter is based on the flawed practices of Modernism and Minimalism. Unfortunately, he repeats these same practices throughout his other videos, frequently taking deep multi-faceted issues, failing to recognize or acknowledge crucial references to historical events or practices, and presenting an especially negative view of history. It is for this reason that Pinto is also a Deconstructionist.
34. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Volume IX, pp. 626- 267, to Benjamin Rush, January 21,1810. (Return)
35. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756. (Return)
36. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (NJ: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 534, to John Adams on February 24, 1790. (Return)
37. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), s.v. “infidelity.” (Return)
38. John Adams, Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1983),Vol. 6, p. 348, to James Warren on August 4, 1778.(Return)
39. A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes & Sons, 1780), p. 44, Chapter VI, Article I. (Return)
40. The Debates in the Several Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), Vol. II, p. 2, Massachusetts Convention, January 9, 1788. (Return)
41. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796. (Return)
42. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 169, “Proclamation for a National Fast on March 23, 1798.”(Return)
43. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798. (Return)
44. John Adams, Old Family Letters, Alexander Biddle, editor (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1892), pp. 127-128, to Benjamin Rush on February 2, 1807. (Return)
45. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 291, correspondence originally published in the Boston Patriot, 1809, Letter XIII. (Return)
46. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 637, to Benjamin Rush on August 28, 1811.(Return)
47. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 293, from John Adams on June 28, 1813.(Return)
48. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.(Return)
49. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 254, to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817.(Return)
52. See, for example, George Washington, Letters from His Excellency General Washington to Arthur Young (London: B. McMillan, 1801), p. 159, to Arthur Young on December 12, 1793; George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Worthington Chauncey Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. XI, p. 490, to Clement Biddle on July 20, 1790; George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf, and Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 1835), Vol. IX, p. 175, to George William Fairfax on June 25, 1786. (Return)
53. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Charlottesville: F. Carr, and Co., 1829), Vol. IV, p. 206, to John Adams on August 22, 1813; Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), Vol. XV, p. 1, to F. A. Van Der Kemp on April 25, 1816. (Return)
54. See, for example, Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. IX, p. 459, note. See also Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 320, to William Short on April 13, 1820; Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 863-864, to Thomas Jefferson on May 5, 1803; Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. 4, p. 413, to James Madison on May 11, 1785;Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. IX, to Elbridge Gerry on January 26, 1799; Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. XI, to Horatio Gates Spafford on January 10, 1816; Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905). Vol. IX, to James Cheetham on January 17, 1802. (Return)
56. See, for example, James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Comprising His Public Papers and His Private Correspondence, Including His Numerous Letters and Documents now for the First Time Printed, Gaillard Hunt, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900), Vol. IX, to Joseph C. Cabell on September 7, 1829. (Return)
57. See, for example, John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856), Vol. IX, to John Tudor on July 23, 1774. (Return)
Today is the 113th anniversary of the birth of F. A. Hayek, perhaps the most subtle social thinker of the 20th century.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974. He met with President Reagan at the White House, and Margaret Thatcher banged The Constitution of Liberty on the table at Conservative headquarters and declared “This is what we believe.” Milton Friedman described him as “the most important social thinker of the 20th century,” and Lawrence H. Summers called him the author of “the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today.”
He is the hero of The Commanding Heights, the book and PBS series by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw. His most popular book, The Road to Serfdom, has never gone out of print and sold 125,000 copies last year. John Cassidy wrote in the New Yorker that “on the biggest issue of all, the vitality of capitalism, he was vindicated to such an extent that it is hardly an exaggeration to refer to the 20th century as the Hayek century.”
Last year the Cato Institute invited Bruce Caldwell, Richard Epstein, and George Soros to discuss the new edition of The Constitution of Liberty, edited by Ronald Hamowy. In a report on that session, I concluded:
Hayek was not just an economist. He also published impressive works on political theory and psychology.
He’s like Marx, only right.
Cato published two original interviews with Hayek, in 1983 and 1984.
Find more on Hayek, including an original video lecture, at Libertarianism.org.
It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:
THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:
As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.
____________________
Senator Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 BECAUSE HE WILL NOT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HE DOES NOT REALLY WANT TO SLOW THE PACE OF SPENDING INCREASES AND HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IF SLOW THE GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO 1% THEN THE BUDGET WOULD BALANCE ITSELF IN A FEW YEARS.
Furthermore, it does his best to guard this secret so he can continue to spend like crazy. The only thing that can stop this is a Balanced Budget Amendment and he knows it.
Many of the politicians in Washington, including President Obama during his State of the Union address, piously tell us that there is no way to balance the budget without tax increases. Trying to get rid of red ink without higher taxes, they tell us, would require “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its 10-year projections for the budget, so I crunched the numbers to determine what it would take to balance the budget without tax hikes. Much to nobody’s surprise, the politicians are not telling the truth.
The chart below shows that revenues are expected to grow (because of factors such as inflation, more population, and economic expansion) by more than 7 percent each year. Balancing the budget is simple so long as politicians increase spending at a slower rate. If they freeze the budget, we almost balance the budget by 2017. If federal spending is capped so it grows 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington can limit spending growth to about 2 percent each year, red ink almost disappears in just 10 years.
These numbers, incidentally, assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent (they are now scheduled to expire in two years). They also assume that the AMT is adjusted for inflation, so the chart shows that we can balance the budget without any increase in the tax burden.
We also have international evidence showing that spending restraint – not higher taxes – is the key to balancing the budget. New Zealand got rid of a big budget deficit in the 1990s with a five-year spending freeze. Canada also got rid of red ink that decade with a five-year period where spending grew by an average of only 1 percent per year. And Ireland slashed its deficit in the late 1980s by 10 percentage points of GDP with a four-year spending freeze.
Phillip Fulmer was named to the 2012 class during a ceremony in New York City by the National Football Foundation and becomes the 22nd former UT player or coach to earn enshrinement.
In the video clip above you will see both the 1998 game in Knoxville against Arkansas and the 6 overtime game that the Vols won when Jason Whitten caught a pass at the end.
Below is an article out of the Knoxville News Paper:
Hall of Fame selections rarely create a controversy. Omissions are more likely to do that.
Coaches and players with robust enough resumes to be considered for induction are generally accepted without so much as a raised eyebrow’s worth of indignation.
So no one should questionPhillip Fulmer‘s selection to the College Football Hall of Fame on Tuesday. It was as predictable as a victory over Kentucky when he was leading Tennessee football through the “T.”
Nor is it surprising that he was deemed worthy of induction so soon after his coaching career came to an abrupt end in 2008. The record leaves no room for debate: 152-52-1, including 16 full seasons and a fraction of a season as replacement coach while his boss, John Majors, was recovering from heart surgery in 1992.
The record is more striking now than in the 1990s during which Fulmer went 45-5 in one Neyland-like, four-year stretch that — when contrasted with what’s going on lately in UT football — seems as though it must have been accomplished in anotherfootball universe.
The rich history clashes with the present failure, and Fulmer played a major role in both. Although he was fired after two losing seasons in his last four years, that’s not likely how he will be remembered.
Most successful coaches don’t finish on top. Nebraska’s Tom Osborne is a glowing exception. He won a national championship in his last game.
But the SEC provides considerable evidence that hall of fame coaches seldom say their good-byes with a walk-off home run.
Shug Jordan won a national championship, had two unbeaten teams and finished in the top 10 seven times in 25 seasons at Auburn. He went 4-6-1 his last season.
LSU’s Charlie McClendon lost more than three games only twice in his first 12 seasons. He lost four or more in five of his last six seasons.
From 1957 through 1963, Johnny Vaught compiled a 64-7-4 record at Ole Miss. In his final seven full seasons, the Rebels were 48-26-3.
Jordan, McClendon and Vaught are all in the College Football Hall of Fame. Now, to the surprise of no one, Fulmer has joined them.
His selection isn’t just an individual award. It honors his players, assistant coaches and even the head coach who preceded him.
Majors had the Vols humming along at a better than nine-victories-per-year pace over his last four seasons. Fulmer took it from there. winning nine or more games in six of his first seven seasons.
He quickly established himself as one of college football’s marquee recruiters while assembling a staff that was almost comparable to his talent.
Offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe and defensive coordinator John Chavis were his high-profile assistant coaches. But don’t forget about short-term contributors like Rodney Garner. He helped recruit three Georgia high school players — Jamal Lewis, Deon Grant and Cosey Coleman — whose footprints are embedded in UT’s 13-0 national championship season in 1998.
Fulmer didn’t need a national championship to make the hall of fame. His overall record warranted induction. Yet his success against arch-rival Alabama was every bit as endearing to UT fans.
The Vols hadn’t beaten the Tide since 1985 when Fulmer presided over a 41-14 victory 10 years later in Birmingham. It was the first of seven consecutive Tennessee victories in the series.
Fulmer turned the Alabama rivalry topsy-turvy, achieved an unbeaten season and won almost 75 percent of his games. That’s how most UT fans will remember him.
COLLEGEDALE, Tenn. — The University of Kentucky football player driving when two friends died in a crash said Thursday he still recalls them dying in his arms.
“The mental and emotional scars will last forever,” Jason Watts said in his first public comments since the Nov. 15 accident.
The accident killed teammate Arthur Steinmetz, 19, and Eastern Kentucky student Scott Brock, 21.
“I literally see my buddies dying in my arms because of me,” Mr. Watts said.
Mr. Watts, 21, of Ovieda, Fla., faces a July 19 trial on two counts of second-degree manslaughter and a count of wanton endangerment. He is scheduled for a court appearance Wednesday.
He chose to speak about the crash to students at Southern Adventist University about 18 miles north of Chattanooga as part of the Christian school’s drug and alcohol awareness week.
Mr. Watts, a starting center who was dismissed from the team, said he hoped someone will learn from his tragedy.
“It’s all because of a stupid mistake,” he said. “Drinking beers and getting behind the wheel is something that could’ve been avoided.”
Mr. Watts said he and his friends had spent Saturday night drinking like typical college students, he said. The celebration was fueled by their excitement over Kentucky’s 55-17 Senior Day victory over Vanderbilt, which earned the Wildcats a berth in the Outback Bowl.
But by early morning, they became bored and decided to hunt deer.
Mr. Watts was driving his truck on U.S. 27 north of Somerset when it slipped off the road as he passed a car, clipped a mailbox and blew out a back tire.
The three men said nothing to one another, knowing they were about to crash, Mr. Watts said. The truck flipped, throwing all three out of the vehicle. Mr. Watts went through the windshield.
When he came to, he went first to Mr. Brock, who gave him a half-smile before dying, he said. He then tried to shake awake Mr. Steinmetz, only to have him die in his arms.
“Because of my poor judgment, my two buddies were gone,” said a soft-spoken Mr. Watts. “When you think about it, I should’ve been the first one to go. … Getting in that car that night was a mistake.”
With his friends dead, Mr. Watts said he wanted to die as well, and even tried holding his breath in the ambulance.
At the hospital, his blood-alcohol content tested 11/2 times the legal limit.
He suffered a 12-inch gash on his right arm that would require several surgeries to clean and repair. He also had injured ribs, as well as cuts on his left shoulder and back that required stitches and staples.
Mr. Watts had been in trouble before while drinking. He shot then-teammate Omar Smith in the buttocks as they handled a rifle outside the house they shared in 1997, and had a blood-alcohol level of 0.129 two hours after the shooting. He was charged with unlawful discharge of a weapon.
He met with the Brock family before leaving the hospital in Lexington and was shocked that they greeted him with a hug and forgave him for his part in the crash.
He spoke with the Steinmetz family recently and was again surprised that they also forgave him.
“You almost want them to be mad at you because it will make the guilt easier,” Mr. Watts said.
He said even his friends on the offensive line said he should have been the first person killed. But he told the audience that he feels he is now living three lives — his own and for his dead friends.
He dreams nightly about the crash and figures he is lucky to sleep three or four hours a night.
“It’s rough, but it’s nowhere near as rough as it is on the families,” he said.
Kentucky’s athletics department adopted its no-alcohol ad policy in the wake of a November 1998 accident in which a truck driven by football player Jason Watts overturned, killing a 19-year-old teammate and a 21-year-old Eastern Kentucky student who was a friend of then-Kentucky quarterback Tim Couch. All three were intoxicated, authorities said.
His college career ended, Watts pleaded guilty to two counts of reckless homicide and served 3½ months of a 10-year jail sentence before being granted early release.
The Battle For The Beer Barrel (aka The Border War)
I got to ask Pat Summerall a question at the Little Rock Touchdown Club meeting back in October of 2010. Summerall had pointed out that Tom Landry was the defensive coordinator and Vince Lombardi was the offensive backfield coach when he played for the Giants. Summerall had shared how he had recovered from his […]
I welcome the input from those that read my blog. Recently I received some criticism from readers and Jordan is probably more of the most vocal. He wrote today, “I hardly see a ‘tragic’ death as you call it, a morally sound reason to throw in people’s faces what drugs do to people…You know as […]
Drugs and alcohol have always been a pitfall that many of the wealthy fall into. We see rock bands that become famous have lots of temptations thrown their way and many fall into these traps. Ron “Pigpen” McKernan and Barry McGuire fell into these traps. One joined the “27 Club” and the other left the […]
The recent events in Little Rock concerning KARK TV’s top weatherman Brett Cummins and his experience of drinking alcohol and snorting coke has left a lot of people asking questions. Since the evening ended in the tragic death of one of Brett’s friends, Dexter Williams, many questions have centered on the use of illegal drugs. […]
Brett Cummins has risen to be the top tv weatherman in the evening at KARK News 4. However, something is missing in his life. (I wish Brett would just take the time to read the story by Marvin A. McMickle | Senior Pastor, Antioch Baptist Church, Cleveland, Ohio at the end of this post). I […]
Brett Cummins and his friends were drinking heavily and taking drugs on Sunday night and all three of them went to sleep under the influence of alcohol and drugs and only 2 of them woke up. This reminds me of a few verses from the Old Testament. (There is hope. Check out the video interviews of Kerry Livgren […]
cc ‘Janis Joplin’ 2/5 from True Hollywood Story (Janis was having affair with Pigpen) Jerry Garcia (guitar, vocals), Ron “Pigpen” McKernan (vocals, harmonica), Bob Weir (guitar, vocals), Phil Lesh (bass), Mickey Hart (drums), Bill Kreutzman (drums). Grateful Dead “Don’t Ease Me In” Live @ Canadian National Exhibition Hall Toronto, CA June 27th, 1970 Grateful Dead […]
There are so many reasons to abstain from drinking. (At the end of this post I will give three more reasons I do not drink.) Below is an excellent reason to avoid drinking because you realize that just after two drinks you may end up facing the legal difficulties that Heather Harrington is now facing. Many […]
I have really enjoyed going through all the characters mentioned in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris.” One think that shocked me was that many of these great writers mentioned in the film were also alcoholics. Why is that? It is my view that if a sensitive person really does examine life closely without […]
Ryan Dunn seen on Sunday night. This shot was removed from his tumblr site. Ryan Dunn tweeted a picture of himself drinking from a bar. At 2 am he left the bar and a few minutes later he was killed after running off the road in his car.There are three reasons that I do not […]
Go to 21 minute mark to see video footage of Liberty Bowl between Arkansas and Tennessee
Was Arkansas ripped off in the 1971 Liberty Bowl against Tennessee? First off I want to make it clear that I was pulling for Arkansas and I am biased. Therefore, I am just going to use Tennessee sources to answer that question. I have provided a video clip narrated by Tennessee’s John Ward above that clearly shows Arkansas Razorback Tom Reed going in to get the fumble recovery.
Next I have provided an article by Tom Mattingly from Knoxville that admits it was a con job by the Tennessee players to get the ref to give them the ball. Phillip Fulmer was a speaker at the Little Rock Touchdown Club and he even admitted that he was standing near a ref and he also pointed towards the Tennessee goal in an effort to influence the ref!!!
In this gritty contest, scoring plays were at a premium. The No. 9-ranked Tennessee Volunteers edged their future conference partner, the No. 18 Arkansas Razorbacks.
The Vols took the lead first with a 2-yard run by Bill Rudder, but the Razorbacks quickly answered with a long 36-yard touchdown pass to tie the game at 7-7 before halftime.
In the fourth quarter, it appeared that Arkansas’ pair of field goals would be good for the win, but a fumble recovered by Tennessee in Arkansas territory set up the game-winning touchdown just three plays later.
Tennessee players carry coach Bill Battle on their shoulders as they celebrate their 14-13 Liberty Bowl victory over Arkansas on Dec. 20, 1971.
When Tennessee and Arkansas squared off in the 1971 Liberty Bowl in Memphis, the 13th game in the bowl’s history, on Monday night, Dec. 20, the teams had not met in 64 years and shared little in common other than state borders defined by the Mississippi River.
Tennessee and Arkansas had first met on the gridiron in 1907, with Tennessee taking a 14-2 decision in Little Rock. There didn’t seem to be a great deal of clamor for the two teams to meet again.
The No. 9 Vols were 9-2, coming off a surprising 31-11 win on Dec. 5 over No. 5 Penn State. No. 17 Arkansas was 8-2-1, coming off a 15-0 win over Texas Tech, also on that day.
The game was deadlocked 7-7 entering the fourth quarter.
In that final 15 minutes, Arkansas kicker Bill McClard booted two field goals, covering 19 and 30 yards, each set up by a Vol turnover. Arkansas defenders had put the clamps on the Vols since a first quarter touchdown scored by Bill Rudder. Happiness was winging its way westward to Fayetteville.
The final result was Tennessee 14, Arkansas 13. Joe Ferguson and Louis Campbell, both from Arkansas, took home the MVP and offensive and defensive game awards, but Tennessee, a one-point favorite, somehow won . . . by one.
That left Arkansas supporters reaching mightily for any number of conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy Theory No. 1: How many times do you see holding on a field-goal attempt that if it had counted, would have put the game out of reach?
Arkansas had taken an apparent 16-7 lead with 5:45 to play on McClard’s 48-yard field goal, booted as a flag flew. Tight end Bobby Nichols was adjudged holding, according to an unbylined article in the Northeast Arkansas Times.
“It’s very rare that you get a holding call on a field-goal protection,” said Frank Broyles, Arkansas’ head coach from 1958-1976. “It’s probably the only one I ever had in my coaching career.”
Nichols later told reporters a Tennessee player grabbed him and pulled him to the ground.
Conspiracy Theory No. 2: A few minutes later, there was a fumble awarded to Tennessee that still irks Arkansas fans nearly 40 years later.
“The timely fumble that changed the game occurred in the late minutes, when Conrad Graham walloped Jon Richardson after a screen pass.” Marvin West said Wednesday. “The loose ball attracted a considerable crowd. Bodies were stacked on top of bodies. No telling what all went on down near the ground.”
The fumble recovery actually was a con job, according to Tennessee defensive end Carl Johnson.
“Arkansas had played a very good game,” he said. “It’s obvious the Arkansas guy fell right on the ball.”
Johnson explained that every Vol not involved in the pile, including those on the bench, pointed toward the Arkansas goal and said “our ball.” It’s one of the oldest football tricks in the book, and this night it worked in the Vols’ favor. Carl Witherspoon is credited with the recovery.
According to the Northwest Arkansas Times article, Arkansas partisans blamed SEC official Preston Watts for all the turmoil. (There were three SEC officials in the game, two from the Southwest Conference.)
The legend goes that Arkansas guard Tom Reed came out of the pile with the ball and handed it to Watts, who then awarded possession to Tennessee at the Razorbacks 37.
“I got the ball and cradled it in my chest,” Reed said after the game. “Three Tennessee players jumped on top of me, but I still had it.
“Finally, the official came up and put his hands on the ball, so I gave it to him, and he signaled Tennessee’s ball.”
The Vols took over at the Razorback 36-yard line and were in the end zone in a flash.
Vol quarterback Jim Maxwell, undaunted by three earlier interceptions, hit tight end Gary Theiler for 19 yards to the 17. Then came the game’s decisive moment.
Curt Watson, out with a rib injury since the Vanderbilt game and wearing a set of jimmy-rigged pads that dated to 1938, made his last carry as a Vol a memorable one.
The “Crossville Comet” hit right end and found a path to the goal line. He made a nifty move to get there, freezing a Razorback defender in his tracks. The clock showed 1:56 left in the game. George Hunt kicked the go-ahead extra point. Eddie Brown’s interception sealed the deal.
It took 19 years for the Vols and Razorbacks to tee it up again. It was the 1990 Cotton Bowl this time, with the Vols winning, 31-27, in a game with considerably less controversy.
When divisional play hit the SEC in 1992, the Vols and Razorbacks ended up playing from 1992-2002 and again in 2006 and 2007.
The first game in the “modern series,” the nail-biter in Memphis, set the standard (and the stage) for what was to come.
© 2010, Knoxville News Sentinel Co
The Daily Hatch 