Monthly Archives: May 2012

14 yr old robber killed by van driven by the person he robbed in Little Rock

May 3, 2012 – 4:08 pm

Sad story from Little Rock today. It reminds me of the sad story last week when we lost a 13 yr old.

Channel 4 KARK in Little Rock and several other stations are reporting on this. Here is what the Arkansas Times Blog had to say:

LRPD: 14 year old dead, driver being questioned in chasing down thief

Posted by David Koon on Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:55 PM

JUMPED CURB: Neighbors say a van driver jumped this curb to chase bike rider whod taken his wallet up the small hill.

  • Brian Chilson
  • JUMPED CURB: Neighbors say a van driver jumped this curb to chase bike rider who’d taken his wallet up the small hill.
IN MEMORY: Cross was erected to Lil Flip, where Michael Stanley was fatally injured.

  • IN MEMORY: Cross was erected to “Lil Flip,” where Michael Stanley was fatally injured.

Police say a 14-year-old boyis dead after a robbery victim chased him down in a van and ran him over in a vacant lot near 24th and Oak Streets in Little Rock. 

LRPD spokesperson Sgt. Cassandra Davis said that Michael Sadler, 58, was coming out of the Asher One Stop convenience store, at Asher and Maple, just after 11:30 this morning when a 14-year-old boy identified as Michael Stanley snatched his wallet and fled on a bicycle. Davis said Sadler pursued the boy in his van, veered off the road, and struck him about two blocks south of the store.

Davis said police are investigating reports that Sadler then got out of the van and assaulted the boy as he lay on the ground. The boy was later taken to Arkansas Children’s Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 12:28 p.m. Davis said the boy’s mother lives on W. 23rd Street in Little Rock. A woman at the scene was crying, “My baby,” as neighbors erected a small cross in his memory where he fell.

Sgt. Davis said detectives are currently questioning Sadler. “I don’t know what charges, if any, he’ll have,” Davis said, “but it could be a homicide, manslaughter [or] negligent homicide. It just ranges by what the detectives feel comfortable changing him with, if anything at all.”

Davis said if the theft had occurred in Sadler’s home, he would have been within his rights to protect himself. Given that the crime happened outside, however, he may be charged in the case. “He got in his van and chased him down,” Davis said. “You can’t chase somebody down. We suggest you just get as much information as you can and notify law enforcement.”

A neighborhood resident, who spoke to our photographer Brian Chilson, described the chase. He said the boy was riding up a hill on a vacant lot near the store. The van driver jumped the curb and followed him across the lot and struck him near the top of the small hill, knocking the bike to the ground. According to him, the driver then beat the boy. He was among those placing the cross you see in the photograph above.

WHERE CHASE BEGAN: Asher One Stop.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Stimulus programs never work

May 3, 2012 – 3:28 pm

The stimulus did not work for the USA and it has never worked.

There’s an old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. This certainly is a good description of Keynesians, who relentlessly push more government spending as some sort of magic potion for the economy – notwithstanding a record of failure.

The latest example if Larry Summers, the former economist for the Obama White House, who says Europeans need to make government bigger.

Here is some of what he writes for today’s Washington Post.

European efforts to contain crisis have fallen short. …Much of what is being urged on and in Europe is likely to be not just ineffective but counterproductive to maintaining the monetary union, restoring normal financial conditions and government access to markets, and reestablishing economic growth. The premise of European policymaking is that countries are overindebted and so unable to access markets on reasonable terms, and that the high interest rates associated with excessive debt hurt the financial system and inhibit growth. The strategy is to provide financing while insisting on austerity, in hopes that countries can rein in their excessive spending enough to restore credibility, bring down interest rates and restart economic growth.

The good news is that Summers recognizes that there has been “excessive spending.” The bad news is that he uses the wrong definition of austerity.

Many European nations seem to think higher taxes are a sign of fiscal conservatism (see this post by Veronique de Rugy for a good discussion of this confusion). Summers accepts that approach, and says that policy makers should choose a Keynesian policy instead.

Unfortunately, Europe has misdiagnosed its problems in important respects and set the wrong strategic course. …Europe’s problem countries are in trouble because the financial crisis underway since 2008 has damaged their financial systems and led to a collapse in growth. High deficits are much more a symptom than a cause of their problems. And treating symptoms rather than underlying causes is usually a good way to make a patient worse. …The right focus for Europe is on growth; in this dimension, increased austerity is a step in the wrong direction.

There’s more good news. Summers is right in stating that Europe suffers from low growth. And I agree with him that the European version of austerity – higher taxes – is not a solution.

But, as always, there is a catch. Summers has the wrong approach on how to encourage growth. He wants Keynesian spending, and here is his defense.

 Skeptics will rightly wonder how a prescription for more spending by countries that already have trouble borrowing can be correct. The answer lies in the difference between borrowing by individuals and countries. Normally, an individual helps his creditors by borrowing less; but a person who stops borrowing to finance commuting to his job does his creditors no favor. A country’s income is determined by spending, so a country that pursues austerity to the point where its economy is driven into a downward spiral does its creditors no favor.

Sounds semi-reasonable. After all, everyone understands that it is important to get to their place of employment. Sometimes you spend money to make money.

But here’s the problem. Can anyone name anything in so-called stimulus schemes that actually increase a nation’s productive capacity? As we saw with Obama’s failed stimulus, lots of money gets distributed, but the main purpose seems to be buying votes and creating dependency.

What about jobs? A miserable failure.

Adding insult to injury, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that American taxpayers are supposed to pick up the lion’s share of the tab for the new spending in Europe since Summers wants the IMF to be the sugar daddy.

Going forward, the IMF and international community should condition further support not merely on individual countries’ actions but on a common European commitment to growth.

This approach is illogical, as explained in this video.

And let’s consider the historical record. Nations that have tried this type of “stimulus” have not fared well. Big spending increase under Hoover and Roosevelt failed in the 1930s. Japan tried several Keynesian packages and failed in the 1990s. Bush failed in 2008 and Obama failed in 2009.

Germany did not go with a big program of government spending, and they did better than the United States. The same is true about Canada. But the real success story is the Baltic nations. They imposed real spending restraint, not the fake austerity found in places such as the United Kingdom.

And even though it caused some short-term pain since there’s a short-term cost when labor and capital get redeployed to more productive uses, the Baltic nations are now in much better shape that the European nations that have floundered because they limited themselves to the no-win choice of Keynesianism and tax hikes.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Once the baby boomers are finished getting on Social Security (2011 to 2030) there will be nothing left.

May 3, 2012 – 3:07 pm

Uploaded by on Jun 21, 2011

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison delivered remarks regarding her landmark proposal on entitlement reform, the Defend and Save Social Security Act at the Heritage Foundation’s “Saving Social Security” event. Sen. Hutchison announced that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), member of Biden’s budget working group, has lent his support of her bill as the original cosponsor. At her press conference last week, Sen. Hutchison unveiled her Social Security proposal, and today she reiterated the urgency of putting Social Security on the table in the Biden budget group discussions. Sen. Hutchison sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden last week urging him to incorporate Social Security reform in the ongoing deficit reduction debates that he is leading.

____________________

Once the baby boomers are finished getting on Social Security (2011 to 2030) there will be nothing left.

There are two serious problems with America’s Social Security system. Almost everyone knows about the first problem, which is that the system is bankrupt, with huge unfunded liabilities of about $30 trillion.

The other crisis is that the system gives workers a lousy level of retirement income compared to the amount of taxes they pay during their working years. Younger workers are particularly disadvantaged, as are African-Americans because of lower life expectancy.

These are critical issues, but perhaps looking at a couple of charts is the best way to illustrate why the Social Security system is inadequate.

Let’s start by looking at some numbers from Australia, where workers set aside 9 percent of their income in personal retirement accounts.

This system, which was made universal by the Labor Party beginning in the 1980s, has turned every Australian worker into a capitalist and generated private wealth of nearly 100 percent of GDP. Here’s a chart, based on data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

Now let’s look at one of the key numbers generated by America’s tax-and-transfer entitlement system. Here’s a chart showing the projected annual cash-flow deficits for the Social Security system, based on the just-released Trustees’ Report.

By the way, the chart shows inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars. The numbers would look far worse if I used the nominal numbers.

The two charts aren’t analogous, of course, but that’s because there’s nothing to compare. The Social Security system has no savings. Indeed, it discourages people from setting aside income.

And Australia’s superannuation system doesn’t have anything akin to America’s unfunded liabilities. The closest thing to an analogy would be the safety net provision guaranteeing a basic pension to people with limited savings (presumably because of a spotty employment record).

So now ask yourself whether Australia should copy America or America should copy Australia? Seems like a no-brainer.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, Social Security, spending out of control | Comments (1)

Get people off of government support and get them in the private market place!!!!(great cartoon too)

May 3, 2012 – 2:47 pm

Dan Mitchell hits the nail on the head and sometimes it gets so sad that you just have to laugh at it like Conan does. In order to correct this mess we got to get people off of government support and get them in the private market place!!!!

The third-most viewed post in the history of this blog, with more than 22,000 views, is this set of cartoons showing how the welfare state begins and how it ends.

A similar theme can be found in this great new cartoon from Chuck Asay.

And just in case you think Asay is being unfair, keep in mind that folks like Obama and Pelosi actually have claimed that more unemployment benefits is “stimulus.” Yes, you read correctly. Subsidizing unemployment is good for growth to these strange ideologues.

Asay’s cartoon is so good that it may dethrone my previous top choice. Though sometimes I am most impressed by this one showing why parasites shouldn’t kill their host animal.

I’d be curious to know which one all of you think is most effective.

And since Asay’s work is almost always worth sharing, you can find more of my top picks here, here, here, and here.

Sometimes it is tragic that you got to laugh about it.

Brandon Stewart

August 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Late-night comedian Conan O’Brien’s blog has a new post parodying Washington’s excessive spending. “Team Coco has found out why our government is so broke,” the blog explains, “They’ve been spending all our hard earned tax dollars on some pretty ridiculous programs.” The post contains a list of humorous fake programs and encourages readers submit their own.

But sadly, there’s no need to turn to a crack team of comedy writers to gin up examples of ridiculous government spending. Instead, one need only look to the shenanigans on Capitol Hill to find a list of absurd expenditures of taxpayer dollars. As Heritage has reported, in addition to long-term, substantive reforms, $343 billion of wasteful government spending could be cut immediately. And while Conan’s list is populated by a number of outlandish (but fake) programs, there are plenty of REAL government programs that are just as ridiculous. Conan, try these on for size:

  • Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
  • Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 million annually.
  • Stimulus dollars have been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.
  • Washington will spend $615,175 on an archive honoring the Grateful Dead.
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
  • Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
  • Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
  • The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.
  • Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches—even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
  • Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.
  • The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.

And the list goes on and on. When it comes to government spending, the truth is often stranger than fiction.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Junior Seau: Brought happiness to many but left this world still searching

May 3, 2012 – 7:32 am

Success does not bring satisfaction in life. How many times have we witnessed that play out.  I am truly sorrow that Junior Seau chose to take his life. He was always happy go lucky on the outside. Arkansas Razorback Tony Bua played with Junior Seau at Miami and one time Michael Jordan walked in the door and Bua said to Junior, “Wow that is Michael Jordan!!!” Junior responded, “Hey, I am Junior Seau!!!”

Below is a portion from John MacArthur concerning Solomon’s search for satisfaction and at the bottom of this post are links to other posts that deal with suicide and the possible solutions to the problem of suicide.

The Washington Post reported:

 

Winslow Townson, File/Associated Press – FILE -In this July 28, 2007 file photo, New England Patriots linebacker Junior Seau smiles during NFL football training camp in Foxborough, Mass. Police say Seau, a former NFL star, was found dead at his home in Oceanside, Calif., Wednesday, May 2, 2012, after responding to a shooting there. He was 43.

By Associated Press, Published: May 2AP

NAME: Tiaina Baul Seau Jr.BORN: January 19, 1969, San Diego.

DIED: May 2, 2012, Oceanside, Calif.

DRAFTED: Fifth overall, 1990, by San Diego out of Southern California.

TEAMS: Chargers 1990-2002. Dolphins 2003-05. New England 2006-2009.

ACHIEVEMENTS:

— Six-time Associated Press All-Pro, 1992-94, 96, 98, 2000.

— Voted to 12 straight Pro Bowls from 1991-2002.

— Chosen for 1990s All-Decade team by Pro Football Hall of Fame.

— Played in 268 NFL games in 20 seasons, with 1,524 tackles, 56.5 sacks, 18 interceptions, 18 fumble recoveries, 1 touchdown.

— NFL Man of the Year 1994.

— Selected to “All-Time Greatest Chargers” team in 2009, franchise’s 50th anniversary season.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

John MacArthur delivered this message in 1975:

Human Wisdom Disappoints

The book of Ecclesiastes has some interesting things to say about human wisdom. This book was written by Solomon, and it chronicles human wisdom. The Lord put it in the Bible for a very special purpose: to show us the frustrations and the inabilities of human wisdom. 

1. Solomon’s Fervent Search

Now Solomon, who was a very intelligent man, said in 1:13, “. . . I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven. . . . ” He’s saying, “I decided that I would apply wisdom and figure out all the answers. ” Continuing in verse 16, he said, “I spoke to mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem; yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge [I was so educated there wasn’t anybody as educated as I was]. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly [which was the opposite of wisdom]; I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (vv. 16-18). 

2. Solomon’s Futile Solution

Then, in 2:1 he said, “I said in mine heart, Come now, I will test thee with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure. . . . ” In other words, “I looked for wisdom and I found it. When I summed up all my wisdom, I had nothing but a troubled spirit because the more I knew, the sadder I became. ” If you’re honest with yourself, you will find that the more you know, the less you really know. Solomon sought to cover up his troubled spirit by living it up:  “. . . I will test thee with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure. . . . ” But then he said, “. . . this also is vanity” (v. 1b). In verse 3, we find Solomon seeking satisfaction from wine. That didn’t do him any good either. 

Read what else he did: “I made for myself great works; I built houses; I planted vineyards; I made gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits; I made pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees; I got servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of herds and flocks above all that were in Jerusalem before me” (vv. 4-7). Those are the same things that the world does. The people of the world work hard for gain, possessions, and money. “I gathered also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces; I got men and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts” (v. 8). Music is a pacifier for our world today, too. You can’t go anywhere without hearing music. People don’t want to live with their own thoughts. They’ve got to have somebody else putting other thoughts in their mind. 

Continuing in verse 9, he said, “So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem; also my wisdom remained with me [whatever he learned, he remembered]. And whatsoever mine eyes desired, I kept not from them. I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labor; and this was my portion of all my labor. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do; and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly; for what can the man do that cometh after the king? [What could I do now? I’ve done everything there is to do. ] . . . Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly [It’s better to be smart than stupid. ]. . . . The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool walketh in darkness; and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise?. . . ” (vv. 9-15a). 

Isn’t that amazing? When all that he did came to an end, the wisest man in the world said, “I was a fool. ” Human wisdom doesn’t have anything good to offer us.

________________________________________

What is the answer to the spiritual search that we all have? I have found total satisfaction in my life through putting my faith alone in Christ.

Our views below (this material is from Campus Crusade for Christ) concerning how to go to heaven.

Just as there are physical laws that govern
the physical universe, so are there spiritual laws
that govern your relationship with God.

Law 1

God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

God’s Love
“God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NIV).

God’s Plan
[Christ speaking] “I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly”
[that it might be full and meaningful] (John 10:10).

Why is it that most people are not experiencing that abundant life?

Because…

Law 2

Man is sinful and separated from God.
Therefore, he cannot know and experience
God’s love and plan for his life.

Man is Sinful
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own stubborn
self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken.
This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference,
is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.

Man Is Separated
“The wages of sin is death” [spiritual separation from God] (Romans 6:23).

Separation This diagram illustrates that God is holy and man is sinful. A great gulf separates the two. The arrows illustrate that man is continually trying to reach God and the abundant life through his own efforts, such as a good life, philosophy, or religion
-but he inevitably fails.The third law explains the only way to bridge this gulf…

Law 3

Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin.
Through Him you can know and experience
God’s love and plan for your life.

He Died In Our Place
“God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

He Rose from the Dead
“Christ died for our sins… He was buried… He was raised on the third day,
according to the Scriptures… He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6).

He Is the Only Way to God
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to
the Father but through Me’” (John 14:6).

Bridge The Gulf This diagram illustrates that God has bridged the gulf that separates us from Him by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.It is not enough just to know these three laws…

Law 4

We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.

We Must Receive Christ
“As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children
of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).

We Receive Christ Through Faith
“By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God; not as result of works that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8,9).

When We Receive Christ, We Experience a New Birth
(Read John 3:1-8.)

We Receive Christ Through Personal Invitation
[Christ speaking] “Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him” (Revelation 3:20).

Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting
Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us what He wants us to be.
Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross
for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience.
We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will.

These two circles represent two kinds of lives:

Circles

Self-Directed Life
S-Self is on the throne
wpe463.jpg (790 bytes)-Christ is outside the life
wpe464.jpg (719 bytes)-Interests are directed by self, often
resulting in discord and frustration		 Christ-Directed Life
wpe463.jpg (790 bytes)-Christ is in the life and on the throne
S-Self is yielding to Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan
wpe464.jpg (719 bytes)-Interests are directed by Christ,
resulting in harmony with God’s plan

Which circle best represents your life?
Which circle would you like to have represent your life?

The following explains how you can receive Christ:

You Can Receive Christ Right Now by Faith Through Prayer
(Prayer is talking with God)

God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude
of your heart. The following is a suggested prayer:

Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life.
Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.

Does this prayer express the desire of your heart? If it does, I invite you to pray this
prayer right now, and Christ will come into your life, as He promised.

Now that you have received Christ

On this web site:
Copyrighted 2007 by Bright Media Foundation and Campus Crusade for Christ.
All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Permission for use from the publisher,
Campus Crusade for Christ, 375 Highway 74 South, Suite A, Peachtree City, GA 30269

Solution to the problem of loneliness among young people

Jim Morrison’s picture above. He died way too young and many of our young people turn to drugs and suicide because of  loneliness. It is sad that this is such a pressing problem. I think of songs that point this out: Adam’s Song, The Last Resort, etc. There are two usual approaches to this problem that […]

Amy Winehouse’s song rehab tells the story of her life, how Christ can fill that void

  Drama: Members of the press and local residents watch as Winehouse’s body is taken to the van I read this article in Christianity Today about Amy Winehouse a couple of years ago and it rings more true today than ever. How to share your faith using Amy Winehouse‘s ‘Rehab’  by Jane Dratz, Guest ColumnistPosted: Monday, February […]

A Christian response to Papa Roach’s song “The Last Resort” (Part 2)

Papa Roach – Last Resort (Censored Version) This series of posts concerns the song “The Last Resort.” Amy Winehouse died today and it was a tragic loss. That really troubled me that she did not seek spiritual help instead of turning to drugs and alcohol. This post today will give hope to those we feel like […]

Heartbreaking story of Amy Winehouse

  I am in the middle of a series on the Papa Roach song “Last Resort” which deals with suicide and then today I hear this sad story about Amy Winehouse. Inside Amy Winehouse’s troubled life With the news that British R&B star and tabloid target Amy Winehouse has died from as yet undisclosed causes, […]

 
A Christian response to Papa Roach’s song “The Last Resort” (Part 1)

Papa Roach – Last Resort (Censored Version) Amy Winehouse died at the young age of 27 and she had lived a life filled with drug and alcohol addiction. This series on Papa Roach is meant to provide answers to those who feel trapped. Hopefully it will people to avoid  troubles like Amy Winehouse experienced.  Today I […]

Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s movie “Midnight in Paris” (Part 38,Alcoholism and great writers and artists)

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 […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

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

May 3, 2012 – 7:09 am

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

____________

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) will not vote for a balanced budget amendment proposal unless it includes a cap on federal spending. However, he is undecided whether the amendment absolutely must require a supermajority of Congress to approve a tax hike for him to support it.

“The most important element is the cap on spending,” Gohmert told CNSNews.com. “If there is no cap on spending, then the balanced budget amendment is a formula for ever- increasing spending and ever-increasing taxing that will just spiral upward and upward again. So there’s got to be included a cap on spending, and best if it’s related to a percentage of GDP. But, absolutely, if there is no cap on spending, I could not vote for it.”

The actual language of the balanced budget amendment that Congress will vote on before the end of the year has not yet been determined. However, many conservatives fear that Republican leaders may agree to vote on a stripped down amendment that requires Congress to balance the budget but does not cap spending as a percentage of GDP or require supermajorities to raise taxes. They fear that an amendment of that nature–which might win the backing of some incumbent congressional liberals–would become a constitutional lever for sustaining big government via ever-escalating federal taxation.

When the Republican-controlled-House approved the cut, cap and balance plan last on July 19 in 234-190 vote, it included a version of the balanced budget amendment to cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP. The GOP originally sought to hold federal spending to 18 percent of GDP.

The version of the balanced budget amendment in the cut, cap and balance plan also required two-thirds majorities in both houses to approve a tax increase. The amendment also would have prohibited deficit spending unless there was a national security emergency or a supermajority of Congress voted for it. On July 22, the Senate voted 51-46 to approve a procedural motion that blocked substantive consideration of the cut, cap and balance bill in that body.

The debt-limit deal reached by President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) requires that both houses of Congress give an up or down vote to a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year. However, it does not specify what the language of the amendment would be.

If two-thirds of Congress votes to approve a balanced budget amendment, it would then have to be ratified by 38 states, or three-fourths.

The House passed that debt-limit deal by a 269-161 vote on Aug. 1. Gohmert was one of 66 Republicans who voted against it.

“As far as the supermajority to raise taxes, that’s our preference, but the key element, the most important element is the cap on spending,” Gohmert said. “If there is no supermajority to raise taxes then I’d just have to look at it more closely to see what all was there to see if it was something I could vote for or not.”

Gohmert believes this is a winning issue for Republicans.

“Well, I think it’s like this: We either have a legitimate Balanced Budget Amendment pass with a cap on spending, or I really believe if it does not pass, you will see many of those who voted against it turned out both in the House and Senate in the next election,” Gohmert said. “So I think it’s an either/or. Either people vote for it and it passes, or we have a significant change in the people that are in the House and Senate that voted against it.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

A handout is not what the poor needs

May 3, 2012 – 7:02 am

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

Uploaded by on Jun 29, 2010

If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable.

______________

I don’t understand why liberals do not see that they are hurting and not helping the poor with these programs.

Rachel Sheffield

April 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm

A new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture states that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps) helps “alleviate” poverty.

Essentially, the report says that by including the dollar amount of food stamps as part of a family’s income, fewer families are considered poor—or at least not as poor.

No surprises here. Not even the federal government can spend over $70 billion on food stamps annually and have no impact on a family’s bottom line. (Of course, federal poverty calculations don’t include the value of food stamps or most of the benefits received from federal welfare programs as part of a household’s income, so it’s little wonder that federal poverty rates have remained nearly unchanged over the last several decades despite massive increases in welfare spending. But that’s another story.)

The report also notes that “SNAP’s contribution to reducing poverty increased between 2000 and 2009, a period when the SNAP caseload nearly doubled and total SNAP benefits more than quadrupled.”

In other words, the federal government seems to be saying that federal dependence translates to poverty relief.

If dependence on the federal government is the standard of success, then certainly the food stamps program is a smash hit. Not only is it the largest of the federal government’s roughly 10 food assistance programs, but it’s also one of the largest of all the federal government’s welfare programs.

And it’s been growing, recession or not. Since 2000, as the report points out, participation rates have skyrocketed from just 17.2 million to 44.7 million in 2011—an increase of roughly 260 percent. Naturally, this means that the federal government has “successfully” increased the program’s cost—in fact, more than tripled it—from approximately $20 billion in 2000 to a whopping $72 billion in fiscal year 2011.

While some of the program’s most recent “successes” in growth are no doubt partly attributed to the recession, roles were already steadily growing prior to 2008. In fact, food stamps has for the most part been continually growing since it began in the 1960s.

To what can such “accomplishment” be attributed? As the report notes, some of the growth is due to policy changes over the last decade “designed to increase SNAP participation among working poor households.” The report notes that states have “implemented a number of program changes to simplify the administrative process to apply for and remain on SNAP.”

So the secret of “success” is not only expanding eligibility but making sure people stay on food stamps.

Tragically, such a measure of success is completely counter to what the purpose of any good welfare program should be: to help individuals become independent and enjoy the fruits of their own labor—not dependent on government largesse.

Food stamps, along with just about every other of the federal government’s over 70 welfare assistance programs, fails to include any functional provisions to promote personal responsibility, such as work requirements and time limits. Rather than addressing the causes of poverty, the federal government’s method of operation has been to pour more taxpayer dollars into more welfare programs, edging near a cost of $1 trillion annually. Not only does this approach fail to help individuals, but it creates a growing burden on taxpayers.

Successfully helping the poor should mean promoting individual freedom through self-reliance, not promoting dependence through a government dole.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 69)

May 3, 2012 – 6:59 am

Uploaded by on May 3, 2011

This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives seven reasons why the political elite are wrong to push for more taxes. If allowed to succeed, the hopelessly misguided pushing to raise taxes would only worsen our fiscal mess while harming the economy.

The seven reasons provided by the video against this approach are as follows:

1) Tax increases are not needed;
2) Tax increases encourage more spending;
3) Tax increases harm economic performance;
4) Tax increases foment social discord;
5) Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected;
6) Tax increases encourage more loopholes; and,
7) Tax increases undermine competitiveness

_____________________

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

I found this paper below very interesting. It shows that just raising tax rates will not get the intended result.

Curtis Dubay

February 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm

President Obama is insistent that taxes must go up to close the deficit. He says it’s just common sense that taxes must go up, because the math says so. But if he gets his way, the numbers won’t add up the way he says they will.

President Obama wants to raise taxes on “the rich.” But the Treasury will never collect the revenue he says will come from such hikes, because the rich will change their behavior to escape the punitive levies.

Case in point from Britain, where Parliament recently implemented a 50 percent tax rate on the rich:

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period. Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

This should be no surprise. When governments raise taxes on the rich, the rich change their behavior to avoid the higher taxes. Liberals understand this phenomenon when they raise taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking, but they never seem to apply the same principle to income. If you tax income more heavily, you’ll end up with less income to tax, just like if you raise taxes on cigarettes, smokers purchase fewer packs.

When tax rates on the rich go up, the rich can respond in a number of ways:

  • Work less. They can work less, thereby earning less income to tax. This makes sense for high earners when their rate hits or exceeds 50 percent. Who wants to work when you take home half or less of the additional money you earn?
  • Earn differently. They can also change the composition of their income. In the U.S., capital gains and dividends are properly taxed at a lower rate than wage and salary income (ideally, they wouldn’t be taxed at all). Since the rich are often business owners, they can shift their compensation from wages and salaries to these less-taxed forms. They can also take compensation in forms that are excluded from taxation, like more comprehensive health insurance plans.
  • Seek shelter. Lastly, when the IRS comes calling for more, the rich can pay high-priced lawyers and accountants to scrounge the tax code for every last deduction, credit, and exemption to minimize their tax liability. This diverts resources that could’ve gone into creating jobs in other areas of the economy.

Taxing the rich more heavily distracts from the real cause of our debt and deficit woes: entitlements like Social Security and Medicare driving overspending. Washington has an overspending problem, not an under-taxing one. It would be better for Congress and the President to focus on the true cause of the problem than to waste time on counterproductive tax hikes that would never raise the expected revenue and would slow the already stagnant economy to boot.

_____

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obama, Taxes | Comments (0)

The Founding Fathers views concerning Jesus, Christianity and the Bible (Part 2, John Quincy Adams)

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots. I am deeply troubled by the secular agenda of those who are at war with religion in our public life.

Lillian Kwon quoted somebody that I respect a lot  in her article, “Christianity losing out to Secular Humanism?” :

“Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God,” Ken Ham said. “Because of that, there have been reminders in this culture concerning God’s Word, the God of creation.”

At the time I started this series I was in Boston, MA which was the home of John Adams. I have toured his home and found it very interesting.

David Barton, 05-2008

A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and  early Statesmen on Jesus Christianity and the Bible

Today we look at John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams 

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION” 

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman on the FDA

May 3, 2012 – 1:15 am

Milton Friedman – Health Care in a Free Market

Milton is so good at addressing these issues.

It Just Ain’t So | Arthur E. Foulkes

Milton Friedman Is to Blame for Unsafe Food?

Krugman’s Cry Understates the Market’s Ability to Provide Food-Quality Assurance

October 2007 • Volume: 57 • Issue: 8

re is a “food safety crisis” in America and Milton Friedman is to blame, Princeton University economist Paul Krugman wrote on the New York Times op-ed page May 21. Friedman is responsible, Krugman wrote, because he legitimized a “sickening ideology” that rejects “even the most compelling” cases for government regulation of business.

Krugman’s “crisis” stems from several recent incidents with tainted food, including E. coli in spinach in 2006, which led to three deaths and several illnesses; salmonella in peanut butter; and melamine in pet food. More recently, food imported from China has caused concern.

He believes the government needs to guarantee food safety because market forces alone cannot. His case, however, both understates the ability of the market to provide food-quality assurance and disregards or ignores important arguments against relying on the government for this purpose.

Krugman writes that “the economic case” for government food-safety regulation is “overwhelming” because people buying food know much less about its quality than sellers do. This is the “asymmetric information” argument common in market-failure literature.

Yet asymmetric information problems are not unusual. For example, when I am hired, I know more about my work habits than the person doing the hiring. When I purchase auto insurance, I know more about my driving skills than the insurer. When I buy a lamp, I know far less about its quality than the manufacturer. Yet despite all this, somehow we engage in mutually beneficial exchanges every day.

Indeed, the existence of asymmetric information creates a market for assurance services that entrepreneurs quickly fill. Examples of private means of assurance range from neighborhood gossip to trusted brand names to Underwriters Laboratories to Consumer Reports. Brand names provide an informal means of quality assurance that companies and consumers are willing to pay for. Likewise, middlemen, such as department or grocery stores, also provide a reputation-conscious source of quality assurance that both consumers and producers are willing to pay for.

Food may be potentially more dangerous than many other goods, but this fact only adds to the incentives for private assurance. Indeed, a downside to using the government for food-quality assurance, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is that it makes consumers less conscious of food safety in general. Furthermore, the existence of the FDA “crowds out” private (and more creative) assurance providers that would certainly emerge in its absence.

Krugman worries about Americans buying so much food from abroad, pointing out darkly that FDA inspectors check only a tiny percentage of the imports. This leaves the American consumer “dependent on the quality of foreign food-safety enforcement,” he writes.

Yet government food inspectors are not really the only source of quality assurance for imported food. Even though Krugman dismisses this point in his piece, sellers of imported food really do have an important incentive to avoid making their customers sick.

“The food industry bristles at the notion that a greater diversity of foreign ingredient suppliers could increase risks for consumers,” the New York Times reported on June 16. “Executives at food companies say that they willingly bear the burden of ensuring the safety of their suppliers’ plants and products.” The same article quotes an executive at Sara Lee saying, “[Food safety is] on us. We can’t sit around and wait for government to iron these things out.”

Of course, it is always possible for bad food to reach consumers. There will always be accidents and negligence in any human endeavor. Nevertheless, to dismiss the fact that companies have an incentive not to harm their consumers and imply that only government officials can do this, as Krugman does, is to leave out an important part of the food-safety picture.

Krugman also writes that corporations are at fault in the food crisis, citing salmonella contamination in ConAgra peanut butter that came to light in 2005. Krugman also notes that ConAgra officials, during a surprise two-day FDA inspection prompted by an anonymous tip about the contamination, refused to hand over company documents without a written request from the FDA.

While this certainly shows corporations can have food-safety problems, it may not be a persuasive case of corporate irresponsibility. ConAgra detected the salmonella during its own routine inspections and, a spokeswoman told me, none of the contaminated peanut butter ever left the company’s control or reached consumers.

As for why ConAgra refused to hand over documents without a written request, the spokeswoman said it wanted to be sure it handed over all the requested information and to keep any of its “proprietary information” from becoming part of the public record.

Some people will see something sinister in anything a corporation does, but in this case at least, the company seems to have responded effectively to the problem and acted reasonably when dealing with a surprise government inspection.

Industry Wants Regulation

Krugman also blames the Bush administration for the food crisis because it refuses to regulate private industries even when they ask for it. He quotes the president of a food-industry group calling for stronger government regulations.

Yet it is not unusual for business people to seek government regulations, nor does this demonstrate that the sought regulations are in the public’s interest. Often business people want regulations to cripple competitors or restore public confidence at taxpayer expense. The Meat Inspection Acts of 1891 and 1906 provide good examples.

Refrigeration changed the meatpacking industry dramatically in the late 1800s, allowing large centralized packers in Chicago to offer meat in greater quantities and at lower costs than before. Threatened by the new competition, smaller local slaughterhouses began to claim the Chicago packers were unsanitary. Demand for meat fell (along with prices)—leading the industry to ask for federal regulations to restore public confidence. (See E.C. Pasour, Jr., “We Can Do Better than Government Inspection of Meat,” The Freeman, May 1998.) The result was the Meat Inspection Act of 1891.

A similar situation led to passage of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 as well. As Lawrence Reed has written, big meatpackers “got the taxpayers to pick up the entire $3 million price tag for [the Meat Inspection Act’s] implementation.” They also got new regulations placed on their smaller competitors. (“Of Meat and Myth,” The Freeman, November 1994.)

Finally, Krugman’s essay overlooks an important economic argument against the FDA itself. Economists have long understood that because of the perverse incentives its employees face, the agency weighs decisions heavily on the side of caution. As a result, it has often kept lifesaving drugs and products off the market at the cost of many thousands of lives.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Healthcare, Milton Friedman | Comments (0)