Monthly Archives: August 2012

President Obama:“do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” (Part 1 of David Barton’s response)

August 12, 2012 – 12:05 am

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – David Barton 1/6

David Barton provided an excellent response to President Obama’s assertion: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Here it is:

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, 2 and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” 3 (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” 4 ) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” 5 (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims. 6

The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation 7 and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. 10

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. 11

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

  • A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
  • The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
  • Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
  • A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
  • A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

1. Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” June 22, 2008,WorldNetDaily (at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735).(Return)

2. David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007 (at:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/204017.aspx).(Return)

3. “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

4. “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” April 6, 2009, CNN (at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html).(Return)

5.See, for example, Robert Knight, “Obama Nation’s Low View of Christianity,” Townhall.com, June 08, 2009 (at: (at:http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2009/06/08/obama_nations_low_view_of_christianity).(Return)

6. “The World Factbook (under North America; United States; People; Religions),” CIA (at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/US.html).(Return)

7. “Survey Reports: Beyond Red vs. Blue,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, March 17-27, 2005 (at: http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=953), reports that in 1996, 60% of Americans believed that America was indeed a Christian nation and that by 2004, the number had risen to 71%; the 2009 poll showed that the number had dropped to 69% and then to 62% (see “Newsweek Poll: A Post-Christian Nation?,” Newsweek, April 3, 2009 (at:http://www.newsweek.com/id/192311), in which 62% answered Yes, 32% answer No, and 6% answered Don’t Know to the question “Do you consider the United States a Christian nation, or not?” See also “This Easter, Smaller Percentage of Americans are Christians,” Gallup, April 10, 2009 (at:http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/Easter-Smaller-Percentage-Americans-Christian.aspx), in which this statement appears: “The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. More than three-quarters of all Americans identify as Christian,” according to this poll 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (55% Protestant, 22% Catholic). (Return)

8. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 13. (Return)

9. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 40. (Return)

10. Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), p. 43. (Return)

11. John Marshall, The Papers of John Marshall, Charles Hobson, editor (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), Vol. XII, p. 278, to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833. (Return)

12. Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), pp. 11-12, Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442. (Return)

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

Francis Schaeffer: We can’t possess ultimate answers apart from the reference point of the infinite personal God himself (Schaeffer Sunday)

August 11, 2012 – 11:56 am

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Uploaded by on Oct 3, 2010

__________________

Some wise words below I got off the internet:

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The Infinite-Personal God: Thoughts from Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason

 

Perhaps you are familiar with the indie band Arcade Fire. Their most recent album is entitled Neon Bible. The songs on Neon Bible certainly reflect something of the Bible itself in so far as it raises some of life’s biggest questions. Some of these questions are about fear, faith, love and disappointment. On the album is an update version of their song “No Cars Go” in which we hear the eerie tone of the line “Don’t know where we are goin.’ The line gives the listener the sense that there is no certainty to what our end is. This captures much of what I think indie music captures about our fragmented culture where the greatest questions are asked, but with very few answers.Because we live in a postmodern culture where many are not afraid to ask honest questions about life, the concept of faith is quite popular. Francis Schaeffer’s work and his book Escape from Reason have made a tremendous contribution to an understanding of Christian faith in this type of cultural context. In Escape from Reason, Schaeffer is clear in pointing out that the Bible reveals that God is both infinite and personal.He is the infinite-personal God whom created all things out of nothing and therefore the creation is finite or limited. Only God alone is the infinite Creator, the Creator without limitations. On the side of infinity, Schaeffer points out that, humans are “as separated from God as is the machine.” (pg. 26)On the side of human personality, Schaeffer is clear that humans, being made in the image of God, were made to have a personal relationship with God. Schaeffer states, “On the side of personality you are related to God. You are not infinite but finite; nevertheless, you are truly personal; you are created in the image of the personal God who exists.” (pg. 26-27)

As Schaeffer fleshes this idea out in Escape from Reason, he presents a clear Biblical view of human persons. About the Biblical view of the whole of a human being, Schaeffer states,

“It is not a Platonic view. The soul is not more important than the body. God made the whole man and the whole man is important. The doctrine of the biblical resurrection of the dead is not an old-fashioned thing. It tells us that God loves the whole man and the whole man is important. The biblical teaching, therefore, opposes the Platonic, which makes the soul (“the upper”) very important and leaves the body (“the lower”) with little importance at all. The biblical view opposes the humanistic position where the body and autonomous mind of man become important, and grace becomes very unimportant.”(pg. 28)

God made the whole human being and cares about the whole human being.Schaeffer goes on to point out the importance of understanding historically the philosophical schools that have help to shape where we are today. He points out that in Western philosophy, from the rise of Greek philosophy until now, the commonly held belief that the hope of finding complete answers which would encompass all of thought and life would come through rationalism plus rationality rather than rationality and faith in the God of the Bible. In his book Death in the City Schaeffer states,

“The Bible puts its religious teaching in a historic setting. It is quite the opposite of the new theology and existential thought, quite the opposite of the twentieth century’s reduction of religion to the “spiritual” and the subjective. Scripture relates true religion to space-time history which may be expressed in normal literary form. And that is important, because our generation takes the word religion and everything religious and turns it into something psychological or sociological…a holy and loving God really exists, and He works into the significant history which exists” (Death in the City, pg. 17)

The philosophical thought during the time of Kant and Rousseau in the late 1700’s was a time of fighting for freedom. The freedom that was sought after was an autonomous freedom in which human freedom would have no restraint or limitations. The quest for this kind of freedom took place during a time when Western philosophy was rationalistic, rational, and sought to find a unified field of knowledge.Rationalism as Schaeffer puts it in Escape from Reason is “man begins absolutely and totally from himself, gathers the information concerning the particulars and formulates the universals.” (pg. 34) The term “rational” on the other hand has no relationship to “rationalism.” This term “rational” is the act in which “man’s aspirations for the validity of reason are well founded.” In other words, if something is true the opposite is not true. Schaeffer states,

“The basic position of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the centre of the universe, that he is autonomous – here lies his rebellion. Man will keep his rationalism and his rebellion, his insistence on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means he must give up his rationality.”(pg. 42)

With this quest for autonomy, humans began to view reality in which there is a large gap between nature and universals. Schaeffer states,

“The hope of a connecting link between two spheres has completely disappeared. There is a complete dichotomy between the upper and lower storeys. The line between the upper and lower storeys has become a concrete horizontal, ten thousand feet thick, with highly-charged barbed-wire fixed in the concrete…Below the line there is rationality and logic. The upper storey becomes the non-logical and the non-rational.”(pg. 46)

With this dichotomy, on the basis of reason human have no meaning, purpose, or significance. On the basis of the non-rational and non-reasonable humans obtain a sense of optimism. But from this worldview humans are left with the need to take a leap of faith because they cannot rationally search for God.

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

The search for significance is intrinsic to who we are as people made in the image of God. Humans made in the image of God cannot live as though they are insignificant. But humans cannot live in the lower storey and find adequate answers concerning meaning, purpose, and significance. Yet as Schaeffer states, “in our day, the sphere of faith is placed in the non-rational and non-logical as opposed to the rational and logical.” (pg. 75)

Schaeffer points out some consequences of pitting faith against rationality. First, if we separate the upper storey or the world of universals from nature there is no way of establishing a relationship between the upper storey and everyday life in regard to morality. Schaeffer states, “You cannot have real morals in the real world after you have made this separation.” (pg. 80) The second consequence is that the separation creates no adequate basis for law. God revealed something real in the common world of life. Third, the separation, “throws away the answer to the problem of evil.” Schaeffer states,

“the True Christian position is that, in space and time and history, there was an unprogrammed man who made a choice, and actually rebelled against God…without Christianity’s answer that God made a significant man in a significant history with evil being the result of Satan’s and then man’s historic space-time revolt, there is no answer but to accept Baudelaire’s answer [‘If there is a God, He is the devil’] with tears. Once the historic Christian answer is put away, all we can do is to leap upstairs and say that against all reason God is good.”(pg. 81)

Without Christianity’s answer to the problem of evil what we have left is an irrational leap of faith.Christianity thoroughly provides an answer, but rationalism must be renounced and rationality embraced. Christianity provides a world and life view with a unified answer. Schaeffer states,

“On the side of infinity…we are separated from God entirely, but on the side of personality we are made in the image of God. So God can speak and tell us about Himself—not exhaustively, but truly. (We could not, after all, know anything exhaustively as finite creatures.) Then He has told us about things in the finite created realm, too. He has told us true things about the cosmos and history. Thus, we are not adrift.” (pg. 83)

I do recognize now that doubt is real and that doubt’s role is significant in our lives and yet at a fundamental level we have answers to our cry, “Don’t know where were goin.” Although we cannot have ultimate answers without something revealed about God and God indeed is made known in the person of Jesus Christ. The person and work of Christ is communicated to us in the story that the Bible tells. It is the story of the infinite-personal God drawing near because he cares. God cares about the whole of a human being. There is not an area of our life that he does not care about and there is not an area of our life that is autonomous. The Bible says first that there is an infinite-personal God who created all things. Because he created all things the universe begins as personal. Because it is personal the longings of love and communication are intrinsic to all of humanity.God has also always existed and has created all things. Not only has God created all things, but created them outside of himself. Because he created all things outside of himself the world is objectively real and therefore there is a true history and a true me. Schaeffer states,

“If the intrinsically personal origin of the universe is rejected, what alternative outlook can anyone have? It must be said emphatically that there is no final answer except that man is a product of the impersonal, plus time, plus chance.” (pg. 87)

Humanism or rationalism says that humans can built bridges to ultimate answers apart from anyone else, apart from an infinite-personal God. But this is impossible given that humans are finite. Humans cannot point to anything with ultimate certainty. Regarding human quests for answers Schaeffer states,

“beginning only from himself autonomously, it is quite obvious that, being finite, he can never reach any absolute answer. This would be true if only on the basis of the fact that he is finite; but to this must be added the Fall, the fact of his rebellion.” (pg. 89)

We are not only finite and limited, but by nature our own quest for true significance and meaning takes place in autonomous rebellion against the God who is there.But we have hope. The Bible states clearly that humans are made in the image of this infinite-personal God and this gives us a starting point at which to seek for ultimate answers.The Bible says even as lost and broken as we are, seeking to live life apart from the life source, the image of God is still exhibited in humans. We are not like from machines or plants as beautiful as they might be, because we are personal. But how can we seek the infinite-personal God if we ourselves are finite humans?We cannot possess ultimate answers apart from the reference point of the infinite God himself. The humanist or rationalist puts himself at the center of the universe in order to seek ultimate meaning and answers. Schaeffer says this persons “insists on being autonomous with only the knowledge he can gather, and has ended up finding himself quite meaningless.” (pg. 90) The knowledge we can gather is limited and if it comes only from within we have no hope for ultimate answers regarding meaning and life.

Christianity does provide a worldview in which to wrestle with ultimate questions in not simply a theoretical way, but in a personal way. Schaeffer states,

“Christianity is a system which is composed of a set of ideas which can be discussed. By ‘system’ we do not mean a scholastic abstraction, nevertheless we do not shrink from using the word. The Bible does not set out unrelated thoughts. The system it sets forth has a beginning and moves from that beginning in a non-contradictory way. The beginning is the existence of the infinite-personal God as Creator of all else. Christianity is not just a vague set of incommunicable experiences, based on a totally unverifiable ‘leap in the dark.’ Neither conversion (the beginning of the Christian life) nor spirituality (the growth) should be such a leap. Both are firmly related to the God who is there and the knowledge He has given us – and both involve the whole man.”

I would add that the Bible is not just a system, but also a story. It is a story where God is the ultimate actor and also the one who has written the script. It is a story that reveals that the infinite-personal God is there and has drawn near to his people with a passionate pursuit. He is infinite and he is personal. As finite persons we can have hope that God has drawn personally near in the person of Jesus in whom the whole story points to. Jesus is also the one who grants us the privilege of being included in this great story as well. Jesus through his death and resurrection from death provides a way to live personally with this infinite-personal God. Our response to his grace in drawing near ought to be acknowledging our rebellion as we have insistence on being autonomous. The meaningful life comes through acknowledging our dependence on the God who is there and in Jesus Christ as The Way, The Truth, and The Life.The story continues to move forward unfolding toward a day when lost people from all nations will have their story included in the great story of God’s personal restoration of his people and the world. The story unfolds until one day we will know fully the God who is there. No longer must we live out our own story without a script. No longer must we live out our own story by the line, “Don’t no where were goin!”

 
Posted by Mark Peach at 10:31 AM

 
 

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (2)

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Dan Mitchell of Cato Institute discusses Paul Ryan VP pick

August 11, 2012 – 11:12 am

I respect the Cato Institute and especially Dan Mitchell and here is an article he just wrote:

The honest answer is that it probably means nothing. I don’t think there’s been an election in my lifetime that was impacted by the second person on a presidential ticket.

And a quick look at Intrade.com shows that Ryan’s selection hasn’t (at least yet) moved the needle. Obama is still in the high 50s.

Moreover, the person who becomes Vice President usually plays only a minor role in Administration policy.

With those caveats out of the way, the Ryan pick is mostly good news.

Here are the reasons why I’m happy.

Here are two reasons why I’m worried.

  • Both Romney and Ryan are somewhat sympathetic to a value-added tax. My worst-case scenario is they win the election, but then can’t get a good budget approved because of some squishy Republican senators who put self interest above national interest. Romney and Ryan then decide that this European-style national sales tax is the only way – on paper – of making the budget balance. In reality, of course, we’ll suffer the same fate as Europe since the VAT revenues will be used to finance ever-larger government.
  • Ryan has some very bad votes in his past, including support for TARP, the auto bailout, the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education legislation, and the reckless Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Everyone says to ignore those votes because Ryan knew he was voting the wrong way, but if he’s already made some deliberately bad decisions for political reasons, what’s to stop him from making more deliberately bad decisions for political reasons?

But as I said above, don’t read too much into Ryan’s selection. if Republicans win, Romney will be the one calling the shots.

Though this does give Ryan a big advantage the next time there’s an open contest for the GOP nomination – either 2016 or 2020.

P.S. I suspect putting Ryan on the ticket will shift Wisconsin into the GOP column. Based on my last prediction, that would be enough to defeat Obama. But I’ll have to contemplate whether the pick hurts Romney’s chances in another state. You’ll have to wait until September 6 for my updated election prediction.

P.P.S. For those who care about politics, some are saying that selecting Ryan was risky because it gives Obama and his allies an opportunity to demagogue the GOP ticket about entitlement reform. I disagree. Even if Romney picked Nancy Pelosi, that demagoguery was going to happen. Heck, they’ve already accused Romney of causing a woman’s death, so I hardly think they’ll be bashful about throwing around other accusations.

Related posts:

Churches, not the government, have traditionally helped the poor in the long history of the USA

If you look at the first 150 years of our nation’s history you will find practically no welfare or assistance to the poor coming from the government. In fact, most of the help came from local churches. During the last few decades the government had created the welfare trap that robs people of responsibility to […]

Obamacare: A Medicaid Monster

Cato’s Michael F. Cannon Discusses ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is the linchpin of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is among the issues to be handled by the Supreme Court beginning March 26, 2012. Michael F. Cannon is the […]

Taxed Enough Already? Just wait until Obamacare kicks in

Tim Sandefur Discusses ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains some of the implications of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. ___________________ Obamacare will tax us to death. Here is a chart from the Heritage Foundation: Created on March 23, 2012 DOWNLOAD HIGH-RES […]

Interview with Paul Ryan

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Problem – CBN.com A biblical justification for getting our spending in order. Subsidiarity: An Important Principle in Federal Budget Debates Ryan Messmore April 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm How should one’s faith shape his or her engagement in the policy arena? Political Correspondent David Brody recently asked that question of House […]

Obama wants to claim Reagan again

  I have a son named Wilson Daniel Hatcher and he is named after two of the most respected men I have ever read about : Daniel from the Old Testament and Ronald Wilson Reagan. One of the thrills of my life was getting to hear President Reagan speak in the beginning of November of […]

Obama is easy to make fun of at times

Exempting half the people from paying income tax does not seem like a bright idea. President Obama has a funny way of spinning that.  Dan Mitchell’s blog has a good way of presenting that. Obama’s Understanding of Taxation, Captured by a Cartoon July 11, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’ve already posted on Obama’s class-warfare approach to […]

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on President Obama’s “Social Darwinism speech”

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly has pointed out that President Obama is off base to be critical of Paul Ryan’s budget since it allows the government to grow by over 3% each year and he wished that the Republicans would taking a sharper knife to the budget cuts!!!! Appearing on PBS to Debate […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute | Tagged | Comments (1)

Romney’s VP pick Paul Ryan on www.thedailyhatch.org

August 11, 2012 – 10:16 am

Here are some past videos and articles that include Paul Ryan who just was chosen as Mitt Romney’s VP pick.

Michael Tanner: “Time for Republicans to live up to the hype and get truly serious about cutting spending.”

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus Uploaded by afq2007 on Dec 15, 2008 Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that […]

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute takes on entitlement reform

It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Here Dan Mitchell takes it on. Everything You Need to Know about Entitlement Reform November 28, 2011 by Dan Mitchell Most people have a vague understanding that America has a huge long-run fiscal problem. They’re right, though they probably don’t realize the seriousness […]

 

Spending more money on welfare is not the answer

We have spent over 19 trillion on welfare since LBJ started the war on poverty and it has only brought us several generations who are dependent on the government. Welfare: Tackling the Fastest-Growing Part of Government Spending Rachel Sheffield April 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm Multiple reports of welfare abuse have hit the headlines in […]

Overspending Obama style

This excessive spending by Washington today is not responsible government in action. Obama’s Comments: A Gift that Keeps on Giving Posted by Roger Pilon Today POLITICO Arena asks: Does Senator Grassley’s tweet, that the American people “r not stupid as this x prof of con law,” make an important point or was it disrespectful? Is this […]

Obama’s budget versus Paul Ryan’s budget

Obama Calls GOP Budget Plan “Prescription for Decline” Uploaded by PBSNewsHour on Apr 3, 2012 In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities […]

Obamacare adds to premium increases

Milton Friedman – Socialized Medicine at Mayo Clinic in 1978 Obamacare chart from the Heritage Foundation: Obamacare adds to premium increases Created on March 23, 2012 DOWNLOAD HIGH-RES (JPG, Color) Slide 4 | Obamacare in Pictures Americans are paying more for health insurance every year, a concerning trend that is already getting worse under Obamacare—even […]

Churches, not the government, have traditionally helped the poor in the long history of the USA

If you look at the first 150 years of our nation’s history you will find practically no welfare or assistance to the poor coming from the government. In fact, most of the help came from local churches. During the last few decades the government had created the welfare trap that robs people of responsibility to […]

Obamacare: A Medicaid Monster

Cato’s Michael F. Cannon Discusses ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is the linchpin of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is among the issues to be handled by the Supreme Court beginning March 26, 2012. Michael F. Cannon is the […]

Taxed Enough Already? Just wait until Obamacare kicks in

Tim Sandefur Discusses ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains some of the implications of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. ___________________ Obamacare will tax us to death. Here is a chart from the Heritage Foundation: Created on March 23, 2012 DOWNLOAD HIGH-RES […]

Interview with Paul Ryan

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Problem – CBN.com A biblical justification for getting our spending in order. Subsidiarity: An Important Principle in Federal Budget Debates Ryan Messmore April 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm How should one’s faith shape his or her engagement in the policy arena? Political Correspondent David Brody recently asked that question of House […]

Obama wants to claim Reagan again

  I have a son named Wilson Daniel Hatcher and he is named after two of the most respected men I have ever read about : Daniel from the Old Testament and Ronald Wilson Reagan. One of the thrills of my life was getting to hear President Reagan speak in the beginning of November of […]

Obama is easy to make fun of at times

Exempting half the people from paying income tax does not seem like a bright idea. President Obama has a funny way of spinning that.  Dan Mitchell’s blog has a good way of presenting that. Obama’s Understanding of Taxation, Captured by a Cartoon July 11, 2011 by Dan Mitchell I’ve already posted on Obama’s class-warfare approach to […]

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on President Obama’s “Social Darwinism speech”

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly has pointed out that President Obama is off base to be critical of Paul Ryan’s budget since it allows the government to grow by over 3% each year and he wished that the Republicans would taking a sharper knife to the budget cuts!!!! Appearing on PBS to Debate […]

 

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

Brantley thinks class-warfare works

August 11, 2012 – 12:40 am

President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.

_________________

President Obama really does stick to his view that the wealthy need to rescue the rest of us on everything, but that view does not work. There are not enough rich people out there to solve our budget woes. Actually what has happened in the past when the government wants more money it starts off going after the rich, but when that does not bring in much money then the only alternative is to go after the rest of us.

Max Brantley argues on the Arkansas Times Blog that most of us are taxed too much so we must tax the rich more but that will not come close to bringing us to a balanced budget. However, it will destroy job creation.

Rob Bluey

October 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

Democrats on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction last week floated a proposal that includes massive tax increases on wealthy Americans. While their plan would also include some cuts to entitlement programs, the tax-code changes make up a significant portion, according to press reports.

The Los Angeles Times reported: “Revenue would be raised mostly by bumping up the high-end tax bracket and limiting deductions for upper-income earners, those familiar with the talks said.”

This isn’t exactly a surprise. President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress are waging a war against successful Americans. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke at Heritage last week about the divisive nature of Obama’s scheme.

The so-called Super Committee, of course, could be an opportunity for Congress to reform the tax code. Writing in the Washington Times last week, Heritage’s J.D. Foster observed:

But if tax reform is part of a deficit-reduction exercise because the language of tax reform has been co-opted to disguise a tax hike, then both the hike and the reform should and likely will fail. Be very clear — tax reform is revenue neutral as traditionally scored. If a tax proposal is shown to raise revenue, then it’s not tax reform, it’s just another big-government tax hike.

As for that proposal floated by Democrats this week, it’s simply not a viable solution. This chart from Heritage’s 2001 Budget Chart Book reveals that Congress would need to increase tax rates on wealthy Americans to mathematically impossible levels to close future deficits.

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

Herb Rule’s DWI arrest and why I don’t drink

August 10, 2012 – 4:51 pm

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today:

ILL BE THERE: Herb Rule at news conference.

  • Brian Chilson
  • ‘I’LL BE THERE’: Herb Rule at news conference.

 

Herb Rule, the Little Rock lawyer and Democratic 2nd Congressional District candidate who was arrested for DWI last night in Fayetteville, reasserted his innocence of the charge at an afternoon news conference at his campaign headquarters in the Tanglewood Shopping Center.

__________________________

Max Brantley said today on his podcast that it is probably better to have Herb Rule drunk representing us than Tim Griffin sober. I disagree with that but this post is about the issue of drinking. 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 Herb Rule is facing.

A police officer stopped Herb Rule before he had a wreck. Unfortunately there was no officer there to stop Ryan Dunn back on the Sunday night in June of 2011 when he was killed driving drunk.

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 drink and here they are.First,alcohol has brought a social plague on our country not matched by anything we have ever seen in the past.  I will never forget the day I heard this statistic in 1975:  “Drunk drivers are responsible for 50% of highway fatalities.”My pastor Adrian Rogers shared that statistic from the pulpit. I was only 14 years old at the time, but I was looking forward to driving. It caused me to realize that I had to abstain from alcohol and try to convince my friends and family to do likewise.Second, the Bible does condemn alcoholic wine. There were three kinds of wine mentioned in the Bible (grapes, grape juice and strong drink). Wine in the cluster which is equal to our grapes. Isaiah 65:8 ” “As the new wine is found in the cluster…”  The point I am making here is very clear. The Bible does refer to nonalcoholic wine which is equal to our grape juice. Don’t take for granted everytime you read the word “wine” in the Bible that it is referring to the kind of wine we are used to today.Next we have the term “strong drink” which is equal to our wine today. Strong drink is condemned. .Proverbs 20:1 states, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. ”

  • WHAT WAS “STRONG DRINK” IN BIBLE TIMES?

Distillation was not discovered until about 1500 A.D. Strong drink and unmixed wine in Bible times was from 3% to 11% alcohol. Dr. John MacArthur says “…since anybody in biblical times who drank unmixed wine (9-11% alcohol) was definitely considered a barbarian, then we dont even need to discuss whether a Christian should drink hard liquor–that is apparent!”

Since wine has 9 to 11% alcohol and one brand 20% alcohol, you should not drink that. Brandy contains 15 to 20% alcohol, so thats out! Hard liquor has 40 to 50% alcohol (80 to 100 proof), and that is obviously excluded!

For documentation on this subject Google “alcohol” with the name of Adrian Rogers or John MacArthur. These theologians  have covered this subject fully with biblical references.

Third, Romans 14:21 states, “It is better not to eat meat (that had been offered to idols) or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.” If a person rejects all the linguistic arguments, there is still Romans 14:21 concerning not causing a weaker brother to stumble..

It is consistent with the ethic of love for believers and unbelievers alike. Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for Everette Hatcher, it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them. The fact is that 1 of every 6 drinkers in the USA are problem drinkers. Maybe if my family of 6 drank, that could be me or one of my children?

 

 

Billy Sunday told a story that illustrates this principle:

I feel like an old fellow in Tennessee who made his living by catching rattlesnakes. He caught one with fourteen rattles and put it in a box with a glass top. One day when he was sawing wood his little five-year old boy,Jim, took the lid off and the rattler wriggled out and struck him in the cheek. He ran to his father and said, “The rattler has bit me.” The father ran and chopped the rattler to pieces, and with his jackknife he cut a chunk from the boy’s cheek and then sucked and sucked at the wound to draw out the poison. -He looked at little Jim, watched the pupils of his eyes dilate and watched him swell to three times his normal size, watched his lips become parched and cracked, and eyes roll, and little Jim gasped and died.

The father took him in his arms, carried him over by the side of the rattler, got on his knees and said, “God, I would not give little Jim for all the rattlers that ever crawled over the Blue Ridge mountains.”

That is the question that must be answered by everyone no matter what their religious beliefs. Is the pleasure of drinking alcohol worth the life of one of your children?

Probably the most telling is the last statistic: 95% of alcoholics die from their disease and die approximately 26 years earlier than their normal life expectancy.

ryan dunn Jackass dead in crash

Bam Margera’s First Interview After Ryan Dunn’s Death

Ryan Dunn and his friends moments before they died.

Flickr user Eric Lewis posted the image below with a caption that says the photo shows what’s left of Dunn’s car.

Related Posts:

Latest from the scene of crash that killed Ryan Dunn and Zac Hartwell

WPVI Action News 6.20.11 – Report on the death of Ryan Dunn and friend Zac Hartwell from the scene Daredevil Ryan Dunn and his passenger died from the impact of the violent car crash and the resulting fire, according to a coroner’s report Tuesday. The Chester County coroner listed blunt force trauma and thermal trauma […]

Roger Ebert’s comments on Ryan Dunn’s drunk driving gets loud response

  Roger Ebert’s tweets on “Jackass” set Internet on fire   Roger Ebert and Ryan Dunn (Credit: CBS/Getty) (CBS) Maybe this is what happens when friends let film critics tweet. In the hours after news broke of “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn’s death by fiery car accident, film critic and prolific Twitter user Roger Ebert tweeted, “‘Jackass’ […]

Ryan Dunn part of statistic: “Drunk Drivers are responsible for 50% of highway fatalities” (3 reasons I don’t drink)

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 […]

Ryan Miller had “3 Miller Lites and 3 shots over 4 hr period before leaving bar”

Buzz driving is drunk driving. This is a popular advertisement run by our local law inforcement office. Does the Ryan Dunn case prove their point?   Published: Celebrities with diseases reported June 20, 2011 Given the crazy nature by which they lived it was perhaps inevitable that one of the “Jackass” cast would eventually wind up on […]

Ryan Dunn’s last picture was of him drinking

Ryan Dunn dies in car crash   Jackass movie star Ryan Dunn died in a car crash in Pennsylvania early Monday morning. He was 34. Hours before the crash, Dunn posted a photo to Twitter, by way of his Tumblr blog, that depicted him drinking with friends. An unidentified passenger also died in the crash. […]

Picture of car that MTV Star Ryan Dunn was killed in

Video clip with picture of car Ryan Dunn was in before being killed this morning: ‘Jackass’ Star Ryan Dunn Killed in Car Accident By DavidOnda Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:25:50 GMT Ryan Dunn, star of MTV’s “Jackass,” was killed this morning in a one-car accident in West Goshen, Pennsylvania. The first reports began pouring onto […]

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

Top 25 football teams for 2012

August 10, 2012 – 8:00 am

Georgia coach Mark Richt speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)<br /><br /><br /><br />

Photo by Butch Dill

Georgia coach Mark Richt speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)

Alabama head coach Nick Saban signs autographs for fans at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/The Tuscaloosa News, Erin Nelson)<br /><br /><br /><br />

Photo by Erin Nelson

Alabama head coach Nick Saban signs autographs for fans at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media days in Hoover, Ala. on Thursday, July 19, 2012. (AP Photo/The Tuscaloosa News, Erin Nelson)

Butch Dill/Associated Press<br /><br /> South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier at media days in Hoover, Ala. on Tuesday.<br /><br />

Photo by Butch Dill

Butch Dill/Associated Press
South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier at media days in Hoover, Ala. on Tuesday.

LSU coach Les Miles speaks to reporters at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day, Wednesday, July 18, 2012, in Hoover, Ala. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)<br /><br /><br />

Photo by Butch Dill

LSU coach Les Miles speaks to reporters at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day, Wednesday, July 18, 2012, in Hoover, Ala. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)

Arkansas coach John L. Smith speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day in Hoover, Ala. on Wednesday, July 18 , 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)<br /><br /><br />

Photo by Butch Dill

Arkansas coach John L. Smith speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day in Hoover, Ala. on Wednesday, July 18 , 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)

Missouri Coach Gary Pinkel speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day in Hoover, Ala. on Tuesday, July 17, 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)

Photo by AP Photo/Butch Dill

Missouri Coach Gary Pinkel speaks to the media at the Southeastern Conference NCAA college football media day in Hoover, Ala. on Tuesday, July 17, 2012. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)

I think LSU is an excellent choice for number one but I am sad to say that USC is looking very good for this year too. I think Lane Kiffin is a complete idiot and I hope bad things happen to his future. He committed to coach at Tennessee and left after one year. That is pretty low in my book and that is why I don’t think my Razorbacks will have a chance to get Gus Malzahn to be there coach at the end of 2012.

Below is Athlon’s top 25:

College Football Early Top 25

 

Can AJ McCarron lead Alabama back to the national championship next season?

By Steven Lassan (@AthlonSteven on Twitter)

It’s never too early to start thinking about next season. Spring practice will kick off for some teams in late February and before we know it, the 2012 Athlon Sports’ preseason college football annuals will be hitting newsstands across the nation. 

Athlon’s updated top 25 for 2012 reflects the coaching changes and early entries into the NFL Draft, but expect several tweaks before our official preseason poll is released in May.

Related: 2012 Athlon Consensus 100

1. LSU – The Tigers were easily blown out in the national title game by Alabama, but all is not lost going into 2012. LSU has one of the top returning rosters next season, but it also features a handful of question marks. The offense will have one of the top backfields and offensive lines in the nation, but can Zach Mettenberger improve the quarterback play? The defense will miss cornerback Morris Claiborne and tackle Michael Brockers, but this unit should still rank among the nation’s best.

2. USC – If a team is going to end the SEC’s run of dominance, the Trojans figure to be the frontrunner. Quarterback Matt Barkley decided to return for his senior year and will be throwing to one of the top receiving corps in the nation. Replacing offensive tackle Matt Kalil will be one of the biggest question marks for coach Lane Kiffin. The defense showed improvement last year, but must replace three starters, including all-conference selections in end Nick Perry and tackle Wes Horton. The Trojans won’t have the depth of LSU or Alabama, but there’s plenty of talent coming back to Los Angeles for a run at the national title next year.

3. Alabama – After claiming the national title, Nick Saban and his coaching staff have some work to do in order to get this team back to No. 1 by the end of next season. The Crimson Tide suffered some key losses on both sides of the ball, but Saban has recruited well and this team should be able to reload by midseason. AJ McCarron had a breakout performance in the national championship against LSU and will be expected to build upon that game in 2012. Losing Trent Richardson is a huge blow to the offense, but Eddie Lacy, Dee Hart, Jalston Fowler and talented freshman T.J. Yeldon are a capable group. Seven starters are gone off the nation’s best defense, which figures to be tested early with games against Arkansas and Michigan in September.

4. Georgia – It’s not crazy to think Mark Richt could go from coach on the hot seat to contending for the national title in 2012. The Bulldogs have the pieces to contend for a top-five finish next year, starting with quarterback Aaron Murray and a defense that returns nearly everyone. Improving the rushing attack will be one of the priorities during preseason practices, but the offensive line will have to replace two key stalwarts in left tackle Cordy Glenn and center Ben Jones.

5. Oklahoma – The Sooners were one of the favorites to win the national title in 2011, but slipped to a 10-3 record and a fourth-place finish in the Big 12. Although it was a disappointing season in Norman, Oklahoma should be back in the top 10 once again next year. The offense never recovered after an injury to receiver Ryan Broyles, but the passing attack should be better with an offseason to sort everything out. Dominique Whaley’s return from a broken ankle should help bolster the rushing offense and help to take the pressure off of quarterback Landry Jones. The defense returns seven starters, while the addition of former Arizona coach Mike Stoops as defensive coordinator figures to only help this group get better in 2012.

6. Oregon –  The surprising departure of quarterback Darron Thomas was a setback to Oregon’s chances of winning the Pac-12, but the Ducks remain the favorite to win the North Division. Sophomore Bryan Bennett should be Thomas’ replacement and he showed plenty of promise in limited action last season. Although running back LaMichael James will be missed, the one-two combination of Kenjon Barner and De’Anthony Thomas will give the backfield plenty of punch in 2012. The defense finished fifth in the Pac-12 in points allowed, but could be even better next season.

7. Michigan – With Ohio State ineligible for the Big Ten title, the balance of power in the Big Ten is clearly resting in the Legends Division. The Wolverines are the early favorites, thanks to the return of quarterback Denard Robinson and an improving defense. Coach Brady Hoke’s first year in Ann Arbor was a success, as Michigan won 11 games and played in a BCS game for the first time since the 2007 Rose Bowl. For the Wolverines to crack the top five, Robinson has to cut down on his interceptions (15) and up his completion percentage (55%). The defense showed big progress under coordinator Greg Mattison, but will be replacing two key starters on the line. The Wolverines won’t have an easy schedule next year, as Alabama and Notre Dame await in the non-conference portion, while they have conference road games against Ohio State and Nebraska.

8. Arkansas – The Razorbacks are inching closer to Alabama and LSU, and they will have a good chance to make some noise in the SEC West next year. Quarterback Tyler Wilson turned down the NFL for another season in Fayetteville, and the offense will get a boost with the return of running back Knile Davis back from a leg injury. The receiving corps must be revamped, but Cobi Hamilton and tight end Chris Gragg is a good place to start rebuilding. New defensive coordinator Paul Haynes will have his work cut out for him in 2012, as the Razorbacks will be replacing three of their top players: End Jake Bequette, linebacker Jerry Franklin and safety Tramain Thomas.

9. Florida State – Yes, the Seminoles are back in the top 10 once again. This team did not have the big season most expected in 2011, but the pieces are in place to win the ACC Championship in 2012. And when you consider the losses at Clemson and Virginia Tech, Florida State becomes an even bigger favorite to win the ACC. The defense should be among the best in the nation, while the young talent on offense should be improved with another offseason to work with quarterback EJ Manuel. How well (and fast) a young offensive line develops will determine just how high Florida State can climb next season.

10. Ohio State – With Urban Meyer arriving in Columbus, don’t expect a repeat of 2011’s 6-7 season at Ohio State. Quarterback Braxton Miller is a good fit for the Buckeyes’ new spread offense, while a group of young receivers should be better in 2012. The biggest question mark on offense will be filling holes on the line, as the Buckeyes have to replace standouts Mike Adams (LT) and Michael Brewster (C). The defense finished 19th nationally in yards allowed and could be even better in 2012 with only two starters departing. Although the Buckeyes should have a shot to finish next year with 10 victories, they are ineligible to play for the Big Ten title or a bowl game due to NCAA sanctions.

11. South Carolina – After finishing 11-2 and sweeping the SEC East for the first time in school history, what can the Gamecocks do for an encore? South Carolina is behind Georgia in the pecking order, but the Bulldogs have to visit Williams-Brice Stadium in 2012. Quarterback Connor Shaw played well at the end of the season, and the offense will get a boost with running back Marcus Lattimore returning from a torn ACL. Replacing receiver Alshon Jeffery is the biggest question mark facing the offense in 2012. The Gamecocks finished third nationally in total defense, but suffered some key departures, including end Melvin Ingram and cornerback Stephon Gilmore.

12. Texas – The Longhorns aren’t quite ready to contend for the Big 12 title, but they are slowly working their way back into contention. After improving its win total by three games from 2010 to 2011, Texas is poised to make a run at 10 victories in 2012. The defense should be the best in the Big 12, but the offense has to improve if the Longhorns want to push Oklahoma for the top spot. David Ash appears to have earned the No. 1 quarterback spot after his performance in the Holiday Bowl, while the rushing attack features three promising young running backs. Texas always recruits well, and its time for the young players on offense to step up in 2012.

13. West Virginia – Whether the Mountaineers are in the Big 12 or Big East, this team will be a factor on the national scene next year. Quarterback Geno Smith will lead one of the top passing attacks in college football, especially with receivers Tavon Austin, Stedman Bailey and Ivan McCartney returning in 2012. While the passing game shouldn’t be an issue, the rushing attack and offensive line must show improvement. Losing coordinator Jeff Casteel was a tough blow for West Virginia’s defense, and this unit must find replacements for defensive linemen Julian Miller and Bruce Irvin, linebacker Najee Goode and cornerback Keith Tandy. 

14. Michigan State – After back-to-back 11-win seasons, can the Spartans push the win total higher in 2012? The Spartans should be the biggest challenger to Michigan in the Legends Division, but they will have to replace quarterback Kirk Cousins and the team’s top three wide receivers. With questions surrounding the passing attack, look for the offense to lean more on running back Le’Veon Bell and an offensive line that returns four starters. Losing defensive tackle Jerel Worthy was a tough blow, but end William Gholston is back after registering 12 tackles for a loss and four sacks in 2011. The linebacking corps could be among the best in the nation, with Denicos Allen, Max Bullough and Chris Norman returning. The schedule isn’t easy, as Michigan State hosts Boise State, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Nebraska in East Lansing, while playing Michigan and Wisconsin on the road.

15. Clemson – The defending Atlantic champs are in good position to contend for the conference title once again in 2012. Quarterback Tajh Boyd and receiver Sammy Watkins will form one of the top pass-catch combinations in the nation, while running back Andre Ellington figures to top 1,000 yards once again in 2012. While there’s no shortage of weapons coming back for coordinator Chad Morris, the Tigers will be replacing three starters on the line. The defense allowed nearly 400 yards a game in 2011, prompting coordinator Kevin Steele’s departure. Former Oklahoma coordinator Brent Venables was a terrific hire by coach Dabo Swinney, but the defense may be a year away, especially with the departure of four key linemen.

16. Virginia Tech – The Hokies have been a model of consistency under coach Frank Beamer, posting at least 10 victories in 13 out of the last 17 years. And even though Virginia Tech has some significant question marks to address before next season, the Hokies will be the favorite to win the Coastal Division. The offense loses four starters on the line and must replace running back David Wilson. Quarterback Logan Thomas improved as a passer as 2011 progressed and will have to shoulder more of the workload on offense next year. With only two starters departing, the Hokies’ defense should be one of the best in college football.

17. Nebraska – Year 1 of life in the Big Ten turned out so-so for the Cornhuskers. Nebraska began the year as the favorite in the Big Ten Legends Division, but finished with a 9-4 record with losses to Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan and South Carolina. The Big Red should be in the mix for 9 or 10 victories once again in 2012, but could challenge for the division title if the offense continues to jell. Quarterback Taylor Martinez rushed for 874 yards and nine scores but completed only 56 percent of his throws. Martinez and running back Rex Burkhead form a solid combination, but the offense needs to throw the ball better next season. The defense will have some new faces stepping into key roles, as linebacker Lavonte David and cornerback Alfonzo Dennard have finished their eligibility. The schedule makers didn’t give Nebraska any breaks either, as the Cornhuskers have road trips to Ohio State, Iowa and Michigan State, while Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn State visit Lincoln.

18. Notre Dame – Is 2012 the year the Irish get back into a BCS bowl? Although Notre Dame has some key pieces returning, this team is probably ticketed for a spot in the lower half of the top 25 next year. Settling on a quarterback is priority No. 1 for coach Brian Kelly this spring. True freshman Gunner Kiel is already enrolled and will have a good shot to beat out Tommy Rees, Andrew Hendrix and Everett Golson in preseason practices. With uncertainty at quarterback, expect running back Cierre Wood and a solid offensive line to carry the team early on. The defense will have a revamped secondary, but the line – led by Aaron Lynch, Louis Nix and Stephon Tuitt – could be one of the best in college football.

19. TCU – Moving from the Mountain West to the Big 12 is a step up in competition, but the Horned Frogs are ready. Coach Gary Patterson is assembling another solid recruiting class, and the team is bringing back several key contributors. The offense is loaded with the return of quarterback Casey Pachall and depth at running back and in the receiving corps. Patterson is one of the top defensive minds in the nation and should prevent this unit from suffering much of a drop-off in production. Losing linebacker Tank Carder is a tough blow, but Tanner Brock returns after missing nearly all of 2011 with an injury.

20. Washington – Thanks to a revamped coaching staff, the Huskies have closed the gap with Oregon in the Pac-12 North. But will it be enough to win the division in 2012? The offense will be among the best in the conference, despite losing running back Chris Polk to the NFL Draft. Quarterback Keith Price has a group of talented receivers returning and the junior should shine with another offseason to work with coach Steve Sarkisian. Landing coordinator Justin Wilcox and defensive assistants Tosh Lupoi and Peter Sirmon should pay dividends on the field and in recruiting for Washington. Expect the Huskies to be better on defense next year, but they didn’t catch any breaks in the schedule with road trips to LSU, Oregon and Washington State, while getting USC and Utah in Seattle (CenturyLink Field).

21. Kansas State – The Wildcats were one of college football’s biggest surprises, as they were picked near the bottom of the Big 12 in the preseason, but finished second in the conference with a 10-3 record. This team won’t sneak up on anyone next year, but there’s a lot to like with Kansas State in 2012. Quarterback Collin Klein is back after compiling 40 touchdowns, while linebacker Arthur Brown returns after emerging as one of the Big 12’s top defenders in 2011. If the Wildcats want to contend for the conference title next year, improving the passing attack and replacing three key starters on the line will be crucial.  

22. Wisconsin – There’s a lot of new faces stepping into key positions and on the coaching staff next year in Madison. The biggest loss is quarterback Russell Wilson, who turned in a terrific senior year and led the Badgers to another Rose Bowl appearance after transferring from NC State. With Wilson departing, the offense will lean on running backs Montee Ball and James White. However, the line will be replacing three starters. The defense ranked 15th nationally in yards allowed and most of the core will return in 2012. Mike Taylor and Chris Borland will form one of the top linebacking duos in the nation.

23. Louisville – If West Virginia moves to the Big 12, the Cardinals will be the frontrunner to win the Big East crown next season. Despite being one of the youngest teams in the conference in 2011, Louisville managed to earn a share of the Big East title and nearly claimed a spot in the BCS. The offense suffered its share of ups and downs with freshman quarterback Teddy Bridgewater taking over as the starter, but this group should show improvement in 2012. The rushing attack produced only 121.5 yards per game last season and figures to be a focal point of attention in spring practice. The defense allowed only 20.1 points a game in 2011 and nearly everyone is back. Coach Charlie Strong has Louisville back on the rise and this team should easily surpass its win total (seven) from last season.

24. Boise State – The Broncos have a plethora of key losses on both sides of the ball, but remain the favorite in the Mountain West and should finish with nine or 10 victories in 2012. Replacing quarterback Kellen Moore is the top priority for coach Chris Petersen, with Joe Southwick, Nick Patti, Grant Hedrick and Jimmy Laughrea expected to compete for the job in spring practice. The Broncos will have a revamped defensive line in 2012, but the defense should be among the best in the Mountain West.

25. Oklahoma State – Without quarterback Brandon Weeden and receiver Justin Blackmon, the Cowboys won’t match last season’s win total (12) and Big 12 championship. However, this team won’t slip too far, as the cupboard isn’t bare for coach Mike Gundy in 2012. Running backs Joseph Randle and Jeremy Smith will anchor the offense while the quarterback situation is sorted out. The defense must replace a couple of key players on the line, but the back seven should be solid. The Big 12 could have six teams start the year in the preseason top 25, so the road to eight or nine wins won’t be easy.

The Next Five

26. Utah – Running back John White and a solid defense will lead Utah once again in 2012. The Utes should be USC’s toughest competition in the Pac-12 South.

27. Georgia Tech – With a little more consistency from quarterback Tevin Washington, the Yellow Jackets could make some noise in the ACC Coastal.

28. Auburn – There’s lots of young talent coming back to Auburn, but how will the new coaching staff mesh with the personnel?

29. NC State – The Wolfpack were one of the hottest teams in the ACC at season’s end, finishing with victories in four out of their final five games. Quarterback Mike Glennon should challenge for all-conference honors, while cornerback David Amerson should be a preseason All-American.

30. Missouri – With the move to the SEC, the Tigers will be one of the most intriguing teams to watch in 2012.

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 123)

August 10, 2012 – 7:04 am

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 got to see Arthur Laffer speak in 1981 in Memphis and he predicted what would happen the next few years with tax revenue as a result of the Reagan Tax Cuts and he was right on every prediction. Why do you continue to say that this has been tried before and does not work?

I’ve explained that it is silly for Obama and others to think it is easy to squeeze more money from rich taxpayers, and I’ve also provided evidence from the 1980s to show that upper-income people have considerable ability to respond to changes in tax rates by shifting the timing, level, and composition of their income.

But I haven’t specifically responded to some recent studies which make rather outlandish claims that the revenue-maximizing tax rate is 70 percent or above.

Fortunately, my Cato colleague Alan Reynolds has stepped forward. His column in today’s Wall Street Journal decimates these assertions.

President Obama and others are demanding that we raise taxes on the “rich,” and two recent academic papers that have gotten a lot of attention claim to show that there will be no ill effects if we do. The first paper, by Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, appeared in the Journal of Economic Perspectives last August. The second, by Mr. Saez, along with Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Stefanie Stantcheva of MIT, was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research three months later. Both suggested that federal tax revenues would not decline even if the rate on the top 1% of earners were raised to 73%-83%.

How do they arrive at such high numbers? Alan explains.

The authors arrive at their conclusion through an unusual calculation of the “elasticity” (responsiveness) of taxable income to changes in marginal tax rates. According to a formula devised by Mr. Saez, if the elasticity is 1.0, the revenue-maximizing top tax rate would be 40% including state and Medicare taxes. That means the elasticity of taxable income (ETI) would have to be an unbelievably low 0.2 to 0.25 if the revenue-maximizing top tax rates were 73%-83% for the top 1%. The authors of both papers reach this conclusion with creative, if wholly unpersuasive, statistical arguments.

Is this assumption warranted? Hardly. Alan elaborates, making the same points I’ve made about rich people being different than the rest of us.

But the ETI for all taxpayers is going to be lower than for higher-income earners, simply because people with modest incomes and modest taxes are not willing or able to vary their income much in response to small tax changes. So the real question is the ETI of the top 1%. Harvard’s Raj Chetty observed in 2009 that “The empirical literature on the taxable income elasticity has generally found that elasticities are large (0.5 to 1.5) for individuals in the top percentile of the income distribution.” In that same year, Treasury Department economist Bradley Heim estimated that the ETI is 1.2 for incomes above $500,000 (the top 1% today starts around $350,000).

Alan cites other studies as well, all of which show that Saez, Piketty, Diamond, and Stantcheva, are well outside the mainstream.

For all intents and purposes, they cherry-picked data and made unrealistic assumptions in order to justify class-warfare tax policies.

That’s why you’re much better off looking at this research from economists at the University of Chicago and the Federal Reserve. Heck, even the IMF is acknowledging that it’s self-defeating to raise tax rates in a nation like Greece – and top tax rates there are less than 50 percent.

P.S. Lest I forget, it’s also worth mentioning that it’s a very bad idea to be at the revenue-maximizing spot on the Laffer Curve. The economic damage, per dollar raised, is enormous. And that’s true whether the revenue-maximizing rate is 20 percent or 70 percent.

_____________

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

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

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 18 2012 on green technologies (part 15)

August 10, 2012 – 7:03 am

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 18, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several of the letters I sent to him below with the email that I received. However, I think it was probably this one below:

Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012

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

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.

Here is an excellent piece from the Heritage Foundation with a reaction to the president’s proposed budget:

Obama’s Energy Budget: The Antithesis of a Market-Driven Energy Economy – Nicolas Loris

If only entrepreneurs had President Obama’s vision of what technologies are going to be successful and profitable in the future. Sadly, the President’s vision seems to suggest that America’s innovators lack the ingenuity and expertise to meet our country’s needs, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the dropped ball. In a nutshell, that’s President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 Department of Energy (DOE) budget. It completely rejects the notion of a market-based energy industry and wastes taxpayer dollars at a time when we desperately need to curtail out-of-control spending. Whether it’s renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear, or fossil fuels, the President’s blueprint is all wrong. Not the Government’s Role to Make Energy Technologies Cost Competitive Each year, the President’s budget has moved further away from basic research and more into commercializing politically preferred technologies.

For instance, the 2013 budget proposes to spend $310 million on the SunShot Initiative, a program to make solar energy cost-competitive without subsidies by 2020. The oxymoronic part of this proposal is that the program itself is a $310 million subsidy. And it’s a perfect example of the President’s attempt to hand over America’s energy economy to the DOE. This is an attempt that’s been tried and failed. And it’s not just solar getting a handout—there’s money for wind, geothermal, biofuels, advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, and even natural gas. Government has no business trying to make private-sector projects cost-competitive. It’s neither appropriate nor necessary. There’s a robust demand for energy domestically and globally that is met with a wide variety of energy sources. According to analysis by HSBC Holdings PLC, the global market for low-carbon energy and energy efficiency will reach $2.2 trillion in the next decade. That’s all the incentive solar needs. If a technology or a company cannot capture part of that market, it doesn’t deserve to be in business, and it certainly needs no help from the taxpayer. Consumers and Businesses Know How to Save Money Energy efficiency spending programs and legislation have largely enjoyed bipartisan support because the practices of being resourceful and saving money are inherently desired. But it’s because they’re inherently good things that we don’t need government mandates, rebate programs, or spending initiatives to make businesses and homeowners more energy efficient. The President’s overview highlights that “the Budget provides DOE with $290 million to expand R&D on innovative manufacturing processes and advanced industrial materials that will enable U.S. companies to cut the costs of manufacturing by using less energy, while improving product quality and accelerating product development.”

Businesses do not need taxpayer dollars to improve efficiency and cut costs; they make those investments all the time with their own money. Nestle’s newest water bottle uses 60 percent less plastic than the one they first introduced in mid-1990s. Businesses make these investments every day to be more competitive and pass the savings onto consumers to capture a larger market share. Energy efficiency programs take an overly simplistic view of how our economy works and fail to take into account the tradeoffs energy consumers and businesses consider when making decisions. Subsidize One Fossil Fuel, Punish Another? In his State of Union speech, President Obama claimed that our country’s natural gas boom came largely as a result of public funding. While nothing could be further from the truth, the President wants to unnecessarily dump money into an already-booming industry. The budget proposal includes $421 million in fossil energy research and development, including $12 million “aimed at advancing technology and methods to safely and responsibly develop America’s natural gas resources.” Much of the $421 million is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry for research and spending that can be done by the private sector. Most of this funding focuses on technologies that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The program includes a clean coal power initiative, research on fuels and power systems to reduce fossil power plant emissions, innovations for existing plants, integrated gasification combined cycle, advanced turbines, carbon sequestration, and natural gas technologies. All of these programs need to go. The Administration proposed a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, significantly cutting funding for the Office of Fossil Energy. But the Administration is doing so less because it is good economic policy (which it is) and more to promote an environmental policy of Administration-preferred clean energy sources. When the Administration does talk about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, they’re not actually removing subsidies but imposing targeted tax hikes on the oil industry by removing broadly available tax deductions. The President’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is on track, but actually defining what’s a subsidy is a different story.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama’s budget proposal for energy is largely a carbon copy of last year’s, with an even stronger government push for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. It hands DOE unprecedented control over America’s energy economy, which has successfully been driven by the private sector. The DOE budget proposal doesn’t need a scalpel taken to it; it needs a hatchet.

 __________________

I believe in the free market and basically if an industry is successful then it will grow and if it is not then it will disappear. It is no place for the federal government to try and re-arrange everything.

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

______________

The White House, Washington
 

 

June 18, 2012

Dear Everette:

Thank you for writing.  Each day, I hear from concerned men and women who are struggling in this economy.  Their stories encourage me to continue working to ensure all Americans can find good jobs so they can support their families and communities. 

This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it.  At stake is the survival of the American promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own a home, and put enough away for retirement.  The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive, and I will not stop working to build an economy that works for everyone—where every hard-working American gets a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules.  To see my full blueprint for an America built to last, with an economy based on American manufacturing, energy, workers, and values, I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/economy.

Our economy is growing stronger, adding over 2 million private sector jobs in 2011 alone—the best job growth since 2005.  Yet, there are still far too many Americans who need jobs.  We need to bring about a new era of American manufacturing and make it easier for our companies to create jobs here at home and sell products stamped with “Made in America” all over the world.  To turn this vision into a reality, we hosted the “Insourcing American Jobs” forum in January 2012 to bring together business leaders from across our country to discuss one topic:  how to encourage companies to bring jobs back to and invest in the United States.  To help them do so, I have put forward new tax proposals that reward companies that choose to bring jobs home and invest in America while eliminating tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.   

I also set a goal of doubling our exports of goods and services by 2014, which will create new manufacturing jobs.  We are on track to meet that goal.  I was proud to sign trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama so our businesses can sell more goods to those markets.  I will go anywhere in the world to open up new markets for American products, and I will not stand by when foreign competitors refuse to play by the same rules as the United States.  That is why I directed my Administration to create a Trade Enforcement Unit responsible for investigating unfair trade practices in other countries.

We also need to reach for a new era in American energy, with an economy fueled by homegrown and alternative energy sources designed and produced by American workers.  American oil production is now at its highest level in 8 years, and in 2011 we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.  We have more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined, and we have opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration where appropriate and safe.  We implemented new safety standards and have since approved hundreds of new drilling permits.  My Administration has also approved dozens of new pipelines to move oil around, including from Canada, which will help create jobs and encourage more energy production.  We are taking every possible action to safely develop a massive, newly accessible supply of natural gas in the United States that will last nearly 100 years and, according to outside experts, will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.  As we work to create clean, renewable energy jobs, we are ensuring our all-of-the-above energy strategy does not put the health and safety of Americans at risk.

An economy built to last also demands that we cultivate the skills of our students and workers so they remain the best in the world.  Employers today are looking for the most skilled, educated workers, and we have a responsibility to provide our workforce with the tools they need to prepare for the jobs of today and compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  We made a national commitment to train 2 million workers for good-paying jobs in high-growth and high-demand industries, and my Administration is helping community colleges redesign training programs to become community career centers.  With the extension of the payroll tax cut, we also made sure no working American will see their taxes go up this year and the millions of Americans still looking for work will be able to get help with unemployment insurance. 

With too many Americans still struggling to stay in their homes, access to the American dream continues to be tested by a mortgage crisis that threatens the stability of families, neighborhoods, and our entire economy.  While many Americans have received help, far too many are still unable to refinance their mortgages or obtain loan modifications.  This crisis has not only hurt home values nationwide, it has also had a dramatic effect on the credit Americans need to purchase cars, pay college tuition, and grow small businesses. 

That is why I will not wait for Congress to act to help homeowners.  The Home Affordable Refinance Program has already helped nearly 1 million homeowners improve their financial situations, but until now, eligibility regulations and costs associated with the program have kept it from having a wider impact.  Now, a new set of rules will open the program to nearly anyone with a mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  For assistance with a foreclosure or to find a local housing counselor, I encourage you to call your mortgage servicer directly, speak with a housing specialist at 1-888-995-HOPE, or contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-569-4287.  You can also visit
www.HUD.gov/foreclosure and www.MakingHomeAffordable.gov.

Our Nation is recovering from one of the worst economic crises in generations, and we still have a long way to go before every American who wants a job can find one, before every family can regain the sense of security that has been slipping away, and before our communities can get fully back on their feet.  From passing the Recovery Act to saving the American auto industry, my Administration has laid a strong foundation for growth, and we continue to take bold action to do what is right for our economy.  Today, the tide is finally turning.  Businesses have created millions of new jobs, more companies are bringing jobs back and investing in America, manufacturers are hiring, and our economy is growing stronger.  While it will take time to fully repair the damage, I am confident our Nation will not only recover, but also prosper in the 21st century.  For more information on jobs, health benefits, housing assistance, and other public resources, you may also call 1-800-FEDINFO or visit www.USA.gov. 

Thank you, again, for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Visit WhiteHouse.gov

 

 

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 89)

Sen. Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan. 24, 2012 Uploaded by SenatorRandPaul on Jan 24, 2012 Sen. Rand Paul delivered the following Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address this evening ______________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 88)

Rick Santorum’s (entire) Speech at Chattanooga Tea Party’s Liberty Forum Uploaded by TinShipProd on Feb 25, 2012 http://www.tinshipproductions.com Chattanooga Tea Party’s Liberty Forum Saturday, February 25, 2012 This speech is unedited and shown in it’s entire 55 minutes. ____________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 87)

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 86)

Uploaded by HeritageForAmerica on Mar 5, 2012 If you listen to the media, conservatives are fading everywhere from Congress to the campaign trail. Nothing could be further from the truth; the strength of conservative principles continues to endure and thrive. There is an awakening across the country, and the fight is on to return power […]

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 122B)

August 10, 2012 – 6:59 am

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

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.

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.

Here is a  portion of the trancript of the “Free to Choose” program called “From Cradle to Grave” (program #4 in the 10 part series):

DISCUSSION

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

LAMPMAN: I think it’s a viable approach to some part of the problems of poverty. It involves, first of all, cash payments rather than in kind payments as I understand it? It involves payments on a non-categorical basis.

MCKENZIE: What do you mean non-categorical?

LAMPMAN: That is to say, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a female-headed family or a male-headed family or whether you’re young or old, you’re sick or well.

MCKENZIE: If your income falls below a certain level you __

LAMPMAN: Pay some guaranteed income level for people based on family size and then it has a take-back rate which is modest, I suppose, by definition. Now, the question is: How many things you want to use that program to replace? How many things you want to replace with such a negative income tax program.

MCKENZIE: Would you replace everything with it __ just __ we clear that point up. Would you virtually wipe out the remaining forms of welfare if you got this program going?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, I would not __ I think its purpose is precisely to provide a transition between where we are now and where we would like to go because while __ because I agree with you, that given that we’ve corrupted the people on welfare and gotten them on there. We do have an obligation not to throw them out in the street and put them in the difficult adjustment you’ve made. We’ve got to ease the __

MCKENZIE: Yeah. Okay. Right.

FRIEDMAN: __ ease it off __

MCKENZIE: Sure. Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ and so __ but I would want to replace all __

MCKENZIE: Yeah. Okay.

FRIEDMAN: __ present welfare programs.

MCKENZIE: Let’s get reactions to this and then we’ll come back to you.

SOWELL: Well, I saw some figures recently which said that if you took all the money spent on poverty in the United States and divided it by all the poverty families you’d come out with a figure of $32,000 per family. Now, the average poverty family is apparently not getting the $32,000 and so clearly someone in between the treasury and those families is getting an awful lot of that money and I think if you simply eliminated the middle man, as they say in the commercials, that there’d be an awful lot of benefit both to the poor and to the taxpayers.

DUMPSON: I’m supportive of the negative income tax concept and the objective of it. I’d like to point out, however, that administratively we have another bureaucracy set up. Somebody has to take into account earnings. Someone has to decide when to pay back that which they’re entitled to. There’s a time lag between the paying back __ the earning and the paying back. There are a variety of problems in there that I will be prepared to accept but I want you to know that government intervention is not going to be eliminated.

O’BANNON: The issue that I have is: Where do children come in? What are their rights under a negative income tax? And are we, by building in a negative income tax, in fact subsidizing the illegitimacy that Tom Sowell is so concerned about?

FRIEDMAN: The major reason it is not feasible today to have a negative income tax is because the present welfare bureaucracy would be out of work. They are the major objectors and as Senator Pat __ he’s now a senator, Pat Moynihan demonstrated in his book on the Nixon program, the chief obstacle to getting it enacted was the welfare bureaucracy. So that I don’t believe these administrative problems, if you got it enacted, would be at all serious.

O’BANNON: I think the other assumption under the negative income tax, and it’s one that I’m not sure I can buy, is that everybody has a minimum level of understanding about how to spend money. In other words, how to use the marketplace to satisfy wishes. And I, as an economist, would say, yes, we do. We __ everybody from age four to a hundred knows how to use money to satisfy wants and that’s the __

FRIEDMAN: But they don’t. They don’t. There are all sorts of problems of people who are not going to be able to. But that’s a minority problem. That’s a problem for private activity and private charity. One thing is sure: They’re spending __ they would be spending their own money and that however knowledgeable you are about money __

O’BANNON: They would be spending my money.

FRIEDMAN: They would be spending my money, but it would be one stage less then. Right now, the welfare worker is spending Mr. A’s money to help Mr. C. And there’s a big takeoff in the middle as Tom Sowell said.

SOWELL: The question is not whether the people on welfare or low incomes can all spend their money effectively; the question is: How effectively do they spend it as compared to how effectively the bureaucrats spend it for them. Comparing anything to perfection or to some arbitrary standard settles nothing. The same thing is true in the education area. They’re saying “Would families be able to spend their __ select schools for their kids under a voucher system,” for example. Well, the question is: Could they possibly do much worse than the current bureaucrats are doing in the public school system.

O’BANNON: Oh __

MCKENZIE: We’ve run on education on another program. Bob Lampman.

(Laughing)

LAMPMAN: I want to quibble with something you said, Tom, about half of the money not going to the poor or something. That doesn’t __ shouldn’t leave the viewer to think that all the money is going to the administrators of programs. A lot of what you are talking about goes to non-poor recipients. For example, social security, as a program, pays a roughly half of its benefits to people who otherwise would not be poor. Unemployment insurance pays about two-thirds of its benefits or so to non-poor persons. And those are, in some definitions, welfare or anti-poverty programs and that’s how statisticians come up with this horrendous sounding discrepancy between the total amount of money spent and the total cash benefits that go to the poor.

SOWELL: Well, I think, I think it’s a perfectly valid point though, because supposedly we were not setting up unemployment benefits and social security in order to keep the affluent.

LAMPMAN: Well, this goes back to its big philosophy, debate we might have. I think that it’s easy to oversimplify things and say that all these programs, including the public schools are there to be a help to the poor and poor only.

FRIEDMAN: Yeah, but I was saying __

LAMPMAN: But let me mention that the negative income tax has some of its impetus in that it would be a way of confining benefit payments to people who are __

SOWELL: Yes. Yes.

LAMPMAN: __ and it would cut out benefits for an awful lot of people who now have expectations that they’re going to get them, not in the form of public assistance, but in the form of social insurance as we use the term.

SOWELL: Well, in order to be made for not disappointing the expectations on which people have built their lives for one generation, but not of continuing for eternity in order to avoid one generation of transition.

MCKENZIE: What are the other hurdles toward getting underway. Now, you said, I don’t know how seriously, the biggest almost the only hurdle is the welfare bureaucracy.

FRIEDMAN: No. Now, there’d be the biggest immediate group of lobbyists that will lobby against it.

MCKENZIE: Yep.

FRIEDMAN: The biggest hurdle in getting it over at the moment is that there is no way of constructing a sensible negative income tax system that will not hurt some people. There will be some people who will get less money than they are now getting under __ particularly those in the upper income groups. Particularly the affluent who are now being subsidized by the welfare and they, will make it politically difficult for the people to put it into effect. The attempt is to put a negative income tax in effect which costs less money, is easier to administer, and yet which doesn’t pay anybody in the society one dollar less than he’s now getting. There’s no way in which you can construct such a program. But, although it’s not politically feasible now, the force of history is on its side, it’s going to become political __

MCKENZIE: Dr. James Dumpson.

DUMPSON: Let’s not say that the __ give the impression that welfare administrators were against negative income tax, the fat program for example, as Moynihan says, because they would lose their jobs, for example. Many of us were opposed to it because of certain features in that program: A $24 __ $2,400 level for a family of four. We were opposed to that. And if one goes down the Congressional record, those who testified, will be shown to be saying, “Yes, we’re for it conceptually. But we’re against this piece and this piece, if you change that you’ll have our support.”

FRIEDMAN: I was in the same position. I first proposed the negative income tax twenty-five years ago but I testified against the final version of the Nixon plan. Why? Because the welfare bureaucrats had led them to introduce changes in it which converted it from a decent satisfactory negative income tax to one which would have been just as bad as what you have now. Would have been added on top of everything else.

O’BANNON: Cold reality.

FRIEDMAN: It’s political reality __

O’BANNON: That’s right.

_____________

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

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