Monthly Archives: September 2012

“Friedman Friday” : Jewish tradition is so akin to capitalism but many Jews are socialists, what a paradox (Part 6)

September 7, 2012 – 12:04 am

Milton Friedman on the American Economy (5 of 6)

Uploaded by on Aug 9, 2009

THE OPEN MIND
Host: Richard D. Heffner
Guest: Milton Friedman
Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77

__________________

Below is a part of the series on an article by Milton Friedman called “Capitalism and the Jews” published in 1972. 

Capitalism and the Jews

October 1988 • Volume: 38 • Issue: 10 • Print This Post • 11 comments

Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article is reprinted with the permission of Encounter and The Fraser Institute.

“Capitalism and the Jews” was originally presented as a lecture before the Mont Pelerin Society in 1972. It subsequently was published in England and Canada and appears here without significant revision.

Jews, Intellectualism, and Anti-Capitalism 

A second simple explanation is that the Jewish anti-capitalist mentality simply reflects the general tendency for intellectuals to be anti-capitalist plus the disproportionate representation of Jews among intellectuals. For example, Nathan Glazer writes, “The general explanations for this phenomenon [the attachment of the major part of the intelligentsia to the Left] are well known. Freed from the restraints of conservative and traditional thinking, the intelligentsia finds it easier to accept revolutionary thinking, which attacks the established order of things in politics, religion, culture, and society . . . . Whatever it is that affected intellectuals, also affected Jews.”[11] Glazer goes on, however, to qualify greatly this interpretation by citing some factors that affected Jews differently from other intellectuals. This explanation undoubtedly has more validity than Fuchs’ simple-minded identification of anti-capitalism with Jewish religion and culture. As the West German example quoted earlier suggests, non-Jewish intellectuals are capable of becoming dominantly collectivist. And there is no doubt that the intellectual forces Glazer refers to affected Jewish intellectuals along with non-Jewish. However, the explanation seems highly incomplete in two respects. First, my impression is that a far larger percentage of Jewish intellectuals than of non-Jewish have been collectivist. Second, and more important, this explanation does not account for the different attitudes of the great mass of Jews and non-Jews who are not intellectual. To explain this difference we must dig deeper. 

A third simple explanation that doubtless has some validity is the natural tendency for all of us to take the good things that happen to us for granted but to attribute any bad things to evil men or an evil system. Competitive capitalism has permitted Jews to flourish economically and culturally because it has prevented anti- Se-mites from imposing their values on others, and from discriminating against Jews at other people’s expense. But the other side of that coin is that it protects anti- Semites from having other people’s values imposed on them. It protects them in the expression of their anti- Semitism in their personal behavior so long as they do it at their own expense. Competitive capitalism has therefore not eliminated social anti-Semitism. The free competition of ideas that is the natural companion of competitive capitalism might in time lead to a change in tastes and values that would eliminate social anti- Semitism but there is no assurance that it will. As the New Testament put it, “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” 

No doubt, Jews have reacted in part by attributing the residual discrimination to “the System.” But that hardly explains why the part of the “system” to which the discrimination has been attributed is “capitalism.” Why not, in nineteenth-century Britain, to the established church and the aristocracy; in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Germany, to the bureaucracy; and in twentieth-century U.S., to the social rather than economic establishment. After all, Jewish history surely offers more than ample evidence that anti-Semitism has no special connection with a market economy. So this explanation, too, is unsatisfactory. 

I come now to two explanations that seem to me much more fundamental. 

Judaism and Secularism 

The first explanation, which has to do with the particular circumstances in Europe in the nineteenth century, I owe to the extremely perceptive analysis of Werner Cohn in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation on the “Sources of American Jewish Liberalism.” Cohn points out that: 

Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the Left (Democratic, Liberal, Radical) held that there can be no (public) Church at all . . . .The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the Left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the Left that could see a place for the Jews in public life. No Conservative party in Europe—from the bitterly hostile Monarchists in Russia through the strongly Christian “noines” in France to the amiable Tories in England—could reconcile itself to full Jewish political equality. Jews supported the Left, then, not only because they had become unshakeable partisans of the Emancipation, but also because they had no choice; as far as the internal life of the Right was concerned, the Emancipation had never taken place, and the Christian religion remained a prerequisite for political participation.

Note in this connection that the only major leaders of Conservative parties of Jewish or-igin—Benjamin Disraeli in England, Friedrich Julius Stahl in Germany—were both professing Christians (Disraeli’s father was convened, Stahl was baptized at age 19).

Cohn goes on to distinguish between two strands of Leftism: “rational” or “intellectual” and “radical.” He remarks that “Radical leftism . . . was the only political movement since the days of the Roman empire in which Jews could become the intellectual brethren of non-Jews . . . while intellectual Leftism was Christian at least in the sense of recognizing the distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘secular,’ radical Leftism—eschatological socialism in particular—began to constitute itself as a new religious faith in which no separation between the sacred and the profane was tolerated . . . [Intellectual-Leftism] offered [the Jews] a wholly rational and superficial admission to the larger society, [radical Leftism], a measure of real spiritual community.”

I share Glazer’s comment on these passages: “I do not think anyone has come closer to the heart of the matter than has the author of these paragraphs.”

Cohn’s argument goes far to explain the important role that Jewish intellectuals played in the Marxist and socialist movement, the almost universal acceptance of “democratic socialism” by the European Jews in the Zionist movement, particularly those who emigrated to Palestine, and the socialist sentiment among the German Jewish immigrants to the United States of the mid-nineteenth century and the much larger flood of East European Jews at the turn of the century.

Yet by itself it is hard to accept Cohn’s point as the whole explanation for the anti-capitalist mentality of the Jews. In the United States, from the very beginning, the separation of church and state was accepted constitutional doctrine. True, the initial upper class was Christian and Protestant, but that was true of the population as a whole. Indeed, the elite Puritan element was, if anything, pro-Semitic. As Sombart points out in reconciling his thesis about the role of Jews in capitalist development with Max Weber’s about the role of the Protestant Ethic in capitalist development, the Protestants, and the Puritans especially, went back to the Old Testament for their religious inspiration and patterned themselves on the ancient Hebrews. Sombart asserts: “Puritanism is Judaism.”[12] Cohn too emphasizes this phenomenon, pointing to Puritan tolerance toward Jews in the colonial era, despite their general intolerance toward other religious sects.[13]

To come down to more recent times in the United States, Theodore Roosevelt was highly popular among the Jews partly because of his willingness to object publicly to Russian pogroms. Outside of the closely knit socialist community in New York most Jews probably were Republicans rather than Democrats until the 1920s, when first A1 Smith and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt produced a massive shift to the Democrats from both the Right and the Left. The shift from the Left betokened a weakening of the European influence, rather than being a manifestation of it. Yet despite that weakening influence, the American Jewish community, which now consists largely of second and third and later generation Americans, retains its dominant leftish cast.

The final explanation that suggests itself is complementary to Cohn’s yet not at all identical with it. To justify itself by more than the reference to the alleged role of the Jews in Christ’s crucifixion, anti-Semitism produced a stereotype of a Jew as primarily interested in money, as a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values, who was money-grasping, cunning, selfish and greedy, who would “jew” you down and insist on his pound of flesh. Jews could have reacted to this stereotype in two ways: first, by accepting the description but rejecting the values that regarded these traits as blameworthy; secondly, by accepting the values but rejecting the description. Had they adopted the first way, they could have stressed the benefits rendered by the merchant and by the moneylender—recalling perhaps Bentham’s comment that “the business of a money-lender . . . has no where nor at any time been a popular one. Those who have the resolution to sacrifice the present to the future, are natural objects of envy to those who have sacrificed the future to the present. The children who have eat their cake are the natural enemies of the children who have theirs. While the money is hoped for, and for a short time after it has been received, he who lends it is a friend and benefactor: by the time the money is spent, and the evil hour of reckoning is come, the benefactor is found to have changed his nature, and to have put on the tyrant and the oppressor. It is oppression for a man to reclaim his own money; it is none to keep it from him.”[14]

Similarly, Jews could have noted that one man’s selfishness is another man’s self reliance; one man’s cunning, another’s wisdom; one man’s greed, another’s prudence.

But this reaction was hardly to be expected. None of us can escape the intellectual air we breathe, can fail to be influenced by the values of the community in which we live. As Jews left their closed ghettoes and shtetls and came into contact with the rest of the world, they inevitably came to accept and share the values of that world, the values that looked down on the “merely” commercial, that regarded money-lenders with contempt. They were led to say to themselves: if Jews are like that, the anti-Se-mites are right.

The other possible reaction is to deny that Jews are like the stereotype, to set out to persuade oneself, and incidentally the anti-Se-mites, that far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?

7.   Op. cit.,p. 197.

8.   Op. cit., pp. 153,205, 209.

9.   Ibid., pp. 216, 221,222, 248.

10.   Nathan Glazer, American Judaism, pp, 135, 136, 139.

11.   The Social Basis of American Communism. pp. 166-167.

12.   Op. cit., g. 249.

13.   However, according to Abba Eban, “Jews were refused admittance into Massachusetts and Connecticut by the Puritans whose idea of religious liberty was linked to their own brand of faith. However, in liberal Maryland and in Rhode Island, where freedom of conscience was an unshakable principle, they found acceptance.” My People (New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1968).

14.   Jeremy Bentham, In Defense of Usury (1787).

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

Senator Mark Pryor responds to my email

September 6, 2012 – 4:25 pm

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending and I sent them to him but he didn’t take any of my suggestions.

However, he did take time to get back to me today, but I am not too impressed with Senator Pryor’s response. I gave him hundreds of ideas about how to cut spending and as far as I can tell he has taken none of my suggestions. You can find some of my suggestions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here, and  here, and they all were emailed to him. In fact, I have written 13 posts pointing out reasons why I believe Senator Pryor’s re-election attempt will be unsuccessful.

Here is his response:

September 6, 2012

Dear Mr. Hatcher,

Thank you for contacting me regarding across-the-board cuts to federal programs scheduled to take effect in 2013. I appreciate hearing from you. 

On August, 2, 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), which made nearly $1 trillion in initial spending cuts. To achieve additional, long-term savings, the law created a bipartisan select committee to make recommendations to reduce deficits by an additional $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. The law also created an enforcement mechanism to automatically sequester $1.2 trillion from federal spending if the select committee failed to agree on a deficit reduction package. 

I am disappointed that the members of the select committee could not reach an agreement. As a result, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will automatically take effect in January 2013. Cuts will come from both defense and non-defense programs, though Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and healthcare, and certain programs for low-income families will be exempted. Further, cuts to Medicare are limited to 2% and only apply to provider payments.

It was my sincere hope that the select committee would recommend a balanced deficit reduction package to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path. I am very concerned that the indiscriminate cuts from the sequester will be disproportionately harmful to rural states like Arkansas, to senior citizens, and to our military’s ability to respond to threats. 

Along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have been working and will continue to work on solving our nation’s fiscal challenges. I believe Congress can pass a bipartisan, balanced long-term budget plan that reduces our national debt while protecting our most vulnerable citizens. Hearing from Arkansans such as yourself helps me make better decisions, and I will be sure to keep your specific comments in mind as the Senate addresses this issue. 

Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

 
Sincerely,

Mark Pryor
United States Senate

Save money at the pump by taking the Drive Smarter Challenge: www.drivesmarterchallenge.org

Please Note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns.

___________

Below is an excellent plan to balance the budget through spending cuts from Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute written in April of 2011. I sent this to Senator Pryor too but it was ignored too. 

A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget

by Chris Edwards, Cato Institute

Introduction
Reducing Spending over 10 Years
Spending Cut Details
Subsidies to Individuals and Businesses
Aid to State and Local Governments
Military Expenses
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Privatization
Conclusions

Spending Cut Details

Table 1 lists the proposed annual cuts for the balanced budget plan. By 2021, these include $150 billion in defense cuts and $490 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the 2010 health care law. The table also includes other discretionary and entitlement cuts valued at $445 billion in 2011. With the assumed revenues, all these spending cuts would be saving the government $260 billion in annual interest costs by 2021.7 All in all, total spending in 2021 under this plan would be about $1.4 trillion lower than under either the CBO baseline or the president’s budget.

As a technical note, most of the figures in Table 1 are outlays for fiscal 2011 from President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget.8 These cuts are expressed in 2011 dollars, but I’ve assumed that the value of these cuts would grow over time at the same rate as discretionary spending in the CBO baseline. The cuts in Table 1 marked with an asterisk are expressed in 2021 dollars and are generally based on CBO estimates.

The reforms listed in the table are deeper than the “duplication” and “waste” items often mentioned by federal policymakers, such as earmarks. The reality is that the nation faces a fiscal emergency, and we need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars of “meat” from federal departments, not just the obvious “fat.” If the activities to be cut are useful to society, then state governments or private groups should fund them, and those entities would probably be more efficient at doing so.

The cuts in Table 1 are illustrative of how to begin getting the federal budget under control. Further reforms are needed in addition to these cuts, particularly structural changes to Medicare. But the important thing is to start cutting right away because the longer we wait, the deeper the pile of debt we will have to dig out from.

Table 1 includes cuts to individual and business subsidies, cuts to state aid, cuts to military expenses, cuts to the growth in entitlement programs, and privatization of federal activities. The sections following the table discuss these various types of cuts, and further analysis of the cuts is available at www.DownsizingGovernment.org.

Table 1
Proposed Federal Budget Cuts
Agency and Activity   Annual Savings
     
$ billion
Department of Agriculture    
  End farm subsidies   29.5
  Cut food subsidies by 50 percent   52.7
  End rural subsidies   4.2
  Total cuts   86.4
Department of Commerce    
  End telecom subsidies   2.3
  End economic development subsidies   0.6
  Total cuts   2.9
Department of Defense    
  Enact Preble/Friedman reforms**   150.0
Department of Education    
  End K-12 education subsidies   52.7
  End student aid and all other programs   33.1
  Total cuts (terminate the department)   85.8
Department of Energy    
  End subsidies for energy efficiency   10.2
  End subsidies for vehicle technologies   5.2
  End the technology loan program   1.2
  End electricity research subsidies   2.0
  End fossil energy research   1.1
  Privatize the power marketing administrations   0.5
  End nuclear energy subsidies   0.6
  Total cuts   20.8
Department of Health and Human Services    
  Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending**   226.0
  Repeal 2010 health care law**   87.0
  Increase Medicare premiums**   39.8
  Cut non-Medicaid state/local grants by 50%   37.7
  Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50%   28.6
  Increase Medicare deductibles**   12.6
  Tort reform   10.0
  Total cuts   441.7
Department of Housing and Urban Development    
  End rental assistance   28.6
  End community development subsidies   15.0
  End public housing subsidies   8.9
  End housing finance and all other programs   8.3
  Total cuts (terminate the department)   60.8
Department of Justice    
  End state and local grants   5.0
Department of Labor    
  End employment and training services   4.8
  End Job Corps   1.7
  End Community Service for Seniors   0.8
  End trade adjustment assistance   1.3
  Total cuts   8.6
Social Security    
  Price index initial benefits**   41.1
  Raise the normal retirement age**   31.4
  Cut Social Security disability program by 10%   13.2
  Total cuts   85.7
Department of Transportation    
  End urban transit grants (federal fund savings)   5.8
  Privatize air traffic control (federal fund savings)   5.8
  Privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies   2.9
  Total cuts   14.5
Department of the Treasury    
  Cut earned income tax credit by 50%   22.5
  End refundable part of child tax credit   22.9
  Total cuts   45.4
Other Savings    
  Cut federal civilian compensation costs 10%   29.6
  Cut foreign development aid by 50%   5.2
  Cut NASA spending by 50%   9.8
  Privatize the Corps of Engineers (Civil Works)   10.6
  Repeal Davis-Bacon labor rules   9.0
  End EPA state and local grants   6.5
  End foreign military financing   5.4
  End subsidies for the Corp. for Nat. Comm. Srv.   0.6
  End subsidies to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting   0.5
  End the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp.   0.2
  Total cuts   77.4
Grand total annual spending cuts   $1,084.9
Note: Data items are outlays for fiscal 2011, but items with ** refer to the value of savings in 2021.

Related posts:

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 115)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 114)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 113)

Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower the debt, or does he support continued deficit spending? See interviews with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Riedl, […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 112)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

My philosophy and my favorite blog posts

I have got several comments during the last 35 weeks that my blog has been in existence and the reaction as been positive and negative. My evangelical and conservative political views have generated the most vocal response. Here are some of my favorite blog posts: 27 Club How should we then live? Series by Francis […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 111)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 110)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Pryor changing his views? Brummett says no!

Today in John Brummett’s article, “A Pryor offense? Surely not,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 28, 2011, noted: Meantime, another e-mailer, a Democrat in Northwest Arkansas, was highly agitated that Pryor had sounded from press reports like a doctrinaire Republican in this Rotary address, advocating cuts to Social Security and Medicare while extolling a corporate giant like […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 109)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 13)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 12)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 11)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 10)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 9)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 8)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 7)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 6)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 5)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

Reasons why Mark Pryor will be defeated in 2014 (Part 4)

It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to […]

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

Howard Schnellenberger speaks at Little Rock Touchdown Club Part 2

September 6, 2012 – 6:40 am

I got to hear Howard Schnellenberger talk on Sept 4, 2012 at the Little Rock Touchdown Club. Schnellenberger said that Bear Bryant had the greatest ability to both instruct a player with criticism but then build him up also. He made a point of making sure he did both during a practice. Under Schnellenburger direction of offensive coordinator Alabama won several national titles and in 1972 Schnellenberger was the offensive coordinator for the Dolphins who were the last team to go undefeated in the NFL. He said he will be meeting in October in Miami to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that team.

Below is an article that talks about Schnellenberger’s accomplishments by ESPN:

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Howard Schnellenberger played for Bear Bryant, led the Miami Hurricanes to their first national championship, was the offensive coordinator for the Miami Dolphins’ perfect season and built a football program from scratch at Florida Atlantic.

That’s enough to make him feel satisfied.

The 77-year-old Schnellenberger announced Thursday that he’ll retire from coaching following the 2011 season at Florida Atlantic, his last stop on a journey that began more than 50 years ago and saw him be part of four college national championships and a Super Bowl victory.

Schnellenberger’s Dual Legacies

It’s rare when a college football coach can bring a school to national prominence. It’s even rarer when he does it twice, writes Andrea Adelson. Blog

“As Beverlee and I look at our tenure here, I can’t tell you how wonderful it’s been,” Schnellenberger said, referring to his wife, who was sitting to his right with about two dozen of his players.

Schnellenberger will become an ambassador for the university once this season ends. And his biggest accomplishment at FAU is yet to come: He will lead the Owls into a $70 million, 30,000-seat, on-campus football stadium for the first time on Oct. 15, a facility that would not have been built if it wasn’t for his constant pushing.

“Ever since we started planning for the stadium we always thought it would be important for Howard to run out the team in a new stadium,” FAU athletic director Craig Angelos said. “So I guess if we hadn’t had the stadium built he might continue to coach. But I think that was the plan of everybody, to have him coach up through that first season and lead the team out. I think that was only fitting for someone who started a program like that.”

Schnellenberger’s contract expires after the season and he had been asked repeatedly in recent weeks about his future. Normally, he would say a decision was coming after the season, but Thursday, he revealed that his decision was made several weeks ago.

“This was done now to make it as seamless as we could make it,” Schnellenberger said. “Let this season stand on its own … and do it in what I would call a civil way.”

FAU’s timetable, as of now, is to name a new coach in late November or early December. That could be accelerated, Angelos said.

Schnellenberger is 157-140-3 as a collegiate head coach. After this, there will be no next stop to coach, he insisted.

“You’re not going to see me anywhere but here or at the beach,” Schnellenberger said.

Best known perhaps for taking Miami to the 1983 national title, which started a run of five championships in 19 seasons for the Hurricanes, Schnellenberger is revered around much of South Florida. He founded FAU’s program in 1998, led them to what was then called the Division I-AA semifinals in 2003, won bowl games in 2007 and 2008 and then got the stadium built.

Howard Schnellenberger

Kim Klement/US PresswireHoward Schnellenberger has led Florida Atlantic to college football’s top tier and bowl wins.

Last week FAU officially turned on the lights in the stadium for the first time, letting the coach throw the switch as a tribute.

“Three university presidents were involved in this, but one coach,” FAU President Mary Jane Saunders said that night. “And it’s coach Schnellenberger that made this happen. The vision that this university that he came to after an incredibly illustrious career. We’re grateful to have him. He’s done a fabulous job.”

Schnellenberger played at Kentucky for Bryant, then began his coaching career in 1959 as an assistant at Kentucky, then Alabama — where he helped convince Joe Namath to play for the Crimson Tide — then jumping to the NFL with the Los Angeles Rams in 1966.

He was on Don Shula’s staff in Miami for the Dolphins’ perfect season in 1972, then became head coach of the Baltimore Colts. He returned to the Dolphins in 1975 and got the job leading the Hurricanes in 1979 — telling people at the time he thought Miami would win a national championship within five years.

And he delivered.

Schnellenberger went 41-16 at Miami, his last game there a 31-30 win over Nebraska on Jan. 1, 1984, for the national title.

“He’s more than responsible for the success of this program,” said Miami offensive line coach Art Kehoe, who was part of all five national-title teams. “He was a fierce, smart and great football coach that did an unbelievable job here at the University of Miami. I don’t know if this program would have ever gotten off the map like it did without Howard’s leadership. What he did for this place is unbelievable.”

Schnellenberger left Miami after that title season for an offer with the USFL, a deal that fell apart before he ever coached a game in that fledgling league, so he remained in the college game at Louisville in 1985.

He spent one year at Oklahoma in 1995, then soon started building FAU’s program. The school played its first game in 2001, and won bowl games in 2007 (along with the Sun Belt Conference title) and 2008, pushing Schnellenberger’s record to 6-0 in bowls as a head coach.

“He’s a legend for a reason,” FAU defensive back Marcus Bartels said.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

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

Private charities are best solution and not government welfare

September 6, 2012 – 6:38 am

Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax

Published on May 11, 2012 by

In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr.

________________

Milton Friedman describes the welfare state’s effect on private charitable activity

Uploaded by on Oct 12, 2009

From “Free to Choose” (1980), Part IV: “From Cradle to Grave.”

David Weinberger

June 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Liberals often appeal to morality in policy debates with conservatives—with much success. But conservatives should not cede the moral high ground. In fact, a strong case for conservatism can be made on the basis of morality.

Consider why shrinking government is moral. The more the federal government provides for people, the more it deprives them not only of their dignity, but of one of the most sacred rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson: the right to pursue happiness. Why? Because fulfilling happiness comes from earned success, not from unearned handouts.

Think about the person we all knew growing up whose parents spoiled him or her. Even if that person wasn’t unhappy at the time (though chances are he or she was unhappy), it teaches that individual to expect handouts, which will likely result in an unhappy adulthood. Sewing the seeds of entitlement is a recipe for misery.

During the recent recession, unemployment benefits were extended from six months to nearly two years . Does not an extension of such length send the message to people who receive them that they can depend on government? How dignifying is that?

Certainly in tough times people may need help, but the tragedy of governmental aid is that it crowds out assistance from families, private charities and local communities, which is much more personal, not to mention much more effective. Jonathan Gruber, an economist from MIT, conducted a study of the New Deal government in the 1930s, and concluded that private charity spending “fell by 30% in response to the New Deal, and that government relief spending can explain virtually all of the decline in charitable church activity observed between 1933 and 1939.”

Private charities are able to make distinctions between people who truly need help and those who do not, as well as between those who need material assistance and those who need moral refocus, personal counseling, relationship repair or spiritual commitment. Government, no matter how well-intentioned, does not and cannot make such distinctions. In fact, the more ubiquitous government programs become, the less needed families and communities are to help those who require it.

Though well-intentioned, leftism’s commitment to government undermines both the individual pursuit of happiness, which results from earned success, and private charity of families and communities who can best provide it to those experiencing hardship. Conservatism, on the other hand, is committed to both, and is precisely why moving the country to the right is moral.

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

When are we going to see real spending cuts?

September 6, 2012 – 6:31 am

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Uploaded by on Apr 20, 2010

Be first to receive our videos and other timely info about economic policy. Subscribe at http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
————————-
According to a recent poll, 74 percent of likely voters are extremely or very concerned about the current level of government spending. And 58 percent think the level of spending is unsustainable.

Is the public right? Is Washington bankrupting America? Some facts from the video:

Spending per household has risen over 40 percent in the last 10 years and is set to do so again in the next 10 pushing debt (and interest on the debt) to unprecedented levels. But that’s just a result of PAST spending…

Our government owes $106 trillion in FUTURE spending commitments – that cannot be paid for.

We can solve it, but politicians will have to make tough choices. Increasing taxes can’t do the trick ($106 trillion is equivalent to taking all of the taxable income from every American nine times over), nor is it fair to saddle taxpayers with a problem created by government irresponsibility.

We need real spending reform. Merely returning to the spending per household levels of the 1990s would balance the budget in three years.

___________

When are we going to see REAL SPENDING CUTS? I am tired of this being talked about but not done.

I’m in Slovenia where I just finished indoctrinating educating a bunch of students on the importance of Mitchell’s Golden Rule as a means of restraining the burden of government spending.

And I emphasized that the fiscal problem in Europe is the size of government, not the fact that nations are having a hard time borrowing money. As explained in this video, spending is the disease and deficits are one of the symptoms.

This is also an issue in the United States, and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal is worried that the GOP ticket is debt-obsessed and doesn’t have sufficient enthusiasm for lower tax rates and tax reform.

Stylistically, Paul Ryan’s Republican convention speech last night was a grand slam. …But was it the growth message that supply-siders wanted to hear, or debt-clock obsession? There were clearly apocalyptic claims. “Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this nation’s economic problems,” said Mr. Ryan in reference to the federal rea ink. “I’m going to level with you; we don’t have that much time.” …In fact, he talked about turning around the economy with “tax fairness.” Ugh, that’s an Obama term. …Larry Kudlow of CNBC and a former Reagan economist tells me, “Paul’s speech just didn’t have the growth, tax-cutting message. We didn’t even get the words tax reform. I don’t know what happened, but it worries me.” It’s a question of priorities. Are Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan signaling that they will put spending cuts ahead of pro-growth tax-rate cuts?

I share Steve’s concern, but with a twist.

I’m not worried that the Republicans will put spending cuts ahead of tax cuts. I’m worried that they won’t do spending cuts at all (even using the dishonest DC definition) and therefore wind up getting seduced into some sort of tax-increase deal that facilitates bigger government.

As a general rule, it is always good to do spending cuts (however defined). And it is always good to lower tax rates. And if you can do both at the same time, even better.

But since I have low expectations, I’ll be delighted if we “merely” manage to get entitlement reform during a Romney-Ryan Administration. That would mean some progress on the spending side and presumably reduce the risk of bad things (like a VAT!) on the revenue side.

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

Obama’s advice to other nations is keep government out of the way of private enterprise

September 6, 2012 – 6:29 am

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be Reagan’s vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

_____________-

The USA’s grand economy was built by the free enterprise system and basically the government got out of the way most of the time. That is what works everywhere you have wealth built up. If socialists get their way then they will piggyback on the success the capitalists have created and many times when socialist policies take over things start to fall apart with the vast welfare states that are created. Take a look at this fine article by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute below.

To answer the question in the title, it means you need to read the fine print.

This is because we have a president who thinks the government shouldn’t confiscate more than 20 percent of a company’s income, but he only gives that advice when he’s in Ghana.

And the same president says it’s time to “let the market work on its own,” but he only says that when talking about China’s economy.

Now we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal policy.

After the Greek elections, which saw the defeat of the pro-big government Syriza coalition and a victory for the supposedly conservative New Democracy Party, here’s some of what Politico reported.

President Barack Obama on Monday called the results of Greece’s election a “positive prospect” with the potential to form a government willing to cooperate with Europe.  “I think the election in Greece yesterday indicates a positive prospect for not only them forming a government, but also them working constructively with their international partners in order that they can continue on the path of reform and do so in a way that also offers the prospects for the Greek people to succeed and prosper,” Obama said after a meeting with the G-20 Summit’s host, Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

In other words, it’s “positive” when other nations reject big government and vote for right-of-center parties, but Heaven forbid that this advice apply to the United States.

Interestingly, it’s not just Obama who is rejecting (when talking about other nations) the welfare-state vision of bigger government and higher taxes.

Check out this remarkable excerpt from a Washington Post column by Larry Summers, the former Chairman of the President’s National Economic Council.

… it is far from clear, especially after the French election, that there is any kind of majority or even plurality support for responsible policies.

Remarkable. Larry Summers is dissing Francois Hollande and the French people by implying they want irresponsible policies, even though the Hollande’s views about Keynesian economics and soak-the-rich taxation are basically identical to the nonsense Summers was peddling while in the White House.

It’s almost enough to make you cynical about America’s political elite. Perish the thought!

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute | Tagged | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 135 B)

September 6, 2012 – 6:27 am

1,000 Days Without A Budget

Uploaded by on Jan 24, 2012

http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, our new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

________________

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.

It seems ironic to me that we have not had a budget passed by the Senate for over three years yet you are bragging to the G-8 audience that you made a lot of progress getting measures passed that have helped the U.S. economy. Don’t you think that the other world leaders can see through all of this bragging of yours?

Mike Brownfield

May 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Europe is in bad shape, there’s no doubt about it. The sovereign debt crisis continues to roil the continent, Greece may leave the euro, Spain may have to revise its budget deficit upward for the second time because of bad loans, and France has a new socialist president pledging more spending instead of austerity. So when the G8 leaders met last week, President Obama had some words of advice to offer — “Look at me and learn from my stellar example!”

OK, that’s a paraphrase, but his actual words aren’t all that much different. No joke, the president who has presided over a downgraded credit rating, three years without a budget, an exploding deficit, an entitlement system desperately in need of reform, and an unemployment rate still over 8 percent has painted himself as a model for others to follow.

Quite remarkably, the president bragged that he has worked to “bring down our deficits and debt over the longer term” while staying “focused on growing the economy and creating jobs in the immediate term.” Though he acknowledges that “Of course, we still have a lot of work to do,” he says that now there’s “room to take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit and debt, while preserving our investments in the drivers of growth and job creation over the long term — education, innovation, and infrastructure for the 21st century.”

In other words, because of his supposed successes, America can afford to spend even more money on stimulus.

It’s hard to say whether the president’s intended audience was the leaders of the G8 or the American electorate, but regardless of who it was, there’s not much for Obama to brag about.

In the past four years, unemployment has gone up, more people are unemployed longer, gas prices are higher, the cost of health care insurance has increased, the national debt is higher, federal spending has increased, more Americans are on food stamps, regulatory costs are higher, home values have declined, America’s economic recovery is historically slow, and while federal spending on education has increased, results remain flat. You can see for yourself just how bad America’s fiscal outlook is in Heritage’s 2012 edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures.

Though Europe needs solutions, they certainly shouldn’t be looking at President Obama for the answers.

__________

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 Current Events, President Obama, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Paul Ryan followed F. A. Hayek’s belief in limited government

September 6, 2012 – 6:19 am

Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy

Uploaded by on Aug 29, 2009

Friedrich Hayek discusses Milton Friedman’s Monetarism and monetary policy.

_____________________

Good article on Ryan and Hayek!!!!

Hayek Wasn’t a ‘Free Market Marxist’

Posted by Alberto Mingardi

Why can’t liberals provide a fair portrait of a thinker they disagree with? It was a reasonable prediction that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his VP appointee would ignite a discussion over the first principles of politics and the role of government in society. So far, however, it hasn’t been much of a discussion: rather, we shall speak of a goofy attempt to graft the practice of smearing the enemy from day-to-day politics to the realm of political thinking.

David Boaz has wisely commented upon Adam Davidson’s piece on Hayek. Even more surprising is a blog post from historian Timothy Snyder in the New York Review of Books. Professor Snyder sees Mr. Ryan as aiming to revive an “outdated ideology”—as  “taking some of the worst from the twentieth century and presenting it as a plan for the twenty-first.”

What he finds outdated is, basically, Hayek’s allegiance to the principle of limited government. Revealingly, he maintains that “Austria became a prosperous democracy after World War II because its governments ignored Hayek’s advice and created a welfare state.” Linking the economic performance of Western democracies after WWII to the institutions of the welfare state (a national health care service, compulsory education, unemployment insurance et cetera) is at best naive.

Making “provisions for citizens in need” may be “an effective way to defend democracy” from the temptations of populism and authoritarianism but this doesn’t say much per se. Which provisions? Provided by whom? For the benefit of whom? The answers to these questions aren’t trivial.

What is most surprising in Snyder’s piece is how he portrays Hayekianism as the opposite of what it is. He writes:

Like Marxism, the Hayekian ideology is a theory of everything, which has an answer for everything. Like Marxism, it allows politicians who accept the theory to predict the future, using their purported total knowledge to create and to justify suffering among those who do not hold power.

You may wish to make a caricature of a thinker. A successful caricature should, however, resemble the subject, at least a little.

A cursory glance at the titles of Friedrich von Hayek’s books should be enough to understand that what he was preoccupied with was precisely the hubris of decision-makers who pretend to predict the future and manage it. Hayek’s best known paper is poignantly entitled “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” His last book was called The Fatal Conceit. His best work in history of ideas bore, as a subtitle, a reference to the “abuse of reason.”

Hayek was convinced that “no human mind can comprehend all the knowledge which guides the actions of society.” What he stressed, over and over and over, are the inherent limitations of our knowledge, that politicians and regulators, being human beings, share with the rest of us. He was skeptical even of the “purported total knowledge” of his own discipline, economics, as he claimed that “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

Hayek defended individual liberty, precisely because the future is unpredictable.

The case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of the inevitable and universal ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depend. It is because every individual knows so little and, in particular, because we rarely know which of us knows best that we trust the independent and competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when we see it.

For Hayek,

If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

Does this sound like a man that had an answer for everything, or wanted to propose a grand plan for society as a whole? Hayek’s worldview does not have much of a following among intellectuals, not least because it doesn’t see “knowledge” as a monolith. For Hayek, knowledge is dispersed in society, it is by and large “know-how” hence it belongs as much to the little guy on the street than to the Yale professor. The free market economy is a process by which these different pieces of knowledge somehow are put together to the good of society. Professor Snyder portrays Hayek as a “reacting” against national socialism and communism. It is an elegant way to dismiss him, by claiming that “precisely because they [Hayek and Rand] were reacting, they flew to extreme interpretations.”

Reality fascinates profound thinkers, as it may either ignite or terrify common people too. But the economic calculation debate, in which Hayek and his mentor Ludwig von Mises were the main actors, was not a mere “reaction:” it was, as brainy socialists at the time acknowledged, a discussion over the possibility of economic planning. Hayek stumbled upon a more refined understanding of the role of knowledge in society, while participating in that debate—this is certainly true. But he was not a political copywriter, as Professor Snyder seems to believe.

As an Italian, I envy the fact that until next November Americans will be having a discussion over the fundamental pillars of their political state. Neither Obama-Biden nor Romney-Ryan are political thinkers: they are politicians, and the very fact they have (some) convictions is rare enough to be praised. But it is good and exciting that the electoral contest will bring people to go back to basics and, perhaps, try to make sense of what this Hayek guy or that Rawls guy actually meant.

It is, however, rather depressing to see such a systematic misrepresentation of Hayek’s ideas. Let’s assume it is due to genuine ignorance.  We shall then recommend some links to liberal chastisers of Mr. Ryan, so that they may know better what they disagree with.

  • The Universitad Francisco Marroquin has made available online this collection of interviews with Hayek.
  • This 1984 Cato Policy Report provides a quick introduction to some of the core themes in Hayek’s thinking.
  • Hayek’s Nobel lecture is a short but intriguing introduction to his thought.
  • Arch-liberal George Soros has a short appreciation of Hayek’s ideas, that was initially delivered in a conference at the Cato Institute.

I (and many others) would have quarrels with some of Soros’s points, but perhaps his article may suggest that critics of Hayek’s “free market Marxism” pause for a moment before rushing to their keyboard.

_______________
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2

Uploaded by on Oct 25, 2011

Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues.

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2

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

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

September 6, 2012 – 5:19 am

Office of the Majority Whip | Balanced Budget Amendment Video

In 1995, Congress nearly passed a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. The Balanced Budget Amendment would have forced the federal government to live within its means. This Balanced Budget Amendment failed by one vote. 16 years later, Congress has the chance to get it right. Our time is now.

______________________

Dear Senator Pryor,

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

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

The Debt Ceiling and the Balanced Budget Amendment

Posted by David Boaz

The Washington Post editorializes:

A balanced-budget amendment would deprive policymakers of the flexibility they need to address national security and economic emergencies.

A fair point. Statesmen should have the ability to “address national security and economic emergencies.” But the same day’s paper included this graphic on the growth of the national debt:

National Debt

Does this look like the record of policymakers making sensible decisions, running surpluses in good year and deficits when they have to “address national security and economic emergencies”? Of course not. Once Keynesianism gave policymakers permission to run deficits, they spent with abandon year after year. And that’s why it makes sense to impose rules on them, even rules that leave less flexibility than would be ideal if you had ideal statesmen. Indeed, the debt ceiling itself should be that kind of rule, one that limits the amount of debt policymakers can run up. But it has obviously failed.

We’ve become so used to these stunning, incomprehensible, unfathomable levels of deficits and debt — and to the once-rare concept of trillions of dollars — that we forget how new all this debt is. In 1980, after 190 years of federal spending, the national debt was “only” $1 trillion. Now, just 30 years later, it’s sailing past $14 trillion.

Historian John Steele Gordon points out how unnecessary our situation is:

There have always been two reasons for adding to the national debt. One is to fight wars. The second is to counteract recessions. But while the national debt in 1982 was 35% of GDP, after a quarter century of nearly uninterrupted economic growth and the end of the Cold War the debt-to-GDP ratio has more than doubled.

It is hard to escape the idea that this happened only because Democrats and Republicans alike never said no to any significant interest group. Despite a genuine economic emergency, the stimulus bill is more about dispensing goodies to Democratic interest groups than stimulating the economy. Even Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) — no deficit hawk when his party is in the majority — called it “porky.”

Annual federal spending rose by a trillion dollars when Republicans controlled the government from 2001 to 2007. It has risen another trillion during the Bush-Obama response to the financial crisis. So spending every year is now twice what it was when Bill Clinton left office. Republicans and Democrats alike should be able to find wasteful, extravagant, and unnecessary programs to cut back or eliminate. They could find some of them here in this report by Chris Edwards.

In the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Just so. When it becomes clear that Congress as a body cannot be trusted with the management of the public fisc, then bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, even — or especially — chains that deny them the flexibility they have heretofore abused.

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

Pro-life posts can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

September 6, 2012 – 3:10 am

Uploaded by on Jan 29, 2011

The Miracle of Life by Valley Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California.

_________

If you want to see some more great pro-life videos and articles then check out these links below:

Kathy Ireland’s argument with Planned Parenthood over abortion

  Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science books have to say. Everyone remembers Kathy Ireland from her Sports Illustrated days and actually she has became a very successful business person.  However, I wanted to talk about her pro-life views. Back on […]

Richard Dawkins comments on Tim Tebow pro-life commercial. I am sad today because Susan G. Komen reversed their decision and will continue to supports Planned Parenthood which the USA’s largest abortion provider. The Arkansas Times Blog reported that the leader of Susan G. Komen apologized and explained that Planned Parenthood would be receiving funds from […]

Obama, Garry Smith, Jesus, the Republicans and Abortion (Part 1)

This is going to take two posts to cover. Jason Tolbert hit the nail on the head in his recent post: It seems Democratic Rep. Garry Smith of El Dorado stepped into a bit of a mess this week when speaking to the newly formed Union County Democratic Club. Perhaps he wasn’t aware that intrepid […]

Does human life begin at birth or conception?

On the Arkansas Times blog in the comment section the person using username “Hackett” asserted: Life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, prior to that it is parasitical and lives at the discretion of the host. I responded with this post today: It seems to me the real argument lies in the […]

Answering pro-abortion questions

Richard Dawkins comments on Tim Tebow pro-life commercial. _________________________ On the Arkansas Times Blog, a person with the username “November” posted: You dont have the “choice” to kill and innocent child in the womb. No one gave the child a trial before killing it. The child is innocent, and the U S Constitution says you […]

Prolife March in Little Rock has 20 to 1 ratio more than abortion march of previous day

PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL Marchers arrive at the state Capitol on Sunday after beginning the Arkansas March for Life in downtown Little Rock As in the past, the pr0-life March in Little Rock had at least twenty times the people in attendance that the pr0-abortion march did the previous day. In fact, last year Channel […]

Loretta Ross’ son: A case for pro-life position

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. In Little Rock on January 21, 2012 in front of 100 pro-choice advocates met next to the Capitol to hear Loretta Ross speak. In that talk she pointed out something about her own experience. (Below is from another speech in which she recounts some of the same details.) […]

A man of pro-life convictions: Bernard Nathanson (part4)

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown: VHS/DVDs Available American Portrait Films Call 1-800-736-4567 http://www.amport.com The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Unjust laws exist. Shall we […]

Dr. William F. Harrison : “I would have advised her to have an abortion…Now, years later, that baby is grown and about to finish her doctorate..”

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. I used to write letters to the editor a whole lot back in the 1990′s.  I am pro-life and many times my letters would discuss current political debates, and I got to know several names of people that would often write in response letters to my published letters. […]

We can befriend those who are considering abortion

Development of the Unborn Baby.  Prolife Video There are people all around you who have been affected by humanism. Abortion is one of the results of humanism. Nevertheless, we can befriend those who are considering abortion and speak into their lives with love and truth. There may be those who say hateful things to us […]

Norma McCorvey is now pro-life

“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently done a commercial about it. Around 1993 my wife Jill and I peacefully walked the streets of Little Rock with  Rev Flip Benham who was working with Operation Rescue at the time. We held pro-life signs up and heard some moving stories […]

Prolife quotes

Bill O’Reilly Interviews Jehmu Greene About Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad about Tim Tebow I got these quotes from someone off the internet that lives in England. The funny thing is the video is put to music and the song they picked won a grammy for an Arkansas band that lives in Little Rock. Here is […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Prolife | Comments (0)