Monthly Archives: November 2012

Francis Schaeffer’s evangelical yet worldviewish thinking about societal transformation

November 11, 2012 – 1:43 am

Byron Borger rightly notes that “Francis Schaeffer’s evangelical yet worldviewish thinking about societal transformation” is what this book below is about.

Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life by Colin Duriez

0

Schaeffer.jpgSince the much-discussed and controversial memoir Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis and Edith, there has been a bit of renewed interest in the evangelical cultural critic, theologian, philosopher and founder ofL’Abri, a drop in study center Christian community in Switzerland that ministered to questioning, often disaffected youth in the late 60s early 70s–and exits in several cities throughout the world yet today.  In what seemed to be light years ahead of his time, he talked about worldviews, about presuppositions, the consequences of ideas, the zeitgeist of the times and the flow of history–all as important matters for Christian witness and mission and daily discipleship.  He organized their Swiss hostel (and inspired other intentional communities) as folks bonded together to live out the implications of a Christian view of life in the teeth of a modernistic and secularized cultural ethos.  He assured us that there were “no little people” and that God wanted to use us for Christ’s cosmic purposes, to share grace and thoughtfulness and beauty in such a fallen world that God surely loves.As evangelicals, especially, discover the grand flow of the Bible as a worldview-shaping Story there is a new passion to explore God’s interest in social and cultural engagement, and seek to honor Christ in all of life—from the arts to the sciences, from local business practices to global justice, from pop culture to environmental studies, from race relations to the contours of our workplaces.  Thank goodness.  Reading folks from Jim Wallis to Leslie Newbegin, from Marva Dawn to N.T. Wright, we search for profound resources to “fund” such a broad vision of Kingdom reformation and many are now using the language of worldview, and this wholistic, imaginative move to embody a new, integrated, way of life. We have studied from those who have popularized and explored the vast implications of that phrase and that move.  (Both James Sire and Nancy Pearcey, who are vital voices in worldview studies, have L’Abri connections. So does Fabric of Faithfulness author Steve Garber. The annual Jubilee conference in Pittsburgh is one huge example of fruit born from conversations around L’Abri themes;  Charles Colson’s exemplary involvement in prison reform is another fruit of Schaeffer’s evangelical yet worldviewish thinking about societal transformation.  And on and on, some of my favorite contemporary authors and very best friends…)

We’ve learned that to be “radical” means not to be far left or way out, but to get to the “root” of things, to look at the deepest questions in the most profound ways.  It may be that  “neo-Calvinists” took up that banner most vocally in the past 25 years, influenced by their “radical” hero, Dutch statesman and public theologian Abraham Kuyper, who called for such deep rethinking of everything and it is clear that Kuyper and his rejection of dualism and personalism rubbed off in some ways on Schaeffer and his L’Abri movement.  Nowadays, although neo-Calvinism is on the lips (and keyboards) of places likeComment and Catapult and Richard Mouw’s blog, many others are just glad for reforming possibilities and intellectually serious faith traditions other than old-school liberal Protestantism and right-wing conservative fundamentalism. (I have written elsewhere that even the postmodern emergent movement has some connections to radical worldview thinkers like Brian Walsh and Jamie Smith and the late Robert Webber—who themselves have been nurtured in the Dutch neo-Cal and Kuyper tradition and L’Abri, too.)

I would say that the person who stands for so much of all of this for me, is, in fact, Francis Schaeffer.  As I’ve written about often, I was introduced to Schaeffer’s books (his early 70s work on Christian responsibilities for creation care, his cultural studies, his critiques of Protestant liberalism, his little book on the arts…) and it showed me immense new possibilities.  To see someone with historic orthodox theology (I was also reading stuff like Malcolm Boyd and Dan Berrigan at the time) who also cared about the burning issues of the day, and even the cries of the counterculture, just blew me away.

I am glad that there is now a new biography of Schaeffer, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life by Colin Duriez (Crossway; $24.95.) It is done by a very reputable biographer, and is a work which many have suggested will be the best bio yet.  It just came, and I’ve not seen any advanced reviews, but as I browse through it, I can tell that it will be helpful and inspiring, informative and fulfilling. Colin Duriez has done impressive biographies of C.S. Lewis and also of J.R.R. Tolkien, so he clearly is in the right orbit.  Before studying English and philosophy at University of Ulster, he spent time at L’Abri.  He is quite aware of his subject, has had the cooperation of the extended Schaeffer circle, and knows details that have been important in Fran’s life (for instance, his meeting in 1950 with the famed neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth, and a scathing letter he got from Dr. Barth.)  Fascinating stuff.

A small matter of interest for at least a handful of BookNotes readers (yeah, you know who you are) might be the question Mr. Duriez raises about the role in Schaeffer’s work, of the thought of Kuyperian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd.  Duriez, who knew Schaeffer well, and stayed in touch for decades, corresponded with Schaeffer specifically about the influence of Dooyeweerd;  Schaeffer’s intimate friend, Dooyeweerdian art critic Hans Rookmaaker, many know, insisted that he introduced Schaeffer to Dooyeweerd’s philosophy which then shaped Schaeffer’s famous trilogy of philosophical works.  Schaeffer  knew Van Til, another Dutch Calvinist (from Westminster Seminary) and there is a family resemblance to a number of these Reformed thinkers who called for the development of the distinctives of the Christian mind, for the sake of God-glorifying cultural witness and social change.  Of course, while this was going on, L’Abri was growing in popularity,  Eric Clapton and folk like Joan Baez were reading Escape from Reason;  Os Guinness was working on his first book The Dust of Death, and Schaeffer was chastising evangelicals in North America for not caring enough to learn about the issues being raised by the counterculture or taking seriously new art forms like film. For those whose faith was shaped in the middle or ending of the 20th century, whether you knew about this stuff then or not OR for those who are too young to have recalled these tumultuous times, and who may not think much of Schaeffer’s influence,  Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life by Colin Duriez is going to be great and is highly recommended!

With endorsements from the likes of  Alister McGrath and James Sire (who says “Schaeffer, the Jeremiah of the twentieth century, walks and talks again in these pages”) this surely is a very reputable and thoughtful work.  I am confident that it is.  We are very, very happy to present it to you.

BLOG SPECIAL
Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life
$5.00 off
regularly $24.99
$19.99
ORDER HERE
Hearts & Minds 234 East Main Street  Dallastown, PA 17313   717.246.3333 

Posted by Byron Borger on June 21, 2008 8:09 PM | Permalink

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

Francis Schaeffer affected pro-life movement (Part 11) “Schaeffer Sunday”

November 10, 2012 – 10:13 pm

Many evangelicals today are pro-life because of Francis Schaeffer.

First published in 1981, Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifestois increasingly relevant today in 2010. The book, penned as a Christian response to the Communist and Humanist Manifestos, describes how the United States is being systematically torn apart by secular humanism and its “material-energy, chance world view.” The second half of the book details what actions the Christian should take in defending one’s self and country.In explaining civil disobedience, Schaeffer uses Samuel Rutherford’smodel of “three appropriate levels of resistance.”“First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself (Schaeffer 103).”Schaeffer then goes on to provide an example that would be worthy of Rutherford’s first level of resistance.“In our day an illustration for the need of protest is tax money used for abortion. After all the normal constitutional means of protest had been exhausted, then what could be done? At some point protest could lead some Christians to refuse to pay some portion of their tax money. Of course, this would mean a trial. Such a move would have to be the individual’s choice under God. No one should decide for another. But somewhere along the way, such a decision might easily have to be faced. Happily, at the present time in the United States the Hyde Amendment has removed the use of national tax money for abortions, but that does not change the possibility that in some cases such a protest would be the only way to be heard (Schaeffer 108).”

Fastforward 19 years. Today, the concern for pro-lifers is no longer the Hyde Amendment. The United States now has a tax-funded federal healthcare program that, according to a new Congressional Research Service report, allows federal tax dollars to fund elective abortions.

What should be the Christian response? If the legal challenges fail and our government does indeed choose to use federal tax money to fund the killing of unborn babies, how will God’s people respond?

It is interesting just how prophetic Francis Schaeffer’s thoughts and concerns were. This is the first of his writings I have read and I look forward to reading more of his work. The abortion fight is no different than any other war in the sense that individual battles will decide victory. But the battles involved have so much more at stake than I often realize. There is certainly a “war of world views” going on in this country and the preservation or destruction of the U.S. Constitution will surely determine if liberty is for all or none.

Schaeffer, Francis A. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester: Crossway, 1982

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

“Music Mondays” here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

November 10, 2012 – 4:23 am

Would you like to know the spirtual meaning of these words above by Coldplay or find a christian response to the song “The Last Resort” by Papa Roach? You could if you checked out “Music Monday” here every week and see all the videos and articles. Take a look at the links before that refer to these songs:

 

“Music Monday” The Monkees (Part 3)

BradyBunchClip 05 – Marcia meets Davy Jones   Uploaded by BradyBunchClips on May 12, 2009 After multiple attempts, Marcia gets to meet Davy Jones! ___________________ From Wikipedia: Davy Jones Jones performing in Geneva, Illinois, in 2006 Born David Thomas Jones 30 December 1945(1945-12-30) Openshaw, Manchester, England Died February 29, 2012(2012-02-29) (aged 66) Indiantown, Florida, United States […]

Otis Redding and Memphis “Music Monday”

(Sittin On) The Dock Of The Bay Uploaded by taylorgdaniel on Jun 9, 2010 Downtown Memphis, July 9, 2010, solo by Taylor G. Daniel of Germantown. This song was actually sung just a few miles away from where Redding originally recorded it in downtown Memphis at Stax Records. ______________________ Over the years Otis Redding’s influence […]

__________________

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

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

“Music Monday” Countdown of Coldplay’s best albums (part 2)

I think that Viva La Vida is their 4th best CD. It is balanced better than all of their albums. This CD had many songs that were very similar. Although this album has their only number one hit in the US, Viva La Vida. I loved “VIVA LA VIDA” “VIOLET HILL” “LIFE IN TECHNICOLOR” “YES” […]

“Music Monday”:Coldplay’s best songs of all time (Part 18)

  This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: My son Hunter Hatcher’s 3rd favorite Coldplay song is ”Every Tear Drop is a WaterFall” Hunter noted, “Recent favorite of mine. I […]

Insight into what Coldplay meant by “St. Peter won’t call my name” (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 3)jh61

Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]

 

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

Paul Ryan discusses Milton Friedman

November 10, 2012 – 1:22 am

Ryan on Recent Economic News, Milton Friedman and Freedom

Published on Jul 30, 2012 by

Paul Ryan: What Would Milton Friedman Say About Dismal Economic News?

On the 100th anniversary of the birth of economist Milton Friedman, United States Congressman Paul Ryan reflects on the state of the US Economy and offers his take on what Friedman would say about the public policy prescriptions emanating from the current Administration in Washington, D.C

_______________

Milton Friedman also wanted to see the Balanced Budget Amendment tied to a percentage of GDP and then passed by Congress.

Posted on: November 18th, 2011

By Chairman Rob Gleason

I have given a tremendous amount of thought to the idea of a federal balanced budget amendment. I considered this issue not only as the Chairman of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania but as a father, as a business owner and as an American. I kept coming back to one main prevailing thought which is that if America doesn’t start living within its means and soon, our country will lose the economic fabric that has made our country great. The American dream will be gone. It is a scary thought and one that should provoke thorough debate as our county continues to spiral down the path of fiscal insolvency.

Our country spends more than we take in and the bottom-line is, as a country, we have a spending problem. Our addiction to government spending has led to a downgrade of everyone’s credit rating, because America’s credit rating is our credit rating as well. The downgrade has a direct impact on the loss of global economic power that forces all of us to pay more. Our addiction to big government spending has cost us jobs especially when you consider costly regulations that do more harm than good. Although we hear Democrats call for more government spending as a means to create more jobs, it has not worked and Americans should not be fooled again.

As Pennsylvania’s families weigh spending decisions every day, they know they must have a balanced family budget. If our families ran their households the way that the Federal government runs their budget, the effects would be clear. Their bills wouldn’t have been paid. Their house would be foreclosed. Their car would be repossessed. They would be out on the street.

Pennsylvania businesses must also weigh spending decisions every day. They must meet payroll. They must pay their taxes. They must deliver a quality product if they want return business. If they don’t, payroll is missed. Jobs are lost. Their company goes under.

As a country, we can’t stand in the way of real fiscal reform. The dream of a safe and healthy retirement seems to be farther away for everyone. Without a balanced budget amendment, families across America could see losses in everything they have worked so hard to build, from retirement savings to home values to their own job and maybe even to the safety and security of their own family.

A balanced budget amendment is a guarantee that forces government to make the tough decisions now rather than lay mountains of debt on future generations.  I hope you consider this issue no matter what party affiliation you may be. As Americans, Pennsylvanians, fathers and mothers, we owe it to current and future generations to live within our means and keep the American dream alive.

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

Letters I have written to Congress about the debt ceiling debate

November 9, 2012 – 8:40 am

There were 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase in August of 2011 and I have written posts about 49 of them. Again today we have newly re-elected President Obama coming back for another debt ceiling increase and we need more brave Republicans who will not give in.  I have corresponded with my Democratic Senator Mark Pryor concerning the Balanced Budget Amendment and the debt ceiling debate but he just is part of that tax and spend group in Congress that will not lift a finger to cut anything.

If we do not pretend to try and balance our budget then how long will we have AAA credit status with Fitch Ratings?

I have written a series of letters to the Speaker of the House John Boehner. Here is how I start out in some of those letters:

I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone. When that happens then you have one thing you can hold over his head and that is the debt ceiling.

You must stand up to him and tell him that you can not raise it. In December of 2012 or January of 2013 at the latest we will be shutting down the government if we don’t increase the debt limit according to the LA Times. You got to listen to the Tea Party heroes like Rep. Todd Rokita,  Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Jeff Landry (R, LA-03),  Raúl R. Labrador , Tim Huelskamp,  Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI),  , Brooks, Mo (AL – 5), Buerkle, Ann Marie (NY – 25),Chabot, Steven (OH – 1),Duncan, Jeff (SC – 3), Fleischmann, Chuck (TN – 3) ,Gowdy, Trey (SC – 4) ,Griffith, H. Morgan (VA – 9) , Harris, Andy (MD – 1) ,Huizenga, Bill (MI – 2) , Mulvaney, Mick (SC – 5) , Pompeo, Mike (KS – 4) , Ribble, Reid (WI – 8), Rigell, E. Scott (VA – 2) , Ross, Dennis (FL – 12) ,Schweikert, David (AZ – 5), Scott, Austin (GA – 8) , Scott, Tim (SC – 1) , Southerland, Steve (FL – 2) , Stutzman, Marlin (IN – 3) , Walberg, Timothy (MI – 7) , Walsh, Joe (IL – 8),and Woodall, Rob (GA – 7) .

__________

Since I have both written letters to the Speaker and also emailed them to him I have been able to include videos like the one below.

Next I quote from one of the 66 brave Republican members of Congress who voted against the debt ceiling increase in August of 2011.

I am hopeful that he will listen to the argument that we must pass the Balanced Budget Amendment before we agree to increase the debt ceiling this time around. If not we will end up in Greece before the end of this decade.

Related posts:

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 3 on debt ceiling)

John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone. When that happens then you […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 2 on raising taxes)

 Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 2 on raising taxes) John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but […]

Open letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner (Part 1 on debt ceiling)

John Boehner, Speaker of the House H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker, I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and  federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone. When that happens then you […]

John Boehner in Little Rock, I wish he would propose real spending cuts!!!!

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times noted: House Speaker John Boehner was spotted in Little Rock yesterday — lunch at Whole Hog Cafe and at Cajun’s Wharf during the evening hours. My spin on John Boehner is very simple. He needs to be brave enough to join those conservatives in the House that really do […]

Democrats punt the ball on real spending cuts and Boehner doesn’t do much better

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today: Debt ceiling non-compromise updates BOEHNER: Screaming “Hell no you can’t!” Ah, the good old days. Slate has a running update of the debt ceiling debate in Washington. So far it looks like Speaker of the House John Boehner will have the votes in the House to pass his plan. […]

 

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

More Leftists Let Their Masks Slip, Admit They Want Big Tax Hikes on the Middle Class

November 9, 2012 – 8:03 am

Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict

Uploaded by on Jul 8, 2011

Washington’s chronic overspending is just like a junkie’s addiction to drugs. Unless the cycle of addiction is broken, our economic and unemployment situation will continue to suffer. Washington is out of time. To avoid hitting rock bottom, Washington must cut spending today. To spread this message, Washington Could Learn a Lot has created this video. Learn more at washingtoncouldlearnalot.com.

Update: Now, our economic situation has deteriorated even further. We are now approaching $15 trillion in debt and Congress has raised the debt ceiling 11 times in the past ten years.

Washington Could Learn a Lot is a project of Public Notice Research & Education Fund (PNREF). PNREF is an independent non-profit dedicated to educating the American people about economic policy and the principles of economic freedom.

Through our education and awareness projects, PNREF will explore the future consequences of public policies being enacted today.

_________________

We got to lower spending and not raise taxes. It is sad to me that the left acts like they are taking up for the middle class but they know that the largest amount of money they can raise is from the middle class and they will eventually get around to raising taxes on them.

While I disagree with statists, I sometimes admire their discipline. They are very good at staying “on message.”

I am 100 percent confident, for instance, that they intend big tax hikes on the middle class, even though they would piously swear an oath to the contrary. Indeed, I suspect more than 90 percent of them secretly would like a value-added tax.

It’s not that they necessarily dislike ordinary people, but privately they understand that you can’t finance big government by taxing rich people.

Simply stated, there aren’t enough of the “1 percent.” Moreover, rich people have significant control over the timing, composition, and level of their income, so class-warfare tax hikes inevitably will fail to generate much revenue (yes, the Laffer Curve exists).

So it makes sense that they want to screw the middle class, but it’s also obvious that they don’t want to admit this is their goal. As such, it’s always interesting and revealing when folks on the left slip up and admit their true intentions.

In recent days, more leftists have come out of the we-only-want-to-tax-the-rich closet.

Here’s some of what Jared Bernstein, former economist for Vice President Biden, just wrote for the U.K.’s Financial Times.

That plan will have to include tax increases beyond just the wealthiest households, although that is the right place to start. But what should happen next? …The best thing to do, once the economic recovery is solidly under way, is to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the tax structure that prevailed under Bill Clinton. …I’d urge Democrats to be forthright with the fact that we’re way below where we need to be in terms of revenue collection.

Bernstein, by the way, was a co-author of the infamous prediction that enacting Obama’s stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent.

The Washington Post also is on board with the idea of big tax hikes on ordinary folks.

…it’s impossible to tackle the federal debt by taxing only the wealthy. …the middle class is going to have to pay more…the only way to achieve tax reform with a reasonable increase in revenue is to reset everyone’s rates at Clinton-era levels.

Keep in mind, by the way, that these proposals are just the tip of the iceberg. Once tax rates are pushed back to 2000 levels, then the drumbeat will sound for additional tax hikes.

“The middle class is an easy target”

And, sooner or later, the left will push for its big goal of a value-added tax.

This is not a trivial threat. Obama, for instance, already has expressed support, saying that the VAT is “something that has worked for other countries.” Romney’s also untrustworthy on the issue, having left the door open to this European-style national sales tax.

But the main point of this post is to explain that class-warfare taxes on the rich are a real threat, but they’re also just the camel’s nose under the tent. The left’s real goal is to fleece the middle class.

There’s no way to boost the burden of government spending to European levels without mimicking European tax policies.

And the dirty little secret about European tax policy is that taxes on the rich are about the same on both sides of the Atlantic. The reason government is so much bigger in Europe is that they ransack the middle class.

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

Roll Call of 66 Republicans who voted against debt ceiling increase in 2011

November 9, 2012 – 8:00 am

Here is one of my favorite videos on this subject below:

What Is The Debt Ceiling?

Published on May 19, 2013

What is the debt ceiling and why does it matter? Find out:http://BankruptingAmerica.org/DebtCei…

Congress’s dance with the debt limit can be confusing and, frankly, the details can be a real snooze fest for many Americans. Sometimes a little humor clarifies the absurdities of Washington antics better than flow charts and talk of trillions.

The 31-second video and accompanying infographic “The Debt Ceiling Explained” by Bankrupting America offers the facts, leavened with a dose of levity. The conclusion is serious, however: The country’s debt threatens economic growth, and spending cuts are the answer.

_________________________

It is obvious to me that if President Obama gets his hands on more money then he will continue to spend away our children’s future. He has already taken the national debt from 11 trillion to 16 trillion in just 4 years. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over and over I have written Speaker Boehner and written every Republican that represents Arkansans in Arkansas before (Griffin, Womack, Crawford, and only Senator Boozman got a chance to respond) concerning this. I am hoping they will stand up against this reckless spending that our federal government has done and will continue to do if given the chance.

Why don’t the Republicans  just vote no on the next increase to the debt ceiling limit. I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

What would happen if the debt ceiling was not increased? Yes President Obama would probably cancel White House tours and he would try to stop mail service or something else to get on our nerves but that is what the Republicans need to do.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama and I must say that I have been impressed that he has had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. The White House answered concerning Social Security (two times), Green Technologies, welfare, small businesses, Obamacare (twice),  federal overspending, expanding unemployment benefits to 99 weeks,  gun control, national debt, abortion, jumpstarting the economy, and various other  issues.   However, his policies have not changed, and by the way the White House after answering over 50 of my letters before November of 2012 has not answered one since.   President Obama is committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell.

 I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

_________________________

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute wrote a very good article and I agree with most of it. However, I do take exception to just one part. He is right to get on to USA Today for calling this current Congress the most unproductive since they only passed 61 bills. Dan rightly pointed out that in the first two years of Obama’s term the Democratically controlled Congress turned out lots of law but they included some very bad laws like Obamacare.

How I differ with Mitchell on this one point. In 2011 the Republicans in Congress failed to block the debt ceiling proposal and only 66 brave Republicans in the House voted against it. As a result we have continued to run trillion dollar deficits which in my view (and Dan’s too) makes this Congress the dumbest and most unproductive ever. Dan has actually shown how government involvement in deficit spending can actually hinder economic growth. and Dan did an excellent video series on restraining spending in government and I have included the You Tube clips of those in this post.

Here below is a list of those 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase listed below in August of 2011.

Full House roll call
By: Associated Press
August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, N.

Republicans – Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans – Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans – Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.

Republicans – Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans – Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, Y.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, N.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans – Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, Y.

_____

Although this line is attributed to many people, Wikiquote says that Gideon Tucker was the first to warn us that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

This cartoon about Keynesian economics sort of makes the same point, but not with the same eloquence.

But that’s not the point of this post. Instead, I want to focus on this grossly misleading headline in USA Today: “This Congress could be least productive since 1947.”

I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus.

But it does blindly assume that it is productive to impose more laws. Was it productive to enact Obamacare? What about the faux stimulus? Or the Dodd-Frank bailout bill?

Wouldn’t the headline be more accurate if it read, “This Congress could be least destructive since 1947″?

Here are the relevant parts of the USA Today report.

Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post World War II era. Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk’s office. In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995. …When Democrats controlled both chambers during the 111th Congress, 258 laws were enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009, including President Obama’s health care law.

To be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to reform entitlements, or adopt a flat tax.

And some laws are benign, such as the enactment of Dairy Goat Awareness Week or naming a federal courthouse.

But I’m guessing that the vast majority of substantive laws are bad for freedom and result in less prosperity.

So let’s cross our fingers that future Congresses are even less productive (and therefore less destructive) than the current one.

____________

Here is list from Wikipedia of the recent federal budgets:

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (1)

Give me some brave Republicans conservatives!!!!

November 9, 2012 – 7:52 am

I wish the Republicans would be brave enough to vote against excessive spending in Washington.

Ranting Against Big Government—But Voting for It

Posted by Tad DeHaven

Drudge is currently linking to a Brietbart TV video titled “‘USA! USA!’ Congressman’s Anti-Big Government Rant Gets Standing Ovation on House Floor.” In it, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) unleashes an oratorical blast against the stifling regulatory regime in Washington. It’s good stuff, but, unfortunately, Rep. Kelly’s anti-big government credentials are questionable.

The Pennsylvania freshman Republican is a member of the so-called “Tea Party Class.” His campaign website says the following:

America needs to have a business conversation. Along with many of his colleagues in the 2010 freshman class, Rep. Kelly has played a role in changing the debate from “How much do we grow government” to “How much do we shrink government.” If nothing else is accomplished in the 112th Congress, both sides of the aisle are now acknowledging that we cannot continue to bankrupt the future for our children and grandchildren. Mike has supported, voted for and co-sponsored a number of pieces of legislation that aim to reduce the size and scope of government. As long as he is serving the 3rd Congressional District, Mike will continue to be an unwavering voice for fiscal responsibility in Washington.

I’ve been trying to keep an eye on how the Republican freshmen are voting on bills and amendments to eliminate (or reauthorize) big government programs. On six recent votes, Kelly voted for big government every time:

  • He voted against an amendment that would have terminated the Economic Development Administration.
  • He voted against an amendment that would have defunded the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program, a new corporate welfare program requested by the Obama administration.
  • He voted to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  • He voted against an amendment that would have terminated the Essential Air Service subsidy program.
  • He voted against an amendment that would have shut down the Department of Energy’s Title 17 loan guarantee program—the program that gave birth to Solyndra.
  • He voted against an amendment that would have terminated the Community Development Block Grant program.

So much for voting to “reduce the size and scope of government.”

 
Related posts:
 

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from […]

 

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

Mark Pryor responds to me concerning Debt Ceiling email (Part 1)

November 9, 2012 – 7:50 am

The problem with the debt ceiling is very clear to me. We need to get serious about cutting federal spending. I am so upset about it that I have emailed over 100 emails to Senator Pryor concerning specific spending suggestions.

I get emails from back from Senator Pryor like the one below. This means that he is attempting to let people like me think is he actually taking time to listen to our suggestions. However, when it comes to the budget the majority of Arkansans HAVE MADE IT CLEAR BY THEIR RECENT CONSERVATIVE VOTES THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO VOTE FOR THE TEA PARTY TYPE CANDIDATES!

Now it is time to vote for a “Cap, Cut and Balance” approach but Mark Pryor is not willing to take that step. It appears to me that Senator Pryor does not hear well what the people are saying. It reminds me of the video below:

July 29, 2011 

Dear Mr. Hatcher, 

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to reduce our national debt. I appreciate hearing from you.  

I have heard from thousands of Arkansans regarding the national debt and the negative consequences that carrying such a large financial burden can have on the country. Arkansans believe the Congress should put our fiscal house back in order. I agree.  

As a nation, we have been living beyond our means for a long time. Balancing the budget will require Congress and the President to work together to achieve this goal. While this task will not be easy, I believe we can create a long-term budget plan that significantly reduces the debt while maintaining adequate funding for our nation’s priorities. 

I recently made a speech on the Senate floor describing the importance of addressing the national debt, which can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQfc2DkyqOc&feature=youtu.be. Additionally, I have recorded responses to Arkansans’ letters regarding the national debt and the debt limit on my website at www.pryor.senate.gov.  

Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with better fiscal solutions for the American people. In the coming weeks, I will contact you again to share with you the outcome of our efforts. I value your input, and encourage you to continue to contact my office.
Sincerely,

Mark Pryor
United States Senate

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

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted:

After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined.

We need some national statesmen (and ladies) who are willing to stop running up the nation’s credit card.

Ted DeHaven noted his his article, “Freshman Republicans switch from Tea to Kool-Aid,”  Cato Institute Blog, May 17, 2012:

This week the Club for Growth released a study of votes cast in 2011 by the 87 Republicans elected to the House in November 2010. The Club found that “In many cases, the rhetoric of the so-called “Tea Party” freshmen simply didn’t match their records.” Particularly disconcerting is the fact that so many GOP newcomers cast votes against spending cuts.

The study comes on the heels of three telling votes taken last week in the House that should have been slam-dunks for members who possess the slightest regard for limited government and free markets. Alas, only 26 of the 87 members of the “Tea Party class” voted to defund both the Economic Development Administration and the president’s new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program (see my previous discussion of these votes here) and against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank (see my colleague Sallie James’s excoriation of that vote here).

One of those Tea Party heroes was Congressman Marlin Stutzman of Indiana. Last year I posted this below concerning his conservative views and his willingness to vote against the debt ceiling increase:

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) discussed the upcoming vote to increase the ‘Debt Ceiling’ by $2.4 trillion from $14.29 trillion to $16.7 trillion.  H. R. 1954 the bill to ‘implement the President’s request to increase the statutory limit on public debt’ to cover our $1.6 trillion budget shortfall will be voted on later this evening and is expected to fail with both Democrats and Republicans voting against.  The bill would fulfill the requests of the Democrat leadership to have a vote on a “clean” bill or a bill that raises the debt ceiling without spending cuts or any other mechanism to control deficits.
“Increasing the ‘debt ceiling’ cannot be discussed in a vacuum.” Stutzman stated “I will vote no for increasing the ‘debt limit’ as the out of control spending of Washington must be curtailed before we even discuss an increase.  If Congress cannot come to an agreement on increasing the public debt then Secretary Geithner will have to look into prioritizing our National debt.  Prioritizing the ‘debt’ will allow for Social Security, the Military and Veteran’s Affairs to maintain their programs and not affect those that depend on them.  The President must come to the table with budget reforms; he doesn’t understand the financial situation the Nation is in.  So far only the House has written and passed a budget.”
More information on H.R. 1954 can be found at www.Thomas.gov.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)