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’s Free to Choose – Ep.4 (1/7) – From Cradle to Grave
With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse.
The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that Milton Friedman first suggested.
Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income.
Here is a transcript of a portion of the “Free to Choose” program called “From Cradle to Grave” (program #4 in the 10 part series):
Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50′s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4′s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.
The medicine for the sickness of spending is real budget cuts but no one in liberal europe wants to hear that. Sadly we are on the same road in the USA.
I wrote a detailed blog post yesterday, showing that European governments have been very reluctant to restrain the burden of government spending.
Part of the problem is that the debate in Europe is a no-win exercise, pitting proponents of higher taxes (which is largely how Europe’s political elite defines “austerity”) against proponents of higher spending (notwithstanding a long track record of failure, the Keynesians have come out of woodwork and are claiming that bigger government stimulates “growth”).
When it comes to college football stadiums, for some teams, it is simply not fair. Home-field advantage is a big thing in college football, and some teams have it way more than others.
There are 124 FBS college football teams, and when it comes to the stadiums they play in, they are obviously not all created equal.
There is a monumental difference from the top teams on the list to the bottom teams on the list. Either way, here it is: a complete ranking of the college football stadiums 1-124.
_________________
I remember traveling to Fayetteville in 1983 with my girlfriend’s family (later to become my in-laws) to see Arkansas play against Tulsa. Tulsa was coached by John Cooper and Tulsa missed a field goal that would tied the game as time expired. The great Lou Holtz was the coach of the Razorbacks back then. It was the policy of the university to let the fans park on the grass fields near the field.
In 1986 when I was married and my wife was 7 months pregnant the policy of the university had changed and we had to park about a mile away from the stadium. She told me that our unborn child curled up in a ball the whole game because the crowd was cheering so loudly. Below is a picture of the Tulsa stadium.
124. H.A. Chapman Stadium: Tulsa Golden Hurricanes
Starting off the list is the home of the Golden Hurricanes of Tulsa.
Also known as Skelly Field, this establishment has been around for quite some time, dating all the way back to 1930.
It is the smallest stadium in Conference USA with a capacity of 30,000, and there is just nothing special about the area of the surrounding campus or the atmosphere inside the stadium.
123. Kibbie Dome: Idaho Vandals
This is one of the more odd-looking stadiums starting from the outside and going in.
There is only one college football stadium in the country that is smaller than Kibbie Dome with a capacity of 16,000.
The Idaho Vandals play multiple sports here, including basketball, tennis and track, so the arena is not just used for football. One good thing is the fact that it is indoors to help stay away from those harsh Idaho fall months.
The stadium opened in 1971 and looks more like a large barn from the outside.
122. Bobcat Stadium: Texas State Bobcats
The Texas State Bobcats are a new team to the FBS level and clearly have their work cut out for them when it comes to facilities.
This is currently the smallest FBS Stadium, with a capacity of 15,968, but is under construction, which will bring the seating allotment to right at 30,000 in the near future.
Right now, it looks more like a high school stadium with the track around it. It was opened in 1981 and could certainly use some improvements.
121. Legion Field: UAB Blazers
Legion Field is one of the oldest college football stadiums, having been around since 1927.
It is home to the UAB Blazers out of Conference USA, and besides being old, it is relatively large with a seating capacity of 71,594.
A large seating capacity does not necessarily make it a good stadium, though.
At one point, this was the place to be, as it has hosted 53 Iron Bowls. Right now, though, it leaves a lot to be desired.
120. Johnny ‘Red’ Floyd Stadium: Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders
Like many others, this stadium is also relatively old, having opened in 1933.
There is a seating capacity here of 31,000, and like many other smaller FBS schools, this stadium and the surrounding area do not really offer up anything special for visitors.
The atmosphere here is great when the team is winning, a trait that can be applied to a lot of commuter campuses.
119. Sonny Lucick Field at Hughes Stadium: Colorado State Rams
This stadium has nothing that really makes it stand out from the rest of the stadiums in the Mountain West Conference.
It was built in 1968 and has a capacity of 34,400 people.
When the Rams are playing good, they can average at least 25,000 fans here. When this is the case, the atmosphere is not too bad.
118. Apogee Stadium: North Texas Mean Green
The North Texas Mean Green have had some decent football teams over the years, and now they have a brand new stadium to enjoy some success in.
This stadium is one of the newer in college football, having just opened in 2011.
It has a seating capacity of 30,850 and has some very unique aspects for a small college stadium.
117. Yager Stadium: Miami (OH) Redhawks
Miami (OH) has produced a lot of big-name coaches over the years. Names like Ara Parseghian and Bo Schembechler, just to name a few.
Yager Stadium is relatively new, having been built in 1983 with a seating capacity of 24,286. Like many other stadiums on the list, it looks more like a large high school stadium.
Oxford is a college town with a lot to offer, but has never been a place that has shown a great deal of support for their sports teams.
I used to think that we must double the defense budget when we were in the cold war, but I did wonder why we were not letting Germany and Japan (who are two of our biggest trade partners) build up their defenses. I was given the old tired answer that we could not trust them because of what happened in World War II. However, there is no reason that should be a factor now.
SOMETIMES THE LIBERALS ARE RIGHT. On the Arkansas Times Blog the person going by the name “Couldn’t be better” rightly noted, “…we spend more on Defense than the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD combined…” I looked it up and in fact we spend 49% of the entire money spent in the whole world on defense.
This article appeared in CNN.com on February 3, 2012.
For some time now, Republican hawks like Sen. John McCain and Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon have been saying that our military budget is inadequate for the threats we face. They like to gripe that President Barack Obama is orchestrating the decline of American power.
Some of this is pure partisanship. Republicans criticize Democrats just as Democrats criticized President George W. Bush. The hawks, though, have a special devotion to the military budget. In their view, some military spending is good; more is even better. But if overspending on the military and promoting the United States as global policeman are benchmarks of approval, they should have little to complain about with our current president.
Contrary to his rhetoric of change, the president sounded like a neoconservative when he declared during his recent State of the Union address that the United States was, and would remain, the world’s “indispensable nation.” Obama’s proposed Pentagon budget, released last week, affirmed his intention to retain most of the U.S. military’s current missions, even when they aren’t needed to safeguard the United States’ vital security interests.
Our fiscal crisis has created an opportunity to revisit our commitments abroad.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s latest strategy document was carefully designed to convince allies and adversaries alike that the United States can continue to prosecute multiple armed conflicts in far-flung corners of the globe. Taken together, Obama’s strategy document, budget and State of the Union remarks articulate a coherent philosophy on military spending and global engagement that ought to hold a lot of appeal for the neoconservatives in the GOP.
But partisan politics aside, what our foreign policy leaders have consistently ignored is an argument that should have strong sway at a time of economic uncertainty: This country’s tax dollars can be better spent than on defending wealthy allies who are more than capable of protecting themselves.
The administration plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from Europe, but as many as 70,000 are likely to remain. Meanwhile, the number of troops in Asia will be increased. These troops serve to reassure our allies of our commitment to defend them. It is working as designed: Other countries do not spend enough to satisfy their defense needs.
The end result is that Americans pay more. The Obama administration’s budget will cost every American nearly $2,000 next year. The figure rises by hundreds of dollars when one accounts for homeland security, payments to veterans, and the few billion dollars tucked away in the Department of Energy for the nation’s bloated nuclear arsenal. All told, every American will likely shell out more than $2,700 on spending classified as national defense. That is at least 2½ times what the British spend, five times more than what the Germans spend, and six times what the Japanese spend.
It is hard to see how that is good news for Americans struggling to make ends meet. Obama’s magnanimity is especially ironic given his emphasis on “fairness” and “shared sacrifice.” His rhetoric apparently does not apply to people living outside the United States. American troops will continue to be tasked with policing the world, and American taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for it.
The administration has proposed to restrain the growth of military spending. But total U.S. military spending will remain well above pre-9/11 levels. The Obama administration is requesting $525 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget in 2013, plus another $88.4 billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan. To put this in perspective, that is more than the annual average during Ronald Reagan’s time in office (about $526 billion in today’s dollars). One seldom hears GOP hawks speak of Reagan as a misguided dove who left the country vulnerable to attack.
Focusing only on budget numbers, however, misses the big picture. Instead, we must focus on what we will spend and why. The answer is clear: Our military budget is large by historical standards because Washington is unwilling to revisit the premise that Americans are responsible for everything that happens in the world, even things that have no connection to American security or prosperity.
Our fiscal crisis has created an opportunity to revisit our commitments abroad. We should focus American power on our core interests, and call on other countries to take responsibility for their own defense.
Intuitively, that exercise should satisfy both liberal demands that “everyone pay their fair share” and conservative demands that our government “live within its means.” But given the rhetoric we have heard so far, it is doubtful that this election cycle will produce a leader who will seriously contemplate how we can most prudently provide for our common defense.
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 emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
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. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billionin potential spending cuts.
Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 millionannually.
Washington will spend $2.6 milliontraining Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
Stimulus dollarshave been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.
Sometimes after I listen to your speeches I get the impression that you don’t know what the Founding Fathers had in mind concerning the term “equality.” (Many of the Founding Fathers did favor slavery, but the majority did not and I am speaking of those in the majority.)
Check out this excellent article below on equality from 3-4-12 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (paywall):
LITTLE ROCK — A central problem in the “fairness” debate stems from the refusal (perhaps inability?) of those propelling it to define what the word means.
To say that the current level of income inequality is “unfair” only makes sense, for instance, if you have in mind a reasonable conception of what a fair distribution of income would look like. To complain that income inequality has grown compared to 30 years ago only makes sense if we begin with the assumption that income 30 years ago was more “fairly” distributed.
What the proponents of “fairness” are really arguing, then, is that fairness must be defined in terms of degree of equality.
Why this should be so is never explained, as there is no intrinsic reason for assuming that those who have less should have more or that those who have more should have less.
In the classrooms in which I spend a fair amount of time, there is, along these lines, no reason to believe that those who receive poor grades have been treated less “fairly” than those who receive good ones, nor any assumption that those grades should be changed or determined differently in order to make them more equal. Many may resist the conclusion, but equality is not equivalent to, or even necessarily part of, concepts like justice or “fairness.”
Using equality as a barometer of societal fairness also ignores the fact that the term has different meanings for different people.
The original understanding of equality, upon which the American founding was based, meant only “equal protection” under the law. In such a conception there was no pretense that everyone was equal in ability or character, only that everyone would have the same basic (inalienable) rights. The “natural inequalities” flowing from our “different and unequal faculties for acquiring property” would be accepted and it was considered inevitable as well as just (“fair”) that some would get more than others.
Thus, in the “equal protection” framework there was acceptance of considerable income inequality, but also efforts to prevent such inequality from undermining equality of rights and status before the law (what the Founders called “unnatural inequality”).
At the opposite extreme is the form of equality known as “equality of condition,” the central goal of the political left since at least Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Based on the idea that the only “fair” society is one in which everyone has roughly the same amount of wealth, this version of equality necessarily allocates great power to the state in order to redistribute resources.
Although few liberals today would openly embrace this particular version of equality (in part because of its less than-admirable historical progeny), its influence can still be found in the way the left accepts redistribution of wealth (for the sake of “fairness”) as a primary function of government, considers whatever level of income inequality that exists at any given time to be unacceptable, and proves eager to grant government ever-greater power to remake society in a more egalitarian direction.
If we leave things at this point, it is relatively easy to understand from where both the right (equal protection) and left (equality of outcome) come at the equality issue. Problems arise, however, when we introduce that third, murkier and inherently problematic version called “equality of opportunity.”
Equality of opportunity is the most dangerous form of equality because it is the version that sounds most appealing in theory but is the most difficult to establish in practice. We can all agree that equal protection of the law is a worthy goal, even if it doesn’t go far enough to satisfy the left.
We can also debate in fairly straightforward manner whether we want to pursue equality of outcome and can even bring into that debate the results (invariably dismal) of previous efforts in different parts of the world to establish it.
But when we move onto the ambiguous terrain of equality of opportunity, all is lost, precisely because we don’t know what kinds of public polices it requires or where on the continuum between equal protection and equal outcomes to place it.
How far, for example, beyond equal protection does it require us to go in terms of granting additional powers to the state to take from some and give to others? And does its acceptance inexorably if unwittingly take us toward equal outcomes on the sly, through the back door?
In a free society where income is inevitably widely distributed, equal opportunity will never exist because the children of the rich will always have many more advantages then the children of the poor. A society truly dedicated to realizing equality of opportunity would consequently have to wage a determined war against those “natural inequalities” that flow from freedom itself, and which are transmitted in the form of better or worse prospects in life from generation to generation.
________
Milton Friedman discusses the inheritance of talent on “Free to Choose”
“The inheritance of talent is no different (from an ethical point of view) from the inheritance of other forms of property– of bonds, of stocks, of houses, or of factories. Yet many people resent the one, but not the other.”
From “Free to Choose” (1980), Part V: “Created Equal.”
________________
The crucial realization in all this is that life isn’t fair. The central threat to freedom comes from those who think they can use politics to make it so.
–
———◊-
———
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Feb 12, 2010 Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular. http://www.LibertyPen.com _______________________________ Many times in the past our government has tried to even the playing field but the rich and poor will always be with us […]
I have loved reading Thomas Sowell’s articles for many years. I remember when Milton Friedman brought him into the discussion in his film series “Free to Choose.” I have put some links below to some of those episodes. Many papers across the country carried this story below from Sowell. Basically he points out in the […]
Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present. This is a seven part series. Created Equal [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]
Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals like Michael Cook just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has […]
Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present. This is a seven part series. Created Equal [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]
Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present. This is a seven part series. Created Equal [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]
Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]
Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present. This is a seven part series. Created Equal [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose […]
What does created equal mean according to Milton Friedman? In his article “A test for first among equals,” Arkansas News Bureau, September 30, 2011, Matthew Pate asserted: Among the most familiar passages in the Declaration of Independence is the section reading, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that […]
There is some uncertainty whether Dick Burnett himself wrote the song. One claim is that it was sung by the Mackin clan in 1888 in Ireland and that Cameron O’Mackin emigrated to Tennessee, brought the song with him, and performed it. In an interview he gave toward the end of his life, Burnett himself indicated that he could not remember:
Charles Wolfe: “What about this “Farewell Song” – ‘I am a man of constant sorrow’ – did you write it?”
Richard Burnett: “No, I think I got the ballad from somebody – I dunno. It may be my song…”[1]
If Burnett wrote the song, the date of its composition, or at least of the editing of certain lyrics by Burnett, can be fixed at about 1913. Since it is known that Burnett was born in 1883, married in 1905, and blinded in 1907, the dating of two of these texts can be made on the basis of internal evidence. The second stanza of “Farewell Song” mentions that the singer has been blind six years, which put the date at 1913. According to the Country Music Annual, Burnett “probably tailored a pre-existing song to fit his blindness” and may have adapted a hymn. Charles Wolfe argues that “Burnett probably based his melody on an old Baptisthymn called “Wandering Boy”.[2]
During 1918, Cecil Sharp collected the song and published it as “In Old Virginny” (Sharp II, 233).
Sarah Ogan Gunning’s re-writing of the traditional “Man” into a more personal “Girl” took place about 1936 in New York, where her first husband, Andrew Ogan, was fatally ill. The text was descriptive of loneliness away from home and anticipated her bereavement; the melody she remembered from a 78 rpm hillbilly record (Emry Arthur, probably Vocalion Vo 5208, 1928) she had heard some years before in the mountains.
“Man of Constant Sorrow” is probably two or three hundred years old. But the first time I heard it when I was y’know, like a small boy, my daddy – my father – he had some of the words to it, and I heard him sing it, and we – my brother and me – we put a few more words to it, and brought it back in existence. I guess if it hadn’t been for that it’d have been gone forever. I’m proud to be the one that brought that song back, because I think it’s wonderful.”
Stanley’s autobiography is titled Man of Constant Sorrow.[4]
The embedded lists in this article may contain items that are not encyclopedic. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article. (January 2011)
1928 – The song was recorded in 1928 by Emry Arthur.
1951 – It was popularized by the Stanley Brothers, on Columbia 20816, Recorded: Nov. 3, 1950, Released: May 1951.
1959 – The Stanley Brothers re-recorded it on King Records 45-5269, Recorded: Sep. 15, 1959, Released: Oct. 1959. This version is probably the first with a very similar vocal arrangement as the one used in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou?, where it is performed by the fictitious group Soggy Bottom Boys (recorded by Dan Tyminski, Harley Allen, and Pat Enright).
1960 – A version of the song, “Girl of Constant Sorrow”, is included on the remastered version of the album Joan Baez, first released in 1960 on the Vanguard label.[5]
1961 – Recorded by Roscoe Holcomb (Daisy Kentucky) in 1961–1962 with an arrangement more like Dylan’s than that of the Stanleys.(Music of Roscoe Holcomb and Wade Ward,Smithsonian Folkways, Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage.)
1970 – It was also recorded by Ginger Baker’s Air Force on their eponymous debut album in 1970, sung by Air Force guitarist and vocalist (and former Moody Blues, future Wings member) Denny Laine. The band used the same melody, and for the most part the same lyrics (but substituted ‘Birmingham’ for ‘Colorado’). The arrangement differed, though, as this was a loosely improvised live version, with violin and saxophones, that stays very much in the major scales of A, D and E, unlike its future bluesier brethren. It was the only band single; it charted #36 on the U.S. country charts and #86 in UK.
1972 – Some of the lyrics were used verbatim in the Rolling Stones song “Let It Loose” from the 1972 LP Exile on Main St.
1993 – “Man of Constant Sorrow” was one of many songs recorded by Jerry Garcia, David Grisman, and Tony Rice one weekend in February 1993. Jerry’s taped copy of the session was later stolen by his pizza delivery man, eventually became an underground classic, and finally edited and released in 2000 as The Pizza Tapes.[citation needed] Jerry Garcia also sang an a cappella version on June 11, 1962, at the Jewish Community Center in San Carlos, California, with the Sleepy Hollow Hog Stompers.[citation needed] Though unreleased, it has been widely circulated among traders at least since the 1980s.[citation needed]
2000 – Jackson Browne and Irish accordionist Sharon Shannon recorded their version of the song in 2000. It also appeared in Shannon’s album The Diamond Mountain Sessions.
2000 – The song appears in the 2000 film O Brother, Where Art Thou?, under the title “I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow.” Performed by the fictitious Soggy Bottom Boys in the movie, it was recorded by Dan Tyminski, Harley Allen, and Pat Enright. It was a hit in the movie for the Soggy Bottom Boys and later became a hit single in real life. It received a CMA for “Single of the Year” and a Grammy for “Best Country Collaboration with Vocals” and it peaked at #35 on Billboard’s Hot Country Songs chart. Dan Tyminski performed this song at the Crossroads Guitar Festival with Ron Block and live with Alison Krauss. The version used in the film is closest in lyrics and singing style to Ralph Stanley’s.
2000– The folk group Donna the Buffalo did a reggae-influenced cover on their album Positive Friction.
2001 – A version entitled “Soul of Constant Sorrow” appears on the 2001 album Mountain Soul by country singer Patty Loveless.
2003 – In 2003, musicians Skeewiff remixed “Man of Constant Sorrow.” The song was so popular in Australia that it featured at #96 in the Triple J’s hottest 100 songs of 2003. That same year, the O Brother Where Art Thou? version of the song ranked #20 in CMT’s 100 Greatest Songs in Country Music.
2012 – The hard-rock band Charm City Devils released a video of their cover of the song on their YouTube channel.[7] The lyric video video was a montage of images and footage from old black and white movies over which were superimposed the song’s lyrics in an ornate but damaged font consistent with the band’s branding.
2012 – The poet and rapper George Watsky released a cover/remix of the song on his YouTube channel.[8] The video shows similar themes to the film O Brother, Where Art Thou?. This version of the song adds hip-hop elements (such as Watsky’s rapping for the verse).
4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton
Evangelical leader Ken Ham rightly has noted, “Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God.” I strongly agree with this statement by Ham.
Dr. Michael Davis of California has asserted that he has no doubts that our President is a professing Christian, but his policies are those of a secular humanist. I share these same views. However, our founding fathers were anything but secular humanists in their views. John Adams actually wrote in a letter, “There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost.”
In June of 2011 David Barton of Wallbuilders wrote the article, “John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians?Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness,” and I wanted to share portions of that article with you.
At WallBuilders, we are truly blessed by God, owning tens of thousands of original documents from the American Founding – documents clearly demonstrating the Christian and Biblical foundations both of America and of so many of her Founding Fathers and early statesmen. We frequently postoriginal documents on our website so that others may enjoy them and learn more about many important aspects of America’s rich moral, religious, and constitutional heritage that are widely unknown or misportrayed today.
_______________________________
Period I includes the three centuries of Christianity immediately following the life of Christ. According to Wise, this was “the most refined and purest time, both as to faith and manners, that the Christian church has been honored with.” 15 Period I is the “Period of Purity,” and Jesus’ followers throughout that time largely did just what He had taught them to do.
Period II spans the next twelve centuries, and according to Wise, it was a period that “openly proclaimed itself to the scandal of the Christian religion.”16 The State took control of the Church, with the State decreeing Christianity to be the official religion of the State and all other religions illegal. 17 This was a time of “the secularization of the Church and the depravation of Christianity” 18 – a time when the State seized and corrupted the Church and its doctrines, wrongly asserting “that one of the chief duties of an imperial ruler was to place his sword at the service of the Church and orthodoxy.” 19 Christianity became coercive through brutal civil laws attempting to enforce theological orthodoxy.
This age was characterized by autocratic leaders in both State and Church, with monarchies and theocracies (usually oppressive ones) as the primary forms of governance. The Founders frequently described Period II as a time of “kingcraft” and “priestcraft” – a time when kings and priests joined together against the people, using selfish ambition to gain personal wealth and power. 20
Period II is called the “Period of Apostasy” or “Period of Corruption,” and during this time, the Church was no longer a collection of individuals joined together in a voluntary association; instead it became a civil hierarchy overseeing a massive organization and numerous facilities. The individual follower of Christ was no longer of consequence; the common man was forbidden access to the Scriptures and education; tyrannical leaders became the pinnacle of consideration. The emphasis shifted from the personal to the structural, from the individual to the institutional – an anti-Biblical paradigm that prevailed for the next twelve centuries. Nearly all the negative incidents in world history associated with Christianity (e.g., the Inquisition, wholesale murder of Jews, tortures, etc.) are almost exclusively from this period of Christian corruption.
Period III, according to Wise, is that which “began a glorious reformation.” Wise explains: “Many famous persons, memorable in ecclesiastical history, being moved by the Spirit of God and according to Holy Writ, led the way in the face of all danger . . . for the good of Christendom.” 21 Early seeds of this change began with the efforts of numerous Christian leaders, including John Wycliffe (1320-1384), called the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” Nearly two dozen other Christian leaders also worked to spread Bible teachings across their respective countries, including Englishmen such as Thomas Cranmer, William Tyndale, John Rogers, and Miles Coverdale; Czechs such as John Huss and Jerome of Prague; Germans Martin Luther, Thomas Münzer, Andreas Carlstadt, and Kaspar von Schwenkfeld; Swiss Ulrich Zwingli;Frenchmen William Farel and John Calvin; Scotsmen John Knox and George Wishart; Dutchmen Jacobus Arminius, Desiderius Erasmus, and Menno Simons; and others.
This third era, called the “Period of Reformation,” emphasized a return to the Bible as the guidebook for all aspects of life and living. It therefore rekindled many of Christianity’s original teachings, including the Priesthood of the Believer (emphasizing that the individual had direct access to God without need of assistance from any official in Church or State) and Justification by Faith (emphasizing the importance of personal faith and an individual’s personal relationship with the Savior). The renewed Period III Biblical emphasis on the individual altered the way that both Church and State were viewed, thus resulting in new demands and expectations being placed upon each. Self-government and freedom of conscience were advocated for both institutions.
But such Bible teachings were not embraced by all, for they threatened the previously uncontested power of tyrants. Consequently, ruthless leaders in both State and Church initiated bloody purges, utilizing the most cruel tortures and barbaric persecutions to suppress the followers of the renewed Biblical teachings. For example, French leaders conducted the famous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of September 17, 1585, eventually killing 110,000 French Reformation followers (i.e., Huguenots). Some 400,000 others fled France to avoid death and persecution, with many coming to America, especially South Carolina and New York.
Similarly, English leaders such as King Henry VIII attempted to suppress the Reformation’s individualistic teachings by public executions and burnings at the stake; and Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth I, and subsequent monarchs continued those efforts. In fact, King James I even concocted two revolutionary new government-church “doctrines” to help him suppress the growing influence of Reformation teachings in England: the Divine Right of Kings, and Complete Submission and Non-Resistance to Authority.
Not surprisingly, Reformation followers (often known as “Dissenters” for opposing, or dissenting against, the autocratic and tyrannical practices of both State and Church) openly opposed James’ “irrational and unscriptural doctrines,” 22 thus prompting him to level additional brutal persecutions against them, including mutilation, hanging, and disemboweling. The Pilgrims came to Massachusetts in 1620 to escape the hounding persecution of King James, and a decade later, 20,000 Puritans also fled England after many received life sentences (or had their noses slit, ears cut off, or a brand placed on their foreheads) for adhering to Reformation teachings.
Despite the brutal worldwide persecution, the Reformation eventually prevailed, resulting in massive changes in both State and Church, finally bringing to an end the corrupt practices of Period II Christianity. The impact of Reformation Christianity upon nations during this period was almost exclusively positive, especially in America, where Reformation teachings took root and grew more quickly than in the rest of the world, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the apostasy of the previous twelve centuries.
American Founding Fathers and leaders (including John Adams) made a clear distinction between America’s Period III Christianity and Europe’s Period II Christianity. For example, Noah Webster emphatically declared:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion, but abuses and corruptions of it. 23
______________________________________-
5 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton
15. John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New-England Churches (Boston: John Boyles, 1772), p. 3. (Return)
16. John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New-England Churches (Boston: John Boyles, 1772), p. 5. (Return)
18. Samuel Smith Harris, The Relation of Christianity to Civil Society (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1883), p. 62. (Return)
19. Joseph Blötzer, transcribed by Matt Dean. “Inquisition” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York (at:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm). (Return)
20. Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New Haven, 1828), s.v., “kingcraft” and “priestcraft.” (Return)
What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship–and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.
Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.
Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.
The Daily Hatch 