Yearly Archives: 2012

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

May 3, 2012 – 7:09 am

Dear Senator Pryor,

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

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

____________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gohmert believes this is a winning issue for Republicans.

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

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

A handout is not what the poor needs

May 3, 2012 – 7:02 am

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

Uploaded by on Jun 29, 2010

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

______________

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

Rachel Sheffield

April 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 69)

May 3, 2012 – 6:59 am

Uploaded by on May 3, 2011

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

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

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

_____________________

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

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

Curtis Dubay

February 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

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

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

May 3, 2012 – 1:42 am

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

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

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

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

David Barton, 05-2008

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

Today we look at John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams 

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Friedman on the FDA

May 3, 2012 – 1:15 am

Milton Friedman – Health Care in a Free Market

Milton is so good at addressing these issues.

It Just Ain’t So | Arthur E. Foulkes

Milton Friedman Is to Blame for Unsafe Food?

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

October 2007 • Volume: 57 • Issue: 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Wants Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2, 2012 – 8:14 am

Will Rogers has a great quote that I love. He noted, “Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago”(Paula McSpadden Love, The Will Rogers Book, (1972) p. 20.)

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 want to stop our path to Greece. Only 66 brave souls voted against the debt ceiling increase deal that President Obama wanted so bad. I have spent a lot of time praising those 66. I wish Boehner was brave enough to propose some deep spending cuts so we can balance the budget.

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

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, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Washington, Aug 1 –

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) released the following statement regarding his vote against the debt limit deal agreed to by President Obama and Congressional leaders.

“At the beginning of the year, Democrats demanded a blank check increase in the debt limit with absolutely no spending cuts attached.  When that didn’t work, they demanded an upfront agreement for huge tax increases on America’s job creators.  Conservatives stood firm, and we succeeded in forcing Washington to begin addressing its spending-driven debt crisis.”

“When looking at the details of this deal, a few concerns in particular rise to the top.  The framework opens the door to dangerous national security cuts and raises the possibility that six Democrats and one misguided Republican could put tax increases on the table.”

“The requirement that Congress vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment is a positive step.  Unless we send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, however, promises to cut spending today can always disappear tomorrow.  It happens year after year, and it will happen again unless Americans remain vigilant.”

“Our AAA credit rating remains at risk because President Obama and his fellow tax-and-spend liberals refused to support the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan that could actually solve our debt problem and prevent a credit downgrade.  Supporters of the Balanced Budget Amendment have come a long way this year, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) 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, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) 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, but […]

Are there brave conservatives out there?

I wish there were more like those 66 brave conservatives that voted against the compromise that kept the government going (see links below). Now it seems that the Republicans could also stop this excessive regulations if they wanted to, but do they have the will power? I wish we had more like those 66!!!! No […]

Obama’s March 16, 2006 speech against raising debt ceiling

Obama’s March 16, 2006 speech against raising the debt ceiling is here: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from […]

Federal government spending money so fast they will pass debt ceiling before election

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling Uploaded by RepCliffStearns on Jun 20, 2011 Rep. Stearns on the House Floor cites Sen. Obama’s opposition in 2006 to increasing the debt ceiling, 6-14-11 ________________________ It has greatly troubled me for sometime that the federal government spends so much over their budget every year. That is […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26) 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 25)

Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23) 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 22)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22) 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, […]

No one wants to cut spending and as a result another credit downgrade coming

The Price of a U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Aug 5, 2011 http://www.downsizinggovernment.org The federal government’s debt may soon be downgraded by major credit rating agencies. What would that mean? Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg __________ Looks like the politicians in Washington better cut spending or another downgrade […]

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, […]

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

Milton Friedman – Solutions to Market Failures

May 2, 2012 – 6:45 am

Below is a very good video along with some commentary that I got off the internet:

One of the most prominent economists of the 20th century was the late Milton Friedman, an ardent free market supporter who remained skeptical of government’s ability to correct market failures through interventionist policies.

I found the talk below interesting. Friedman offers several examples of market failures that have been pointed to as a justification for government intervention, and argues that in fact, government often does not truly know what the right outcome is in most cases. He believes that government failure should be just as much a concern as market failure; and that therefore societal welfare would be best met by finding market-based solutions to the misallocation of resources that sometimes arises under conditions in which externalities exist.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Is government better able to know the “optimal” quantity of output of different goods and services than private individuals are?
  2. Under what conditions would the free market be best able to achieve solutions to market failures such as those described by Friedman?
  3. What do you think should be of greater to concern to society, market failure or government failure?

Milton Friedman – Solutions to Market Failures

Uploaded by on Oct 29, 2010

Dr. Friedman examines various approaches to market failure and illustrates how government cures are often worse than the disease.

_______________

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

Overspending Obama style

May 2, 2012 – 6:43 am

This excessive spending by Washington today is not responsible government in action.

Obama’s Comments: A Gift that Keeps on Giving

Posted by Roger Pilon

Today POLITICO Arena asks:

Does Senator Grassley’s tweet, that the American people “r not stupid as this x prof of con law,” make an important point or was it disrespectful? Is this a sign that Obama’s Supreme Court comments won’t be going away?

There’s enough disrespect to go around – for the president (Grassley), for the Supreme Court (Obama). It’s the larger question about Obama’s comments on the Court and the Constitution that’s more important, because it’s not going away, and for good reason. Look no further than to this morning’s Washington Post, where E.J. Dionne Jr. is falling all over himself in defense of Obama. After the Court’s oral arguments over ObamaCare, it’s finally dawning on modern liberals that their project for ubiquitous government is under serious political and even legal attack, so they’re fighting back.

Like others in the liberal establishment last week, Dionne links Obama’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s attacks on the Court. But he links those in turn to Obama’s ”social Darwinism” attack next day on the Ryan-Romney budget — a budget, Dionne writes, that would cut back “student loans, medical and scientific research grants, Head Start, feeding programs for the poor, and possibly even the weather service.” Indeed, it’s “so far to the right,” Obama said, that it makes the Republicans’ 1994 Contract With America “look like the New Deal.”

What Obama and his liberal apologists fail to accept, of course, is that their welfare-state project is spent, literally. They pose as defenders of welfare programs for the poor and, now, the middle class, while either ignoring the deficits and debt those programs have run up or, at best, arguing that taxing the rich will solve the problem, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Thus the Democratic Senate has failed to pass a budget in over a thousand days, and no one gives the administration’s budget a moment’s thought. Their pose is just that, because unless we come to grips with these systemic problems, there will be no student loans, Head Start, and all the rest, because “entitlements” and service on the debt will consume everything, until they too will go by the way.

Our Constitution for limited government was written to avoid this dilemma. Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” thought they were wiser than the Framers, much like today’s liberals. Grassley’s mistake was in choosing the wrong word. It’s not “stupid,” it’s “irresponsible.” Santa Claus comes only once a year. The rest of the year we have to behave like adults.

I have posted many times about the overspending in Washington. Here are a few of those posts listed below:

Conan hires comics to invent mythical wasteful programs

Sometimes it is tragic that you got to laugh about it. Dear Conan, Reckless Government Spending Is Worse Than You Think Brandon Stewart August 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm Late-night comedian Conan O’Brien’s blog has a new post parodying Washington’s excessive spending. “Team Coco has found out why our government is so broke,” the blog explains, “They’ve […]

Stimulus did not work (Great advice from a letter to the editor series)

I read this letter below from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on August 13,  2011: Time to stop insanity The president has told us for 2 1/2 years that he is focusing “like a laser” on jobs. Well, looks like it’s time to replace this “Jobs Guy” with someone who has actually had some experience running […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 142)

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 […]

Listing of transcripts and videos of “Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave on www.theDailyHatch.org

In the last few years the number of people receiving Food Stamps has skyrocketed. President Obama has not cut any federal welfare programs but has increased them, and he  has used class warfare over and over the last few months and according to him equality at the finish line is the equality that we should […]

Obama’s big government solutions have not worked

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response Jan 25, 2011 (part 1)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 25, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

President Obama’s plan is failing and he is attacking all opposing plans

I really believe that we should balance the budget now!!! I really don’t understand how people can seriously think that bringing in 2.2 trillion while spending almost double that can continue very long without us heading to Greece. President Obama recently was critical of Paul Ryan’s plan and he said some very hateful words like […]

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

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Heritage Foundation Videos and Interviews are displayed on www.thedailyhatch.org

Sen. Mitch McConnell: Americans Don’t Approve of Anything Obama Has Done Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 8, 2011 In an exclusive interview at The Heritage Foundation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sharply criticized President Obama for engaging in class warfare and accused him of shifting the focus away from his own failed policies in […]

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

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

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

Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government

May 2, 2012 – 6:42 am

Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government

Milton Friedman did a great job of explaining things in a simple way.

Capitalism and Freedom(1962)

  • To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them.He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.
    • Introduction
  • The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.
    • Introduction
  • There is enormous inertia—a tyranny of the status quo—in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.
    • Preface (1982 edition), p. ix
  • Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
    History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.

    • Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 10
  • Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
    • Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”
  • The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.
    • Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 15
  • A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
    • Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 15
  • With respect to teachers’ salaries …. Poor teachers are grossly overpaid and good teachers grossly underpaid. Salary schedules tend to be uniform and determined far more by seniority.
    • Ch. 6 “The Role of Government in Education”
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 68)

May 2, 2012 – 6:41 am

Rep Michael Burgess response

Uploaded by on Jan 25, 2012

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

Taxes are going to be higher under this proposal.

Obama’s Budget Badly Undercounts Tax Hikes

By
February 29, 2012

President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal explicitly claims a $1.561 trillion tax hike over 10 years, as reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).[1] This is a vast understatement, because that figure fails to account for all of the President’s tax increases and improperly claims credit for reducing tax receipts from tax cuts that are not new policies.

Numbers Do Not Match

The indication that something is amiss with the $1.561 trillion tax hike figure is that it is substantially smaller than the estimate in the Treasury Department’s “Green Book.” The Green Book provides an in-depth explanation of the President’s numerous tax policy changes in the budget. Treasury releases it separately when OMB releases the budget. The Green Book estimates that the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion.[2] That is $128 billion more than the OMB figure.

The OMB and Treasury estimates should match. The Treasury Department is responsible for estimating the revenue effects of the President’s tax policies for OMB, and OMB uses those estimates in its budget tables.

The reason for the difference is that OMB puts more than $154 billion of tax hikes the President wants outside the tax section of the table, where OMB lists the revenue effect of most of the President’s tax policy changes. This is also where OMB calculates the net revenue effect of the President’s tax hikes and cuts.[3] The Treasury estimate in the Green Book properly accounts for these tax hikes with the other tax changes in the budget.[4]

While OMB does account for these other tax hikes elsewhere in the table, putting them in areas other than the tax section misleads readers to believe that the President’s tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. After all, it is sensible to find the line in the OMB table that states the net effect of the President’s tax policies and assume that it is the total amount.

The biggest missing tax hike from the tax section is the “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,” better known as the bank tax. OMB put this tax in the Treasury Department’s section of the table.[5] This tax hike adds another $61 billion to the President’s tax hike total. Also included in the Treasury Department’s section is a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap. OMB put a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax in a footnote of the Labor Department’s section[6] and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways in the Veterans Affairs’ section (Corps of Engineers).[7] These hidden tax hikes account for the missing $154 billion.

OMB also failed to account for a relatively small amount of tax cuts in its total tax hike figure. Those tax cuts total $26 billion. Subtracting that sum from the $154 billion missing tax hikes figure arrives at the missing $128 billion of net tax hikes OMB misclassified that should be included in President Obama’s total tax hike.

Credit Where Credit Is Not Due

Adding the missing tax hikes that OMB misplaced is necessary, but not sufficient, to arrive at the final tally of President Obama’s tax hikes. Both OMB and Treasury give the President credit for tax cuts that are not new policies and therefore wrongly reduce the amount he plans to increase revenue.

These policies include extending the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the “tax extenders” ($34 billion), and several other tax provisions that have long been part of the tax code ($6 billion).[8] These pre-existing tax cuts that President Obama does not deserve credit for equal $317 billion.

Properly remove that $317 billion of previous tax cuts from the President’s net tax hike as reported by OMB, add the missing $128 billion of tax hikes, and the President actually calls for raising taxes by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. That is 31 percent more than the OMB figure suggests the President wants to raise taxes.

Use the Correct Figure

Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB’s table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President’s budget. Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.

Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation

______________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

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