Yearly Archives: 2012

Discussion on Equality from Milton Friedman and Bradley Gitz

March 4, 2012 – 5:42 pm

Milton Friedman – Redistribution of Wealth

Uploaded by on Feb 12, 2010

Milton Friedman clears up misconceptions about wealth redistribution, in general, and inheritance tax, in particular. http://www.LibertyPen.com

__________________

Check out this excellent article below on equality from today’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (paywall):

What is equality?

By Bradley Gitz

This article was published today at 3:00 a.m

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”

Uploaded by on Nov 1, 2009

“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.

Related posts:

Case Study on Chelsea Clinton:Can equality of results be acheived best by punishing those who were born rich?

  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 […]

Thomas Sowell:Romney not conservative enough

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 […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 7 of transcript and video)

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 […]

Liberals’ solution for the poor is more welfare, but that will not work

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 […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 6 of transcript and video)

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 […]

“Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 5 of transcript and video)

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 […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

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 […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 4 of transcript and video)

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?

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 […]

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

“Sproul Sunday” RC Sproul: Four Steps Backwards – Defending Your Faith Part 4

March 4, 2012 – 12:48 am

I got this off the internet and really got a lot out of it.

Uploaded by on Jan 6, 2012

*I do not own this presentation. Used only for education purposes
All rights to Ligonier Ministries. (C) Ligonier Ministries
See the following links to purchase a High Quality Version of the presentation. Please support the ministry!
http://www.ligonier.org/store/defending-your-faith-dvd/
http://www.ligonier.org/store/defending-your-faith-paperback/

MESSAGE INTRODUCTION
Epistemology is the study of how people know what they know. There have been many approaches to this, and some utterly fail to give any certitude to us in the areas of faith.
Why do some theories of knowledge fail and others succeed? And why is this important to Christianity? This study begins to answer that question by establishing four nonnegotiable presuppositions about knowledge.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To value the science of epistemology.
2. To become familiar with the terms surrounding elementary epistemology.
3. To apply the four basic principles of knowledge to our own ideas and the ideas presented to us by the world.

QUOTATIONS AND THOUGHTS
Argument: An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion.
The latter is also an idea that is either true or false.

LECTURE OUTLINE
I. What is epistemology?

a. How do we know what we know? How can we verify or falsify claims of truth?
b. Do we know only through senses or mind? Or formal proofs, such as mathematics?
c. As this relates to apologetics, it raises the question of what the “real” way is to prove the existence of God, the way that carries the most certitude.

II. Epistemology and Apologetics

a. How do the opponents of theism establish their negative case against the Christian faith? Almost all attack four foundational principles of knowing:-
i. Law of Non-Contradiction
ii. Law of Causality
iii. Basic Reliability of Sense Perception
iv. Analogical Use of Language
b) Certain presuppositions or assumptions must be analyzed concerning these four ideas. We do this by asking:-
i. What premises are asserted by opponents?
ii. What premises are assumed by Scripture?
iii. If these four concepts are negotiable, then not only theology but all sciences are rendered moot, or, at best, unreliable.

III. Conclusion: There is an analogy between Creator and creature that makes the epistemological assumptions of God our own.

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

Heritage Foundation and the Blunt Amendment

March 3, 2012 – 10:35 am

Sandra Fluke and the Blunt Amendment have been getting a lot of attention lately and Max Brantley has jumped on this too.

Mike Brownfield

March 1, 2012 at 8:51 am

Since 1791, when the Bill of Rights was formally adopted, America has enjoyed the legal protection of religious freedom, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Today, 221 years later, centuries of progress in the protection of religious and other liberties is at risk of being rolled back in one fell swoop. The culprit: Obamacare.

As we all know, President Obama’s health care law will mandate that religious hospitals, charities, and schools abandon the tenets of their faiths and provide their employees insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This anti-conscience mandate is but the latest assault on liberty Obamacare has ushered in. Its shock waves are reverberating across the country, waking Americans to the fact that our first freedom — religious liberty — will be the first to fall now that the federal government has unfettered control over the country’s health care system.

Some in Congress are taking action to combat Obamacare’s onslaught. Today, the Senate will consider an amendment introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) and co-sponsored by Marco Rubio (R-Florida) that would override Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate, allowing religious institutions to keep their faith and provide health care coverage for their employees. So important is this amendment that The Heritage Foundation’s sister organization, Heritage Action for America, has decided to “key vote” the measure, meaning that it has identified the vote as a seminal one.

The importance of this moment has, of course, been lost on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who derided the effort to protect the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion. Yesterday he said, “It’s hard to understand why my Republican colleagues think this topic deserves to be debated in the first place.” Meanwhile, the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Al Franken (D-MN) have attempted to paint the Blunt Amendment as an attack on women and women’s health, willfully ignoring the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans to practice religion without interference from the state — a right so fundamental to human nature that the Founding Fathers put it in the First Amendment.

Liberals in the House have, too, tried to distort the issue and recast it as a question of women’s health, not religious liberty. This week, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee welcomed Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke to share her story of woe, telling Congress that her peers are going broke buying birth control – despite managing to come up with $46,000 a year for tuition at one of the pre-eminent law schools in the country.

Let’s make this clear one more time: The issue isn’t about birth control — it’s about the federal government’s power to force a religious institution like Georgetown University to bend to its will and take actions that are fundamentally at odds with its core values. Religious groups are faced with an untenable choice: violate conscience or drop coverage and face penalties for doing so. That’s why so many Americans — men and women alike — are speaking out against the anti-conscience mandate and its fine on faith.

On Monday at The Heritage Foundation, a panel of women of diverse backgrounds gathered to voice their opposition to the Administration’s actions. One of those women, Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, “We have a Constitution that protects the religious freedom of these organizations. It protects the religious freedom of the women and the men in these organizations, and they’re just asking that they be able to continue enjoying that religious freedom. This mandate hurts religious organizations. It hurts the people they serve. It’s unconstitutional.”

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee also heard testimony on the impact of the mandate, with attorney Becket attorney, Asma Uddin, explaining:

As a Muslim-American woman and an academic, I have spent my career fighting for women’s and minorities’ rights, and the fact that I must be here today to explain why our constitutional rights exist is extremely offensive to me personally. . . Women, too, seek the freedom to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Religious freedom is a right enjoyed by everyone, and it is just as much in women’s interest to protect that right as it is in men’s.

Beyond religious freedom, Obamacare lands another unconstitutional blow against liberty in America with its unconstitutional individual mandate to buy health insurance. A judgment on that awaits the action of the Supreme Court. Together, the two dictates — and the others to follow under Obamacare — should be a sign to Americans that the federal government is reaching an event horizon — a point of no return — beyond which individuals will be forever subsumed to the will of the state. Once this door is knocked down, the rights the Constitution protects will be stamped with an asterisk that disclaims, “subject to the will of the federal government.” This is where Obamacare has brought our country. Today, Congress should take action to protect the very first of those Constitutional protections, and then it should get to work in repealing Obamacare.

Click here to watch our new video, Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty, to learn more about this issue.

Quick Hits:

  • Two U.S. soldiers were shot dead in Afghanistan at the hands of three assailants, two of whom were believed to be Afghan soldiers. Six Americans have been killed since the burning of Korans at a U.S. base.
  • Democrat lobbyists are warning their corporate clients that contributions to Republican challengers could mean not-so-nice consequences from the powers that be in Congress, according to a Politico report.
  • Britain has closed its embassy in Damascus, Syria, as the Assad government continues its assault on opposition groups. The U.N. Human Rights Council voted to condemn Syria’s actions.
  • Bank of America is considering imposing monthly fees on customers unless they agree to bank online, buy more products, or maintain certain balances. Last fall, the bank ditched plans to impose a $5 debit card fee in order to recoup costs from the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill.
  • What is the future of warfare in our socially networked world? Heritage’s James Carafano examines the effects of digital communications on national security and diplomacy in a special event tomorrow from 12 to 1 PM ET. Click here to watch online.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Tributes to Andrew Breitbart from Heritage Foundation Scholars (Part 1)

March 3, 2012 – 10:14 am

These comments below were taken from the following article:

Todd Thurman

March 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

As we mourn the sudden passing of Andrew Breitbart we wanted to take time to reflect our thoughts and memories of him. Heritage’s Ed Feulner and Rob Bluey shared their thoughts and below are the memories of some Heritage staff members who had the opportunity to work with him to advance the conservative movement.

Ed Meese:  The death of Andrew Breitbart marks a great loss to the nation and particularly the Conservative movement. He was a bright star and leader in communicating a critical message concerning the future of the country. We will miss him but we are grateful for all he accomplished in his shortened life.

Mike Gonzalez: To me one of the most powerful things Andrew did—and the reason he got under the skin of liberals so—was to invade the left’s space. Until he arrived, progressives had thought investigative journalism was their domain and social media their play thing. Andrew turned their world upside down, helping to bring down ACORN and other sacred cows of the left.  He was also an intellectual prober—as when he rightly shined the spotlight on the Frankfurt school of Marxist academics who came here in mid-century with the express purpose of corrupting America from within. I had the honor of reviewing the book in which he exposed them, and hear him tell me about it months before, while he was conducting the research.  And Andrew fought his crusades without forgetting who mattered most, his wife and his four children. He died just after putting his children to bed. His death saddens me and many others, but also fills me with conviction. His friend Greg Gutfeld best expressed it this morning when he said, “He leaves a powerful legacy. He’s gonna be a legend.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart

Uploaded by on Mar 1, 2012

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the life and legacy of his friend, conservative writer and American patriot, Andrew Breitbart.

“Thank you, dear God, for sharing this extraordinary gift that was Andrew Breitbart with us. We did not get to keep our gift nearly as long as we wanted, but we are so grateful for such a marvelous gift.”

____________________

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

“Soccer Saturday” USA beats Italy for first time in soccer

March 3, 2012 – 9:30 am

Uploaded by on Feb 29, 2012

The U.S. Men’s National Team defeated Italy for the first time on Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012 in Genoa. Clint Dempsey’s goal gave the USA the lead and a resilient team defensive performance kept the Italian’s off the scoresheet for a historic win.

__________________________

Related posts:

Thierry Henry Part 1 “Soccer Saturday”

Uploaded by thefacup on Jan 9, 2012 Arsenal 1-0 Leeds United The FA Cup with Budweiser Third Round Proper 7.45pm, Monday 9 January 2012 Emirates Stadium, Arsenal FC French legend Henry only joined the Gunners on loan from US outfit New York Red Bulls late last week and had to be content with a place […]

Lionel Messi hat trick makes commentator shriek like he’s been tased (Soccer Saturday)

      Lionel Messi hat trick makes commentator shriek like he’s been tased Share3 Email Lionel Messi momentarily overtook Cristiano Ronaldo as the top scorer in La Liga this season with a hat trick against Malaga on Sunday. Each of his goals was tremendous (the first was a header from considerable distance for someone […]

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 4

  Born: February 16, 1959 Wiesbaden, Germany American tennis player and television commentator John McEnroe was one of the most successful and high-profile players in the history of tennis. Throughout his career, McEnroe won seventeen Grand Slam titles, seventy-seven career single titles, and seventy-seven doubles titles. Childhood on the court John Patrick McEnroe Jr. was […]

Soccer Saturday: Highlights of USA v Brazil 2011 World Cup

Soccer Saturday: Highlights of USA v Brazil 2011 World Cup Womens World Cup 2011 + USA vs Brazil – Megan Rapinoe to Abby Wambach 2:2 goal in the 122′ USA VS Brazil 2011 Womens World Cup Highlights Hope Solo & Abby Wambach – U.S. Soccer Team (FIFA) *Interview (July19/11)

Violence at Egypt Soccer Game (Soccer Saturday)

Egypt Football Violence – It is the biggest disaster in Egypt’s football I remember in the early 1970′s my grandfather telling me about a trip he made to Brazil where he went to a soccer game that had over 100,000 people and there was a mote around the field to keep the players from the […]

Nadal falls just short again

Nadal did very good the whole match by taking Novak to the 5th set. He had him beat when he was up 5-4 in the final set but then Novak began to play like he did at last years US OPEN. It got down to who had more left in them and it turned out […]

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time?

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time? Here is an article by Gianni Truvianni  discussing Pele: Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were […]

The best soccer goal of the year in 2011? “Soccer Saturday”

Yahoo Sports reported: The rivalry between the Seattle Sounders and the Vancouver Whitecaps goes back to their days in the old NASL in the 1970s, but the final 10 minutes of their first MLS match against each other on Saturday night might have been the best yet. The Sounders’ Mauro Rosales pulled the score even […]

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time?

“Soccer Saturday” Pele the greatest player of all time? Here is an article by Gianni Truvianni  discussing Pele: Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were […]

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 24 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

March 3, 2012 – 1:34 am

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

Uploaded by  on Jan 25, 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

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 am an avid reader of the National Review and I remember watching those famous debates at Harvard between John Kenneth Galbraith and William Buckley. You probably were at some of those debates. Below is a portion of an article that talks about your recent State of the Union address:

JAMES C. CAPRETTA
Let’s hope Republicans everywhere took the time to listen to Governor Mitch Daniels’ Republican rebuttal to the president’s state of the union address.

It was a masterpiece. Concise, direct, optimistic, and tough. It framed the issues facing this country exactly as they need to be framed. He pulled no punches, going directly at the president for his failures on promoting growth and for exacerbating rather than solving the nation’s mounting debt crisis. And, unlike other Republicans, he forcefully articulated why a strategy of “taxing the rich” within the current tax code is a dead-end of slower growth and fewer jobs.

By contrast, President Obama’s speech was an exercise in misdirection, intended to create the impression that he has a plan for growth and solvency, when in fact the policies he trumpeted in earlier years have either done little to solve the problems or made them demonstrably worse.

As Governor Daniels said, this year is a crucial one for the nation. While he won’t be at the top of the national ticket, he can still make very valuable contributions to the effort, as he did tonight by giving us the kind of language that can help win the public argument.

— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.

_______________________

Cutting spending is the answer and Mitch Daniels said that. Maybe you should listen to what he had to say.

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 Cato Institute, President Obama | Comments (0)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 23 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

March 3, 2012 – 12:30 am

Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012

President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012

Barack Obama (Photo by Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images)

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.

SOTU and Trade: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Posted by Sallie James

President Obama’s State of the Union address last night was, in my opinion, pretty awful (although James Pethokoukis at the American Enterprise Institute thinks it could have been worse). I know SOTUs are political theater at its worst, and I watch them always with something not unlike disgust, but I found almost nothing to like in the substance last night. The electioneering, partisan, self-aggrandizing tone didn’t help.

Let me turn specifically to trade policy, which was more thoroughly covered last night than in recent SOTUs. In an election year, and from a president who is ambivalent (at best) on trade, a trade-heavy speech is not always a good thing: trade policy can get caught up in broader political arguments about inequality, unemployment and economic growth. And rarely does that combination work well for those of us who want and promote free trade between people regardless of the political borders behind which those people happen to live.

But first, the Good news from last night’s speech. President Obama did make a passing and veiled reference to the need for Congress to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia, necessary for the United States to treat Russia as any other member of the World Trade Organization when it joins the body later this year (i.e., allowing Americans to access Russian goods and services more readily). And at least he painted the recent passage of the trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama as a positive development, albeit on mercantilist grounds (more on this later).

The Bad? The president said precisely nothing about the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations currently underway with nine other Asia-Pacific countries (with Canada, Mexico and Japan interested in joining in the future). The TPP is supposedly the crowning achievement of his administration’s trade efforts and a deal that he was itching to complete in 2012. What does it say about his priorities that it warrants not a mention in his main speech of the year? Maybe his political supporters in organized labor aren’t buying this “21st century trade agreement” stuff any more than I am and he sees merit in keeping it quiet. But that then raises worrying questions about the ability of the negotiations to be completed on schedule if they don’t have full-throated political support at the highest level. The president made no mention of the World Trade Organization or its struggling Doha round of trade liberalization negotiations, either, although maybe there he is simply showing acceptance of the round’s (near) death, an assessment he would share with most trade watchers.

And the Ugly? Once again the president displays no appreciation for the true benefits of free trade – the benefits from specialization and exchange. They include the economic benefits that come from increased competition, and from access to cheaper and more variable goods and services for Americans. From his silly (and, I suspect, futile) goal to “double exports in five years” to his rhetoric about how America can “win” if the playing field is level (what does “winning” mean in that context anyway?), the speech was peppered with nationalistic, misguided and quite frankly inflammatory rhetoric that will not help trade relations – let alone lead to enhanced trading opportunities for Americans – one bit. Creating yet another government agency, this time to “investigat[e] unfair trade practices in countries like China”, will just add to tensions. Claiming the tires debacle as a model of trade enforcement success is yet another example of how the concept of unintended consequences is apparently lost on this president.

Matthew Yglesias has some excellent things to say on the mercantilist nonsense in Obama’s message, and the ill-conceived manufacturing fetish he conveyed. And Obama managed to combine both economic illiterate concepts when wailing about the unfairness of having to compete with “foreign manufacturers [who] have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.” (He then, inevitably, went on to include all sorts of subsidies or tax breaks that he would like to extend to certain American firms/industries – Chris Edwards has amply covered the tax stuff here). Overall, I give this speech a “D” on trade. Must try harder.

_____________________
Free Trade is the way to go and it would be great if you would push for even more trade deals that opened up markets. Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” has an excellent episode on that.

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 Cato Institute, President Obama | Comments (0)

Federal government loves to eat up our money: “Yum Yum Eat em up”

March 2, 2012 – 11:19 pm

The federal government loves to eat up more and more of our money. Back in the first few years of the 20th century our federal government usually spent about 3% of our money per year unless we were involved in a war, but now the percentage of GDP is up to almost 25%. It reminds me of the “Yum Yum Eat em up” short film I saw many years ago.

Federal Spending Is Outpacing Inflation

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Prices of goods and services normally rise year to year, but federal spending has risen even faster. Although spending grew substantially after 9/11, less than half of the increase can be attributed to defense and homeland security spending.

YEAR-TO-YEAR PERCENTAGE CHANGE

Download

Federal Spending Is Outpacing Inflation

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 4 of 42

In Depth

  • Policy Papers for Researchers

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

Wild Man From Borneo – YUM YUM EEAAAAT EM UP!

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

Obama’s budget according to the Heritage Foundation

March 2, 2012 – 2:53 pm

Rep Michael Burgess response

Uploaded by on Jan 25, 2012

This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address.

Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012

 Here is an excellent piece from the Heritage Foundation:

 What Would Obama Do? Insights from his budget – J.D. Foster What is President Obama’s vision for America, truly? What would he intend in a second term if re-elected? We need not wait for yet another soaring presidential speech to illuminate and clarify. We now have much of the answer to these questions in black and white from his own Administration. The answer is provided in the budget he released this morning. The answer, in short, is more of the same—only more, and less. In summary, Obama’s vision for America according to his own budget is: To add about $3 trillion more in national debt to the roughly $5.5 trillion he added in his first term. To increase federal spending by half a trillion dollars between 2012 and 2016, from $3.8 trillion to $4.3 trillion. To ignore the 2012 budget deficit (projected at $1.3 trillion), allow spending to grow substantially in the years immediately following, and then take sterner measures in some distant future—read: He intends to leave the pending fiscal disaster to his successor. To step up his economy-defeating and self-delusional ideological tax hike war. To hope Congress ignores his tax policies and the economy somehow continues to strengthen on its own. Ultimately, to live up to the moniker of tax-and-spend liberal. There is more, like a tax plan to turn the ownership of America’s largest companies over to foreign ownership. Once again the President has trotted out the liberals’ favorite lines about “investment” when referring to huge jumps in infrastructure spending. The budget also includes a smattering of public-relations-oriented micro policies like a community college proposal that give the President a chance to talk about something on the campaign trail, indeed anything, except the real issues facing America. There is also some good news in the budget. While spending goes up rapidly over time, there are at least no new efforts to pump up the economy and waste taxpayer dollars with another debt-based stimulus. Has the Obama Administration learned this will never work, or is the deficit now simply too large for them to try it again? In truth, a President’s second term is rarely a time of bold initiative and action. For the most part, it’s a time of marking time and continuing and completing policies laid out in a first term. It is also an exercise of denying the opposition power. But there have been notable exceptions. In his second term, President Reagan managed to slow the growth of spending substantially and to sign into law in 1986, the last great tax reform effort. President Clinton signed the landmark welfare reform into law, somewhat begrudgingly perhaps and at the point of a Republican policy bayonet perhaps, but he signed it nevertheless. President Bush tried mightily and failed spectacularly to turn Social Security from a fiscal disaster to a sustainable program for generations to come, but at least he tried. President Obama’s budget lays bare and strips away any pretense that a second Obama term would be marked by bold leadership to address problems like high unemployment, massive budget deficits, and vital entitlement programs headed for financial disaster of Greek-like proportions. As this message sinks in, the Administration will no doubt try to establish an alternative narrative of fear-mongering leavened with promised leadership. But the true picture is painted in black and white in his own budget.

______________

I am glad there is no more efforts in this budget to try another stimulus effort like before, but the sharp cuts that are necessary to balance the budget are not in this budget. Instead of adding 5.5 trillion to the debt like we did in the last three years we will add around 8 trillion.

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

Tributes to Andrew Breitbart (Part 2)

March 2, 2012 – 7:48 am

Uploaded by on Mar 1, 2012

Move America Forward’s tribute to Andrew Breitbart. We will always remember Andrew as a dear friend and a stalwart supporter of the troops. We are thankful and count ourselves lucky to have had Andrew’s help and support on many successful MAF projects to support the troops. He was a true friend and patriot. Never Forget.

Related posts:

Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart

Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Rush Limbaugh’s Moving Tribute To Andrew Breitbart Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion […]

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH

Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH Uploaded by bydesign001 on Feb 10, 2012 Courtesy of Mediaite via the Right Scoop. Related posts: Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart March 1, 2012 – 3:03 pm Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are […]

Sean Hannity’s tribute to his dear friend Andrew Breitbart

Uploaded by MrTimotheus85 on Mar 1, 2012 Sean Hannity – In My Fathers House There Are Many Mansion And I Know Andrew Is In One Of Them I got a chance to meet Andrew once and it was on May 25, 2011. He was very gracious and I really enjoyed visiting with him. Below are […]

Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart

Rep. Louie Gohmert Pays Tribute to Andrew Breitbart Uploaded by GohmertTX01 on Mar 1, 2012 Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the life and legacy of his friend, conservative writer and American patriot, Andrew Breitbart. “Thank you, dear God, for sharing this extraordinary gift that was Andrew Breitbart with us. We […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 4,the media world has changed with cable, Fox News, and the web)

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 3,one time default cultural liberal, but now a conservative )

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 Andrew Breitbart in Arkansas Dave Elswick Chicago and Introduction.wmv Conservative film activist Andrew Breitbart spoke in Little Rock on Wednseday May 25th at the Hilton Hotel. The room was packed with conservative activist and Tea Party members. Breitbart talked about dealing with the liberal media […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 2, video clips )

Andrew Breibart spoke in Little Rock on May 25, 2011 to a packed room. The second monthly luncheon with featured speaker Andrew Breitbart was excellent. (Check out the Tolbert Report for more coverage of this event.) First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN   who came up with the idea of this luncheon, […]

Andrew Breitbart spoke to Little Rock, Arkansas group May 25, 2011 (Part 1, taking on Bill Maher was liberating)

  Andrew Breitbart speaking in Little Rock on May 25, 2011. Andrew Breitbart – Taking Down the Corrupt and Biased, Leftist Mainstream Media Andrew Breitbart joined Hannity to talk about his new book “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World!”, and about his mission to take down the corrupt and biased, leftist mainstream […]

May 6, 2011 CBS News interview with Andrew Brietbart

Andrew Breitbart Andrew Breitbart CBS News reported on May 6, 2011: Conservative publisher Andrew Brietbart sat down for an extensive interview with CBSNews.com Friday in which he discussed his disdain for the mainstream media, offered his perspective on the Republican presidential field, said President Obama should have released a post-mortem photo of Osama bin Laden, and complained […]

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