Yearly Archives: 2012

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

January 26, 2012 – 12:38 pm

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.

Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History

July 14, 2011

Abstract: Attempts at passing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) date back to the 1930s, and all have been unsuccessful. Both parties carry some of the blame: The GOP too often has been neglectful of the issue, and the Democratic Left, recognizing a threat to big government, has stalled and obfuscated, attempting to water down any proposals to mandate balanced budgets. On the occasion of the July 2011 vote on a new proposed BBA, former Representative from Oklahoma Ernest Istook presents lessons from history.

A proposed balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution is set to be considered by Congress this July—the first such vote since 1997.

The BBA is a powerful proposal that attracts great vitriol from the American Left, which recognizes it as an enormous threat to its big-government ways—perhaps the greatest threat. For that reason, the history of Congress’s work on a BBA is full of frustrations, high-profile defections, reversals, and betrayals.

This paper discusses that history. It also describes some of the milktoast versions and amendments that have been offered to gut the BBA while providing political cover for those who are unwilling to support a robust version.

Brief History

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.”[1] Yet according to the Congressional Research Service,[2] the first balanced budget amendment was not proposed until 1936, when Representative Harold Knutson (R–MN) introduced House Joint Resolution 579, proposing a per capita limit on federal debt.

No BBA measure passed either body of Congress until 1982, when the Senate took 11 days to consider it and mustered the necessary two-thirds majority on the version crafted by Senator Strom Thurmond (R–SC).[3] A companion measure received a vote of 236 to 187 in the House—short of the required two-thirds. Despite opposition from Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill (D–MA), the floor vote was obtained by means of a discharge petition led by Representatives Barber Conable (R–NY) and Ed Jenkins (D–GA).[4]

Subsequently, continuing opposition from Speaker O’Neill and his successor, Jim Wright (D–TX), prompted creative use of discharge petitions to circumvent leadership opposition. Several House votes were held in the early 1990s, when Representative Charles Stenholm (D–TX) led bipartisan coalitions to force Democratic leaders to permit (unsuccessful) floor votes. At the time, even prominent Democrats such as Representative Joseph Kennedy (MA) openly supported the BBA and voted for it. There were multiple House and Senate votes, but all were unsuccessful.[5]

The first and only time the House gave two-thirds approval to a balanced budget amendment was in 1995, when Members voted for the “Contract with America” that helped Republicans win major congressional majorities. That was the last time the House held a floor or committee vote. Since then, the Senate has failed twice—each time by a single vote—to gather the two-thirds needed.[6]

Defections Block BBA Approval

Three Senators were the key defectors who prevented Congress from approving a balanced budget amendment in the 1990s. One actually had never supported it and bucked his party to oppose it. The other two flip-flopped in order to go along with their party in opposing the BBA.

First, in 1995, Senator Mark Hatfield (R–OR) took the heat when he would not join his party in support of a BBA. But Hatfield’s vote would have been unnecessary had Senator Tom Daschle (D–SD) not reversed years of prior support to oppose the BBA at President Bill Clinton’s urging.

Then, in 1997, the measure again failed by a single vote in the Senate when newly elected Senator Robert Torricelli (D–NJ) broke his campaign pledge and refused to support the same BBA that he had supported as a House member.[7]

More recently, many House Democrats who voted for the BBA in 1995 are now saying they will vote no in 2011. Most notable among these is House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D–MD).

Senate Defections

Senator Hatfield called the BBA a “political gimmick,” and his high-profile defection broke GOP party unity. Less noticed was that his opposition could have been a moot point. Then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R–KS) told The New York Times that Hatfield offered to resign before the vote—a resignation that would have produced a 66-to-33 victory for the BBA—but Dole refused to accept the resignation offer.[8]

Still, with or without Hatfield’s vote or resignation, the BBA would have prevailed in the 1995 Senate vote were it not for Senator Daschle’s reversal. That flip-flop is described in a book about his later ousting from office by the voters:

Although the balanced budget amendment had not been a major issue nationally for several years, it provided a striking contrast between Daschle’s first campaign in 1978 and his early career in Congress, when he consistently promoted the amendment, and his later years in the Senate. During his last competitive Senate bid in 1986, Daschle ran a television ad saying that “in 1979, Tom Daschle saw the damage these deficits could do to our country. His first official act was to sponsor a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget.” In 1992, Daschle’s campaign literature touted the “Daschle Plan,” which included the balanced budget amendment: “In 1979, before it became popular, I was pushing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was my first official action, and I’ve authored or coauthored one every year.” In 1995, the amendment had the support of sixty-six of the sixty-seven senators needed for passage, but Daschle voted against it because of opposition from the Clinton administration…. When pressed on the amendment in the last [2004] television debate, Daschle said that he had opposed the bill in the 1990s because there were no provisions in the amendment allowing for emergencies such as war. But the record showed that there was an emergency clause.[9]

In 2011, Daschle has penned several articles denouncing the BBA, complaining that it would make the country’s fiscal crisis even worse and would tie lawmakers’ hands.[10]

The 1997 effort to approve the BBA failed in the Senate by a single vote, just as it had in 1995. This time it was Senator Torricelli doing the political acrobatics. As the New York Daily News described it:

Sen. Robert Torricelli (D–N.J.) yesterday announced he will vote against the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution giving Democrats the one-vote margin they need to kill it. The freshman senator flipped on his campaign pledge to support the amendment and on his own past voting record in the House in favor of similar proposals. “I have struggled with this decision more than any I have ever made in my life,” Torricelli said…

Torricelli acknowledged that he had campaigned in support of the amendment to win his Senate seat last year and had voted three times in favor of similar amendments as a House member. But he said President Clinton’s efforts in bringing down annual budget deficits from $300 billion to $100 billion, and the President’s commitment to a balanced budget by 2002, had relieved the pressure for a constitutional amendment.[11]

Trying to give himself political cover, Torricelli tried but failed to get the Senate to support a loophole-riddled version.

House Reversals

Chief among Representatives who supported a BBA in 1995 but say they will actively oppose it in 2011 is Representative Hoyer. In 1995, he even helped to garner votes for the BBA. As the Baltimore Sun reported at the time, “‘The issue of a balanced budget is not a conservative one or a liberal one, and it is not an easy one,’ said Mr. Hoyer, who said he fears the consequences of a national debt that is headed toward $5 trillion. ‘But it is an essential one.’”[12] Arguing for the BBA on the House floor in 1995, Hoyer said:

[T]his country confronts a critical threat caused by the continuation of large annual deficits…. I am absolutely convinced that the long term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic…. [T]hose who will pay the highest price for our fiscal irresponsibility, should we fail, will be those least able to protect themselves, and the children of today and the generations of tomorrow.[13]

Hoyer reversed course after rising to high leadership within his party, as did Daschle. Daschle did a turnaround against the same language he previously had supported. Hoyer, however, argued that the latest 2011 version (with tax limitation and size-of-government limits) had gone beyond what he originally supported in 1995:

It would require drastic and harmful cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, programs that form the heart of America’s social compact…. Unlike previous balanced budget amendments, this amendment would mean great pain for ordinary Americans, even as it shielded the most privileged from any comparable sacrifice. It is not a solution to our nation’s pressing fiscal challenges.[14]

It is an open question how other Democrats who supported the 1995 version of the BBA will vote on the tougher 2011 version.[15] They include another member of the current Democratic House leadership, James Clyburn (SC).

The GOP was also guilty of abandoning the BBA—by neglect. The BBA had been the number one item on its Contract with America legislative agenda in 1994, but after the single (and successful) 1995 House vote, House GOP leaders refused all entreaties to bring it up again. No House or Senate vote has been held since Torricelli’s dramatic about-face in 1997.

For part of the time while Republican leaders were dormant on a BBA, the budget was balanced. Rather than spotting an opportunity to cement that condition into a permanent requirement, however, some saw it as proving that a BBA is not needed.

During that time when the federal budget was balanced without a BBA requirement (fiscal years 1998–2001),[16] Congress had political incentives to maintain that balance. However, after 9/11, Washington not only ramped up national security spending, but also let other spending rise significantly. The prevailing notion seemed to be that if the budget was not balanced, then it mattered little just how far out of balance it was.

That experience illustrates not only the need for a proper BBA, but also the need for any national security exceptions to be drafted narrowly, to permit deficits only to the extent necessary to provide for non-routine defense circumstances and not to justify unrelated deficit spending.

Watering Down the BBA

The versions of the BBA to be voted on in 2011 are improvements over the Contract with America. Because of this strengthening, the current versions are described herein as “BBA-plus.”[17]

Simply put, the additional features require a supermajority to raise taxes; create limits on the level of federal spending (as a percentage of the national economy); tighten the permitted and limited exceptions to a balanced budget; and limit the potential for judicially imposed tax increases as a means of enforcement.

According to their strictness, different variations in proposed texts could be considered good, better, and best, with a full-featured BBA-plus being the best. But the greater the strictures, the more difficult passage becomes. Many pro-BBA lawmakers have therefore introduced and supported versions that were not as strong as they prefer but have greater likelihood of adoption.

These variations also create potential for mischief. Because they recognize the huge popular support for the BBA, many opponents have attempted to offer amendments and variations that would water down or emasculate the provisions of the BBA so that they could posture as supporters while justifying their “no” votes. The following is a historical synopsis of those tactics.

Taking Social Security Off-Budget. The most prominently advanced effort to weaken a BBA is a provision to separate Social Security payments and receipts from the requirements for a balanced budget. Amendments to do so were offered in both the House and Senate from 1995 to 1997. Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) was a principal leader of that effort in 1997.

Reid and others argued that removing Social Security from a BBA would protect the program from spending cuts. They argued that its funds do not actually constitute government spending since the program involves a trust fund. This ignored the fact that the entirety of the trust fund has been invested in federal bonds and that all of the borrowed money has been spent. Furthermore, during the 1990s, the Social Security program was producing annual surpluses ranging from $60 billion to $65 billion, which disguised deficit spending elsewhere. Today, Social Security runs an annual deficit.

If Social Security were removed from a BBA’s requirements, Congress would be approving major deficit spending while not counting it as a deficit. Politicians would only be pretending to have balanced the budget. As the Congressional Budget Office reported this past January, “Excluding interest, surpluses for Social Security become deficits of $45 billion in 2011 and $547 billion over the 2012–2021 period.”[18]

The Torricelli Ploy. As previously mentioned, the most transparent ploy to create an excuse for opposing the BBA came in 1997 from newly elected Senator Robert Torricelli. As a House member, he had voted for a substitute version and also voted “yea” on final passage of the Contract with America BBA in 1995. He campaigned for the Senate in 1996 as a BBA supporter.

As heads were counted for the 1997 Senate vote, it was apparent that Torricelli and Senator Mary Landrieu (D–LA), both previous BBA supporters, were the swing votes. If both voted “yea,” the necessary two-thirds would be achieved in the Senate. President Clinton lobbied both Senators to vote “nay.” Landrieu announced that she would vote yes, and Torricelli announced that he would vote no. Reporters openly asked him whether “he drew the short straw.”

In a move that was publicly derided, Torricelli offered an amendment to the BBA on the Senate floor and then announced he would vote no because the amendment failed. Then, minutes later in a news conference, he undercut his own explanation by stating that in the future, he would vote no on all Republican versions of a BBA and yes on all Democratic versions.

Torricelli’s unsuccessful amendment would have waived the balanced budget requirement whenever a simple majority in Congress declared “an imminent and serious military threat” or “a period of economic recession or significant economic hardship” or when Congress chose to approve deficit spending for “investments in major public physical capital that provides long-term economic benefits.”[19] The three-pronged nature of Torricelli’s effort was a lumping together of provisions that were also offered separately in both the House and Senate by others.

Other Diluting Amendments. The following is a sampling of other proposals offered on the House or Senate floors during the 1995–1997 considerations:[20]

  • Representative Robert Wise (D–WV) offered a multifaceted substitute that would have provided for separate federal capital and operating budgets; would have required that only the operating budget be balanced; would have exempted Social Security from balanced budget calculations; and would have permitted Congress to waive the balanced budget provisions in times of war, military conflict, or recession.
  • Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) tried to insert the following language into the BBA: “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which there is an economic recession or serious economic emergency in the United States as declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.”
  • Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) proposed, “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which there is a declaration made by the President (and a designation by the Congress) that a major disaster or emergency exists, adopted by a majority vote in each House of those present and voting.”
  • Representative Major Owens (D–NY) wanted “to allow a majority of Congress to waive the balanced budget provisions contained in the joint resolution in any fiscal year that the national unemployment rate exceeds 4 percent.”
  • Representative John Conyers (D–MI) wanted to require a detailed plan of spending cuts before balance could be required, proposing “to exempt Social Security from balanced budget calculations; and provide that before the constitutional amendment could take effect, Congress would be required to pass legislation showing what the budget will be for the fiscal years 1996 through 2002, containing aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, reserves, and the deficit and surplus, as well as new budget authority and outlays on an account-by-account basis.”
  • Representative David Bonior (D–MI) tried not only to exempt Social Security from the calculations, but also to require only a simple constitutional majority vote (218 in the House, 51 in the Senate) to allow deficit spending.
  • Additional amendments were more straightforward, such as whether a supermajority would or would not be required to raise taxes under the BBA. The House Rules Committee screened out 38 proposed floor amendments; only six were permitted.

Conclusion

History shows that the potency of a balanced budget amendment attracts fervent efforts to confuse the issues, especially by creating counterfeit versions and exceptions to provide political cover. Proponents of a BBA should prepare accordingly.

If not for high-profile political defections in the mid-1990s, the BBA would have been approved by Congress. Had it then been ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, today’s debates over borrowing limits, entitlements, and spending levels would be greatly different, if not absent.

However, the versions considered in the ’90s were notably weaker than both the House and Senate versions of the BBA-plus now being considered. Had an earlier version been adopted, today’s debate might be about efforts by Congress to evade the spirit of the BBA by exploiting loopholes in that earlier version. This is why vigilance is necessary to prevent the insertion of loopholes into the language of a BBA-plus.

Those who do not learn from the failures of history are doomed to repeat them.

— The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr., a former Member of Congress, is Distinguished Fellow in Government Studies in the Department of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

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

An open letter to President Obama

January 26, 2012 – 6:42 am

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

January 26, 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.

In your State of the Union Speech you asserted, “We need to change our tax code so people like me pay our fair share.” There is a problem with that statement. If we want to get out of this recession we will not do it but raising taxes on the job creators. Also raising the tax rates will not necessarily translate into higher revenues. Did you know that the highest tax rate of 1988 was 28% and it yielded FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT THE 70% TAX RATE DID IN 1980!!!

You need to go to the Cato Institute website and check out their videos on the Laffer Curve. I actually got to hear Arthur Laffer speak in 1981 at the University of Memphis where I was a student. He predicted what would happen in the 1980’s and it did occur as he predicted.

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

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

Uploaded by on May 28, 2008

A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.

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

Lane Kiffin has put off Judgement Day

January 25, 2012 – 12:45 pm

It is true that USC’s Lane Kiffin has had two great recruiting classes at USC, but that was because he signed 25 players both in 2010 and 2011. He delayed “Judgement Day” by getting permission to avoid the 15 scholarship limits (imposed for 3 years) while the school appealed the NCAA’s decision.

Therefore, all these articles that are claiming that Kiffin has beat the odds don’t know what they are talking about. For instance, if he had taken his medicine earlier then next year he would have been back with the ability to sign 25 again. Instead, he will only be able to sign 15 in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Also he is in trouble this year because he is 5 above the total 75 limit that he carry on the team. Obviously he has been mum on who he will kick off.

Despite NCAA sanctions, Lane Kiffin is on the verge of landing his second straight top five recruiting class at USC.
Despite NCAA sanctions, Lane Kiffin is on the verge of landing his second straight top five recruiting class at USC.

Below is an article that is being circulated about Kiffin:

Lane Kiffin still remembers reading the premature obituaries for USC‘s football dynasty that accompanied the arrival of probation in the summer of 2010.

“Eighteen months ago, you couldn’t find a positive article about the future of USC’s program,” said Kiffin, who took over USC’s program at that time. “Eighteen months ago, when [the sanctions] happened, everybody talked about it being the death penalty. USC was over.”

NCAA sanctions have caused Lane Kiffin to be more selective in recruiting.

Nobody’s saying that anymore.

USC, banned from bowl games the past two seasons, has overcome NCAA sanctions to regain its status as one of the nation’s most feared college football programs.

USC closed the 2011 season ranked sixth nationally by The Associated Press, and the return of star quarterback Matt Barkley should catapult the Trojans into the top five of the 2012 preseason rankings.

This winter was supposed to be the first year recruiting sanctions hurt the school; it is limited to just 15 scholarships – or 10 fewer than the NCAA’s limit – the next three recruiting cycles.

But one week before National Signing Day, USC has one of the strongest classes in the country and remains very much in the mix with many of the nation’s top uncommitted recruits.

It has commitments from four Rivals100 prospects – including five-star offensive lineman Jordan Simmons. It is in contention for about a dozen others, including five-star offensive lineman Zach Banner.

And just last weekend, four-star quarterback Cyler Miles, the No. 2 dual-threat prospect who committed to Washington in June, said he is now considering changing his commitment to USC.

[ More on the Trojans: USCFootball.com ]

“It’s business as usual at USC except they are having this success despite having to be much more careful with their offers and who they can take commitments from,” said Mike Farrell, a national recruiting analyst for Rivals.com. “A great season on the field certainly helped, but Lane Kiffin and his staff are keeping the brand name of USC strong.”

ON THE WAY IN …
Here’s a look at USC’s 2012 commitments, including four early enrollees who technically are counted as part of the 2011 recruiting class.
Name Pos. School Rating
Gerald Bowman* S L.A. Pierce College Four-star
Morgan Breslin* DE Diablo Valley (Calif.) Four-star
Jalen Cope-Fitzpatrick TE Rocklin (Calif.) Whitney Four-star
Jahleel Pinner FB Mission Viejo (Calif.) Three-star
Darreus Rogers WR Carson (Calif.) Four-star
Jabari Ruffin LB Downey (Calif.) Four-star
Kevon Seymour CB Pasadena (Calif.) Muir Four-star
Jordan Simmons OG Encino (Calif.) Crespi Five-star
Scott Starr* LB Norco (Calif.) Four-star
Max Tuerk OT Santa Margarita (Calif.) Four-star
Pio Vatuvei DE Patterson (Calif.) Four-star
Chad Wheeler* DE/OT Santa Monica (Calif.) Three-star
* – Bowman, Breslin, Starr and Wheeler have enrolled early at USC.
ON THE WAY OUT
Here’s a look at players who have transferred from USC since the start of the 2011 season.
Name Pos. School Rating
Dillon Baxter RB San Diego State Five-star
T.J. Bryant DB TBA Four-star
Brice Butler WR San Diego State Four-star
Amir Carlisle RB Notre Dame Four-star
Patrick Hall DB TBA Five-star
Kyle Prater WR TBA Five-star

Whether USC truly is going to not just survive but thrive during this loss of scholarships period will depend on the talent evaluation skills of Kiffin’s staff – and some fun with numbers.

USC already has eight verbal commitments for 2012, not counting the four early enrollees who are considered part of the 2011 class. Kiffin has said he wants to sign a full class of 15 recruits.

Here’s where the math gets tricky.

As it stands now, a full 15-man recruiting class would give USC roughly 80 scholarship players. USC, as part of its probation, cannot have more than 75 scholarship players.

How will they get to that number? Kiffin isn’t saying.

“We’ve had a stance here on numbers going back to a year-and-a-half ago when this happened, that we don’t discuss really how we’re managing the situation here with numbers and stuff for competitive reasons,” Kiffin said.

Those numbers could naturally go down if a few more players decide to leave. USC’s scholarship numbers already have decreased since the start of the 2011 season with the transfers of running back Dillon Baxter, defensive back T.J. Bryant, wide receiver Brice Butler, running back Amir Carlisle, defensive back Patrick Hall and wide receiver Kyle Prater.

Perhaps more players will depart before the start of preseason camp. Off-field issues potentially could result in more defections. It’s also worth noting that any school’s scholarship offer to a potential student-athlete merely represents a one-year agreement and not a four-year guarantee.

The uncertainty has caused recruits to hear plenty of different stories about USC’s pending numbers crunch. How much negative recruiting has gone on is subject for debate.

Jabari Ruffin, a four-star linebacker from Downey (Calif.) High who committed to USC last March, said other schools didn’t discuss USC’s sanctions with him.

“That was never brought up, especially with the season [USC] just had,” said Ruffin, the No. 40 prospect in the nation. “I was surprised, though. In a job like that, when you’re recruiting somebody to a school, you might say anything. But nobody went there.”

Although Ruffin apparently didn’t hear anyone badmouth USC in those terms, Kiffin indicated other recruits received plenty of false or misleading statements.

“A lot of stuff gets thrown out there to these kids from other places that’s inaccurate on what exactly is happening over the next few years, how many guys we can sign and what our numbers really are,” Kiffin said. “We actually have to do a lot of correcting inaccurate information. We get all kinds of things. That if you get injured, with the reduced numbers, they’re going to cut you. That they’re only going to be able to sign six guys [in a given year]. We deal with a whole bunch of stuff.”

QUALITY WITHOUT QUANTITY
USC was 17th in the Rivals team recruiting rankings as of Monday morning because of its small class size, but its commitments had the highest average star rating of any school in the country. Here’s a look at the 10 teams with the highest average star rating as of Monday.
Team Avg. Rating
USC 3.92
Florida State 3.81
Florida 3.74
Ohio State 3.74
Alabama 3.67
Texas 3.67
Auburn 3.6
Oklahoma 3.58
Michigan 3.57
Notre Dame 3.53

Those concerns haven’t stopped USC from landing plenty of quality talent.

Ten of USC’s 12 commitments for 2012 (including early enrollees) are four- or five-star prospects. Even in the midst of probation, the USC name means plenty to blue-chip prospects.

“It’s freaking USC,” Pleasant Hill (Calif.) Diablo Valley College defensive end Morgan Breslin told USCfootball.com last month after switching his commitment from UCLA. “I was just in shock that they were recruiting me. … To be honest, I don’t even know how to explain how excited I was to have a chance to go there.”

USC’s class currently is made up entirely of California players, a notable change from the more national recruiting approach used by former coach Pete Carroll. Kiffin has made a point of pursuing in-state prospects, but he also hopes the Trojans’ recent success on the field will make a difference with top out-of-state recruits.

“The great stats that Matt had and the two receivers [Robert Woods and Marqise Lee] had, it was like the old days,” Kiffin said. “Obviously that helps when you talk about national recruiting. That’s been the hardest thing the last few years – the national recruiting. Because of the bowl ban and dealing with the sanctions, it makes it a lot harder for a kid to leave home, when he has great options right there, to come out here. I know that this season has helped for the future of our national recruiting.”

But the scholarship reductions prevent USC from signing every notable recruit who wants to play for the Trojans. Kiffin’s staff must decide which of them represent the best fits for his program.

“I think their goal for the next three years is to get 15 – and to get 15 quality kids,” Farrell said. “That’s why you’re seeing a lot less offers out there. They used to blanket the country with offers. Now they’re not doing that. They’re being very picky. Getting to 15 is easy. It’s about getting to 15 with the right guys.”

NEXT IN LINE?
USC already has verbal commitments from four Rivals100 recruits – OG Jordan Simmons (No. 29), LB Jabari Ruffin (No. 40), OT Max Tuerk (No. 46) and CB Kevon Seymour (No. 82) – and remains in the mix for many other blue-chip prospects. Here’s a look at other Rivals100 prospects considering the Trojans.
Name Pos. School Rank
Stefon Diggs WR Olney (Md.) Good Counsel 8
Also considering: Auburn, California, Florida, Maryland, Ohio State
Zach Banner OT Lakewood (Wash.) Lakes 16
Also considering: Oklahoma, Washington
Nelson Agholor WR Tampa Berkeley Prep 18
Also considering: Florida, Florida State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma
Kyle Murphy OT San Clemente (Calif.) 19
Also considering: Florida, Oregon, Stanford
Ellis McCarthy DT Monrovia (Calif.) 21
Note: McCarthy is committed to UCLA, but USC is still pursuing him.
Aziz Shittu DE Atwater (Calif.) Buhach 27
Also considering: California, Stanford, UCLA
Andrus Peat OT Tempe (Ariz.) Corona Del Sol 32
Also considering: Florida State, Nebraska, Stanford
Cyler Miles QB Denver Mullen 35
Note: Miles is committed to Washington, but he visited USC last weekend.
Leonard Williams DE Daytona Beach (Fla.) Mainland 53
Also considering: Auburn, Florida, Florida State
Arik Armstead DE Elk Grove (Calif.) Pleasant Grove 61
Also considering: Auburn, Washington, Notre Dame, Alabama, Oregon.
D.J. Foster ATH Scottsdale (Ariz.) Saguaro 71
Also considering: Arizona State, California
Bryce Treggs WR Bellflower (Calif.) St. John Bosco 81Note: Treggs is committed to California, but he plans to visit USC this week.Tyriq McCordDETampa Jefferson92Note: McCord is committed to Miami, but he plans to visit USC this weekend.

It’s the same challenge that other probation-ridden programs also faced while dealing with scholarship losses.

“You have no room for error,” said Florida International athletic director Pete Garcia, who served as the recruiting coordinator on former Miami coach Butch Davis’ staff when the Hurricanes were on probation in the 1990s. “Evaluation is the key. It’s more about evaluating than recruiting. When you have limits on scholarships, you have to make every one count.”

Even if a program makes all the right choices, it inevitably will encounter depth problems. For example, Carlisle’s transfer has left USC with only three scholarship tailbacks.

Then again, USC may be uniquely equipped to deal with scholarship reductions.

When the NCAA handed down its sanctions in the summer of 2010, it essentially turned USC’s juniors and seniors into free agents by allowing them to leave for another Division I program without sitting out a year. USC opened preseason camp in 2010 with only 70 scholarship players, so Kiffin won’t be facing a situation he had never encountered before.

“It’s just made us manage our team a little more like an NFL team, with the lower numbers on game day, the lower numbers in practice and the lower numbers in the spring,” said Kiffin, who coached the Oakland Raiders in 2007 and 2008. “We had to be a little more specific. Instead of maybe signing big classes – or getting good players regardless of position – we had to be more specific about where those guys would exactly fit in as we moved forward. It’s more like the NFL.”

Of course, classes don’t get much bigger than the 30-man group (including eight early enrollees) that USC signed last year. USC wouldn’t be facing such a numbers crunch if it had brought in a smaller class last year, but Kiffin has no regrets. He said the large 2011 class was necessary so that USC would have enough talent in place to deal with the pending scholarship cuts.

“It would have been crippling to our program not to do what we did,” Kiffin said.

A look at USC’s depth chart backs up Kiffin’s point. That 2011 class included four players who were starting by the end of the season: Lee, offensive guard Marcus Martin, linebacker Lamar Dawson and kicker Andre Heidari.

The rapid development of that class has helped put USC in its current position as a potential title contender.

“To finish sixth in the country, have 10 regular-season wins and to [potentially] be a preseason top-five team, it makes us feel very good about what has happened and where our program is now compared to where everybody said it would be,” Kiffin said.

USC undoubtedly has withstood the effects of probation thus far better than anyone could have reasonably expected.

But their biggest challenge is still to come. As the scholarship losses take effect, USC’s ability to remain a national power in the post-Barkley era will depend on whether the quality of these next few recruiting classes makes up for their lack of quantity.

(Olin Buchanan of Rivals.com contributed to this report).

Steve Megargee is a national writer for Rivals.com. He can be reached at smegargee@rivals.com, and you can click here to follow him on Twitter.

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

“Woody Wednesday” Allen nominated again for best director:”Midnight in Paris” may be his best effort yet

January 25, 2012 – 9:47 am

No other website in the world has given more insight into the movie “Midnight in Paris” than mine. Judge for yourself!!!

Now Woody Allen has been nominated for another academy award for best director (7th so far).

Oscar nominations: Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese top list for best director

January 24, 2012 |  6:02 am
Martin Scorsese is among nominees for best director 2012Veteran filmmakers Woody Allen (“Midnight in Paris”) and Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”) will compete for the best director Oscar at the 84th Academy Awards, it was announced Tuesday morning. Also nominated for the director prize were Michel Hazanavicius for “The Artist,” Terrence Malick for “The Tree of Life” and  Alexander Payne for “The Descendants.”

For his romantic roundelay set in the City of Light, the 76-year-old Allen picked up his seventh Academy Award nomination in the director category; Allen also was nominated for his original screenplay.

He won the director prize 34 years ago for “Annie Hall,” the best picture winner that also netted Allen and Marshall Brickman the original screenplay Oscar.

FULL COVERAGE: The Oscars

Allen already has won the Golden Globe and the Critics’ Choice Movie Award for his “Midnight” screenplay, and he is nominated for WGA and BAFTA Awards in the screenplay category. He is also nominated for a DGA award for his direction of the film. He was honored with the DGA Lifetime Achievement Award in 1996.

Scorsese, one of the most influential directors of the last 40 years, also collected his seventh nomination for his direction of the Paris-set valentine to cinema. Scorsese, 69, earned his first director Oscar nomination for 1980’s “Raging Bull” and won the award five years ago for gangster film “The Departed.” Scorsese won the Golden Globe, the Boston Society of Film Critics and the National Board of Review honors for directing “Hugo.” He is also nominated for a DGA Award and the BAFTA. Scorsese also earned a nomination Tuesday as one of the producers on the film, which is nominated for best picture.

For his black-and-white silent movie, 44-year-old French filmmaker Hazanavicius earned a director nomination, and also was nominated for his original screenplay. (The last director to receive a director Oscar for a silent film was Frank Lloyd for “The Divine Lady” at the 1928-29 ceremony.) Hazanavicius already has won a number of awards for the charming tribute to the early days of the talkies — including the Critics’ Choice Movie Award and the New York Film Critics honor. He is nominated for DGA and BAFTA Awards, and will compete at the Independent Spirit Awards in the director and screenplay categories.

Payne, though, also could pull through with a victory in the category. The 50-year-old writer-director earned his second director Oscar nomination for “The Descendants,” a family drama set in Hawaii. He was previously nominated in this category for 2004’s “Sideways,” for which he won the Oscar for adapted screenplay. He also was nominated Tuesday as a producer on the film, which was nominated for best picture prize, and for the film’s adapted screenplay penned with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash. Payne also is nominated for DGA and WGA awards. “The Descendants” won the Golden Globe for best motion picture drama.

For his existential drama about a Texas family, the iconclastic Malick, 68, earned his second director Oscar nod. He also was nominated for his original screenplay. Malick previously was nominated in the director category for 1998’s “The Thin Red Line,” for which he also earned an adapted screenplay nomination. Malick won the Palme d’Or last year at the Cannes Film Festival for “The Tree of Life” and has won several critics’ honors for his direction of the film, including honors from the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn., the National Society of Film Critics and the Toronto Film Critics Assn.

The following clip is from the recent Envelope Directors Roundtable. Here, filmmakers Alexander Payne (“The Descendants”), Michel Hazanavicius (“The Artist”), George Clooney (“The Ides of March”), Stephen Daldry (“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”) and Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”) talked about how nerve-racking it can be to start a new film, and how they deal with it.

Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in “Midnight in Paris.”

The New York Times

Ernest Hemingway, around 1937

Other posts concerning Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

What can we learn from Woody Allen Films?, August 1, 2011 – 6:30 am

Movie Review of “Midnight in Paris” lastest movie by Woody Allen, July 30, 2011 – 6:52 am

Leo Stein and sister Gertrude Stein’s salon is in the Woody Allen film “Midnight in Paris”, July 28, 2011 – 6:22 am

Great review on Midnight in Paris with talk about artists being disatisfied, July 27, 2011 – 6:20 am

Critical review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, July 24, 2011 – 5:56 am

Not everyone liked “Midnight in Paris”, July 22, 2011 – 5:38 am

“Midnight in Paris” one of Woody Allen’s biggest movie hits in recent years, July 18, 2011 – 6:00 am

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

(Part 1 William Faulkner) June 13, 2011 – 3:19 pm

I love Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”, June 12, 2011 – 11:52 pm

https://i0.wp.com/www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/19.jpg

Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.”

Owen Wilson as Gil in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.”

Marion Cotillard, Alison Pill, Owen Wilson and Director Woody Allen on the set of "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Marion Cotillard, Alison Pill, Owen Wilson and Director Woody Allen on the set of “Midnight in Paris.”

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

An open letter to President Obama

January 25, 2012 – 7:59 am

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

 

January 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.

I noticed that you took credit for saving General Motors. I think it would have been best for everyone if you had allowed the free market to work. GM would have gone out of business but other automakers would have picked up the pieces and become stronger and hired more workers. 

Below is the conclusion Daniel J. Ikenson of the Cato Institute:

The objection to the auto bailout was not that the federal government wouldn’t be able to marshal adequate resources to help GM. The most serious concerns were about the consequences of that intervention — the undermining of the rule of law, the property confiscations, the politically driven decisions and the distortion of market signals.

Any verdict on the auto bailouts must take into account, among other things, the illegal diversion of TARP funds, the forced transfer of assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners and their union; the higher-risk premiums consequently built into U.S. corporate debt; the costs of denying Ford and the other more worthy automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the autoworkers’ union, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about policy that pervades the business environment to this day.

GM’s recent profits speak only to the fact that politicians committed more than $50 billion to the task of rescuing those companies and the United Auto Workers. With debts expunged, cash infused, inefficiencies severed, ownership reconstituted, sales rebates underwritten and political obstacles steamrolled — all in the midst of a recovery in U.S. auto demand — only the most incompetent operations could fail to make profits.

But taxpayers are still short at least $10 billion to $20 billion (depending on the price that the government’s 500 million shares of GM will fetch), and there is still significant overcapacity in the auto industry.

The administration should divest as soon as possible, without regard to the stock price. Keeping the government’s tentacles around a large firm in an important industry will keep the door open wider to industrial policy and will deter market-driven decision-making throughout the industry, possibly keeping the brakes on the recovery. Yes, there will be a significant loss to taxpayers. But the right lesson to learn from this chapter in history is that government interventions carry real economic costs — only some of which are readily measurable.

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)

Keith Green Story (Part 4)

January 25, 2012 – 12:33 am

The Keith Green Story pt 5/7

Keith Green had a major impact on me back in 1978 when I first heard him. Here is his story below:

Tribute Recordings

In 1992, several artists joined together to re-record many of Green’s best-known songs for a tribute album called No Compromise: Remembering the Music of Keith Green under the Sparrow Records label. Artists contributing to the recording include Petra, Charlie Peacock, Susan Ashton, Margaret Becker, Michael Card, GLAD, Rich Mullins, Steven Curtis Chapman, Steve Green, and Russ Taff.

 

In 2001, BEC Records released a second, more modern, tribute record Start Right Here: Remembering the Life of Keith Green. Produced by Derri Daugherty, the album included performances by new contemporary Christian artists MxPx, Joy Electric, Starflyer 59, among others.

 

At the twentieth anniversary of Keith’s death, Sparrow Records released yet another tribute album, Your Love Broke Through: The Worship Songs of Keith Green. The 2002 album contains re-recordings by Rebecca St. James, Michelle Tumes, Chris Tomlin, Twila Paris, Darlene Zschech, Jason Upton, Martin Smith, Charlie Hall, Joanne Hogg, Matt Redman, Paul Oakley, and Sarah Sadler. The album contains contemporary Christian and mainstream artist Michael W. Smith’s version of the song There Is One, an unfinished work by Keith Green. Composition of the song was completed by Smith, along with British songwriter and Christian music artist Martin Smith.
Last Days Ministries
Green Hall dormitory, originally part of LDM property, was named after Keith Green when Teen Mania purchased the property in 1996

The LDM property was sold in 1996 and is now occupied by Teen Mania Ministries. Teen Mania has dedicated one of its dormitories, Green Hall, in memory of Keith. Melody Green continues to operate Last Days Ministries from Oceanside, California, and is a well-known speaker and author. With David Hazard, she authored a biography of Keith, No Compromise: The Life Story of Keith Green (Harvest House Publishers, 1989; revised and expanded in 2000; revised and expanded again and released by Thomas Nelson in 2008; also on the Compact Disc version of The Ministry Years, Volume Two album).
Honors

On November 27, 2001, Keith Green was inducted into the Gospel Music Hall of Fame.

 

On April 3, 2006, Green was honored with the ASCAP Crescendo Award at the 28th annual ASCAP Christian Music Awards presentation dinner. His widow, Melody Green, was present to receive the award for her late husband.

 

Quotes

 

“It’s time to quit playing church and start being the Church (Matt. 18:20)” ? Keith Green, as quoted by Melody Green in the introduction to A Cry in the Wilderness, Sparrow Press, 1993.

 

“I repent of ever having recorded one single song, and ever having performed one concert, if my music, and more importantly, my life has not provoked you into Godly jealousy or to sell out more completely to Jesus!” ? Keith Green

 

“You shouldn’t go to college unless God has definitely called you to go.” ? Keith Green, ‘Why YOU should go to the mission field’, 1982

 

“No Compromise is what the whole Gospel of Jesus is all about… ‘For I tell you…no man can serve two masters…’ (Matt. 6:24). In a day when believers seem to be trying to please both the world and the Lord (which is an impossible thing), when people are far more concerned about offending their friends than offending God, there is only one answer…Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him!” ? Keith Green, No Compromise album, 1978.

 

“He, being dead, yet speaketh.” ? Leonard Ravenhill, Keith’s mentor, borrowing from Hebrews 11:4 (KJV) in his 1990 2-page Memories of Keith tribute from a computer file, part of the Enhanced CD version of No Compromise by Melody Green with David Hazard.

 

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

A response to President’s comments

January 24, 2012 – 8:23 pm

I want to give the president credit for the trade agreements that he has signed to allow more free trade but I condemn his efforts for trying to start more trade wars.

Yes, we could learn from the army. Congress would accomplish a lot if they ran on orders. However, the  USA does not have a dictator. The army was built to react fast to orders and to not question them.

I do think that it is good that we are out of Iraq. It is also good that Osama is dead. Way to go. We have to give credit to the president here because he did have the guts to make sure that Osama bit the dust.

Now to his comments on fairness. He wants to talk about how to get the economy going, but he doesn’t realize that raising taxes on job creators is a very bad idea.

He noted that we lost 4 million jobs before he took office but he also admitted that his policies have done nothing to turn the corner. In fact, he should have just admitted that his stimulus was a total failure.  Take a look at these posts below:

Stimulus plans never work!!!

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 […]

Stimulus plans do not work (part 2)

Dan Mitchell discusses the effectiveness of the stimulus Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Nov 3, 2009 11-2-09 When I think of all our hard earned money that has been wasted on stimulus programs it makes me sad. It has never worked and will not in the future too. Take a look at a few thoughts from […]

Stimulus plans do not work (Part 1)

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 […]

Stimulus did not work earlier and will not now (Part 1)

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 […]

Obama has not learned that government stimulus will not work

President Obama just does not learn from the past. The Stimulus: The Government Job Creation Myth by Tad DeHaven   Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst at the Cato Institute and co-editor of Downsizing the Federal Government. Added to cato.org on August 2, 2010 This article appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on August 1, 2010 […]

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

Newt is a poor excuse for a candidate

January 24, 2012 – 7:46 pm

I used to like Newt back in the 1990’s but a lot has changed since then.

Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute:

Gingrich Rise Is Triumph of Style over Substance

by Gene Healy

 

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

Added to cato.org on January 24, 2012

This article appeared in DC Examiner on January 24, 2012.

 

On the eve of Newt Gingrich’s landslide victory in the South Carolina primary, CNN’s Erin Burnett let the former speaker expound on the success of his “kick the moderator” debate strategy.

“I think there’s something going on here that’s very deep,” Gingrich said. “People want a leader who’s forceful… Part of it is, you know, if I’d said ‘The color is blue!’ — it’s the forcefulness… That delivery, that clearness is as important as the specific topic,” he explained.

Watching the interview, I had a disturbing thought: Has Newt Gingrich become self-aware?

I’ve never heard a better explanation for the former speaker’s ability to cloud conservatives’ minds. How, after all, did a man who’s the very model of a Beltway-consensus influence-peddler convince Tea Party voters he represents “real change”? It’s the “forcefulness,” stupid!

Unfortunately, what’s going on here is not “very deep.” Gingrich’s rise represents the triumph of rhetorical style over substance. In a way, it’s the ultimate tribute to Barack Obama.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein asked a good question on Sunday: “What are Newt Gingrich’s big ideas?” “I’m at a loss to name even one,” he admitted.

Gingrich has an enviable rep as a one-man think tank, but in his wilderness years, he made a sweet living as a “forceful” pitchman for utterly conventional center-left policies: Medicaid expansion, the individual mandate, cap and trade, “clean energy” subsidies, and the like. Newt does a great impression of a red-state firebrand, but when it comes to policy, “the color is blue.”

That’s not to say that Gingrich has never had an unconventional idea. This is a guy who bragged in a 2005 GQ interview that “I first talked about [saving civilization] in August of 1958” — when he was a rising sophomore in high school.

Some of Gingrich’s big ideas are charmingly batty. Given his worries about global warming, Newt has probably abandoned his 1984 plan for “a mirror system in space” that “could affect the earth’s climate by increasing the amount of sunlight.”

But the Trekkie zeal remains, judging by one of my favorite recent headlines: “Gingrich Said Freddie Mac Could Be Good Model for Mars Travel” (Bloomberg, Dec. 2, 2011).

Gingrich’s rise represents the triumph of rhetorical style over substance.

Some of Gingrich’s other fancies are less charming. The candidate who’s warned of a “gay and secular fascism” sweeping the country has an impressive authoritarian streak of his own.

As Klein notes, in 1996, Gingrich had the “big idea” of instituting the death penalty for anyone who brought more than 2 ounces of marijuana into the United States.

Today, Gingrich condemns the Stop Online Piracy Act as censorship, but in 2006 he supported empowering “federal judges who’ve served in combat” to shut down “jihadist” websites.

This December, he advocated sending U.S. marshals to arrest activist judges who rule against religious displays in public schools (maybe combat-hardened jurists will get a pass).

Say what you will about Gingrichian authoritarianism — at least it won’t be “gay and secular”!

At this writing, Gallup has Gingrich neck and neck with Romney for the Republican nomination. If he gets the nod, no doubt he’ll send a thrill up many a leg in the debates. But his odds of actually winning the presidency are slim indeed.

Recall that in 2004, after Obama’s GOP opponent for the U.S. Senate, Jack Ryan, imploded in a sex scandal, the party nominated Alan Keyes: another “forceful” debater with a weakness for loopy ideas. How’d that work out?

Keyes went on to run a short-lived cable talk show (the somewhat defensively titled “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”) and a role as lead plaintiff in a birther lawsuit. Obama went on to the U.S. Senate and, in short order, the presidency.

Other posts on Newt:

Adrian Rogers’ sermon on Clinton in 98 applies to Newt in 2012

It pays to remember history. Today I am going to go through some of it and give an outline and quotes from the great Southern Baptist leader Adrian Rogers (1931-2005). Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times started this morning off with some comedy: From pro golfer John Daly’s Twitter account following last night’s Republican debate, […]

Newt and Clinton:Both were Southern Baptists living hypocritcal lives

EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul Has A Secret Plan To Win America   I used to go to the Immanuel Baptist Church (Clinton was member there) Luncheon every week in Little Rock and in 1995 I visited the large Southern Baptist Church in the Atlanta where Newt was a member. Both men evidently shared some hypocritical habits […]

Should we still be making horse-drawn buggies today instead of cars?

The Arkansas Times jumped on this story as many other liberals outlets. Change in the marketplace is driven by the wants and needs of consumers. Are we to protect the jobs of those who work for companies that want to cling to the past? I posted about this before but I have decided to revisit […]

Republican delegate count and future primaries

Great website below tracks the delegates for the Republican nomination: The delegate race There are 2,286 delegates up for grabs. A candidate needs 1,144 to win the GOP presidential nomination. Total delegates won, by candidate Delegates needed: 1,144       Romney   20 Santorum   12 Paul   3 Huntsman   2 Perry   […]

Bain Capital record of Romney is excellent

Here is an excellent article: You can blame Mitt, but not for Bain By: Steven Rattner January 12, 2012 12:02 AM EST I’m all in favor of piling on Mitt Romney for any number of reasons: his come lately embrace of hard right conservatism, his periodic malapropisms (“I like being able to fire people”) and […]

 

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

Federal Budget Deficits Will Reach Levels Never Seen Before in the U.S.

January 24, 2012 – 12:45 am

Federal Budget Deficits Will Reach Levels Never Seen Before in the U.S.

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.

Recent budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, but the future will be much worse. Unlessentitlements are reformed, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive deficits to unmanageable levels.

PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Download

Federal Budget Deficits Will Reach Levels Never Seen Before in the U.S.

Source: Congressional Budget Office (Alternative Fiscal Scenario).

Chart 25 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

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

“Tennis Tuesday” John McEnroe part 1 (Greatest tennis match of all time, versus Borg)

January 24, 2012 – 12:05 am

From Wikipedia:

McEnroe won a total of 148 ATP titles (a record for a male professional) during his career — 77 in singles, 71 in men’s doubles, and 1 in mixed doubles (not counted as ATP title).He won seven Grand Slam singles titles. He also won a record eight year end championship titles overall, the Masters championships three times, and the WCT Finals,a record five times.His career singles match record was 875–198 (81.55%_. He posted the best single season match record (for a male player) in the Open Era with win-loss record: 82–3 (96.5%) set in 1984 and has the best Carpet Court career match winning percentage: 84.18% (411–346) of any player.

According to the ATP website, McEnroe had the edge in career matches on Jimmy Connors (20–14), Stefan Edberg (7–6), Mats Wilander (7–6), Michael Chang (4–1), Ilie Năstase (4–2), and Pat Cash (3–1). McEnroe was even with Björn Borg (7–7), Andre Agassi (2–2), and Michael Stich (1–1). He trailed against Pete Sampras (0–3), Goran Ivanišević (2–4), Boris Becker (2–8), Guillermo Vilas (5–6), Jim Courier (1–2), and Ivan Lendl (15–21). McEnroe won 12 of the last 14 matches with Connors, beginning with the 1983 Cincinnati tournament. Edberg won the last 5 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1989 tournament in Tokyo. McEnroe won 4 of the last 5 matches with Vilas, beginning with the 1981 tournament in Boca Raton, Florida. And Lendl won 11 of the last 12 matches with McEnroe, beginning with the 1985 US Open.

McEnroe, however, played in numerous events, including invitational tournaments, that are not covered by the ATP website. McEnroe won eight of those events and had wins and losses against the players listed in the preceding paragraph that are not reflected on the ATP website.

Grand Slam finals (11)

[edit] Singles: (7–4)

Wins (7)
Year Championship Surface Opponent in final Score in final
1979 US Open Hard United States Vitas Gerulaitis 7–5, 6–3, 6–3
1980 US Open (2) Hard Sweden Björn Borg 7–6(7–4), 6–1, 6–7(5–7), 5–7, 6–4
1981 Wimbledon Grass Sweden Björn Borg 4–6, 7–6(7–1), 7–6(7–4), 6–4
1981 US Open (3) Hard Sweden Björn Borg 4–6, 6–2, 6–4, 6–3
1983 Wimbledon (2) Grass New Zealand Chris Lewis 6–2, 6–2, 6–2
1984 Wimbledon (3) Grass United States Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–1, 6–2
1984 US Open (4) Hard Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4, 6–1
Runner-up (4)
Year Championship Surface Opponent in final Score in final
1980 Wimbledon Grass Sweden Björn Borg 6–1, 5–7, 3–6, 7–6(18–16), 6–8
1982 Wimbledon (2) Grass United States Jimmy Connors 6–3, 3–6, 7–6(7–2), 6–7(5–7), 4–6
1984 French Open Clay Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–2, 4–6, 5–7, 5–7
1985 US Open Hard Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 6–7(1–7), 3–6, 4–6
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)