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.
You asked for ideas to cut spending, but you voted for the 800 billion dollar stimulus that did not help the economy at all. I have included an article below that makes a very good point about the Balanced Budget Amendment and the stimulus:
Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.
And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.
“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.
As Washington spends the summer arguing over its spending addiction, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has a solution to help prevent the same crisis for future generations: a balanced budget amendment.
The House made news last week when, in the heat of negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, they announced a vote on a balanced budget amendment this Wednesday. Though the Senate GOP introduced a one earlier this year, President Obama has stated emphatically otherwise, telling Americans last week during a press conference that the country does not need a balanced budget amendment.
“Yes, we do,” Lee told Townhall when asked to respond to the president, adding later when talking about simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and cutting spending, “We can’t bind what a future Congress will do. We can pass laws that will affect this year, but there will be a new Congress that takes power in January of 2013, and then another new one that will take power in January 2015. And they will make their own spending decisions then — we can’t bind them unless we amend the Constitution to do so.”
Lee points out that the American people support the idea of a balanced budget – 65 percent, according to a Sachs/Mason Dixon poll from this year – but politicians have been reluctant to wade into the debate.
“The fact that we’re in this debate, the fact that we’re sort of deadlocked, or we’ve reached a point of gridlock in the discussions, is indicative of the problem that we have,” Lee said.
In fact, Lee thinks a balanced budget amendment is so important to the future of the country that he’s written a book on it: The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government.
Lee even takes the argument a step beyond fiscal issues, saying a balanced budget amendment safeguards individual liberties.
““The more money it [Congress] has access to, whether it’s through borrowing or through taxation, either way, that’s going to fuel Congress’ expansion, and whenever government acts, it does so at the expanse of individual liberty,” Lee said. “We become less free every time government expands.”
Lee believes there are several key components to a balanced budget amendment which he outlines in his book, including making tax increases contingent on a two-thirds vote in Congress so that the option to increase taxes is not the default maneuver to balance a budget. He believes the amendment should require Congress spends no more than it takes in, and in fact should cap the spending at a fixed percent of GDP (the proposal submitted in the Senate caps it at 18 percent of GDP, just about the historical average). There would also be a supermajority vote required to raise the debt ceiling.
And for those who argue that stimulus packages wouldn’t have been possible under the amendment, Lee sees little difficulty responding.
“That’s exibit A for why we ought to have it,” Lee said of the Obama stimulus package.
Lee also pointed out that his balanced budget amendment includes an exception to the spending restriction in time of war – “not a blank check, but to the extent necessary.” Congress would also be able to supersede the amendment with a two-thirds vote.
“We wanted to make it difficult, but not impossible, for Congress to spend more than it had access to,” Lee said, citing as an example a massive or immediate crisis created by a national emergency or natural disaster. “What this is designed to do is to make it more difficult – to make it impossible – for Congress to just do this as a matter of course.”
Elisabeth Meinecke
Elisabeth Meinecke is Associate Editor with Townhall.com
Americans are blessed to have inherited a constitutional republic. If we are to keep it, we must vigilantly preserve the Constitution upon which it stands. As 2011 draws to a close, we made a list (and checked it twice!) of the year’s most important constitutional trends.
Naughty: Runaway Bureaucrats
Despite the country’s woes, bureaucrats had no qualms about burdening an already struggling economy with billions of dollars of (sometimes bizarre) regulations. Public outcry put an end to a few of the most ridiculous regulation such as the “Christmas tree tax.” But since bureaucrats are unelected and uncountable to Congress, they were largely undeterred. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, usurped Congress’s legislative authority and issued new vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that (by its own estimates) will cost the economy $8.5 billion per year and raise the price of cars by at least $2,000. Just what we need to help the economy.
Nice: Congress tries to rein in Bureaucrats
This year Congress finally began to take practical steps to regain control of the legislative process. Most importantly, the House passed the REINS Act and the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would give Congress much needed authority to restrain the excesses of unaccountable bureaucrats. Although these bills are unlikely to pass the Senate, they have succeeded in turning public scrutiny upon the nation’s regulatory agencies and—most importantly—in creating a solid precedent for future reform efforts.
Memphis State coach Gene Bartow comforts Larry Finch at the awards ceremony after the Tigers lost the NCAA final to UCLA in St. Louis in March 1973. Bartow died Tuesday after a long fight with cancer.
_______________________
In 1972 I was 11 and I shot the basketball with a side arm method that was faulty. My father sent me to a basketball camp headed up by Gene Bartow and he had several of the Memphis St players like Larry Finch, Ronnie Robinson and Larry Kenon (future NBA star) working with kids at the 3 week long camp. Bartow’s son Murry was a friend I made at that camp. He used to take me to lunch at the Memphis University Student Center. I have not stayed in touch with him since then but now he is the coach at East Tennessee St.
After the camp was over my shooting method was much better and I had a great respect for Gene Bartow. Bartow died Tuesday after a long battle with cancer.
Received some very, very sad news Tuesday night. My good friend and mentor, Gene Bartow, passed away Tuesday after a long battle with cancer. He was 81.
Not only was he a great coach, he was a great man. He’s going to be sorely missed.
His wife, Ruth, and I talked Monday morning. Both of us cried knowing that it was coming to an end. My heart and my prayers go out to the Bartow family.
Words will never be able to describe how much Gene meant to me, but I wanted to use this space to offer a little tribute to my dear friend. Here is just a sample of what Gene did during his amazing career:
Gene was elected to 10 different Hall of Fames, including the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. He was inducted in 2009 along with Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wayman Tisdale, Jud Heathcote, Walter Byers, Travis Grant and Bill Wall.
He is also a member of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, the UAB Hall of Fame and the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame.
Gene is known as “The Father of UAB Athletics.” He was the school’s first athletics director while serving as the first basketball coach and guided UAB to seven consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances. Gene coached at UAB for 18 seasons and led the school to nine total NCAA Tournaments. None of his 18 teams finished below .500.
Before UAB, Gene was the coach at UCLA for two seasons. If there was anybody that could succeed legendary coach John Wooden, it was Gene. He took UCLA to the Final Four before leaving for UAB.
In 1973 he led Memphis State to the national championship game.
Overall, Gene coached 34 years at six universities after coaching two high schools in Missouri for six years. He is one of the all-time winningest college basketball coaches, racking up 647 wins during his career.
His six different colleges included Central Missouri State (1961-64), Valparaiso (1964-70), Memphis (1970-74), Illinois (1974-75), UCLA (1975-77) and UAB (1978-1996).
Gene coached the Puerto Rican national team in the 1972 Munich Olympics and served as the head coach of the U.S. national team in 1974.
He was the president of Hoops LP, the company that owns the Memphis Grizzlies.
Gene began his career coaching at the prep level. His 1957 St. Charles team won the state championship.
(left to right) Head Coach Gene Bartow, Larry Finch (21), Ronnie Robinson (33) and Larry Kenon (35) wait to be interviewed after Memphis State beat Providence in the semi-finals of the Final Four in St. Louis on March 24, 1973.
Gene Barton coaches the Memphis State Tigers on December 1, 1970.
Photo by AP
Coaches John Wooden of UCLA, left and Gene Bartow of Memphis State University are photographed at a press conference in this March 26, 1973 file photo in St. Louis. Wooden called a time-out 35 years ago in the NCAA championship game against Memphis, bringing his UCLA Bruins to the bench. Bill Walton was going off against the Tigers, piling up points inside as fast as the seconds ticked off the clock. (AP Photo, File)
Former Tigers coach Gene Bartow, right, and retired Tiger commentator Jack Eaton trade stories about the 1973 team during a reunion at the Pyramid while team members Ronnie Robinson, left, Wes Westfall and Jim Liss listen on February 16, 2003.
It is apparent from this statement below that Senator Mark Pryor is against the Balanced Budget Amendment. He has voted against it over and over like his father did and now I will give reasons in this series why Senator Pryor will be defeated in his re-election bid in 2014. However, first I wanted to quote the statement Senator Pryor gave on December 14, 2011. This information below is from the Arkansas Times Blog on 12-14-11 and Max Brantley:
THREE CHEERS FOR MARK PRYOR: Our senator voted not once, but twice, today against one of the hoariest (and whoriest) of Republican gimmicks, a balanced budget amendment. Let’s quote him:
As H.L. Mencken once said, “For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clean, and wrong.” This quote describes the balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment makes for an easy talking point, it is an empty solution. Moreover, it’s a reckless choice that handcuffs our ability to respond to an economic downturn or national emergencies without massive tax increases or throwing everyone off Medicare, Social Security, or veteran’s care.There is a more responsible alternative to balance the budget. President Clinton led the way in turning deficits into record surpluses. We have that same opportunity today, using the blueprint provided by the debt commission as a starting point. We need to responsibly cut spending, reform our tax code and create job growth. This course requires hard choices over a number of years. However, it offers a more balanced approach over jeopardizing safety net programs and opportunity for robust economic growth.
____________________
SENATOR MARK PRYOR WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SAME DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT RE-ELECTED HIS FATHER OVER AND OVER, BUT ARKANSAS NOW IS A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD. HECK, THE ONLY REASON PRYOR GOT RE-ELECTED IN 2008 WAS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS THOUGHT FOR SURE HILLARY WOULD BE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL TICKET AND WOULD HAVE COAT TAILS.
Back in 2009 there were 3 Democratic Congressman and 2 Democratic Senators from Arkansas. Now there are 3 Republican Congressman and 1 Republican Senator and the other two seats are held currently by Pryor who is not up for re-election till 2014 and Mike Ross who is vacated his seat at the end of 2012. Could it be that will no longer have any Democrats in Washington representing Arkansas in a couple of years?
I believe that Pryor has miscalculated by opposing the Balanced Budget Amendment and I think that Mike Ross is very popular because of his support of it.
Below is a piece I wrote a while back about Mike Ross.
U.S. Mike Rossof Prescott surprised everyone by scheduling an announcement this morning in Little Rock to say he would not seek a seventh term in Congress in 2012.His statement is on the jump. He said he hadn’t decided yet on a race for governor in 2014, which he’s long been expected to make. But his reference to the race indicates it is very much in his sights.
ROSS NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Mike Ross of Prescott on Monday announced he will not be seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Ross, who won re-election in 2010 by 18 points and has no announced opponent, has represented Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District in Congress since 2001. A fifth generation Arkansan, Ross is a former state senator and former small business owner.
Statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Ross:
Representing my home state of Arkansas in the U.S. Congress for the past eleven years has been a real privilege and honor. It is a job that I take very seriously and one that I love. However, as I reflect on turning 50 this year, I believe it is time for me to begin a new chapter in my life by spending more time with my family and exploring new opportunities here at home in Arkansas.
That’s why I have decided not to seek a seventh term to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District. This was not an easy decision and one that I carefully made after a lot of reflection, thought and prayer.
Last year was a tough political environment to seek re-election. Yet, I won by 18 points—one of the largest margins of any member of Congress in a swing district. The trust and confidence the folks here at home have continually placed in me is something I will never forget. The people of Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District are good, decent, hard working people and I am proud to serve and represent them in the U.S. Congress.
A lot has changed since I was first elected to the U.S. Congress in 2000. Congressional campaigns have gone from several months in length to never-ending, costing millions of dollars every two years. As a result, fundraising never ends nor do the political attacks. While I have worked hard to bring folks to the middle to craft commonsense solutions to the many problems that confront our nation, Washington is mired in gridlock, gamesmanship and constant partisan bickering. Too many issues and votes are based on partisan politics rather than good public policy. Despite our many challenges, I remain optimistic that America’s best days are still ahead of us.
I never believed that my service in the U.S. Congress should become a permanent career. This seat never belonged to me—it belongs to the people of Arkansas. And I know there are many bright people in Arkansas ready to step up, go to Washington and offer a new generation of leadership. Simply put, it is someone else’s turn to represent our state in the U.S. Congress.
I have many good memories of my service in the U.S. Congress, and we have helped thousands of people. None of this would have been possible without the support of the people here in Arkansas, and for that, my family and I will always be grateful to them.
I look forward to serving out the remainder of my term in the U.S. Congress, which doesn’t end until January 2013. I will continue to work each and every day on behalf of the people I represent, just as I have faithfully tried to do from the beginning.
I have received a lot of encouragement to run for Governor of Arkansas when Governor Beebe’s term ends in 2014. I’ve always been very upfront and honest in the fact that, as a fifth generation Arkansan, I love our state and would like very much to help lead it at some point in the future. Whether I run for Governor in 2014 is a decision I have not yet made and won’t make until sometime after my term in this Congress ends.
__________________________________
Ross will tough to beat in the governor race in 2014. However, I do think that the Republicans will have an excellent chance to capture a fourth Congressional seat in 2012. Will there ever be another Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Arkansas? (In fact if you check out some of the information at the Red Arkansas Blog and you will see that most people view this district as a Republican pick up.)
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge. However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.
Republican Tom Cotton from Dardanelle confirms to the Tolbert Report this morning that he will seek the open seat and is already putting together his team. Potential donors have confirmed that Cotton is lining up support and may already have over six figures in commitments. In addition, Cotton has been seen meeting recently with Second District Congressman Tim Griffin who could lend support to Cotton’s campaign.
Cotton was one of the many names considering a run for Senate in 2010 against former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, but ultimately decided against it. Cotton currently works for international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company. A veteran, he also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. Cotton lives in Yell County, which was part of the Second Congressional District represented by Congressman Griffin. It was moved to the Fourth Congressional Disctrict in the last redistricting process.
In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well. Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration. She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years. Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.
In addition, sources close to State Rep. Lane Jean of Magnolia confirm that he is “strongly considering” getting into the race as well. Jean was elected to his first term in the Arkansas House in 2010.
Other potential Republicans names mentioned are: State Rep. Matthew Shepherd, former Congressional candidate Glenn Gallas, and Will Rockfeller – the son of the late Lt. Gov. Win Rockfeller.
Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go.
“Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside,” she told supporters and reporters in West Des Moines this morning.
According to campaign spokesman Alice Stewart, Bachmann took last night to pray and consider how she might best move forward.
“She saw that [Iowa voters] coalesced around other candidates, and she just, she didn’t have it in her heart to continue,” Stewart told reporters this morning.
Stewart also said that campaign finance was not a factor in the decision.
“Money was not an issue at all. As you saw, we had a full schedule in South Carolina. We were planning to move full speed ahead and also go to the debates in New Hampshire and events after that,” she said.
In announcing her campaign’s suspension, Bachmann struck a cautionary tone about what she considers to be the Obama administration’s destructive policies, which she will continue to fight.
“I ran because I realized 2012 is our last chance and our only chance to repeal ‘Obamacare’ and Dodd-Frank, and I knew how to get rid of both of them,” she said.
For Bachmann’s supporters, the announcement was clearly a letdown. One man’s eyes welled up as Bachmann announced her decision to step aside.
“I mean, I understand it’s part of the process–kind of narrowing the field, that’s why we have the caucuses,” says Acacia Scott, a junior at the University of Northern Iowa who’s from Norwalk, Iowa, and says she backed Bachmann for the last month and a half. “But I supported her for a reason.”
Now those supporters must decide whom to back next. For Scott, it won’t be easy.
“Ultimately, yes, I’d love to get behind another presidential candidate and get Obama out of office,” she says, but adds that she has only had eyes for Bachmann during the race.
“As of right now, no, I don’t have my eye on another candidate,” Scott explained.
Ryan Rose, the Tea Party Coalition chair for the Bachmann campaign, is similarly undecided about whom else in the race he could support.
“I honestly have no clue. I think I will be reassessing and try to push the same principles I believe she has advanced,” said Rose.
Campaign spokesperson Alice Stewart told reporters this morning that Bachmann is still undecided as to which other candidate she will endorse in the race for the Republican nomination.
Still, Bachmann “doesn’t see where she made any mistakes” and is proud of her campaign, according to Stewart, who added, “She has certainly no room whatsoever for regret.”
Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]
The LA Times reported: As usual, there was nothing confrontational about Jay Leno’s interview with his political guest, in this case, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). She was on the West Coast on Friday to speak in Orange County and at the state Republican Convention in L.A. and, who knows? Maybe to schmooze some money from […]
Both Oppenneimer and Lizza have attacked Francis Schaeffer’s view, but the way to know his views best is to take time to watch his film series. I said that in my first post and I will continue to show all ten episodes of his film series “How should we then live?” This is a series of posts […]
In last week’s campaign speech disguised as an address to Congress, President Obama said, “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.”
Writing recently in The New York Times, the famed chairman of Berkshire Hathaway complained that his federal income tax last year was “only 17.4% of my taxable income” — less than $7 million on a taxable income of about $40 million.
Buffett claimed that, like himself, other “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earnings,” but that is not at all common. The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5% in 2009.
Obama used Buffett’s uniquely low 17.4% tax as proof that “a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.” That is not true.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous.
Anyone whose income is almost entirely composed of realized capital gains or dividends would “pay income taxes at a rate of 15% on most of their earning.” Investors with modest incomes also pay a tax rate of 15% on dividends and capital gains, although that rate is scheduled to rise to 18.8% under the Obama health law (and much higher if Congress enacted the “reforms” Obama will propose next Monday).
Before 2003, when the tax on dividends was made the same as the tax on capital gains, Berkshire Hathaway was a handy tax dodge — a way to own dividend-paying stocks without paying taxes on the dividends. Buffett is famous for collecting stocks with a generous dividend yield without Berkshire itself paying any dividend.
The dividends Berkshire receives are reinvested in buying more stocks, so the holding company ends up with more assets per share which results in capital gains that would be taxable only if the shares are sold.
Warren Buffett is the second wealthiest person in America, but he reports surprisingly little taxable income for someone who owns more than $50 billion of Berkshire shares. Increasing the tax rate on salaries and interest income would barely affect him.
He pays himself a salary of just $100,000, which explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes. He dodged the estate tax by donating his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He doubtless reduces his taxable income with other donations to charity, which explains why he repeatedly refers to taxable income rather than adjusted gross income.
Mr. Buffett ends by appointing himself tax czar and declares he “would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more … (he) would suggest an additional increase in rate.”
Since he only reports $100,000 of salary, he has nothing to lose by advocating a higher tax rate on salaries. Nearly all of his income in 2010 consisted of capital gains on sales of Berkshire shares, because those shares pay no dividends. But Buffett could just as easily hang onto appreciated shares rather than selling them, or he could donate them to charity.
Raising tax rates on dividends and capital gains sounds easier than it is. Nobody with substantial wealth can be forced to realize taxable gains by selling appreciated assets. A realized gain is no more valuable than an unrealized gain. On the contrary, it is less valuable by the amount of the tax.
Nobody can be forced to hold dividend-paying stocks either. They can instead buy Berkshire Hathaway shares if the tax on dividends goes up, as Buffett understands.
Despite his personal and professional dependence on capital gains, Buffett nevertheless feigns total ignorance of who pays the capital gains tax and why. He says, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain.”
Well, the Dow Jones industrial average was 831 at the end of 1977 — down from 969 at the end of 1965 — so somebody was having trouble finding investments that would still look sensible after paying a 39.9% tax.
In any case, for Buffett to focus on the act of buying stocks or property is all wrong. The capital gains tax is not a tax on buying assets. It is a tax on selling assets. If you don’t sell, there is no tax. And when the capital gains tax is high, very few people are willing to sell.
In 1977, when the capital gains tax was 39.9%, realized gains amounted to less than 1.57% of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the capital gains tax was 28%, realized gains rose to 2.3% of GDP. Since 28% of 2.3 is larger than 39.9% of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.
From 2004 to 2007, when the capital gains tax was 15%, realized gains amounted to 5.2% of GDP. Since 15% of 5.2 is larger than 28% of 2.3, the lower tax rate again raised more tax revenue. The government cannot afford to raise this tax, particularly on those most likely to pay it.
Buffett focuses on the 400 tax returns with the highest reported incomes, which are often one-time capital gains from the sale of a business or real estate.
“In 1992,” he writes, “the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2% on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5%.”
In 1992 only 39% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because those tax rates were so high. With most reported income coming from salaries, the average tax rate was high.
By 2008, 67% of reported income of the top 400 came from capital gains and dividends because both were taxed at 15%. That diluted the average tax rate, yet nevertheless resulted in much more taxes paid because the amount of reported income was so much larger.
The big change was not in actual income, but merely in what the IRS counts as income. People were hiding more of their wealth in 1992 than they did in 2006-2008, and they were hiding even more in 1977.
It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Simply hold onto assets that went up and sell those that went down, and never realize gains until you have offsetting losses.
The evidence is undeniable that affluent investors and property owners report far fewer gains whenever the capital gains tax goes up. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary, and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.
With the super-high 1977 tax rates of 39.9% on capital gains and 70% on dividends and salaries, federal revenues were 18% of GDP. In 1992, revenues were only 17.5% of GDP. In 2007, thanks in large part to a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, revenues were 18.5% of GDP.
To hold out the tax policies of 1977 or 1992 as examples of effective ways to raise more revenue is ludicrous. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now.
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.
Americans are blessed to have inherited a constitutional republic. If we are to keep it, we must vigilantly preserve the Constitution upon which it stands. As 2011 draws to a close, we made a list (and checked it twice!) of the year’s most important constitutional trends.
Nice: Congress begins to rediscover its (atrophied) constitutional muscles
Congress kicked off the year with unprecedented reverence for the Constitution. Congress began the session with a ceremonial reading of the Constitution on the house floor, and then adopted a new rule that requires any proposed bill to cite its constitutional authority. While admirable, these measures have thus far failed to achieve their intended result. The potential solemnity of the reading ceremony was tainted by petty disputes and goofy mistakes (an entire section was skipped) and the citation rule has become little more thanan exercise in box checking. Congress still has a long way to go, but its newfound constitutional courage marks a welcome change from Pelosi’s “are you serious?” approach to the Constitution.
Nice: Grassroots Constitutionalism Stays Strong
Of course, Congress didn’t just decide to prioritize the constitution on a whim. The credit lies with the American people who have become fed up with government excesses. From their spontaneous origins in 2009, grassroots movements such as the Tea Party had gained enough strength by the 2010 elections to send Congress a strong message to respect the Constitution. From the many Constitution Day festivals across the nation to the numerous Tea Party rallies and the joint CNN/Tea Party primary debate, 2011 saw everyday Americans continue their efforts to restore limited, constitutional government.
Naughty: Constitutional Lawmaking Undermined
One of the most disturbing trends of 2011 was the Obama Administration’s willingness to skirt the Constitution’s law making process. In September, the Obama administration openly bypassed Congress by unilaterally issuing waivers to exempt states from the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Even more outrageous, Obamacare waivers (giving relief from the law’s most costly provisions) were given almost exclusively to political allies of the administration such as labor unions and Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada. Fully 20% went to unions and businesses (including luxury restaurants and financial firms) in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district in San Francisco.
Thanks to YouTube, this gem in American history has been preserved.
In February 1956, two months before his death, 96-year-old Samuel J. Seymour appeared on the CBS television show “I’ve Got A Secret.” His secret: he witnessed Abraham Lincoln’s assassination when he was five years old.
Sure enough, Seymour has been widely recognized as the last surviving person in America who had been present at Ford’s Theatre the night of Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865.
According to the Washington Times, Seymour attended the Ford’s Theatre performance as a young boy with family friends. He was told upon arriving in Washington, “Sammy, you and I and Sarah are going to a play – a real play. And President Abraham Lincoln will be there.”
Seymour’s recollection of the event includes a shot ringing out, someone in the President’s box screaming and Lincoln slumping forward in his seat. He also caught a glimpse of John Wilkes Booth jumping from the box to the stage.
A Maryland native who later lived in Arlington, Seymour died on April 12, 1956, three days before the anniversary of Lincoln’s death.
next Like many other southerners, my two grandfathers told me about their grandfathers who fought in the Civil war. My great, great grandfather from Mississippi actually was released after the war in Union City, Kentucky near the Tennessee state line. There he had to walk back to his home in Oxford, MS. My other great, […]
Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For Confederate soldier Julius Howell talking about his capture and imprisonment at the Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Md. Howell was born in 1846 near the Holy Neck section of Suffolk, in the Holland area. He was the youngest of 16 children, the son of […]
The American Civil War Part 1 The Union I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock for another event (Bill […]
Ken Burns discusses his Emmy winning series The Civil War – EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock […]
Civil war veteran soldier footage, captured between 1913 and 1938 Civil war veteran soldier footage, captured between 1913 and 1938. Our other greatest generation. God bless both sides of this war who both tested and saved our union. _____________________________________________ I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim […]
This is colour video of Albert Woolson, the last Union veteran of the US Civil War; he is also the last absolutely confirmed veteran of that conflict from either side. This footage, as far as I know, is the very last footage taken of a US Civil War veteran at all. I believe at least […]
A montage of archival footage from the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in […]
Here is another fine article on the subject of the religious beliefs of Geore Lucas and how it affected what his characters like Darth Vader and what they had to say.
A long time ago, in a movie multiplex not so far away, a child looked up and asked: “Mom, Dad, is the Force the same thing as God?”
Children have been asking that question for 20 years. The simple answer is “yes.” But this raises another question: Which god or God is at the center of the “Star Wars” universe?
The trilogy’s creator was well aware that his work invaded turf traditionally reserved for parents, priests and preachers. George Lucas wrote “Star Wars” shortly after the cultural revolution of the ’60s. He sensed a spiritual void.
“I wanted it to be a traditional moral study, to have some sort of palpable precepts in it that children could understand,” said Lucas, in a recent New Yorker interview. “There is always a lesson to be learned. … Traditionally, we get them from church, the family, art and in the modern world we get them from the media — from movies.”
Lucas set out to create a modern mythology to teach right and wrong. The result was a fusion of “Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe” and Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero with a Thousand Faces,” of Arthurian legends and Japanese samurai epics, of Carlos Castaneda’s “Tales of Power” and the Narnia tales of C.S. Lewis. Along the way, Lucas sold $1.3 billion worth of tickets and “Star Wars” merchandise sales have topped $4 billion. Now, a revamped “Star Wars” is back in theaters, to be followed by its sequels, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi.” A trilogy of “prequels” is set to begin in 1999.
The impact of Lucas’ work has led some researchers to speak in terms of a “Star Wars” generation. A modern preacher who wants to discuss self sacrifice will be understood by more people if he refers to the death of Jedi knight Obi Wan Kenobi, rather than that of St. Stephen.
“It was natural that my generation would latch on to these stories,” said Jason Ruspini, webmaster of the unofficial “Star Wars Home Page,” one of nearly 1,000 “Star Wars” Internet sites. “They were much more attractive and appropriate than the ancient myths of Judeo-Christian theology. How could these draconian and antiquated stories possibly compete with the majesty and scope of the Star Wars universe?”
Lucas grew up in the 1950s in Modesto, Calif., reading comics, escaping to movies and watching TV. Although he attended a Methodist church with his family, biographer Dale Pollock notes that he was turned off by the “self-serving piety” of Sunday school. Lucas also visited the housekeeper’s German Lutheran congregation, where he was impressed by the elaborate rituals.
Traces of these experiences are woven into his work. “The message of `Star Wars’ is religious: God isn’t dead, he’s there if you want him to be,” writes Pollock, in his book “Skywalking.” Lucas puts it this way: “The laws really are in yourself.”
The faith in “Star Wars” is hard to label. The Force is defined as “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us.” It contains both good and evil. Jedi master Yoda clearly teaches a form of Buddhism. Yet the Lucas liturgy also proclaims “May the Force be with you,” a variation on the Christian phrase “May the Lord be with you.” The plot includes other symbols and themes from biblical faith. Lucas has embraced both “passive Oriental philosophies and the Judeo- Christian ethic of responsibility and self-sacrifice,” according to Pollock.
Thus, some Christians hail “Star Wars” as evidence of a cultural search for moral absolutes. On the World Wide Web, others use the films as glowing icons that teach Eastern philosophy. Welcome to the theological mall.
At the end of Pollock’s book, Lucas acknowledges that, by setting his goals so high, he is asking to be judged by very high standards. The creator of “Star Wars” explains that one of his least favorite fantasies is about what will happen when he dies. Perhaps, he said, he will come face to face with God and hear these words: “You’ve had your chance and you blew it. Get out.”
Terry Mattingly teaches communications at Milligan College in Tennessee. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. Article used by permission of the author.
LONDON — Olympic fencer and movie sword master Bob Anderson appeared in some of film’s most famous dueling scenes – though few viewers knew it.
Anderson, who has died at age 89, donned Darth Vader’s black helmet and fought light saber battles in two of the three original “Star Wars” films, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi.”
Anderson, who worked with actors from Errol Flynn to Antonio Banderas during five decades as a sword master, fight director and stunt performer, died early New Year’s Day at an English hospital, the British Academy of Fencing said Monday.
Vader, “Star Wars'” intergalactic arch-villain, was voiced by James Earl Jones and played by six foot six (1.98 meter) former weightlifter David Prowse, but Anderson stepped in during the key fight scenes.
“David Prowse wasn’t very good with a sword and Bob couldn’t get him to do the moves,” said Anderson’s former assistant, Leon Hill. “Fortunately Bob could just don the costume and do it himself.”
The scenes worked beautifully, although Anderson, then nearing 60, was several inches shorter than Prowse.
Few knew of Anderson’s role until Mark Hamill, who played Luke Skywalker, said in a 1983 interview that “Bob Anderson was the man who actually did Vader’s fighting.”
“It was always supposed to be a secret, but I finally told (director) George (Lucas) I didn’t think it was fair any more,” Hamill told Starlog magazine. “Bob worked so bloody hard that he deserves some recognition. It’s ridiculous to preserve the myth that it’s all done by one man.”
Robert James Gilbert Anderson was born in Hampshire, southern England, in 1922, and was drawn to fencing from an early age.
“I never took up the sword,” he said in an interview for the 2009 documentary “Reclaiming the Blade.” “I think the sword took me up.”
Anderson joined the Royal Marines before World War II, teaching fencing aboard warships and winning several combined services titles in the sport.
He served in the Mediterranean during the war, later trained as a fencing coach and represented Britain at the 1952 Olympics and the 1950 and 1953 world championships.
In the 1950s, Anderson became coach of Britain’s national fencing team, a post he held until the late 1970s. He later served as technical director of the Canadian Fencing Association.
His first film work was staging fights and coaching Flynn on swashbuckler “The Master of Ballantrae” in 1952.
He went on to become one of the industry’s most sought after stunt performers, fight choreographers and sword masters, working on movies including the James Bond adventures “From Russia With Love” and “Die Another Day”; fantasy “The Princess Bride”; Banderas action romps “The Mask of Zorro” and “The Legend of Zorro”; and the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.
Fencing academy president Philip Bruce said Anderson was “truly one of our greatest fencing masters and a world-class film fight director and choreographer.”
Hill remembered him as “a splendid man, a great man who gave so much to fencing that can never be repaid.”
Anderson is survived by his wife Pearl and three children. Funeral details were not immediately available.
The Bhagavad-Gita may well have been Yoda’s manual for teaching Luke Skywalker the way of the Jedi.
BY: Steven J. Rosen
At first glance, it might seem that “Star Wars” and Hinduism have little in common. The “Star Wars” films are modern science-fiction classics, created as entertainment. They make use of futuristic spaceships and imaginative weapons that the real world has not yet seen. Hinduism, for its part, is an ancient religious tradition-or, more explicitly, a family of religious traditions, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism–meant for spiritual enhancement and personal fulfillment. What, if anything, do the films have to do with the religion?
My thesis is simple. Lucas, the creator of “Star Wars,” was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell, the famed mythologist. Campbell’s preferred stock of philosophical stories comes from India. This is well known. Campbell explained the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, the principal epics of contemporary Hinduism, to Lucas, who digested their many stories and gave them back to us as “Star Wars.” Lucas himself says that he was “influenced by Eastern myths.” Here’s one example I use in my forthcoming book, drawing on the first film of the series, which was released in 1977:
A beautiful princess is kidnapped by a powerful but evil warlord. With determined urgency, a mysterious non-human entity delivers a distress call to a budding young hero. The youthful hero, a prince, comes to the princess’s rescue, aided by a noble creature that is half-man and half-animal. In the end, after a war that epitomizes the perennial battle between good and evil, the beautiful maiden returns home. The valiant efforts of the prince and his comrade, who were assisted by an army of anthropomorphic bears in the fight to return the princess to safety, are duly rewarded, and peace and righteousness once again engulf the kingdom.
In the Eastern part of the world, the story evokes memories of the Ramayana, an ancient epic from which many of India’s myths and religious traditions originate: The princess is Sita, kidnapped by the power-mad Ravana. Her loving husband Rama, the archetypal hero who, as the story goes, is Vishnu (God) in human form, soon becomes aware of her plight and anxiously pursues her.
How did he learn of Ravana’s nefarious deed? The good-hearted Jatayu, a talking vulture-like creature, sworn to protect the princess, sees the demon-king abduct Sita. He attempts to rescue her on his own, but Ravana mercilessly cuts him down. Luckily, Rama happens upon the dying Jatayu, who manages to recount all that has taken place before he expires.
After a period of intense grieving, Rama engages his devoted half-human/half monkey companion, Hanuman, in a lengthy search for the princess and, after a complex series of events, they wage war to get Sita back. Aided by an army of Vanaras (bears and monkeys who have anthropomorphic characteristics), Rama rescues Sita from Ravana. The forces of the underworld defeated, Rama-raja (the kingdom of truth and righteousness) reigns supreme.
In Western countries, the story would remind most readers of the first “Star Wars” movie. Here, too, the princess–this time, Princess Leia–is kidnapped. In the “Star Wars” universe, evil incarnates as Darth Vader, who holds Leia against her will. Artoo-Deetoo (R2-D2), an android, carries a desperate cry for help. The princess, just before being captured, managed to conceal a holographic message in the droid’s memory banks. Thus, through this futuristic robot, she asks for the assistance of Obi-Wan Kenobi, a master among the mystical Jedi knights, hoping he would come to her aid.
Luke Skywalker, a farm boy from the planet Tatooine, is the one who first receives this message, however, and it is he who turns to the retired Obi-Wan to alert him to the princess’s plight. Luke himself is reluctant to travel into unknown territory, into a world of action and intrigue. But Obi-Wan convinces him to go, telling him that “the Force” will protect him.
The two team up with Han Solo, a renegade space cowboy, and Chewbacca, a “half-man/ half-monkey” creature who devotedly assists them. By the end of the original “Star Wars” trilogy, in the company of legions of bear soldiers, they wage a war to end all wars–Darth Vader and his evil empire are defeated and the princess is returned to safety.
Is it a stretch to say that Lucas was directly and/ or indirectly influenced by the Ramayana? This author, obviously, thinks not. And there are many other parallels between Star Wars and Hindu tradition as well. Consider the example of the relationship between Yoda and Luke–a dead-ringer for the traditional Guru/ disciple relationship, especially as depicted in the ancient Hindu text, the Bhagavad-gita.
Yoda teaches Luke self-control, the importance of restraining the senses. Every Jedi, he says, must overcome desire and anger. The Gita must have been Yoda’s sourcebook: “A faithful man who is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge–and who subdues his senses–is eligible to achieve such knowledge, and having achieved it he quickly attains the supreme spiritual peace.” (4.39) Again, “By the time death arrives, one must be able to tolerate the urges of the material senses and overcome the force of desire and anger. If one does so, he will be well situated and able to leave his body without regret.” (5.23)
It is interesting, too, that Yoda locates the source of the Jedis’ strength as flowing from “the Force,” which he essentially defines as the ground of all being. Indeed, Yoda tells Luke that all ability comes from the Force, but that this is especially true of the Jedis’ supernatural powers. The Gita also says that all power flows from the “Force,” i.e., the metaphysical source of all that is: “Of all that is material and all that is spiritual, know for certain that I am both the origin and dissolution. . . .Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. . . . I am the ability in man.” (7.6-8)
Yoda’s name is closely linked to the Sanskrit “yuddha,” which means “war.” Accordingly, he teaches a chivalrous form of warfare, imbued with ethics and spirituality, to the Jedi knights. The non-aggressive but valiant ways of these knights are exactly like those of Kshatriyas, ancient Indian warriors who emphasized yogic codes and the art of protective combat. In this, Yoda resembles Dronacharya from the Mahabharata, who, in the forest (again like Yoda), trains the Pandava heroes to be righteous protectors of the innocent.
In the Ramayana, Vishvamitra Muni, as Rama’s spiritual master, teaches the great avatar (incarnation of God) to be adept in the art of war, but he also teaches him that fighting must always be based on yogic principles–he teaches Rama while they are living in the forest as well. Both Dronacharya and Vishvamitra seem like earlier incarnations of Yoda.
In this sense, and in many others, the Hindu scriptures may be the ultimate guidebooks for aspiring Jedis: Consider the Bhagavad-gita yet again: Lust, anger, and greed, the Gita tells us, are deeply embedded in our consciousness. Just ask Anakin. And deep-rooted habits are not always easy to overcome. Nonetheless, in the Gita, Krishna helps us through the darkest of battles by explaining the source of our dilemma, the gradual steps by which we delude ourselves, and by putting us in touch with the spiritual element lying dormant within our hearts. He tells us that those who are enamored by materialistic life begin simply by contemplating the objects of the senses.
Again, just ask Anakin. Such contemplation naturally leads to self-interested action and, finally, attachment. This, in turn, gives rise to anger. Why anger? Because everything in the world is temporary, and so we eventually lose the objects of our attachment. Anger, Krishna says, leads to bewilderment, and bewilderment to loss of memory. At this point, intelligence is lost. We can watch this happening to Anakin in “Attack of the Clones” and, further, in the latest film, “Revenge of the Sith.”
Other connections to Hinduism are also apparent in the prequels. For example, the idea of midi-chlorians, or living cells found in high concentration in Jedi blood, resonates with the idea of Paramatma, or the Lord in the Heart. Vaishnava Hinduism uses this concept to explain how God (the Force?) exists inside our bodies as a symbiont, as it were, allowing living entities to commune with Him. Also, young Anakin Skywalker, a Jedi priest, wears a shikha, or a tuft of hair, on the back of his head. While this religious symbolism is found in several ancient monastic traditions, it is nowhere as pronounced as in the Vaishnava Hindu tradition. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna teaches that intelligence means good memory and fine discretion–both of which fall away when we adopt a materialistic and self-centered approach to life. This vicious cycle puts us in a non-spiritual frame of mind, in which we forget who we are and what life is really all about. Krishna refers to this as “a material whirlpool” that drags people ever lower; it is a complex downward spiral that begins, as He says in the Gita, simply by one’s contemplating the objects of the senses. (2.61-64) Krishna thus tells Arjuna not to be fooled by sensual stimulation and, instead, to control his senses for a higher purpose. This, indeed, is the teaching of the Jedi and a lesson that is valuable to each and every one of us.
Can people learn this Hindu wisdom from watching “Star Wars”? Most likely not. They’ll have to go to established religious texts and the paths traversed by the sages. But something is definitely afoot here. More than 70,000 people in Australia, in a census poll, declared that they are followers of the Jedi faith, the “religion” engendered by the “Star Wars” films. Despite the extremism and absurdity of this statistic-of people adhering to a faith concocted in a fictional film series-experts see in it a manifestation of the movies’ spiritual dimension.
In light of this enthusiasm, it’s not surprising that the “Star Wars” universe continues to grow. Lucas is now re-mastering the entire series into special 3-D versions, updated for modern times. New TV shows based on “Star Wars” are planned for upcoming seasons. And you now learn of parallels between this consequential film epic and one of the earliest religious traditions known to humankind. What’s next?! Only the Force is likely to know!
With the sudden news from Rep. Mike Ross that he will not seek re-election, potential Republican candidates will quickly emerge. However, two Republicans have already been busy lining up support behind the scenes before Ross even announced his decision.
In addition, Beth Anne Rankin of Magnolia, former candidate and general election opponent of Mike Ross, has been exploring another run as well. Rankin is a former Miss Arkansas and worked in former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s administration. She recently appeared on his Fox News program “Huckabee” cutting her red hair for “Locks of Love” – something she does every few years. Rankin recieved 40 percent of the vote in 2010 with Ross pulling in 57 percent.
The Daily Hatch 