Our friends on the left who want more government spendinggenerally have a short-run argument and a long-run argument.
In the short run, they assert that more government spending can stimulate a weak economy. This is typically known as Keynesian economics and it means temporary borrowing and spending.
In the long run, they claim that big government is an investment that leads to better economic performance. This is the “Nordic Model” and it means permanent increases in taxes and spending.
In many ways, the debate about short-run Keynesianism is different than the debate about the appropriate long-run size of government.
But there is one common thread, which is that proponents of more government pay too much attention to consumption and too little attention to production.
I wrote a somewhat wonky column about this topic back in April, but let’s take another look at this issue.
In a column last month for the Wall Street Journal, Andy Kessler shared some economic fundamentals.
Here’s how capitalism works—pay attention if you took the social-justice version of Econ 101. SIPPC: Save. Invest. Produce. Profit. Consume. Save means postponing consumption, money and time. Only then you can invest,especially your human capital, in something productive. Usually this means doing more with less, being efficient and effective. This is when innovation happens. Wealth comes only from productivity, not from giving away money. …Supply first and then consume…, creating incentives to put money into the hands of entrepreneurs and clearing a path for them to innovate by getting government out of the way.
In some sense, this is simply the common-sense observation that you can’t consume (or redistribute) unless someone first produces.
There are no shortcuts. You can’t induce demand without supply. Didn’t the lockdowns prove that? Stimulus checks did little good given that there were few places to spend them until businesses were allowed to reopen. We’re now perversely sitting on almost $3 trillion in excess savings and even more new government debt. Yet the government stimulus mentality continues in Congress. …Through taxes and currency depreciation, demand-side spending steals savings needed to invest in future supply, which is why it never works. It is why the Great Depression lasted so long, why Japan lost two decades, and why 2009-16 saw subpar U.S. economic growth. When demand drops, government spending and giveaways make things worse. The only solution to kickstart production is to increase investment and make jobs more plentiful by cutting taxes and easing regulation. ..Price signals tell entrepreneurs what to supply. But price signals are only as good as their inputs. Minimum-wage laws mess up labor price signals. Tariffs mess up trade price signals. The Federal Reserve’s bond-buying blowouts mess up interest-rate price signals.
Amen. We know the policies that lead to more prosperity, but politicians constantly throw sand in the gears.
Simply stated, bigger government diverts resources from the productive sector of the economy. And that makes it more difficult to get the innovation and investment that are necessaryfor rising wages.
P.S. I can’t resist sharing this additional segment of Mr. Kessler’s column.
Modern Monetary Theory, known as MMT—what economist John Christensen called the “Magic Money Tree”—is the worst of demand-side nonsense. MMT believers think that to boost aggregate demand we can have government print money and spend, spend, spend. We tried this in the 1960s and ’70s with Great Society programs
What makes the cartoon especially effective is that it not only shows that higher tax burden is designed to finance more spending, but also it makes clear that soaking-the-rich won’t be enough.
I thought taxes were not going up “by one cent,” but the truth is that they are going up a lot more that one cent.
President Obama is crisscrossing the country to scare Americans about sequestration. But what’s really frightening are the 13 Obama tax hikes that took effect in 2013.
These tax increases, which range from new Obamacare taxes to a payroll tax hike on workers, will slow the economy. Heritage Foundation President-Elect Jim DeMint warned on Fox News last night these tax hikes have the potential to cause more harm than the budget cuts that will happen as a result of sequestration:
Most of the media is so sold out to Obama that they’re missing the obvious. The policies the President has in place, especially the tax increases that just got in, are going to hurt our economy, probably actually bring it down. The President is desperate to blame it on Republicans. He wants to blame it on a reduction in government spending. But the taxes are taking almost two-and-a-half times more out of the economy than this sequester will.
Heritage’s Romina Boccia explains the consequences: Tax increases take money out of the economy that could have been spent on hiring workers and they change the incentives against productive work and investment, which slows growth over the long term.
We don’t expect Obama to mention these tax increases as he campaigns against the sequester. But we do encourage YOU to share our new video and the list of Obama’s 13 tax hikes, which that was put together by Curtis Dubay, a senior policy analyst at Heritage:
Tax increases the fiscal cliff deal allowed:
1. Payroll tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”
2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).
5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.
7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.
Obamacare tax increases that took effect:
8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).
The Broyles Award Trophy, made out of solid bronze, depicts Broyles (kneeling) and longtime University of Arkansas assistant coach Wilson Matthews (standing), watching over a Razorback football game or practice. Matthews was the coach of Little Rock Central High School before joining Broyles on the Razorback’s staff.
______________
Today at the Little Rock Touchdown Club Luncheon, Bobby Bowden spoke, but before he spoke, David Bazell announced that Bowden is the newest member of the Broyles Award Selection Committee. The committee includes Frank Broyles, Don James, Vince Dooley, Haden Fry, Dick MacPherson, Grant Teaff, and LaVell Edwards.
The Broyles Award is an annual award given to honor the best assistant coach in college football. First awarded in 1996, it was named after former University of Arkansas men’s athletic director Frank Broyles. The award is presented in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Bowden told a funny story about the 1980 victory at Nebraska. He pointed out that Nebraska was ranked #3 and was expected to possibly win the national championship. At that time Florida State had not won a game against a top 5 team yet, and FSU went into the game as big underdogs. In fact, the week before FSU had lost 10-9 in a game where they had been heavily favored because of the 10 fumbles they had because their first and second team centers had season ending injuries.
In practice the next week Bowden got several players together to compete for the starting center position and it was won by a walk-on player. The next game against Nebraska, Florida State had no turnovers while Nebraska had 4 and Florida State came away with a 18-14 victory.
Bowden noted that the walk-on center was horrible at blocking, but he was very dependable at providing good snaps. Bowden uses this illustration when he talks to business people to encourage them to seek dependable employees.
Bowden asserted, “That will always go down in my book not neccessarily my favorite win, but probably the most important win in Florida State’s modern day history.”
Below you will see a clip that discusses that 1980 matchup and you will notice that former Arkansas defensive coordinator Reggie Herring is interviewed twice in the 4 minute clip. Herring played on the FSU defense.
In 2006 I went to the Shiloh Christian at Bauxite playoff game in Saline County. It was a cold night, and I noticed Gus Malzahn and several other notable persons at the game. Arkansas had played LSU earlier in the day in Little Rock. During the second half I saw a monster hit by a linebacker from Shiloh, and I exclaimed, “Who was that guy?” The gentleman next to me who was wearing a ski mask responded, “That is my son Adam Herring.” I had been standing next to Reggie Herring for 2 hours and did not even know it.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (BP)–Whether it’s leading his team to a national championship on the gridiron, or carefully tending his flock of football players, Florida State’s Bobby Bowden is on-mission for the Lord — 24 hours a day.During 46 years of coaching, Bowden has concerned himself with the salvation of nearly 5,000 young men who have providentially found themselves at his coaching door. Sitting at his desk — family photographs to his right and a picture-window view of the football playing field at Doak Campbell Stadium on his left — the larger-than-life personality becomes the down-to-earth mentor to players and coaches alike. He is just as concerned about his players “getting saved” as he is about them learning playbooks.In fact, when a student athlete signs to play football at Florida State University, one of the first things the coach does is send a letter to the parents asking for permission to take the student to church.Bowden takes the players, as a team, to church twice each season. The churches selected are not necessarily Baptist; typically one is predominantly Anglo and the other predominantly African-American.
“I make all my boys, black or white, go because I want them to see that they are welcomed here in this church no matter what the color of their skin. I want them to understand that.”
He also tells the parents, “I want them to carry on the way that you have trained them in your home because I know how it is when kids get away to college — the first thing they do is quit going to church.”
And while Bowden may be a man of character and integrity, don’t under estimate him as an opponent. Firm coaching principles are as important to him as winning the game.
Tangible evidence of the success of this football legend’s program is on display in the Coyle Moore Athletic Center. The football wing is a museum that houses two Waterford crystal national championship trophies (1993 and 1999), along with hundreds of other awards, rings, trophies, outstanding player portraits and memorabilia from 24 years of winning football games.
Sure, Bowden is proud of winning but it’s mainly others — boosters, media and fans — who bring up the impressive, record-breaking statistics. Bowden unequivocally gives God the glory for his success.
“God hasn’t blessed many coaches more than He has me. He sure has blessed me” and for that “I am very thankful,” Bowden said. Specifically, he mentioned that, “God has given me a great family. We’ve all been very fortunate.”
Bobby and Ann Bowden have been married 51 years and their family includes six children — all married — and 21 grandchildren, all healthy.
Bowden truly loves people. Just to watch him walk around the athletic complex is a lesson in people skills as he speaks and nods to every person he sees. Colleagues say he “never walks past an admiring child without a wink and a smile.”
The Birmingham, Ala., native evidences a God-given talent to motivate others. The genteel charm, quick wit and Southern drawl, mixed with a friendly and outgoing man who loves life and lives it to the fullest, makes people just want to be around him.
“I just love to coach,” he affirmed. “That may sound simple, but I think sometimes people like the things that go around coaching and not the actual job.”
Colleagues use words like “respect, sincerity, class, honesty, charisma, charm and humor” to describe Bowden. His faith in God, commitment to Christ and “rock-solid character” are the things that define this man — not wins, losses or coaching records.
“Our mission on earth is to glorify God, in whatever [situation] He’s put us.” So if you’re doing it to the glory of God, he added, then it better be good.
“I’ve always felt like He put me in coaching to try to reach young men through coaching, through playing ball, you know? It opens a lot of doors for them.”
Startling numbers of Bowden’s players become first-round NFL draft picks, but Bowden encourages them to seek God’s will in planning their futures.
“God is going to find a way for you to make a living,” he said. “He is going to find a profession for you. And to me that’s what all these college students should be doing — searching for the profession into which God wants them to go. Now most of them are going to be led into it by their abilities. Some of them just feel like they want to go into medicine, law, teaching, coaching or criminology. In other words there’s something that just leads you in there, and I feel like if people will ask and seek, that God will lead them where He wants them to go.”
Reflecting on his career and what God has taught him through coaching, Bowden said, “If you love Him and serve Him and try to be loyal to Him and obedient to Him, He’s not going to let you fail. That’s the thing that has happened to me.”
Ever mindful of his Christian testimony, Bowden has “always tried to put God first — I’ve tried. I don’t want people to think that ‘Bobby really thinks he’s a good boy.’ No, I don’t think I’m good. I try to be good. But the thing about it is that God has taught me that if you try to be obedient and try to follow the rules and try to do what He asks you to, you still can be a success.”
Win, lose or draw, Bowden’s first order of business at the end of a game is to immediately shake the other coach’s hand. He is acutely aware of the constant audience of players, coaches, fans and media watching for his reaction, particularly during turbulent times.
Bowden was “raised in a very good Christian home” under the care of “great” parents. They took him to church all of his life, had prayer in the home and read Scripture.
Bowden made a public profession of faith when he was around age 10, but said it wasn’t until he was 23 he really “got the picture” and rededicated his life to the Lord.
He recalled, “As I came up, I thought that being good was being a Christian. I knew you had to join the church. I joined the church. I knew you had to be baptized. I was baptized. I thought that — plus being good — makes you a Christian.
“I finally realized that you are saved by grace.” It’s “nothing that you did and nothing that you earned. Once I understood that, it made life simpler to me. Because, with understanding grace, it makes you want to do better. Nobody’s perfect. I make mistakes every day and do things that are wrong, though I try not to. But that’s the thing about being a Christian and really believing: You try not to.”
He added, “The older I get the stronger I get about my Christian beliefs and faith.”
Ever since his 1953 rededication experience, Bowden has accepted invitations to speak whenever and wherever he can, particularly to church groups, and particularly when he is on the road with the team. Whether the media is watching or not, he minces no words when speaking of eternal salvation.
Comparing his role as a coach and that of ministers, who he admires because “they have got the toughest job in the world,” Bowden acknowledged, “In coaching I can’t make everybody happy. There’s no way. If you win, you didn’t win by a big enough score. … If you are a minister and you are preaching” the responsibility is greater. “You can’t make everybody happy there; don’t water it down so that these people who don’t believe don’t get their feelings hurt,” he admonished. “I think you’ve got to say it like it is, in the best loving way that you can say it now. But, again, preach the Bible and what the Bible teaches and I think your church will flourish.”
–30–
2010 exciting Idlewild baptist church Bobby Bowden guest speaker FSU head coach speaking sermon pastor ken whiten talks about faith in Jesus Christ, God. small story about his mom.
__________________________________
When I attended the Little Rock Touchdown Club on September 12, 2011 I thought that I something may have to do with Bobby Bowden’s testimony and sure enough he started off with a story about him being a Southern Baptist. However, he did not go into details about his faith in Christ. Here I am posting those details:
CBN.com – Bobby Bowden is a coaching legend. His name is synonymous with success. He’s the all-time winningest coach in Division One history, and he’s directed the Florida State University Seminoles to two national championships.
But he says the defining moment in his life came before his coaching career even began, when he rededicated his life to Jesus Christ.
“When I recommitted my life, my whole thinking was…God I’m making myself available to You. I think You’ve led me into coaching. I think this is what You want me to do, God,” he remembers.
And unashamedly, Coach Bowden has been using football at the stadium as a pulpit to witness to young men for the last 53 years.
“You know, that’s all I’ve done over the last 50 years is make it available, and you can’t believe the boys that have called me 20 to 30 years later.”
According to Bowden, his former players have said, “Coach I’m so glad you did this. I’m so glad you said that.”
“You can’t imagine how many boys I’ve coached here that become ministers. That has to be just as satisfying as winning a football game,” he says. “All we got to do is present it. We ain’t gonna save nobody. But He will, and all He asks us to do is to present it.”
Talk to players, coaches, and the people who work most closely with Bobby Bowden over the years, and the thing you hear over and over again is how much he genuinely cares for people.
“As a coach, he’s had a big influence on my life. He hired me because I was a player here. Bobby showed a lot to me by example as a leader — dependability and accountability,” says defensive line coach, Odell Haggins.
“He’s like a second father to me. He’s been so gracious to my family and I forever,” adds former assistant coach, Chuck Amato. “I’ve often said Coach Bowden is a sermon in shoes. What he says and what he preaches, he follows up. He treats the custodian that cleans the commode in his office just as well as he treats the president of the university. He sees no class in people. He sees no difference in race. He treats everybody kind and with respect.”
He’s fair, but tough — much like a general. In fact, had he not gone into coaching, Bowden said he probably would’ve chosen the military as a career.
“I was raised during World War II. So I became very interested in the military.”
“A lot of those skills and strategies carry over. I get a lot of sayings out of it. Some things that General Patton or Stonewall Jackson said, I can use and you’d be amazed at how much the strategy is alike,” says Coach Bowden.
Coach says one attribute that should carry over whether it’s the battlefield or the football field is character — a trait that he instills in his players.
“I’m one of those guys that thinks if you don’t have adversity, forget about character. Because your character is going to be developed by how well you handle adversity,” he says. “Now if you never have adversity, how are you going to develop character?”
And it’s through his own adversity Coach Bowden’s character shines. He’s been criticized for giving second chances to players who break team rules. But Coach says God extended grace to him and when given the opportunity, he’ll do the same.
“I was a boy myself one time. If someone had not forgiven me for some of the things I had done, I would never have made it. So I’m coaching these young men, and I know what they go through and the temptations they’re faced with.”
“They’re going to make mistakes. I made them! I still do! But if it’s up to me, and I’ve got a chance to save someone, and it’s the first time they’ve done something like this … I’m going to give them a second chance.”
And he uses those opportunities to be a positive influence in his players’ lives.
“I believe young men need a male in the home. Young boys raised need a male figure in the home. It’s not what most of them got … somebody to discipline them,” he believes. “I take them to church, have bible reading with them, and pray at supper. I think that myself and the staff add a lot.”
The landscape of college football has changed since Bowden arrived on the scene. A lot of coaches have come and gone. But Coach Bowden has had success with a simple philosophy.
“When I put everything in God’s hands, I don’t have to worry about anything. I don’t have to worry about winning ballgames. I want to. I want to win as much as anybody does, but I don’t have to worry about this. I know that when I die, I live eternally with my God, so the pressure’s off!”
LITTLE ROCK — Some of his material could use an update, but Bobby Bowden’s timing and inflection are good enough for an opening act at a comedy club.
The 81-year-old former Florida State football coach evoked lots of yucks at the Little Rock Touchdown Club on Monday, although a couple of punch lines were familiar and his story about autographed pictures would have worked just as well in Alabama by subbing Nick Saban’s name for that of Bobby Petrino.
Bowden left me wanting more inside football. He talked briefly about how college realignment is driven by money, how winning football attracts students, and how the 25-scholarship limit plays a big role in the number of upsets. He said he could live without a playoff in college football — “It’s not going to get much better than Oregon-Auburn” — and that he didn’t think it would happen because a large majority of college presidents are against it.
Although Missouri and West Virginia are mentioned most often as possible partners with Texas A&M in a move to the Southeastern Conference, Florida State is often in the speculation. They could have joined Arkansas in the SEC 20 years ago, but chose the Atlantic Coast Conference where Bowden believes they will remain.
“People older like I am like tradition,” he said.
Bowden mentioned how he harped on enthusiasm when he was hired at Florida State in 1976 and how persistence might be the most valuable asset in football. He recalled losing two centers in one game early in the 1980 season and losing to Miami the next week when the snap was fumbled 10 times. A week later, the Seminoles were going to play at No. 3 Nebraska and the only two candidates at center had originally been scheduled to be redshirted.
A 185-pound walk-on won the job over a 235-pound scholarship player. At Nebraska, the Seminoles couldn’t do anything in the first half and trailed 14-3. In the second half, the FSU quarterback rolled out regularly to escape the noseman.
The center, he said, hasn’t blocked the Nebraska noseman yet, but the Seminoles did not have a turnover and the Cornhuskers had four in a loss that put FSU on the map.
His message, often delivered to business owners, is to get dependable people.
Bowden opened the comedy with a story about him speaking to a group of Methodists in Georgia. A Southern Baptist, Bowden was asked by a Methodist minister if he was comfortable addressing the audience.
Sure, Bowden said, adding that the two groups worship a bit differently. Asked again, Bowden said he explained, “Y’all continue to do it your way; we’ll continue to do it His.”
The one about trying to get rid of his 10 complimentary game tickets the first year he was at FSU was more predictable. He accommodated family and neighbors and still had two left. Even the school janitor turned him down so he drove to a mall in Tallahassee, put the tickets on the car windshield, and went for a haircut.
An hour later, he came out and there were six tickets on the windshield.
During the three years prior to Bowden’s arrival, the Seminoles won four games. From 1987 to 2000, FSU finished in the top five in The Associated Press poll.
Under Bowden, Florida State won two national championships. Given my druthers, he would have expounded on those teams and some of his others.
——-
Harry King is sports columnist for Stephens Media’s Arkansas News Bureau. His e-mail address is hking@arkansasnews.com.
Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden By Coley Harvey, Orlando Sentinel7:13 a.m. EDT, September 13, 2011 TALLAHASSEE – According to USA Today, former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden is expected to tell ABC’s “Good Morning America” Tuesday morning that he had prostate cancerwhile he was coaching in 2007, and that he kept his medical […]
I went to the Little Rock Touchdown Club and heard Bobby Bowden of Florida State speak. It was outstanding. Here is an article below on his visit from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: LITTLE ROCK — Former Florida State Coach Bobby Bowden is familiar with pressure brought on by high expectations. Two years ago, after the Seminoles […]
The Broyles Award Trophy, made out of solid bronze, depicts Broyles (kneeling) and longtime University of Arkansas assistant coach Wilson Matthews (standing), watching over a Razorback football game or practice. Matthews was the coach of Little Rock Central High School before joining Broyles on the Razorback’s staff. ______________ Today at the Little Rock […]
I went to the Little Rock Touchdown Club and heard Bobby Bowden of Florida State speak. It was outstanding. Here is an article below on his visit from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
LITTLE ROCK — Former Florida State Coach Bobby Bowden is familiar with pressure brought on by high expectations.
Two years ago, after the Seminoles finished the season 7-6, Bowden, 81, wanted to coach one more season. But he was not given that opportunity.
Florida State President T.K. Wetherell asked him to step aside as coach and stay with the team in the diminished role of university ambassador — which would have given him little input on the day-to-day operations of the football team.
Bowden declined. He announced his retirement, and Jimbo Fisher, who had been appointed as the school’s coachin-waiting two years earlier, was given the head-coaching position for the 2010 season.
“That’s just the way it is now,” Bowden told members of the media after speaking to the Little Rock Touchdown Club at the Peabody Hotel in Little Rock on Monday. “I had wanted to coach one more year and try and get to 400 wins.”
Bowden retired with a career record of 377-129-4 after the NCAA forced Florida State to vacate 12 victories from the 2006-2007 seasons for academic problems with his former players.
“They are paying the head coach so much money now that they demand you to win,” Bowden said. “The thing is, head coaches make so much money now that you can retire. There aren’t going to be a lot of coaches who last as long as Joe [Paterno] and I did.”
Paterno has coached 46 years at Penn State with a 402-136-3 record.
Bowden said he made approximately $40,000 per year when he was hired at Florida State in 1976; he was making $2.5 million when he retired two years ago.
His Florida State team won 10 or more games from 1987-2000, never finished lower than fourth in the final AP poll, and won national championships in 1993 and 1999.
But during his last five seasons as coach, the Seminoles went 38-27 and only won 1 ACC championship.
“Those last few years, we didn’t do a good job evaluating players like we once did,” Bowden said. “We would see a kid we wanted, and he wasn’t as good as advertised.”
Failing to live up to expectations also cost Bowden’s sons, Terry and Tommy, their coaching jobs.
Terry Bowden posted a 47-17-1 record from 1993-1998 at Auburn, but he stepped down in 1998 with the Tigers at 1-5 and his job security up in the air.
Tommy Bowden went 72-45 at Clemson from 1999-2008, but resigned when the Tigers started the season 3-3 after being ranked ninth in the preseason Associated Press poll in 2008.
Terry Bowden is now coaching at NCAA Division II North Alabama, while Tommy Bowden is out of coaching.
Bobby Bowden still cares about Florida State football, despite not being able to retire on his own terms. The Seminoles, 2-0 and ranked fifth in this week’s AP poll, host No. 1 Oklahoma Saturday night.
Bowden also acknowledged many of other changes in college coaching, but he remains a traditionalist:
Bowden does not approve of conference realignment, but said it is inevitable.
“Texas A&M is going to leave the Big 12, and if a bunch of schools from the Big 12 leave, then it’s going to change everything,” Bowden said.
On the lack of a playoff in college football: “I don’t think we’ll have a playoff, and it won’t happen because the presidents don’t want it.”
On the coach-in-waiting concept that Florida State, Texas, Maryland and Oregon have used with mixed results: “I think it’s good for the coach-in-waiting,” Bowden said, acknowledging that the coach-in-waiting usually gets promoted or a pay raise if the school doesn’t promote him by a certain date. “The president and athletic council came up with it, and I went along with it because I was at the end of my career.”
On the value a good college football team brings to a university: “When I first came to Florida State in 1976, when I would go recruiting, the president would say, ‘When you go to Tampa, please visit this girl because she’s a straight-A student and we want her,’” Bowden said. “Four years later, we went undefeated, played in our first major bowl game and were on national television. We would take about 2,500 students every year, but were getting 5,000-6,000 applicants because a successful football team attracts students.”
This article was published today at 4:28 a.m.Sports, Pages 19 on 09/13/2011
Now we have another editorial from the Post that illustrates this distinction.
The bad news is that the editorial (once again) endorses class-warfare tax policy.
…inequality of wealth is a serious problem in the United States. …to an unhealthy degree, wealth in the United States is being gained through unproductive activity — “rent-seeking”… Well-designed government interventions can reduce inequality from the top down, through more aggressive taxation of capital gains and estates… …everyone, poor and rich, has a lot to gain from curbing wealth inequality. The policies that can achieve that goal are neither radical nor complicated.
The good news is that the Post understands that there are serious consequences of going too far.
What remains to be considered are the counterarguments. …could a more aggressive attack on wealth inequality undermine incentives and result in an economic pie that is smaller and, inevitably, more difficult to distribute? If too aggressive, of course, at the bottom of that slippery slope lies Venezuela’s bankrupt socialism.
I suppose I should be happy that the editorial acknowledges the danger of hard-core leftism.
But my concern is that going in the wrong direction at 60 miles per hour still gets a nation to the wrong destination.
Yes, going in the wrong direction at 90 miles per hour gets to Venezuela even sooner, so I’d rather delay a very bad outcome.
That being said, it would be nice if the Washington Post (or any other rational leftists) drew some lines in the sand about limiting the size and scope of government.
For instance, would they agree that top tax rates should never exceed 60 percent?
Both numbers are far too high, of course, but setting some sort of limit would at least show that there is some long-run difference between the rational left and the AOC crowd.
Let’s conclude with some extracts that show why I’m worried that the Post will always be on the wrong side. After acknowledging that there are risks of going too far to the left, the editorial tell us we shouldn’t worry about going that direction.
In fact, too much inequality can undermine growth, too. …the perpetuation of steep inequalities, over generations, can turn into a drag on output…by wasting the potential of those who might have acquired skills or started businesses if not consigned by poverty to society’s margins. …extreme inequality fosters demands for populist policies, which, in turn, damage growth.
To be fair, the Washington Post is at least semi-good on the issue of school choice, so I take somewhat seriously their concerns about not wasting potential.
And it’s also worth noting that the editorial understands that populist policies (which presumably includes lots of anti-market nonsense such as protectionism) would be misguided. Though I’d feel much better about that part if the editorial recognized the difference between moral and immoral inequality.
I’ve only excerpted three paragraphs, but you should read his entire column. It is very tragic that the vision of liberty put forth by the Founders has been so undermined by modern politicians who swear an oath to the Constitution without having any idea what the document actually says.
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” He later added, “(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or “objects of benevolence.” What would the founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule? Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” John Adams advised, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” The founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” What would the founders think about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision where the court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to hand over to another American? John Adams explained: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
That grotesque abuse of power largely was designed to weaken opposition to Obama’s statist agenda and make it easier for him to win re-election.
Now there’s a new IRS scandal. In hopes of advancing President Biden’s class-warfare agenda, the bureaucrats have leaked confidential taxpayer information to ProPublica, a left-wing website.
Here’s some of what that group posted.
ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. …ProPublica undertook an analysis that has never been done before.We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period. We’re going to call this their true tax rate. …those 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.
Since I’m a policy wonk, I’ll first point out that ProPublicacreated a make-believe number. We (thankfully) don’t tax wealth in the United States.
So Elon Musk’s income is completely unrelated to what happened to the value of his Tesla shares. The same is true for Jeff Bezos’ income and the value of his Amazon stock.*
And the same thing is true for the rest of us. If our IRA or 401(k) rises in value, that doesn’t mean our taxable income has increased. If our home becomes more valuable, that also doesn’t count as taxable income.
The Wall Street Journalopined on this topic today and made a similar point.
There is no evidence of illegality in the ProPublica story. …ProPublica knows this, so its story tries to invent a scandal by calculatingwhat it calls the “true tax rate” these fellows are paying. This is a phony construct that exists nowhere in the law and compares how much the “wealth” of these individuals increased from 2014 to 2018 compared to how much income tax they paid. …what Americans pay is a tax on income, not wealth.
Some journalists don’t understand this distinction between income and wealth.
Or perhaps they do understand, but pretend otherwise because they see their role as being handmaidens of the Biden Administration.
Consider these excerpts from a column by Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times.
Jeff Bezos…added an estimated $99 billion in wealth between 2014 and 2018 but reported only $4.22 billion in taxable income during that period.Warren Buffett, who amassed $24.3 billion in new wealth over those years, reported $125 million in taxable income. …some of the wealthiest people in the United States essentially live under a different system of income taxation from the rest of us.
Mr. Appelbaum is wrong. The rich have a lot more assets than the rest of us, but they operate under the same rules.
If I have an asset that increases in value, that doesn’t count as taxable income. And it isn’t income. It’s merely a change in net wealth.
And the same is true if Bill Gates has an asset that increases in value.
Now that we’ve addressed the policy mistakes, let’s turn our attention to the scandal of IRS misbehavior.
The WSJ‘s editorial addresses the agency’s grotesque actions.
Less than half a year into the Biden Presidency, the Internal Revenue Service is already at the center of an abuse-of-power scandal. …ProPublica, a website whose journalism promotes progressive causes, published information from what it said are 15 years of the tax returns of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and other rich Americans. …The story arrives amid the Biden Administration’s effort to pass the largest tax increase as a share of the economy since 1968. …The timing here is no coincidence, comrade. …someone leaked confidential IRS information about individuals to serve a political agenda. This is the same tax agency that pursued a vendetta against conservative nonprofit groups during the Obama Administration. Remember Lois Lerner? This is also the same IRS that Democrats now want to infuse with $80 billion more… As part of this effort, Mr. Biden wants the IRS to collect “gross inflows and outflows on all business and personal accounts from financial institutions.” Why? So the information can be leaked to ProPublica? …Congress should also not trust the IRS with any more power and money than it already has.
And Charles Cooke of National Review also weighs in on the implications of a weaponized and partisan IRS.
We cannot trust the IRS. “Oh, who cares?” you might ask. “The victims are billionaires!” And indeed, they are. But I care. For a start, they’re American citizens, and they’re entitled to the same rights — and protected by the same laws — as everyone else. …Besides, even if one wants to be entirely amoral about it, one should consider that if their information can be spilled onto the Internet, anyone’s can.…A government that is this reckless or sinister with the information of men who are lawyered to the eyeballs is unlikely to worry too much about being reckless or sinister with your information. …The IRS wields an extraordinary amount of power, and there will always be somebody somewhere who thinks that it should be used to advance their favorite political cause. Our refusal to indulge their calls is one of the many things that prevents us from descending into the caprice and chaos of your average banana republic. …Does that bother you? It should.
What’s especially disgusting is that the Biden Administration wants to reward IRS corruption with giant budget increases, bolstered by utterly fraudulent numbers.
Needless to say, that would be a terrible idea (sadly, Republicans in the past have been sympathetic to expanding the size of the tax bureaucracy).
*Financial assets such as stocks generally increase in value because of an expectation of bigger streams of income in the future (such as dividends). Those income streams are taxed (often multiple times) when (and if) they actually materialize.
Open letter to President Obama (Part 644)
(Emailed to White House on 6-10-13.)
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
If you take a group of Democrats who are also unionized government employees, and put them in charge of policing political speech, it doesn’t matter how professional and well-intentioned they are. The result will be much like the debacle in the Cincinnati office of the IRS. …there’s no reason to even posit evil intent by the IRS officials who formulated, approved or executed the inappropriate guidelines for picking groups to scrutinize most closely. …The public servants figuring out which groups qualified for 501(c)4 “social welfare” non-profit status were mostly Democrats surrounded by mostly Democrats. …In the 2012 election, every donation traceable to this office went to President Obama or liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown. This is an environment where even those trying to be fair could develop a disproportionate distrust of the Tea Party. One IRS worker — a member of NTEU and contributor to its PAC, which gives 96 percent of its money to Democratic candidates — explained it this way: “The reason NTEU mostly supports Democratic candidates for office is because Democratic candidates are mostly more supportive of civil servants/government employees.”
Tim concludes with a wise observation.
As long as we have a civil service workforce that leans Left, and as long as we have an income tax system that requires the IRS to police political speech, conservative groups can always expect special IRS scrutiny.
The real issue is the expansive, expensive bureaucratic state and its inherent threat to any system of limited government, rule of law, and individual liberty. …the broader the government’s authority, the greater its need for revenue, the wider its enforcement power, the more expansive the bureaucracy’s discretion, the increasingly important the battle for political control, and the more bitter the partisan fight, the more likely government officials will abuse their positions, violate rules, laws, and Constitution, and sacrifice people’s liberties. The blame falls squarely on Congress, not the IRS.
…the denizens of Capitol Hill also have created a tax code marked by outrageous complexity, special interest electioneering, and systematic social engineering. Legislators have intentionally created avenues for tax avoidance to win votes, and then complained about widespread tax avoidance to win votes.
So what’s the answer?
The most obvious response to the scandal — beyond punishing anyone who violated the law — is tax reform. Implement a flat tax and you’d still have an IRS, but the income tax would be less complex, there would be fewer “preferences” for the agency to police, and rates would be lower, leaving taxpayers with less incentive for aggressive tax avoidance. …Failing to address the broader underlying factors also would merely set the stage for a repeat performance in some form a few years hence. …More fundamentally, government, and especially the national government, should do less. Efficient social engineering may be slightly better than inefficient social engineering, but no social engineering would be far better.
But here’s the challenge. We know the solution, but it will be almost impossible to implement good policy unless we figure out some way to restrain the spending side of the fiscal ledger.
___________________________
At the risk of over-simplifying, we will never get tax reform unless we figure out how to implement entitlement reform.
Here’s another Foden cartoon, which I like because it has the same theme asthis Jerry Holbert cartoon, showing big government as a destructive and malicious force.
_____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
We know the IRS commissioner wasn’t telling the truth in March 2012, when he testified: “There’s absolutely no targeting.”However, Lois Lerner knew different when she misled people with those words. Two important points made by Noonan in the Wall Street Journal in the article below: First, only conservative groups were targeted in this scandal by […]
Ohio Liberty Coalition versus the I.R.S. (Tom Zawistowski) Published on May 20, 2013 The Ohio Liberty Coalition was among tea party groups that received special scrutiny from the I.R.S. Tom Zawistowski says his story is not unique. He argues the kinds of questions the I.R.S. asked his group amounts to little more than “opposition research.” Video […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views concerning […]
We got to lower the size of government so we don’t have these abuses like this in the IRS. Cartoonists v. the IRS May 23, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Call me perverse, but I’m enjoying this IRS scandal. It’s good to see them suffer a tiny fraction of the agony they impose on the American people. I’ve already […]
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
Is the irs out of control? Here is the link from cato: MAY 22, 2013 8:47AM Can You Vague That Up for Me? By TREVOR BURRUS SHARE As the IRS scandal thickens, targeted groups are coming out to describe their ordeals in dealing with that most-reviled of government agencies. The Ohio Liberty Coalition was one of […]
Get Ready to Be Reamed May 17, 2013 by Dan Mitchell With so many scandals percolating, there are lots of good cartoons being produced. But I think this Chip Bok gem deserves special praise. It manages to weave together both the costly Obamacare boondoggle with the reprehensible politicization of the IRS. So BOHICA, my friends. If […]
You want to talk about irony then look at President Obama’s speech a few days ago when he joked about a potential audit of Ohio St by the IRS then a few days later the IRS scandal breaks!!!! The I.R.S. Abusing Americans Is Nothing New Published on May 15, 2013 The I.R.S. targeting of tea party […]
Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog http://www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]
We could put in a flat tax and it would enable us to cut billions out of the IRS budget!!!! May 14, 2013 2:34PM IRS Budget Soars By Chris Edwards Share The revelations of IRS officials targeting conservative and libertarian groups suggest that now is a good time for lawmakers to review a broad range […]
Multitrillion-dollar spending program would reverse Reagan-era tacit understanding that public sector is less efficient than the private in allocating resources
WASHINGTON—President Biden envisions long-term federal spending claiming its biggest share of the American economy in decades. He wants to pay for that program in part by charging the highest-earning Americans the biggest tax rates they’ve faced in years.
The Biden economic team’s ambitions go beyond size to scope. The centerpiece of their program—a multitrillion-dollar proposal to be rolled out starting Wednesday, less than a month after a $1.9 trillion stimulus—seeks to give Washington a new commercial role in matters ranging from charging stations for electric vehicles to child care, and more responsibility for underwriting education, incomes and higher-paying jobs.
It all marks a major turning point for economic policy. The gamble underlying the agenda is a belief that government can be a primary driver for growth. It’s an attempt to recalibrate assumptions that have shaped economic policy of both parties since the 1980s: that the public sector is inherently less efficient than the private, and bureaucrats should generally defer to markets.
The administration’s sweeping plans reflect a calculation that “the risk of doing too little outweighs the risk of doing too much,” said White House National Economic Council Director Brian Deese. “We’re going to be unapologetic about that,” he said. “Government must be a powerful force for good in the lives of Americans.”
The pandemic and lockdown measures that followed have become a Rorschach test for the new economic debate. Former President Donald Trumpargued that the booming economy of 2019 and early 2020 was proof his tax-cutting, deregulating agenda was the best for spurring broadly shared prosperity, and he portrayed the coronavirus and lockdowns as a temporary disruption. The Biden team sees the pandemic as exposing myriad flaws and fragilities that liberals had long identified in the economy, masked by prosperity.
Mr. Biden himself casts his program as a throwback to Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1960s Great Society and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal. “This is the first time we’ve been able to, since the Johnson administration and maybe even before that, to begin to change the paradigm,” he said at a White House event in mid-March. Mr. Biden recently spoke with a group of prominent American historians, and his aides have studied FDR’s presidency as they plan his economic agenda.
Mr. Biden’s big plans raise big questions, and big risks. He faces an uphill battle to win over a narrowly divided Congress, with solid Republican opposition plus hesitancy among Democratic moderates who blanch at higher taxes and more spending following nearly $5 trillion in coronavirus relief outlays over the past year.
Conservative-tilting courts, increasingly skeptical of executive authority, might block some of his initiatives. Already, a coalition of Republican state attorneys general has sued to challenge some provisions of the stimulus program and some of his executive orders.
Some economists consider the latest spending plan an overkill response to the temporary, albeit severe, hit from the pandemic and lockdowns. They call recent stirrings in the bond market a warning that the vast increase in government spending and borrowing might prompt a return to the high-inflation/high-interest-rate stagnation of the late 1970s and early 1980s—conditions that fed the long-lasting backlash to expansive FDR-LBJ policies in the first place.
“They’re creating too much demand when it’s not needed. When demand runs away from supply, you get inflation,” said Kevin Hassett, a former Trump chief economic adviser now at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The laws of economics can’t be repealed,” he said.
The Biden agenda rests on the notion those laws have evolved. “There appear to have been a broad-based set of structural changes that have had a very significant effect on how the economy works,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said. “There are a lot of ways in which I think our understanding of the economy has shifted.”
She cited persistently low interest rates and low inflation, defying many conventional forecasts, as reasons to feel more relaxed than before about federal borrowing and low unemployment rates. Ms. Yellen says there’s little sign inflation is in danger of escalating, and is confident that if it does, the Federal Reserve has the tools to contain it.
The administration’s policies are rooted in economic research focused on perceived free-market flaws, much of it conducted and funded by young, left-leaning economists and activists now scattered throughout the administration. Much of the Biden economic agenda is built around the conclusion that climate change in particular is a private-sector breakdown requiring extensive government intervention.
Before joining the Biden Council of Economic Advisers, Heather Boushey ran the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a think tank devoted to persuading economists and policy makers to take action reducing income inequality. To her and many of her colleagues, the pandemic validates their studies on market failures.
“We’ve talked about inequality—it seems like an abstract concept, but in 2020, this notion of the K-shaped economy became so real,” Ms. Boushey said. She was referring to a recovery where the fortunes of upper-income families—able to keep their jobs, work from home and enjoy gains in their stock portfolios—rose like the letter’s upward-sloping part, while lower-income families were unable to keep jobs in hard-hit service industries such as restaurants.
Plans for selling the administration proposals lean heavily on fears of losing out to China’s model of state-driven capitalism, a concern that resonates across the political spectrum. “China is out-investing us by a long shot, because their plan is to own that future,” Mr. Biden said recently in previewing his program.
In a Wednesday speech in Pittsburgh, the president is preparing to unveil the first part of an economic proposal that would cost $3 trillion or more over 10 years and might be split into multiple pieces of legislation, with more coming in April. The first measure will focus on infrastructure, climate change, domestic manufacturing and research and development. Mr. Biden will find ways to pay for the full cost of the first measure, the White House has said. The second measure will center on child care, healthcare and education.
‘There are a lot of ways in which I think our understanding of the economy has shifted,’ said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
PHOTO: DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
The multipart package would include higher taxes on corporations, upper-income households and investors. It will call for huge investments in infrastructure and climate programs and provide for universal prekindergarten and tuition-free community college, people familiar with the plan said.
Most Republicans are expected to oppose it, and the president’s advisers are already discussing options for continuing to move some of his proposals without GOP support, including through the process known as budget reconciliation.
Mike Donilon, one of Mr. Biden’s closest advisers, acknowledged the challenges but argued the public supports action. “I don’t think the country is in much mood for relentless obstructionism,” he said.
Critics of big-government projects have long argued that bureaucrats are less skilled than market forces in allocating resources. “What they’re trying to do is re-establish government as a major positive force in the economy, and I believe government is a massive negative force” in it, said Stephen Moore, a former Trump economic adviser. “There really is a micromanagement of the economy from the left.”
Presidents of both parties, hesitant to micromanage, have long steered away from anything smacking of an industrial policy that attempts to bolster specific industries. Biden aides are more willing to target and support certain industries such as the health and high-tech sectors. “We are committed to using the levers of government to encourage more domestic production,” Mr. Deese said.
President Biden held notes on infrastructure while speaking during a news conference in the East Room of the White House on March 25.
PHOTO: OLIVER CONTRERAS/PRESS POOL
The president’s budget and regulatory proposals could disrupt major industries, boosting renewable-energy companies over fossil-fuel firms and expanding markets for emerging technologies. Business groups and Republicans warn that new regulations could stifle growth.
Mr. Biden’s stimulus bill added to federal debt that had already hit peacetime records under Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden has said his full agenda will ultimately be aimed at curbing government borrowing, through tax increases and savings in medical spending.
That will be a challenge. Federal debt, which reached 100% of gross domestic product last fiscal year for the first time since 1946, is expected to rise to a record 107% of economic output by 2031, according to the Congressional Budget Office, fueling concerns that future generations will get stuck with the bill. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said in March that the federal government can manage its debt at current levels, but policy makers should seek to slow its growth once the economy is stronger.
The long-dominant paradigm Mr. Biden and aides want to change is one widely branded neoliberalism, framed by Ronald Reagan, who declared in his 1981 inaugural address that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He ushered in an era of tax cuts, deregulation and federal programs increasingly designed to work through market forces. That was followed by two of the longest expansions in American history, in the 1980s and the 1990s.
Ronald Reagan speaking at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.
PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
While Democrats controlled the White House for nearly half the time since then, their policies often were constrained by the core Reagan principles, in the view of many progressives. Bill Clinton tried to juggle liberal goals with a focus on balancing the budget, expanding free trade, and deregulating the financial sector. Barack Obama created a new government health program, but to the chagrin of the left, worked through private insurers. His 2009 program to fight the recession was constrained by fears of big deficits.
“For decades now, people have talked about economics as running against government, ignoring how much we need government to be able to build out opportunities,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who, as an Obama adviser, often tangled with his aides over how aggressively to rein in Wall Street and support homeowners slammed by the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
A confluence of forces since the turn of the century has shaken support for the market-oriented economic model. A sharp increase in income and wealth inequality, combined with longtime wage stagnation that ended just before the pandemic hit, raised questions about how broadly prosperity gets shared absent government intervention. The swift loss of manufacturing jobs undermined support for free trade. China’s success and Wall Street’s collapse in the financial crisis further sowed doubts about free markets.
Those trends animated critics on the left, fueling the 2016 presidential campaigns of self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and the rise to prominence of his allies such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Republicans, too, have faced internal challenges to the party’s free-market orientation. Mr. Trump won the presidency in part by attacking bipartisan support for globalization. In office, he launched a trade war with China, regularly criticized big business and intervened to force domestic investments and pressure companies to relocate manufacturing to the U.S. and cut prices of drugs.
“Some establishment Republicans are too willing to do nothing at all with government. They see an all-natural, organic market having its way,” said Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley. Mr. Hawley, a Trump supporter and possible presidential contender, has called for tougher antitrust laws to break up big tech companies and co-sponsored a bill last year with Mr. Sanders to give households $1,200 direct payments.
The first-term senator voted against the latest stimulus bill and opposes many of Mr. Biden’s policies, but he also says that “old-style conservatives have been too quick to wave away policies to strengthen American workers and promote competition rather than monopolies.”
Trends such as wealth disparities and wage stagnation animated the presidential candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, seen here speaking at a rally in Manchester, N.H., in August 2015.
PHOTO: RICK FRIEDMAN/CORBIS/GETTY IMAGES
While many of those urging an economic rethink are relatively new voices in the debate, some pillars of the establishment have evolved, including former senior economic aides in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Another Washington veteran whose positions have changed: Joe Biden.
Elected to the Senate in 1972 at age 29, Mr. Biden ousted a Republican incumbent in part by casting himself as more attuned to the needs of the middle class, a theme that became a through-line of his career. He has long espoused the importance of unions, small businesses and a strong working class.
Mr. Biden juggled those causes with a belief in the need to curb government spending and cut taxes. He voted for Mr. Reagan’s historic 1981 tax cuts and backed spending ceilings for most agencies through the 1980s and a balanced-budget constitutional amendment in the 1990s. He regularly floated the idea of limiting Social Security and Medicare.
“For years, a lot of us subscribed to the notion that Milton Friedman warned us about,” that government would harm the economy if it didn’t take a light-touch approach to business, said former Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, a longtime Biden friend, referring to the economist who helped define the small-government neoliberal philosophy.
As Mr. Obama’s vice president during the financial crisis, Mr. Biden walked a tightrope between pushing for spending, especially on infrastructure, and taking the lead in negotiating with Republicans to limit the extent of government expansion. Toward the end of his term, the persistently slow recovery prompted the vice president and his aides to launch a study of wage stagnation, income inequality and ways the government could steer business to do more for workers. That work planted the seeds for his current program.
Joe Biden was first elected to the Senate from Delaware in 1972 after a campaign in which he cast himself as attuned to the needs of the working class.
PHOTO: HENRY GRIFFIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Mr. Biden started his 2019 presidential bid determined to lay out more of a big-government agenda than recent Democrats had espoused. But much of the primary field had moved even farther left. He emerged once again as the fiscal scold warning of excessive spending.
The arrival of the pandemic and the killing of George Floyd marked a turning point for Mr. Biden, according to his advisers, bringing into focus what his aides describe as his longstanding desire to “go big.”
Mr. Biden tapped his longtime friend and successor as Delaware senator, Ted Kaufman, to run the transition, and in helping assemble the economic team, Mr. Kaufman said his team focused on people steeped in new economic thinking and steered away from business executives.
“I looked at people who had internalized what Joe Biden’s policy was about, and Joe Biden’s policy was not about taking care of Wall Street or people making over $400,000 a year,” Mr. Kaufman said.
The middle ranks of the administration are filled with academics and activists who have spent the past few years honing a framework for progressive economic policy-making. In March 2019, many of them gathered at a Washington conference called “Bold v. Old.” A panel on toughening antitrust enforcement was led by Jennifer Harris, an official with the Hewlett Foundation—a philanthropy created by one of the founders of Hewlett-PackardCo. —overseeing a program funding researchers seeking to replace the neoliberal paradigm. She was joined by Lina Khan, a young law professor known for laying out the case for breaking upAmazon.com Inc., and Sabeel Rahman, president of Demos, a progressive think tank.
Ms. Harris has joined the Biden National Economic Council. Ms. Khan has been nominated to the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Rahman works at the Office of Management and Budget.
President Biden at his first press conference as president on March 25.
PHOTO: OLIVER CONTRERAS/PRESS POOL
A change in the Biden approach to economics is a re-evaluation of the costs of government action, which his team says have receded or always been exaggerated. And on the other side of the equation: an assertion that the cost of inaction is greater than previously estimated.
Progressive economists have generated rafts of research, often contested by conservatives, challenging the links between higher tax rates and lower economic activity. “The evidence suggests that the impact of marginal tax rates on labor supply is not as big as we may have once feared,” said Cecilia Rouse, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Does the government try to do too much or not enough? Join the conversation below.
Liberal academics have produced studies examining the costs to the economy’s productive capacity from inequality and long-term unemployment, work invoked by the Biden team to justify spending big and fast to try to return to full employment as soon as next year. Some critics, including former Clinton and Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers, have said that spending too aggressively to drive down unemployment could backfire, possibly prompting the Fed to raise interest rates and trigger a recession.
This more relaxed view of previous economic limits has freed the Biden team to plan on a grand scale. They designed a two-step strategy that began with the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which provided $1,400 direct payments to many Americans, extended a $300 weekly jobless-aid supplement, expanded the child tax credit to provide periodic payments and dropped requirements that recipients work.
That was a symbolically significant shift from the Clinton-era move to tie welfare to work and a nod to the burgeoning progressive demands for a no-strings-attached guaranteed government income floor, at least for families with children.
Biden aides are also preparing an aggressive plan of new regulations and enforcement that can be implemented without Congress.
“The president campaigned on concerns about big tech, about labor market competition, about making sure small businesses can compete with the bigger guys,” Mr. Ramamurti said. “The president has a clear agenda there.”
It appears that only a fraction of the spending proposed in a new $3 trillion to $4 trillion bill would go toward an already too-expansive definition of infrastructure. Pictured: Engineers discuss the progress of an infrastructure construction project. (Photo: Sornranison Prakittrakoon/ Moment/Getty Images)
The media were flooded Monday with news that the Biden administration is working on a colossal new $3 trillion to $4 trillion spending plan.
While full details are not available yet, the plan appears to be another left-wing grab bag of big-government proposals. Rather than stimulating the economy, it would stimulate bigger government while funneling unprecedented amounts of power and money through the hands of politicians in Washington.
All this comes on the heels of President Joe Biden signing into law on March 11 a badly flawed $1.9 trillion legislative package that was originally marketed as a COVID-19 response, but which was more focused on left-wing pet causes, such as bailouts for union pension plans and unnecessary handouts for state governments.
Just a day later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., released a statement calling for bipartisan work on legislation that would focus on infrastructure. While there were good reasons to question how beneficial or “bipartisan” such legislation would be, there was at least a chance of finding some across-the-aisle support.
Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>
But the potential for bipartisanship was quickly scuttled by news of the latest multitrillion-dollar plan.
It would be bad enough if the latest plan was just a big-spending infrastructure package. However, it appears that only a fraction of the new spending would go toward an already too-expansive definition of infrastructure.
Instead, most of the new spending and tax subsidies would go toward expanding the welfare state, including “free” tuition for community colleges, “free” child care, and other handouts that lack right-of-center support.
This would likely be the largest expansion of the federal government since the “Great Society” of the 1960s, even eclipsing Obamacare in scope.
Reports indicate that Democrats might attempt to split the plan into two bills—one focused on social spending that passes narrowly along party lines, the other focused on actual infrastructure aimed at winning bipartisan support.
However, it’s clear that the $3 trillion-plus total price tag is already souring prospects for bipartisan infrastructure legislation.
House Republicans boycotted the annual Ways and Means Committee “Member’s Day” hearing on Tuesday in the wake of news reports on the plan, since they indicated that Democrats have already made up their minds to pursue as much spending as possible through the legislative procedure known as reconciliation.
Coincidentally, two respected nonpartisan groups released reports this week that show why Biden and Pelosi should pause their aggressive agenda.
First, the Congressional Budget Office published a paper demonstrating what would happen if a sustained increase in federal spending were coupled with big tax increases to pay for the spending.
While the analysis points to different long-term effects from different types of taxes, any tax-and-spend approach would lead to reductions in economic growth and personal income that are larger than the size of the tax hikes.
For example, the analysis found that having 10% more federal government would mean a 12% to 19% reduction in personal consumption.
And that’s a conservative estimate. Most estimates show tax hikes shrink the economy by two to three times more than the revenues they raise.
That doesn’t mean Congress could escape the consequences of a continued spending spree by simply adding to the national debt. The CBO paper cautions that that would not only impose significant costs and divert resources away from the private sector, but it also would be unsustainable and increase the risk of a devastating financial crisis.
Along the same lines, the Government Accountability Office released a sobering reporton the nation’s poor financial health.
Now that Congress has passed a combined total of $6 trillion in legislation in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (more than $48,000 per household), it must quickly address the unsustainable growth of major benefit programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Even before the pandemic struck, these programs were on a path to bankruptcy. Addressing these shortfalls in a way that is fair to both current retirees and future generations who will have to foot the bill is one of the greatest policy challenges facing the nation.
Unfortunately, Washington is exacerbating the problem by adding excessively to the national debt and potentially stunting economic growth with higher taxes.
While the Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that it will only seek to raise taxes on the wealthy, a government of the size that it’s seeking would require amounts of money that can only be generated through steep across-the-board tax increases on middle-class Americans.
Regardless of whether those taxes are levied tomorrow or in a few years, they would be an inevitable part of expanding the size and scope of the federal government.
Rather than continuing down the path of centralized power and socialism, lawmakers should recognize the costs associated with endless federal spending and chart a course toward financial responsibility and prosperity.
If they don’t, it will be the public’s duty to hold them accountable.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.
President Biden c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Please explain to me if you ever do plan to balance the budget while you are President? I have written these things below about you and I really do think that you don’t want to cut spending in order to balance the budget. It seems you ever are daring the Congress to stop you from spending more.
“The credit of the United States ‘is not a bargaining chip,’ Obama said on 1-14-13. However, President Obama keeps getting our country’s credit rating downgraded as he raises the debt ceiling higher and higher!!!!
Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict
Just spend more, don’t know how to cut!!! Really!!! That is not living in the real world is it?
Making more dependent on government is not the way to go!!
Why is our government in over 16 trillion dollars in debt? There are many reasons for this but the biggest reason is people say “Let’s spend someone else’s money to solve our problems.” Liberals like Max Brantley have talked this way for years. Brantley will say that conservatives are being harsh when they don’t want the government out encouraging people to be dependent on the government. The Obama adminstration has even promoted a plan for young people to follow like Julia the Moocher.
Imagine standing a baby carrot up next to the 25-story Stephens building in Little Rock. That gives you a picture of the impact on the national debt that federal spending in Arkansas on Medicaid expansion would have, while here at home expansion would give coverage to more than 200,000 of our neediest citizens, create jobs, and save money for the state.
Here’s the thing: while more than a billion dollars a year in federal spending would represent a big-time stimulus for Arkansas, it’s not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to the national debt.
Currently, the national debt is around $16.4 trillion. In fiscal year 2015, the federal government would spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion to fund Medicaid expansion in Arkansas if we say yes. That’s about 1/13,700th of the debt.
It’s hard to get a handle on numbers that big, so to put that in perspective, let’s get back to the baby carrot. Imagine that the height of the Stephens building (365 feet) is the $16 trillion national debt. That $1.2 billion would be the length of a ladybug. Of course, we’re not just talking about one year if we expand. Between now and 2021, the federal government projects to contribute around $10 billion. The federal debt is projected to be around $25 trillion by then, so we’re talking about 1/2,500th of the debt. Compared to the Stephens building? That’s a baby carrot.
______________
Here is how it will all end if everyone feels they should be allowed to have their “baby carrot.”
How sad it is that liberals just don’t get this reality.
While living in Europe in the 1760s, Franklin observed: “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee(15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813) was a Scottish lawyer, writer, and professor. Tytler was also a historian, and he noted, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
[Jefferson affirms that the main purpose of society is to enable human beings to keep the fruits of their labor.— TGW]
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]
_______
Jefferson pointed out that to take from the rich and give to the poor through government is just wrong. Franklin knew the poor would have a better path upward without government welfare coming their way. Milton Friedman’s negative income tax is the best method for doing that and by taking away all welfare programs and letting them go to the churches for charity.
_____________
_________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733
We got to act fast and get off this path of socialism. Morning Bell: Welfare Spending Shattering All-Time Highs Robert Rector and Amy Payne October 18, 2012 at 9:03 am It’s been a pretty big year for welfare—and a new report shows welfare is bigger than ever. The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight […]
We need to cut Food Stamp program and not extend it. However, it seems that people tell the taxpayers back home they are going to Washington and cut government spending but once they get up there they just fall in line with everyone else that keeps spending our money. I am glad that at least […]
Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ Liberals argue that the poor need more welfare programs, but I have always argued that these programs enslave the poor to the government. Food Stamps Growth […]
Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on May 11, 2012 by LibertyPen In this 1968 interview, Milton Friedman explained the negative income tax, a proposal that at minimum would save taxpayers the 72 percent of our current welfare budget spent on administration. http://www.LibertyPen.com Source: Firing Line with William F Buckley Jr. ________________ Milton […]
Dan Mitchell Commenting on Obama’s Failure to Propose a Fiscal Plan Published on Aug 16, 2012 by danmitchellcato No description available. ___________ After the Welfare State Posted by David Boaz Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer, who is lecturing about freedom in Slovenia and Tbilisi this week, asked me to post this announcement of his […]
Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]
Thomas Sowell – Welfare Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform By Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. February 6, 2003 Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. […]
Uploaded by ForaTv on May 29, 2009 Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/18/James_Bartholomew_The_Welfare_State_Were_In Author James Bartholomew argues that welfare benefits actually increase government handouts by ‘ruining’ ambition. He compares welfare to a humane mousetrap. —– Welfare reform was working so good. Why did we have to abandon it? Look at this article from 2003. In the controversial […]
Thomas Sowell If the welfare reform law was successful then why change it? Wasn’t Bill Clinton the president that signed into law? Obama Guts Welfare Reform Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley July 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
Francis Schaeffer predicted July 28, 2015 would come when the video “Human Capital – Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts ” would be released!!!!
3rd video July 28, 2015
Human Capital – Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts
#PPSellsBabyParts EX-CLINIC WORKER REVEALS PROFIT MOTIVE IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD BABY PARTS SALES, VP MEDICAL DIRECTOR PRICES BODY PARTS “PER ITEM”
“We Can See How Much We Can Get Out of It,” says Planned Parenthood Affiliate VP; Whistleblower Who Harvested Aborted Baby Parts Details Traumatic Job in Planned Parenthood Clinics in New Documentary Web Series
Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004
LOS ANGELES, July 28–The first episode in a new documentary web series features a woman who once worked in Planned Parenthood clinics describing the profit motive involved in Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, and includes new admissions from top-level Planned Parenthood leadership about the illicit pricing structure.
The “Human Capital” documentary web series is produced by The Center for Medical Progress and integrates expert interviews, eyewitness accounts, and real-life undercover interactions to tell the story of Planned Parenthood’s commercial exploitation of aborted fetal tissue. Episode 1, “Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts,” launches today at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi…
Episode 1 introduces Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.
For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress: “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”
Episode 1 also shows undercover video featuring the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).
Dr. Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San Diego, describes her affiliate’s long-time relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a middleman company that has been providing aborted fetal organs since 1989: “We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”
“Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts is an offensive and horrifying reality that is widespread enough for many people to be available to give first-person testimony about it,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for The Center for Medical Progress. “CMP’s investigative journalism work will continue to surface more compelling eyewitness accounts and primary source evidence of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking and selling baby parts for profit. There should be an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while Congress and the states determine the full extent of the organization’s lawbreaking.”
For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.
In 1979 I saw the film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop. I was so impacted by that film series that I asked my high school teacher Mr. Mark Brink to allow me to return to see that series again while I was in college. He did allow me to do that and Mr. Brink would inform his high school students, “Here is Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he has returned to see this film series again because he knows how important it is!!!”
A true prophet is one who has the capacity to look into the future and accurately predict what will occur. Twenty years ago I was introduced to a number of true prophets such as essayist Malcolm Muggeridge, theologian Francis Schaeffer and physician C. Everett Koop. I became acquainted with these prophets at a seminar entitled “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” conducted in Seattle Washington.
At that time the United States Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion in all 50 states was only six years old. However, these prophets were already warning the public about the slippery slope from abortion to euthanasia. Personally, I had never really made the connection between abortion and putting to death a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease.
Today because of the actions of Jack Kevorkian we see the accuracy of these prophets’ predictions. This morning I want us to trace what happens to a society that embraces abortion and thereby devalues human life.
I. The Slippery Slope From Abortion To Euthanasia.
On January 23, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion in all 50 states during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason-medical, social, or otherwise. This fateful decision pronounced that the fetus forming in the mother’s womb was not viable – capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the womb. This man-made ruling has had a devastating impact upon unborn children forming in the womb. Here are some of the consequences we face in 1999:
1. There is an abortion for every two live births.
2. This year thousands will hear boyfriends, school counselors, physicians, friends and even parents give advice that will lead to over 1,300,000 unborn children losing their lives.
3. Since 1973 Americans have aborted 36.5 million babies. This figure equals the population of Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming – 13 states in all.
Infanticide
Along with the terrible loss of life, there has been a devaluation of the sanctity of human life in American society. This devaluation of human life has given birth to increased infanticide-the killing of an infant. For example, in the November 12th, 1973 issue of Newsweek Magazine, in the medicine section, there appeared an article titled “Shall this child die?” It was about the work of doctors Raymond Duff and A.G.M. Campbell at the Yale-New Haven Hospital of Yale University. The article reported that these doctors were permitting babies born with birth defects to die by deliberately withholding vital medical treatments: the doctors were convincing the parents of these children that they would be a financial burden; that they had “little or no hope of achieving meaningful “humanhood.” “The doctors recognized that they were breaking the law by doing away with these ‘vegetables’ as they chose to call these children, but they felt that the law should be changed to make it legal to let these children die.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States documented the case of Baby Doe and Baby Jane Doe who had complex physical handicaps and were allowed to die even though he felt their lives could have been saved. In his book, Koop-the Memoirs of America’s Family Doctor, he declares, “From the Baby Doe saga… I hope Americans learned about the pernicious practice of infanticide, which has been growing unnoticed in hospital nurseries across the country.”
Euthanasia
The next step in the slippery slope leads us to euthanasia. Listen to the prophetic words of Malcolm Muggeridge written in 1979. ” Of course, it would be quite wrong to think that the offensive which is being mounted on our Christian way of life will stop at abortion, and already there are the rumblings of a new, strong push in the direction of euthanasia. I have absolutely no doubt that this will be the next great controversy that will arise. The fact is that because it’s so costly in money and personnel to keep alive people about whom the medical opinion is that their lives are worthless, the temptation to get rid of the burden by killing them off will be even greater, and this disposing of them will of course be dressed up in humanitarian terms as an act of humanity and compassion. Almost all of the things that have been done in the world in the last decades have been done in the name of justice, equality, compassion, etc.”
Physician Assisted Suicide. Do you know what PAS stands for? PAS is the title for physician-assisted suicide. Advocates of PAS have succeeded in only one state: Oregon. Already at least two assisted suicides have been performed there, but the explicit goal of PAS advocates is to go national, making the Oregon experiment the American way of Life.
Progressive euthanasia is on the horizon. It looks like this:
1. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has assisted 130 people who were suffering from incurable and painful diseases to commit suicide.
2. Dr. Jack Kevorkian killed a person suffering from a painful and incurable disease and recorded it on video to spark a national debate about the merits of “mercy killing.”
3. Those languishing in long tem commas are put to death.
4. Because the drastically handicapped have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood’ they are put to death.
5. The mentally ill are euthanized so the families don’t have to suffer any longer.
6. The old and senile are put to death in a humane way so limited money and resources can be used for others.
If you think this analysis is overblown, then you have not been reading the signs of the times! And it all started when we devaluated life before birth and now that devaluation of the sanctity of human life is seen from the preborn to the people suffering incurable diseases.
Is there an answer to this moral insanity? Yes there is and it is found in the Bible.
II Life Is Sacred Because God Created It.
Here are some of the passages that speak of the sanctity of human life.
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Psalms 139:13-18 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.”
Isaiah 46:3 “Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.”
Jeremiah 1:4 “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”
Because God created human life, it is sacred and we must do everything we can to safeguard life.
Conclusion. The Irish statesman Edmund Burke once said, “all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” I am afraid that many disciple of Jesus Christ are guilty of this indictment. But now that you know that the acceptance of abortion leads to active euthanasia, I pray you will stand to your feet and fight for the sanctity of human life from the unborn to the physically and mentally handicapped to the aged and infirm.
Let me illustrate how one “vegetable” fought back. Do you remember the Newsweek Magazine article that highlighted the two doctors who were permitting babies born with birth defects to die because they had no hope of achieving “meaningful humanhood?”
Here is a letter to the editor of Newsweek magazine by Sandra Diamond who suffers from cerebral palsy.
“I’ll wager my entire root system and as much fertilizer as it would take to fill Yale University that you have never received a letter from a vegetable before this one, but, much as I resent the term, I must confess that I fit the description of a ‘vegetable’ as defined in the article “Shall This Child Die?” (Medicine, Nov. 12)
“Due to severe brain damage incurred at birth, I am unable to dress myself, toilet myself, or write; my secretary is typing this letter. Many thousands of dollars had to be spent on my rehabilitation and education in order for me to reach my present professional status as a Counseling Psychologist. My parents were also told, 35 years ago, that there was “little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood’” for their daughter. Have I reached ‘humanhood’? Compared with Doctors Duff and Campbell I believe I have surpassed it!
“Instead of changing the law to make it legal to week out us ‘vegetables,’ let us change the laws so that we may receive quality medical care, education, and freedom to live as full and productive lives as our potentials allow.”
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
Dr. Francis Schaeffer: Whatever Happened to the Human Race Episode 1 ABORTION
Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again for one liberal blogger […]
Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again […]
The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” On 1-24-13 I took on the child abuse argument put forth by Ark Times Blogger “Deathbyinches,” and the day before I pointed out that because the unborn baby has all the genetic code […]
PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL from Pro-life march in Little Rock on 1-20-13. Tim Tebow on pro-life super bowl commercial. Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. Here is another encounter below. On January 22, 2013 (on the 40th anniversary of the […]
Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]
I am looking forward to reading Outgrowing God which is your latest book, and I have been reading several reviews of it. The best interviewer is Krishnan Guru-Murthy in my opinion. He did a great job of asking you some very insightful questions, and I thought your answers gave the audience a good feel for what is in the book.
You tweeted:
It’s ten days until OUTGROWING GOD is out in the UK. Preorder a signed copy from Waterstones: bit.ly/OutgrowingGod
I responded by tweeting:
Adrian Rogers “As a believer, you must understand what you believe and why we are Christians, and then be able to explain your beliefs humbly, thoughtfully, reasonably, and biblically” thedailyhatch.org/2019/09/10/
How To Answer A Skeptic Sermon Summary by Bro. Adrian Rogers We live in a day of accelerating skepticism, humanism and scientism. We as Christians are going to be ridiculed and made to look ignorant and uneducated because we believe in God. Do we have sound reason for believing what we believe? Are we not worthy of real, honest thought? How do you respond to this skepticism in this day and age in which we live? The Bible tells us how to respond to skeptics in 1 Peter 3:10-17, especially verse 15 which states, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who ask you to give a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” (As a believer, you must understand what you believe and why we are Christians, and then be able to explain your beliefs humbly, thoughtfully, reasonably, and biblically.) Often we are told to keep the faith, but not only should we keep it but we need to give it away. If you have no desire to give it away, you ought to give it up, because what you have is not the real thing. Any man that has been born of the spirit of God, has an innate desire to share his faith with others. There are two things that must be true of you before you are ready to share your faith with anybody. First, you must be Real. You are to have a full-hearted, burning, compassionate, overflowing love for God. You are to be a zealot for the Lord Jesus. Yours is to be a full faith, a fearless faith. Don’t let anybody intimidate you because you are a Christian. They can hurt you but they cannot harm you, therefore don’t be afraid. Second you must be Ready. When you live a Christian lifestyle, people will start asking questions about you when they see something in you that cannot be explained. They are going to want to know why you believe what you believe and why you act the way you act. Do you know how to respond to a skeptic? There are four basic ideas to remember as you respond to this skeptical age: 1) Forego the Folly of Fools – Some skeptics are fools, not all but some. In the Bible, fool means someone who is morally depraved, not mentally deficient. Don’t argue with someone who shows himself to be a fool. Give him the mind of God; tell him what God says then go your way. In Proverbs 26:4 it says, “answer not a fool according to his folly, less you be like unto him.” Don’t answer him; don’t get in a debate with a fool. You won’t be able to do much with these type of people. Also see what Jesus says about this in Mark 6:11. 2) Learn the Limits of Logic – Logic is a valuable tool but it can only carry you so far. When you get to a chasm that logic can’t leap, then faith will have to fly. The logic for God is found in creation and design and universal moral beliefs. It is logical to reason that if we have a creation, we must have a Creator since nothing comes out of nothing. Also logic tells us that if there is design in nature, there must be a Designer; and the more complex the design, the greater the designer. The creation found throughout the earth and universe is immensely complex and organized. The logic of there being universally held beliefs in a moral law shared throughout mankind also says there is a god. If anyone ever comes up to you and says, “Prove there is a god.” Be Bold and say, “I can’t, but can you prove there is no god?” He’ll say he can’t either. Then if he says “You just think there is a god because it is just what you believe.” You can say, “I believe there is a god and you believe there is no god. I have faith that there is, and you have faith that there isn’t.” What we as Christians believe is reasonable, but it goes beyond reason. 3) Remember the Resource of Revelation –If we are to know a god, he is going to have to reveal himself to us. The finite can never understand the infinite, unless the infinite explains himself and reveals himself to the finite. 2 Peter 1:19-21 shows us three things about the word of God: 1) The Inspiration of the word of God. The Bible is like no other book – it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2) The Illumination of the word of God. It shines into our hearts – it enlightens us. It reveals to us what we could not know without it. 3) The Confirmation of the word of God. We believe not only because of what any other person has said, but also because of what the Bible has said. The Bible is power whether you believe it or not. It does not matter what we believe; what matters is what is true. Use the Bible because you know it is true. 4) Fortify the Force of Faith – A Christian with a glowing testimony is worth a library of arguments. Share what Jesus means to you and what God has done for you and how He has changed your life. Let Jesus be real to you. Sanctify God in your heart. Strengthen your faith by staying in contact with God through prayer, reading and listening to His word, and sharing your faith with other believers as well as non-believers. Your faith will be as much caught as it will be taught. Remember 1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to everyone who ask you to give a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”
Francis Schaeffer has correctly argued:
The universe was created by an infinite personal God and He brought it into existence by spoken word and made man in His own image. When man tries to reduce [philosophically in a materialistic point of view] himself to less than this [less than being made in the image of God] he will always fail and he will always be willing to make these impossible leaps into the area of nonreason even though they don’t give an answer simply because that isn’t what he is. He himself testifies that this infinite personal God, the God of the Old and New Testament is there.
Instead of making a leap into the area of nonreason the better choice would be to investigate the claims that the Bible is a historically accurate book and that God created the universe and reached out to humankind with the Bible. Below is a piece of that evidence given by Francis Schaeffer concerning the accuracy of the Bible.
TRUTH AND HISTORY (chapter 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?)
In the previous chapter we saw that the Bible gives us the explanation for the existence of the universe and its form and for the mannishness of man. Or, to reverse this, we came to see that the universe and its form and the mannishness of man are a testimony to the truth of the Bible. In this chapter we will consider a third testimony: the Bible’s openness to verification by historical study.
Christianity involves history. To say only that is already to have said something remarkable, because it separates the Judeo-Christian world-view from almost all other religious thought. It is rooted in history.
The Bible tells us how God communicated with man in history. For example, God revealed Himself to Abraham at a point in time and at a particular geographical place. He did likewise with Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel and so on. The implications of this are extremely important to us. Because the truth God communicated in the Bible is so tied up with the flow of human events, it is possible by historical study to confirm some of the historical details.
It is remarkable that this possibility exists. Compare the information we have from other continents of that period. We know comparatively little about what happened in Africa or South America or China or Russia or even Europe. We see beautiful remains of temples and burial places, cult figures, utensils, and so forth, but there is not much actual “history” that can be reconstructed, at least not much when compared to that which is possible in the Middle East.
When we look at the material which has been discovered from the Nile to the Euphrates that derives from the 2500-year span before Christ, we are in a completely different situation from that in regard to South America or Asia. The kings of Egypt and Assyria built thousands of monuments commemorating their victories and recounting their different exploits. Whole libraries have been discovered from places like Nuzu and Mari and most recently at Elba, which give hundreds of thousands of texts relating to the historical details of their time. It is within this geographical area that the Bible is set. So it is possible to find material which bears upon what the Bible tells us.
The Bible purports to give us information on history. Is the history accurate? The more we understand about the Middle East between 2500 B.C. and A.D. 100, the more confident we can be that the information in the Bible is reliable, even when it speaks about the simple things of time and place.
Part A
The site of the biblical city called Lachish is about thirty miles southwest of Jerusalem. This city is referred to on a number of occasions in the Old Testament. Imagine a busy city with high walls surrounding it, and a gate in front that is the only entrance to the city. We know so much about Lachish from archaeological studies that a reconstruction of the whole city has been made in detail. This can be seen at the British Museum in the Lachish Room in the Assyrian section.
There is also a picture made by artists in the eighth century before Christ, the Lachish Relief, which was discovered in the city of Nineveh in the ancient Assyria. In this picture we can see the Jewish inhabitants of Lachish surrendering to Sennacherib, the king of Assyria. The details in the picture and the Assyrian writing on it give the Assyrian side of what the Bible tells us in Second Kings:
2 Kings 18:13-16
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized them. 14 Then Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong. Withdraw from me; whatever you impose on me I will bear.” So the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15 Hezekiah gave him all the silver which was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasuries of the king’s house. 16 At that time Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the doorposts which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
________
We should notice two things about this. First, this is a real-life situation–a real siege of a real city with real people on both sides of the war–and it happened at a particular date in history, near the turn of the eighth century B.C. Second, the two accounts of this incident in 701 B.C. (the account from the Bible and the Assyrian account from Nineveh) do not contradict, but rather confirm each other. The history of Lachish itself is not so important for us, but some of its smaller historical details.
Review of ‘Picasso: challenging the past’National Gallery, London, February-June 2009by Nigel Halliday
This exhibition makes an interesting contrast with ‘Rodchenko and Popova’ at Tate Modern. The latter showcases two artists in post-revolutionary Russia who sought to play their part in building a new world by wiping the artistic slate clean and starting again. Picasso, by contrast, brought up in Barcelona and painting in Paris, sees himself working within the long tradition of western art, going back to the Renaissance and beyond.
The exhibition highlights various examples of how Picasso addressed a traditional subject-matter in the language of modernism, as well as, later on, attempting to rework specific examples of some of the old masters. It is especially in the early work that we see Picasso’s most fruitful engagement with tradition. Critics disagree over what Cubism was ‘about’, but it was certainly, among other things, a continuation of the work of Cezanne, who himself was wanting to build on Impressionism. Cezanne sought to integrate the immediacy of experience of Monet with the intellectual constructiveness of Poussin. In continuing Cezanne’s approach, Cubism can be seen, at least from one angle, as an early form of post-modernism: it discards the naïve realism of Impressionism (‘reality is what I see’) in favour of a more complex, Kantian idea of knowledge, that we do not know reality directly, but the mind imposes its own order upon the perceptions that are received by the senses.
Thus we see Picasso seeking to continue and update the western artistic canon by taking traditional subjects, such as nudes and still-lifes, and addressing them, not as they have traditionally been seen, but as they are now understood by the mind. His figures, such as the beautiful and poignant Seated nude of 1909, are constructed out of multiple sense perceptions. But at the same time a gulf of unknowability is established between the viewer and the original objective reality of the subject.
I tried to approach this exhibition with an open mind, but in fact it only confirmed my view that – with the notable exception of Guernica – Picasso’s work after the 1920s was disappointingly vapid, broadly swept canvases that speak of little more than his own moods and insecurities.
The main room of the exhibition focuses on works from his later years, especially between 1954 and 1962, in which he attempted to rework in his own language some of the masterpieces of the past. It was a major effort on his part: 15 paintings based on Delacroix’s Women of Algiers, 27 on Manet’s Dejeuner sur l’herbe, and more than 50 relating to Velazquez’s Las Meninas. But were his paintings ‘inspired’ by the masters, or, as the catalogue says, ‘provoked’ by them? Was he now, an artist in his 70s, trying to learn from the masters or trying to outdo them? It is not apparent, looking at the works, what is added to these images by his reworking of them. What came across to me from them is the sense of fear and insecurity about his powers as an artist – the same fear that we also find in his repetitive paintings of predatory women, who threaten to deprive him of his other form of creativity.
Published in Third Way
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner […]
The Beatles were “inspired by the musique concrète of German composer and early electronic music pioneer Karlheinz Stockhausen…” as SCOTT THILL has asserted. Francis Schaeffer noted that ideas of “Non-resolution” and “Fragmentation” came down German and French streams with the influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets and then the influence of Debussy and later Schoenberg’s non-resolution which is in total contrast […]
_______ On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize […]
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto ____________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner Dr. […]
In the short run, they assert that more government spending can stimulate a weak economy. This is typically known as Keynesian economics and it means temporary borrowing and spending.especially your human capital, in something productive. Usually this means doing more with less, being efficient and effective. This is when innovation happens. Wealth comes only from productivity, not from giving away money. …Supply first and then consume…, creating incentives to put money into the hands of entrepreneurs and clearing a path for them to innovate by getting government out of the way.
…Through taxes and currency depreciation, demand-side spending steals savings needed to invest in future supply, which is why it never works. It is why the Great Depression lasted so long, why Japan lost two decades, and why 2009-16 saw subpar U.S. economic growth. When demand drops, government spending and giveaways make things worse. The only solution to kickstart production is to increase investment and make jobs more plentiful by cutting taxes and easing regulation. ..Price signals tell entrepreneurs what to supply. But price signals are only as good as their inputs. Minimum-wage laws mess up labor price signals. Tariffs mess up trade price signals. The Federal Reserve’s bond-buying blowouts mess up interest-rate price signals.
The Daily Hatch 