Category Archives: President Obama

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.8)

July 23, 2012 – 8:20 am

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

The liberals in France do not want austerity but more spending but who will pay for their party?

Mike Brownfield

May 8, 2012 at 8:55 am

Last weekend, the people of France took a sharp turn to the left, and the rest of Europe may be on the brink of rebuking its recent tack toward fiscal responsibility. With Sunday’s election of French Socialist leader Francois Hollande, France has leapt backward toward the policies that have helped sink the continent in a sovereign debt crisis. Disturbingly, the big government platform Hollande campaigned on is all too familiar to the American people, and if the United States is not careful, it could suffer the same fate as its European allies.

Hollande sailed to victory by appealing to an electorate dissatisfied with having to face necessary cutbacks, proclaiming that he is “proud to have been capable of giving people hope again.” That brand of hope called for a change from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s relatively conservative policies — in his first term, Sarkozy worked to reduce the number of public sector employees, eliminate the 35-hour work week, reform the university system and cut taxes.

Hollande, by contrast, promised to raise taxes on big corporations and wealthy individuals, implement a top rate tax of 75 percent, increase public spending by 20 billion euros, raise the minimum wage, hire 60,000 more teachers, and lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 for some workers. He says he is “president of the youth of France” and believes that government stimulus, not cutting spending, is the right way to achieve economic growth.

If you’ve been a student of President Obama’s presidency, much of this should sound familiar. President Obama came into office on a promise of hope and change, appealed to young Americans and promised renewed prosperity. His solution was more government spending to the tune of a near-trillion-dollar stimulus, a government-run health care plan, a bailout of government unions, and a call for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations.

The difference between the United States and France is that the latter is much further down the path of a social welfare state. Hollande’s proposals are not a new direction, they’re merely a return to form. France is notoriously emblematic of the European way of life. As Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament, describes in Why America Must Not Follow Europe, “Long vacations, paternity leave, a higher minimum wage, a short working week: What’s not to like? The trouble is that eventually the money runs out.”

In France, the money has indeed run out. The country’s public debt now stands at more than 80 percent of GDP, government spending is at 55 percent of GDP, the tax burden is equivalent to 42 percent of total domestic income, and it hasn’t balanced its budget since 1974.

The United States, unfortunately, is headed in much the same direction. As Heritage’s Federal Budget in Pictures shows, U.S. debt stood at 67 percent of GDP in 2011, but unless the United States controls its spending, its debt will surpass that of France, Italy and even Greece, hitting 187 percent of GDP by 2035. Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the Obamacare subsidies, and Social Security will devour all revenues by 2045, and taxes are soaring past their highest levels ever. And as for the budget, the U.S. Senate hasn’t passed one in three years — let alone brought it to balance.

The world has seen what lies at the end of this road to perdition. Though France is a prime example of a country that is spending itself into crisis, Greece has already gone beyond that tipping point. The country’s debt has exploded, 21.8 percent of its people are unemployed, and among the youth, more are out of work than have jobs. In the face of belt-tightening measures that came as a condition of an EU/IMF bailout — which include public sector pay cuts and pension reductions — the country turned to open political revolt with violent riots in the streets. In elections this week, Greek voters rejected the political parties that support fiscal responsibility and instead turned toward the Radical Left.

If there is any bright spot in Europe’s far left turn, it came Friday in the re-election of Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London. Johnson campaigned for tax cuts and eliminating public sector waste in the hopes of spurring job growth. But alas, France’s return to the deeply entrenched socialist policies could signal an end to the fiscally responsible measures that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has championed, leading to economic disaster.

Though Europe is an ocean away, the policies that are sinking the continent could have the same impact in the United States if replicated here. Endless spending has dire consequences, and if America is not careful, it could follow Europe’s path to economic ruin.

_________________

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

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.6)

July 21, 2012 – 1:39 am

Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman:

Milton Friedman Honored for Lifetime Achievements 2002/5/9

_____________-

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

The USA’s grand economy was built by the free enterprise system and basically the government got out of the way most of the time. That is what works everywhere you have wealth built up. If socialists get their way then they will piggyback on the success the capitalists have created and many times when socialist policies take over things start to fall apart with the vast welfare states that are created. Take a look at this fine article by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute below.

To answer the question in the title, it means you need to read the fine print.

This is because we have a president who thinks the government shouldn’t confiscate more than 20 percent of a company’s income, but he only gives that advice when he’s in Ghana.

And the same president says it’s time to “let the market work on its own,” but he only says that when talking about China’s economy.

Now we have more evidence that the President understands the dangers of class-warfare taxation and burdensome government spending. At least when he’s not talking about American fiscal policy.

After the Greek elections, which saw the defeat of the pro-big government Syriza coalition and a victory for the supposedly conservative New Democracy Party, here’s some of what Politico reported.

President Barack Obama on Monday called the results of Greece’s election a “positive prospect” with the potential to form a government willing to cooperate with Europe.  “I think the election in Greece yesterday indicates a positive prospect for not only them forming a government, but also them working constructively with their international partners in order that they can continue on the path of reform and do so in a way that also offers the prospects for the Greek people to succeed and prosper,” Obama said after a meeting with the G-20 Summit’s host, Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

In other words, it’s “positive” when other nations reject big government and vote for right-of-center parties, but Heaven forbid that this advice apply to the United States.

Interestingly, it’s not just Obama who is rejecting (when talking about other nations) the welfare-state vision of bigger government and higher taxes.

Check out this remarkable excerpt from a Washington Post column by Larry Summers, the former Chairman of the President’s National Economic Council.

… it is far from clear, especially after the French election, that there is any kind of majority or even plurality support for responsible policies.

Remarkable. Larry Summers is dissing Francois Hollande and the French people by implying they want irresponsible policies, even though the Hollande’s views about Keynesian economics and soak-the-rich taxation are basically identical to the nonsense Summers was peddling while in the White House.

It’s almost enough to make you cynical about America’s political elite. Perish the thought!

_________

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

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

The lesson from history: We must slow down spending in order to balance the budget

July 20, 2012 – 1:01 pm

Dan Mitchell Explaining Why “Taxing the Rich” Is a Precursor for Going after the Middle Class

Published on Apr 13, 2012 by

_________________

Raising taxes is not the answer but we must lower spending in order to balance the budget. That is the lesson from history too.

This should be a lesson for Obama and any Republican out there that wants  to raise taxes:

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink

July 3, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

Back in April, I explained that I would accept a tax increase if “the net long-run effect is more freedom, liberty, and prosperity.”

I even outlined several specific scenarios where that might occur, including giving the politicians more money in exchange for a flat tax or giving them additional revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

But I then pointed out that all of those options are unrealistic. And I’ve expanded on that thesis in a new article. Here’s some of what I wrote for The Blaze.

The no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform generates a lot of controversy. With record levels of red ink, the political elite incessantly proclaims that all options must be “on the table.” This sounds reasonable. And when some Republicans say no tax hikes under any circumstances, there’s a lot of criticism about dogmatism. Theoretically, I agree with the elitists.

So does that make me a squish, the fiscal equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts?

Nope, because I’m tethered to the real world. I know that there is zero chance of getting a good agreement. Once you put taxes “on the table,” any impetus for spending restraint evaporates.

But even though I’m theoretically open to a tax hike, I am a de facto opponent of tax increases for the simple reason that we will never get a good deal. We won’t get sustainable spending cuts. Not even in our dreams. We won’t get real entitlement reforms. Even if we hold our breath ‘til we turn blue. And we won’t get the “Simpson-Bowles” tax reform swap, where taxpayers give up $2 of deductions in exchange for $1 of lower tax rates. Let’s not kid ourselves. In other words, reality trumps theory. Yes, there are tax-hike deals that would be good, but they’re about as realistic as me speculating on whether I’d be willing to play for the New York Yankees, but only if they guarantee me $5 million per year.

I then point out that a budget deal inevitably would lead to bad policy – just as we saw in 1982 and 1990.

Here’s the bottom line: There is no practical way to get a good deal from either the Democrats in the Senate or the Obama Administration. Notwithstanding the good intentions of some people, any grand bargain would be a failure that leads to higher spending and more red ink, just as we saw after the 1982 and 1990 budget deals. The tax increases would not be relatively benign loophole closers. Instead, the economy would be hit by higher marginal tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. And the entitlement reform would be unsustainable gimmicks rather than structural changes to fix the underlying programs. Ironically, when a columnist for the New York Times complained that Republicans were being unreasonable for opposing tax hikes, she inadvertently revealed that the only successful budget deal was the one in 1997 – the one that had no tax hikes!

The last sentence is worth some additional commentary. As I explained in a previous post, the only bipartisan budget agreement that generated a balanced budget was the 1997 pact – and that deal lowered taxes rather than increasing them.

Some people try to argue that Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike deserves some of the credit, but I previously showed that the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget admitted – 18 months later! – that the nation would have triple-digit budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s.

And when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Bill Clinton, Cato Institute, spending out of control | Tagged | Comments (0)

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response July 18, 2012 on Social Security (part 12)

July 20, 2012 – 7:23 am

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 18, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several of the letters I sent to him below with the email that I received. However, I think it was probably this one below:

Sweden produced ABBA in the 1970’s, but now they are producing some pretty good economic policies.

One of my favorite groups growing up was ABBA. Here are some of my favorite songs:

_______________

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

I have been impressed recently with Sweden’s resolve to cut taxes and how that has caused growth.

Sweden has a very large and expensive welfare state, but it’s actually becoming a bit of a role model for economic reform. I’ve already commented on the country’s impressive school choice system and noted that the Swedes have partially privatized their Social Security system.

I even wrote a Cato study looking at the good and bad features of economic policy in the Nordic nations, and cited a Swedish parliamentarian who explained that his nation became rich because of small government and free markets and how he is hopeful his country is returning to its libertarian roots.

Notwithstanding the many admirable features of Sweden, I never thought they would be moving in the right direction on fiscal policy while the United States was heading in the opposite direction.

Yet that’s the case. We all know that America has had made many mistakes during the Bush-Obama years, particularly with failed stimulus schemes in 2008 and 2009.

Sweden, by contrast, has put in place pro-growth reforms. Here’s what Fraser Nelson wrote for the UK-based Spectator.

Can we trade Geithner for Borg?

When Europe’s finance ministers meet for a group photo, it’s easy to spot the rebel — Anders Borg has a ponytail and earring. What actually marks him out, though, is how he responded to the crash. While most countries in Europe borrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. …Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right. ‘Look at Spain, Portugal or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,’ he says. ‘Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.’ Tax-cutting Sweden, by contrast, had the fastest growth in Europe last year, when it also celebrated the abolition of its deficit. …‘Everybody was told “stimulus, stimulus, stimulus”,’ he says — referring to the EU, IMF and the alphabet soup of agencies urging a global, debt-fuelled spending splurge. Borg, an economist, couldn’t work out how this would help. ‘It was surprising that Europe, given what we experienced in the 1970s and 80s with structural unemployment, believed that short-term Keynesianism could solve the problem.’ …He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with entrepreneurs. If cutting taxes for the rich encouraged risk-taking, then it had to be done.

The article notes that government is still far too large in Sweden, but it’s also clear that moving in the right direction generates immediate benefits.

I posted a video back in 2010, narrated by a Swedish economics student, and asked a rhetorical question of why Obama wants to make America more like Sweden when the Swedes are moving in the other direction.

Unfortunately, there was no good answer then and there’s no good answer now.

Let’s close with some irony. Last year, I cited a study showing how large public sectors undermine economic performance. The study was written by two Swedish economists. In addition to trading Geithner for Borg, perhaps we can ship Krugman to Stockholm and bring those economists to America.

______________________

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

The White House, Washington
 

 

July 18, 2012

Dear Everette:

Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans about issues affecting seniors.  Today’s economic climate further intensifies the unique challenges they face, and I appreciate your perspective.

My Administration continues to support older Americans encountering unfair treatment, financial hardship, or difficulty obtaining health care.  The historic Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare by not only preserving, but also expanding benefits for Americans who depend on Medicare every day.  In 2010 and 2011, over 5.1 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare saved over $3.2 billion on prescription drugs thanks to the law.  These savings include a one-time $250 rebate check to eligible seniors who fell into the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “donut hole” in 2010.  And more than 32 million seniors have already received one or more free preventive services, including the new Annual Wellness Visit.  To learn about help available through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, visit www.CMS.gov.

The Affordable Care Act also helps prevent and eliminate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.  Additionally, this law implements unprecedented measures to fight waste and fraud, and to improve the quality and outcomes of care for Medicare beneficiaries.  It ends unwarranted subsidies to private insurance companies, and takes important steps to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions, improve patient safety, modernize payment systems, and streamline record-keeping.  It also realigns incentives to reward medical providers for the value, not the volume, of their care.  For resources and information on how to prevent, report, and stop Medicare fraud, visit www.StopMedicareFraud.gov.  To learn more about the Affordable Care Act, please visit www.HealthCare.gov.

By protecting Social Security from risky privatization plans, we are preserving its solvency and maintaining it as a reliable income source for seniors.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included an additional payment to supplement Social Security benefits for seniors struggling to make ends meet, and I have called on Congress to extend this relief again.  Together, we will ensure all our citizens—not just a privileged few—can retire with dignity and security.

Finally, as we work to keep America’s promises to senior citizens, we are helping make sure older Americans can continue to enrich communities across our Nation through service and community involvement.  By expanding the Senior Corps and implementing the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, we are creating more opportunities for seniors to share their knowledge and experience with younger generations.  For more information regarding service opportunities in your area, or to share your story of service, please visit www.Serve.gov.

To find assistance for senior citizens and their families, visit www.Eldercare.gov or call 1-800-677-1116.  For help with Medicare, visit www.Medicare.gov or call 1-800-MEDICARE.  Additional information and resources are available at www.USA.gov/Topics/Seniors.shtml.  For assistance using internet resources, I encourage you to visit your local library or community center.

Thank you, again, for being in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 97)

Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 96)

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

Videos by Cato Institute on failed stimulus plans

In this post I have gathered several videos from the Cato Institute concerning the subject of failed stimulus plans. _____ Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 22, 2012 (part 9)

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 June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

An open letter to President Obama jh100

 January 25, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out […]

Recent posts on Obamacare (including letters to the president and his responses)

Anyone who has followed this blog knows I have been writing letters to President Obama and he has actually responded 12 times now. Below are some videos and past posts about Obamacare and some of the open letters to the President are included with some of his responses: Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the […]

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

Sadly Senator Pryor has voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment over and over in his long time in the Senate. Senator Pryor: “There are a lot of people who think a balanced-budget amendment solves all the fiscal problems. I completely disagree.” (Peter Urban, Pryor Tilts Balanced Budget, Southwest Times Record, 11/17/11) Dear Senator Pryor, Why […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 95)

Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Feb 22, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 15, 2012 on Healthcare (part 8)

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 June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

 
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Social Security | Tagged | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.5)

July 20, 2012 – 7:22 am

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968:

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they go out and get a job then they are stripped away from the welfare program and that encourages them to avoid working and sit on the couch. (Milton Friedman’s negative income tax is a good solution.)

Now we have the government running ads trying to get people to join this type of lifestyle. I think it is the most cruel thing you can do to a struggling poor person. Working is the only way a person can climb up the ladder and falling in the welfare trap hurts the poor’s chance of succeeding in the future.

Obama’s Using Our Tax Dollars to Leverage More Food Stamp Dependency

June 26, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

In past posts, I’ve groused about food stamp abuse, including people using them to buy luxury coffee at Starbucks and to purchase steaks and lobster. I’ve complained about college kids scamming the program, the “Octo-Mom” mooching off the program, and the Obama Administration rewarding states that sign up more food stamp recipients.

Well, the Obama White House is doubling down on creating more dependency, spending tax dollars to increase the number of people on food stamps.

Here are some of disturbing details from a CNN report.

More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. …The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area. …President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004. President Obama’s stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.

Last year, I semi-defended Newt Gingrich when he was attacked for calling Obama the “Food Stamp” President. Citing this chart, I wrote that, “It certainly looks like America is becoming a food stamp nation.”

But my bigger point is that welfare is bad for both taxpayers and the people who get trapped into relying on big government.

The ideal approach, as explained in this video, is to get the federal government out of the business of redistributing income. We are far more likely to get better results if we let states experiment with different approaches.

House Republicans, to their credit, already want to do this with Medicaid. So why not block grant all social welfare programs?

The icing on the cake is that no longer would the federal government be running ads to lure people into dependency.

_____________

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

Related posts:

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 7)

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 6)

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 5)

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 4)

 Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 3)

Ep. 4 – From Cradle to Grave [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980) With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 2)

With the national debt increasing faster than ever we must make the hard decisions to balance the budget now. If we wait another decade to balance the budget then we will surely risk our economic collapse. The first step is to remove all welfare programs and replace them with the negative income tax program that […]

We can no longer afford the welfare state (Part 1)

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 […]

 

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

Wheaton College stands up to Obama administration

July 19, 2012 – 7:24 am

I have never been to Wheaton College but I feel close to it. My favorite teacher in highschool, Mark Brink, was a graduate of Wheaton (Billy Graham also attended) and I got to hear about it. Also Bill Elliff who was my pastor at First Baptist Little Rock told me a very interesting story about Wheaton. He said he got to jump in a car in 1970 to take a trip to Wheaton to hear a fellow from Europe speak and when he got there a short fellow with a funny beard named Francis Schaeffer spoke about abortion and infanticide and other subjects he was not aware of.

Of course, if you know anything about this blog then you know that Francis Schaeffer was one of my heroes. It is no surprise at all to me that Wheaton College is taking the steps they are below.

Jennifer Marshall

July 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Wheaton College, an evangelical institution, filed a lawsuit against the HHS mandate today, joining Catholic University of America in opposing the rule’s coercive trampling on religious liberty. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing Wheaton College in the school’s complaint. Left to right: John Garvey, President of Catholic University of America; William P. Mumma, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College.

Wheaton College, a leading evangelical postsecondary educational institution, has joined the chorus of organizations suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over its mandate requiring nearly all insurance plans to cover abortion drugs and contraception.

“Wheaton College and other distinctively Christian institutions are faced with a clear and present threat to our religious liberty,” said Dr. Philip Ryken, president of Wheaton College, in an announcement today that the evangelical institution has joined a lawsuit with the Catholic University of America (CUA) against the anti-conscience mandate. “Our first president, the abolitionist Jonathan Blanchard, believed it was imperative to act in defense of freedom. In bringing this suit, we act in defense of freedom again.”

Wheaton College is the fourth Protestant college to file suit against the HHS mandate (and, full disclosure, this author’s alma mater). The Illinois institution joins Colorado Christian University, Geneva College, and Louisiana College. In total, more than 50 institutions are participating in more than 20 lawsuits. These plaintiffs include Catholic hospitals, religious schools serving inner city children, and ministries providing hospice care and assistance to the developmentally disabled.

The HHS mandate lawsuits take on added significance since the Supreme Court ruling in late June that allowed Obamacare to stand. The mandate goes into effect on August 1. After that, as employers renew their health plans in the coming year, they will have to comply with the HHS mandate’s coercive requirement to cover abortion drugs, contraception, and sterilization—regardless of religious or moral objections.

As Ryken noted, the narrow religious exemption included in the final rule effectively only applies to churches and will provide no protection for countless religious employers that hold moral objections to the mandated services. In the case of Wheaton, coverage of abortion drugs would violate the commitment to protecting unborn life stated in the school’s “community covenant,” which is signed by faculty, staff, and students.

Throughout the spring, the Administration touted a so-called “accommodation” to the rule for non-exempt institutions. But that accommodation is nothing more than concept and holds no force of law. Moreover, the college views the rumored accommodation as a “shell game that does not resolve the moral issue that we have,” Ryken explained today.

Damage to religious liberty remains the fundamental problem, and the HHS policy sets an alarming new precedent, as Ryken explained: “The mandate, by providing an exemption for churches, but not for other religious institutions like Christian colleges, is in effect to create two classes of religious institutions in the U.S.: those that have full protection for their religious freedom and those who don’t.”

That serious challenge explains the evangelical-Catholic alliance among the plaintiffs, as Ryken noted in a press briefing with CUA President John Garvey today:

Wheaton College is a distinctively Protestant institution, in our hiring practices, in our theology, but we have a respect for Roman Catholic institutions and, in this case, we recognize that we have common cause with the Catholic University of America and other Catholic institutions in defending religious liberty. We’re, in fact, co-belligerents in this fight against government action. I think the fact that evangelicals and Catholics are coming together on this issue ought to be a sign to all Americans that something really significant in terms of religious liberty is at stake.

All Americans benefit from religious liberty, and we should all be prepared to defend it. Today’s news of Wheaton joining the legal challenge should call attention to the seriousness of the HHS mandate’s threat to religious freedom specifically and the potential for future collisions with conscience under centralized health care policy like that embodied in Obamacare.

___________

Related posts:

Do the feds know what they are doing with Obamacare?

Liberals are going on and on about what a great deal Obamacare is for poor states like Arkansas, but do the feds even know how to implement Obamacare? Wisconsin Health Secretary: ‘No Such Thing as a State-Run Exchange’ Posted by Michael F. Cannon Dennis Smith directed the Medicaid program for President George W. Bush and […]

Response to John Brummett’s idea of letting the federal government take over our healthcare in Arkansas: Laughter!!!

Third-Party Payer is the Biggest Economic Problem With America’s Health Care System Published on Jul 10, 2012 by CFPEcon101 This mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation explains that “third-party payer” is the main problem with America’s health care system. This is why undoing Obamacare, while desirable, is just a small first step […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 22, 2012(part B) on Healthcare (part 11)

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 June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

How to keep medicare prices down

Moving Forward On Entitlements: Dan Mitchell Entitlement spending will bury this country if we do nothing about it. Medicare Part D Proves That Competition Lowers Health Care Spending Drew Gonshorowski June 6, 2012 at 7:03 am Some policymakers have difficulty understanding competition’s role in health care. There is a historical reason: With a legacy of […]

Obamacare not going to lower government spending

Since I’ve bashed the biased and inaccurate work of the Congressional Budget Office, I found this cartoon very amusing. And this cartoon on business taxation is very appropriate after yesterday’s post about a potential corporate tax rate reduction from the Obama Administration. Government Cost-Overruns, the English Version June 17, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Many of us […]

Carl Sagan versus RC Sproul

At the end of this post is a message by RC Sproul in which he discusses Sagan. Over the years I have confronted many atheists. Here is one story below: I really believe Hebrews 4:12 when it asserts: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the […]

THREE TELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION by Adrian Rogers (Part 1 of series on Evolution)jh57

The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 1 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2 http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASG http://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _____________________________________ Do you think the theory of evolution is true? Check out this short article by Adrian Rogers: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and […]

Francis Schaeffer predicted assisted suicide would come (“Schaeffer Sundays” Part 3)

In “Evangelical dynasty undone,” Arkansas Times Blog, August 20, 2011,Max Brantley wrote: Ever heard of the influential evangelical Francis Schaeffer? (Mike Huckabee once said his favorite book after the Bible was Schaeffer’s “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” and he’s been described as having a “profound” influence on Michele Bachmann.) Best reading of the morning is this New York […]

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died jh47

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

Francis Schaeffer pictured below:

photo
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Famous Arkansans, Prolife | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.4)

July 19, 2012 – 6:30 am

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

The medicine for the sickness of spending is real budget cuts but no one in liberal europe wants to hear that. Sadly we are on the same road in the USA.

I wrote a detailed blog post yesterday, showing that European governments have been very reluctant to restrain the burden of government spending.

Part of the problem is that the debate in Europe is a no-win exercise, pitting proponents of higher taxes (which is largely how Europe’s political elite defines “austerity”) against proponents of higher spending (notwithstanding a long track record of failure, the Keynesians have come out of woodwork and are claiming that bigger government stimulates “growth”).

With these terrible choices, no wonder the continent has such a bleak future.

Here’s a recent appearance on Fox Business News, where I discuss these topics.

I explain that Europe can grow and prosper, but only if politicians are willing to reduce the burden of government spending and lower tax rates.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

P.S. Americans shouldn’t get cocky. Our long-term fiscal outlook is equally grim. We can avoid a crisis if entitlement programs are reformed, but that obviously isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

_____________

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Current Events, spending out of control | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.3)

July 18, 2012 – 7:41 am

Nassim Taleb: Time to Nationalize US Banking System?

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

Your liberal agenda has not worked out too good in the last four years. I am deeply troubled that you have tried to pit one income class against another. Here are some themes of your presidency below:

Most people know that Ronald Reagan was an actor before he became a great President.

So I guess it makes sense for Barack Obama to do the same thing, but in reverse. He’s starting as a bad President, but then will become a Hollywood star.

Some clever person already has put together some potential starring roles. Let’s start with the Wizard of Oz, with some updated dialogue that captures the President’s approach to tax policy.

And here’s another classic, Gone with the Wind, but updated to show how the President doesn’t care that his policies will accelerate America’s slide to European-style stagnation.

There’s also a starring role for the President in a remake of the Godfather, which seems appropriate given his Chicago roots and support for cronyism.

Bonnie and Clyde is another option, though this one is unfair. Obama supports TARP, which means he wants to rob taxpayers to subsidize banks.

Last but not least, we have a new version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Though, to be fair, the President seems to want entitlement checks for everybody.

If I was clever enough to manipulate pictures, I would do one from the scene in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is on horseback, motivating the Scots to fight against the English. But instead of Mel Gibson talking about freedom, we could have the President urging “dependency.”

I’m sure Julia would approve.

_____________

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

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

Open letter to President Obama (Part 116.2)

July 17, 2012 – 8:15 am

Uploaded by on Feb 26, 2012

_________

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

Dear Mr. President,

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

I wish we would put in real spending cuts in the USA instead of fake ones like the ones in the United Kingdom.

Looking at ‘Austerity’ in Britain

Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo

I’m going to jump into the debate about austerity in Europe because it is being closely followed in Latin America, and many people are drawing the wrong conclusions about how austerity is strangling the European economies. But first, we have to be clear about what we mean by “austerity.”

As the debate between Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center and Ryan Avent at The Economist shows, there are different definitions of austerity. The term could mean fiscal consolidation only by spending cuts. It could mean a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases (the so called “balanced approach”), and it could even be just tax increases. So when people blame “austerity” for Europe’s economic malaise, we could be talking about a very different set of policies in each country.

Let’s look at Britain, which just entered into a double dip recession because of, according to Paul Krugman, “the evident failure” of austerity policies. If we look at spending levels in the UK both in nominal and real terms, we can clearly see that despite the announcement of deep cuts, government spending continues to rise:


Source: European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs.

It’s clear that, at least in nominal terms, the rate of growth of spending has declined, but that hardly constitutes brutal cuts as Krugman and others want us to believe. If we look at total government spending as a percentage of the economy, Britain reached a peak in 2009 at 51.5%, and that came down to 49.9% in 2011. Can anyone seriously argue that Britain is in a recession because of that tiny drop in spending as a share of the economy?

Now, let’s remember that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government that came to power in May 2010 adopted what The Economist hailed as a balanced approach of fiscal consolidation based on £1 of tax increases for £3 of spending cuts. To be fair, the British magazine also said that if economic recovery proved hard to achieve, the government should consider a reprieve in tax increases, but not on spending cuts. We all know that the tax increases already took place (the VAT rate went up from 17.5% to 20%, for example). But as we can see, spending cuts haven’t taken place at all. Thus, austerity in Britain consists only of tax increases.

It’s hard to estimate the impact of tax increases on the British economy. Certainly the economic turmoil in Continental Europe has played a role in taking the U.K. into a second recession. But those who claim that “austerity” is responsible for Britain’s economic malaise should be honest and acknowledge that by austerity they mean only tax increases, not spending cuts.

____________

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

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (0)

Has President Obama proven himself as a capable businessman? Why does he make it sound so easy?

July 17, 2012 – 7:59 am

Obama 7.13.2012: If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Published on Jul 15, 2012 by

Obama at campaign event in Roanoke VA 7.13.2012: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

__________________-

Has President Obama proven himself as a capable businessman? Why does he make it sound so easy? (Early I pointed out my favorite example of Fred Smith of Fed Ex.)

Mike Huckabee pointed out that those roads and bridges were built because of the taxes that many businesses paid and many successful individuals paid a large portion of that bill. The lower 50% of wage earners don’t even pay any income taxes.

Obama is just trying to set the stage for raising taxes on the job creators. Instead of being in his ivory tower for most of his life he needed to start a business on his own. He would know how the other side feels. Again Huckabee pointed out that one business leader told him that if the government is a partner with him then why when he is still working at midnight he is always alone?

Obama’s Elizabeth Warren Moment

Posted by Aaron Ross Powell

Our president’s channeling Elizabeth Warren. Speaking in Roanoke, Obama hit all her government’s-the-reason-we-have-nice things notes. “I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way,” he said. “We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.”

Why should the wealthy–who already pay quite a lot, mind you–pay a little bit more?

[B]ecause [the wealthy] want to give something back. They know they didn’t–look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. … I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something–there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

About this, Obama’s right. Lots of very smart people aren’t rich. (I’ll assume that’s what the president means by “successful” and roll with it, while remaining totally aware that there are myriad ways to define “success” that don’t involve accumulated wealth.) Lots of hardworking people aren’t rich, either. Which means getting rich, while often involving both smarts and hard work, depends on other things, too. Such as background, family, networks, opportunities, and just plain luck.

Back to Obama:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Again, true. Every successful person in this county benefited from the help of someone. None of us are capable of getting far at all entirely on our own.

The confusion for Obama and his fellow progressives comes in locating that “someone.” Because for Obama, “someone” isn’t friends, family, colleagues. It’s government.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

At some fundamental level, Obama simply doesn’t understand that “we” are not the state. For him, acting together simply is the same thing as legislating, regulating, and taxing. That’s why he can say with a straight face such inanities as his fire service line above. He appears unable to comprehend voluntary, cooperative, non-governmental coordination. The government doesn’t run bookstores, but we don’t each have our own Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com.

And while he’s right that there are some things we probably can’t do without government (or, at least, can’t do as efficiently without government), that class of activities is vanishingly small when compared to all the things Obama wants government to do–and wants you and me to pay for.

The argument against paying more taxes or creating more federal programs is not that we all should keep our money even if it means accomplishing nothing and having no nice things. Rather it’s that if we kept our money and had fewer federal programs, we’d accomplish more and have more nice things. Without the state stifling innovation, hindering entrepreneurs, wasting resources, and crowding out private action, we would get even more done together.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we haven’t each gained something from Obama’s welfare/warfare state. But the fact that we have doesn’t do much to support the president’s call for higher taxes. After all, even an abusive parent can give birthday presents.

There’s a certain class of argument that sounds utterly convincing to those already convinced–and entirely preposterous to those not. Obama’s remarks exemplify it. In order for his argument to get off the ground, Obama has to assume the truth of his conclusions. He asks us to believe that it is only through government that good things happen. He asks to us accept that we’d be helpless without Washington’s officiousness.

Obama wants us to think that we, as free citizens striving to better our own lives and our world, are incapable of the task.

The president hasn’t made an argument so much as he’s demonstrated a failure of the imagination–and a lack of faith in the American people.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Comments (0)