Category Archives: President Obama

Listing of transcripts and videos of “Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave on www.theDailyHatch.org

April 8, 2012 – 1:44 pm

In the last few years the number of people receiving Food Stamps has skyrocketed. President Obama has not cut any federal welfare programs but has increased them, and he  has used class warfare over and over the last few months and according to him equality at the finish line is the equality that we should all be talking about. However, socialism has never worked and it has always killed incentive to produce more. Milton Friedman shows in this film series below how so many people get caught in the “Welfare Trap.” Friedman also gives a great solution to this problem in the “negative income tax.” I am glad that I had the chance to be studying his work for over 30 years now.

In 1980 when I first sat down and read the book “Free to Choose” I was involved in Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president and excited about the race. Milton Friedman’s books and film series really helped form my conservative views. Take a look at one of my favorite films of his:

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Abstract:

Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. Travelling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed. Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.

Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave
Transcript:
Friedman: After the 2nd World War, New York City authorities retained rent control supposedly to help their poorer citizens. The intentions were good. This in the Bronx was one result.
By the 50’s the same authorities were taxing their citizens. Including those who lived in the Bronx and other devastated areas beyond the East River to subsidize public housing. Another idea with good intentions yet poor people are paying for this, subsidized apartments for the well-to-do. When government at city or federal level spends our money to help us, strange things happen.
The idea that government had to protect us came to be accepted during the terrible years of the Depression. Capitalism was said to have failed. And politicians were looking for a new approach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a candidate for the presidency. He was governor of New York State. At the governor’s mansion in Albany, he met repeatedly with friends and colleagues to try to find some way out of the Depression. The problems of the day were to be solved by government action and government spending. The measures that FDR and his associates discussed here derived from a long line of past experience. Some of the roots of these measures go back to Bismark’s Germany at the end of the 19th Century. The first modern state to institute old age pensions and other similar measures on the part of government. In the early 20th Century Great Britain followed suit under Lloyd George and Churchill. It too instituted old age pensions and similar plans.
These precursors of the modern welfare state had little effect on practice in the United States. But they did have a very great effect on the intellectuals on the campus like those who gathered here with FDR. The people who met here had little personal experience of the horrors of the Depression but they were confident that they had the solution. In their long discussions as they sat around this fireplace trying to design programs to meet the problems raised by the worst Depression in the history of the United States, they quite naturally drew upon the ideas that were prevalent at the time. The intellectual climate had become one in which it was taken for granted that government had to play a major role in solving the problems in providing what came later to be called Security from Cradle to Grave.
Roosevelt’s first priority after his election was to deal with massive unemployment. A Public Works program was started. The government financed projects to build highways, bridges and dams. The National Recovery Administration was set up to revitalize industry. Roosevelt wanted to see America move into a new era. The Social Security Act was passed and other measures followed. Unemployment benefits, welfare payments, distribution of surplus food. With these measures, of course, came rules, regulations and red tape as familiar today as they were novel then. The government bureaucracy began to grow and it’s been growing ever since.
This is just a small part of the Social Security empire today. Their headquarters in Baltimore has 16 rooms this size. All these people are dispensing our money with the best possible intentions. But at what cost?
In the 50 years since the Albany meetings, we have given government more and more control over our lives and our income. In New York State alone, these government buildings house 11,000 bureaucrats. Administering government programs that cost New York taxpayers 22 billion dollars. At the federal level, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has a budget larger than any government in the world except only Russia and the United States.
Yet these government measures often do not help the people they are supposed to. Richard Brown’s daughter, Helema, needs constant medical attention. She has a throat defect and has to be connected to a breathing machine so that she’ll survive the nights. It’s expensive treatment and you might expect the family to qualify for a Medicaid grant.
Richard Brown: No, I don’t get it, cause I’m not eligible for it. I make a few dollars too much and the salary that I make I can’t afford to really live and to save anything is out of the question. And I mean, I live, we live from payday to payday. I mean literally from payday to payday.
Friedman: His struggle isn’t made any easier by the fact that Mr. Brown knows that if he gave up his job as an orderly at the Harlem Hospital, he would qualify for a government handout. And he’d be better off financially.
Hospital Worker: Mr. Brown, do me a favor please? There is a section patient.
Friedman: It’s a terrible pressure on him. But he is proud of the work that he does here and he’s strong enough to resist the pressure.
Richard Brown: I’m Mr. Brown. Your fully dilated and I’m here to take you to the delivery. Try not to push, please. We want to have a nice sterile delivery.
Friedman: Mr. Brown has found out the hard way that welfare programs destroy an individual’s independence.
Richard Brown: We’ve considered welfare. We went to see, to apply for welfare but, we were told that we were only eligible for $5.00 a month. And, to receive this $5.00 we would have to cash in our son’s savings bonds. And that’s not even worth it. I don’t believe in something for nothing anyway.
Mrs. Brown: I think a lot of people are capable of working and are willing to work, but it’s just the way it is set up. It, the mother and the children are better off if the husband isn’t working or if the husband isn’t there. And this breaks up so many poor families.
Friedman: One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up. In this public housing project in the Bronx, New York, 3/4’s of the families are now receiving welfare payments.
Well Mr. Brown wanted to keep away from this kind of thing for a very good reason. The people who get on welfare lose their human independence and feeling of dignity. They become subject to the dictates and whims of their welfare supervisor who can tell them whether they can live here or there, whether they may put in a telephone, what they may do with their lives. They are treated like children, not like responsible adults and they are trapped in the system. Maybe a job comes up which looks better than welfare but they are afraid to take it because if they lose it after a few months it maybe six months or nine months before they can get back onto welfare. And as a result, this becomes a self-perpetuating cycle rather than simply a temporary state of affairs.
Things have gone even further elsewhere. This is a huge mistake. A public housing project in Manchester, England.
Well we’re 3,000 miles away from the Bronx here but you’d never know it just by looking around. It looks as if we are at the same place. It’s the same kind of flats, the same kind of massive housing units, decrepit even though they were only built 7 or 8 years ago. Vandalism, graffiti, the same feeling about the place. Of people who don’t have a great deal of drive and energy because somebody else is taking care of their day to day needs because the state has deprived them of an incentive to find jobs to become responsible people to be the real support for themselves and their families.

Other segments:

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did? VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 5 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 5 of 7 MCKENZIE: Ah, well, that’s not on our agenda actually. (Laughter) VOICE OFF SCREEN: Why not? MCKENZIE: I boldly repeat the question, though, the expectation having been __ having […]

War on poverty is a failure in USA

Milton Friedman’s solution to limiting poverty Liberals just don’t get it. They should listen to Milton Friedman (who is quoted in this video below concerning the best way to limit poverty). New Video Shows the War on Poverty Is a Failure Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 4 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 4 of 7 The massive growth of central government that started after the depression has continued ever since. If anything, it has even speeded up in recent years. Each year there […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

 

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

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

Obama’s big government solutions have not worked

April 6, 2012 – 8:48 am

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

Uploaded by 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 create new employment.

Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.

___________________________

I don’t understand why people think that big government is the answer for everything when what the federal government should do is get out of the way. Cutting taxes and regulations would help us get out of the recession!!

Obama Has Tried All the Wrong Policies

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on March 13, 2012

This article appeared in U.S. News & World Report on March 13, 2012

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank has a very useful interactive website that allows anybody to compare recessions and recoveries during the post-World War II era. It takes only a couple of clicks to complete the exercise, and does not reflect well on the current occupant of the White House—as you can see at this link.

This does not mean that Obama caused the economic downturn. That was the result of policies that were implemented during the Bush years (though the current president was a big supporter of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subsidies that played such a big role in the financial crisis). Indeed, the recession officially began in December 2007, more than one year before Obama’s inauguration.

Taking money out of the economy’s productive sector and letting politicians engage in a spending spree is the opposite of prudent policy.

But we can hold the president at least partially responsible for an extraordinarily weak and slow recovery. It’s been nearly three years since the recession officially ended in June 2009, yet jobs are still well below their pre-recession levels. And overall economic output, or gross domestic product, has just now finally gotten back to where it was when the downturn began.

This is an anemic record. Especially since an economy normally enjoys a strong bounce when coming out of a deep recession.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

 

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

The problem is that Obama has tried all the wrong policies. He tried a big-spending Keynesian package that was supposed to be a “stimulus,” butthat’s the same failed approach that Bush tried in 2008, the same failed approach that Japan tried in the 1990s, and the same failed approach that Hoover and Roosevelt tried in the 1930s. Taking money out of the economy’s productive sector and letting politicians engage in a spending spree is the opposite of prudent policy.

The president also has continuously expanded subsidies for unemployment, even though academic scholars (and even left-wing economists) all agree that such policies cause more joblessness.

And now he’s demanding higher tax rates, holding a Sword of Damocles over entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners.

The nation recently endured eight years of a big-spending interventionist in the White House. The problem with Obama is that he promised hope and change, but he’s continuing the failed statist policies of his predecessor.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, spending out of control, Taxes | Comments (1)

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response (on deficit spending) Jan 25, 2011 (part 1)

April 6, 2012 – 4:25 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 January 25, 2011. 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, but maybe it was this letter below:

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

Uploaded by 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 create new employment.

Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.

_________

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.

Judging from what you had to say in your State of the Union address you haven’t changed at all. You still believe we should make “investments” but what you really mean is that government can provide everyone jobs. I just don’t believe that and I don’t believe you are brave enough to make the tough cuts in government spending to bring down out federal spending from almost 25% of GDP to more acceptable levels like under 19% under Clinton.

After saddling the nation with trillion-dollar boondoggles like the faux stimulus and Obamacare, I’m not sure it’s possible for Obama to reinvent himself as a budget cutter before the election.

But I welcome converts, even ones that are insincere, so I’m happy he’s at least pretending to want to deal with waste and duplication in the federal budget.

Here’s a blurb from the Daily Beast about his new idea.

President Barack Obama is seeking the power to merge agencies in a bid to shrink the federal government in a sweeping move. Obama will ask Congress to give him authority to consolidate six trade and commerce agencies that have overlapping programs, cutting up to 2,000 jobs and saving $3 billion over 10 years. He’ll call for a vote by Congress within 90 days.

But I’ll definitely wait to see the fine print. After all, the President claimed in 2009 that he was directing his Cabinet to find $100 million of budget cuts.

“I hate pretending to be a fiscal conservative”

But even that trivial gesture (almost immeasurably small compared to t a$3.6 trillion budget) turned out to be empty rhetoric.

And even if he’s serious about this latest plan, $3 billion of saving over 10 years is chicken feed compared to all of his new spending.

But if you allow me to modify an old saying, a journey of tens of trillions of dollars begins with the first $3 billion.

__________

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 January 25, 2012
  Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing.  President Obama has heard from many Americans concerning the ongoing debate about our national debt and his budget for Fiscal Year 2012, and we want to make sure you are aware of some relevant information about these important issues.

The President is committed to working in a bipartisan way to solve the fiscal challenges before us while continuing to grow the economy and create jobs.  The debt-ceiling compromise removes the cloud of uncertainty over the economy, and takes important steps toward reducing our deficit.  This is just the first step, and the President supports a balanced approach to creating a larger plan for the long-term health of our economy. 

Thank you, again, for writing.  President Obama is grateful to hear from thousands of Americans each day, and we appreciate your taking the time to contact the White House.

Sincerely,

The White House

An open letter to President Obama

 Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1 January 29, 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 […]

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 […]

An open letter to President Obama

January 27, 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 […]

An open letter to President Obama

January 26, 2012 President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out […]

An open letter to President Obama

  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 […]

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

Obama want to be king?

April 5, 2012 – 10:57 am

Great article from Wall Street Journal

  • Updated April 4, 2012, 7:39 p.m. ET

Henninger: The Supreme Court Lands in Oz

Like the original wizard, Barack Obama doesn’t want anyone to look behind the curtain.

‘I am confident,” announced the president of the United States, “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” And so it was on Monday that Barack Obama, anticipating a loss before the Supreme Court, added the third branch of government to the list of villains he will run against in his re-election campaign.

Many are saying the president should know Marbury v. Madison. He does. It doesn’t matter. If something gets in his way, Barack Obama hammers it—whether courts or Congress. The left likes that. It remains to find out if the rest of the country wants the judicial and legislative branches subordinated to a national leader.

 

Martin Kozlowski

Many schools of thought have emerged on the subject of why Barack Obama does some of the things he does, such as the job-killing Keystone XL pipeline decision or vilifying the Supreme Court justices seated before him at his State of the Union speech or inviting the GOP leadership to his speech on the deficit so he could insult them, and then hit them both again this week. Calculation? Intimidation? One school holds he acts out of personal belief (the school I subscribe to). Or that he polls it before he says it (also plausible).

It appears to be unprecedented, however, for a U.S. president to have attacked the Supreme Court before it handed down its decision. Some think Mr. Obama and his progressive infantry are trying to intimidate the Justices, specifically Justice Anthony Kennedy. But most legal commentary has said the president’s attack is likely to anger the justices, perhaps including some of the court’s liberals. Mr. Obama’s notion of judicial review diminishes all the members of any court, not just its conservatives. It doesn’t help the always difficult struggle for an independent judiciary in other countries if an American president is issuing Venezuela-like statements on U.S. courts.

Another possible explanation occurs. It’s in one of the grandest moments in “The Wizard of Oz,” when the Wizard, fumbling at the controls inside his throne room, shouts to Dorothy and the others: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Barack Obama, a wizard of another kind, has been trying with fulminations and denunciations to keep anyone from attempting what a law professor might call discovery of what the president actually has done in the past three years. We already know, for instance, that the stimulus’s $825 billion went up the chimney. What else?

It was the Supreme Court’s great debunker, Justice Antonin Scalia, who came closest in the ObamaCare oral arguments to pulling the curtain back on the Affordable Care Act’s inner machinery. That was the moment when Justice Scalia asked: “What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?”

Related Video

Like the original wizard, Barack Obama doesn’t want anyone to look behind the curtain.

 

The point beneath Justice Scalia’s jest is this: The 2,700-page Affordable Care Act, the Obama presidency’s policy masterpiece, at best won’t work very well. At worst, its house-of-cards complexity will damage nearly anything it touches—citizens, doctors, medical institutions. One only has to venture inside the law’s text to discover why, and to see why Justice Scalia wanted to protect impressionable law clerks from the experience.

Where better to begin than at the mandate itself. The mandate is the probable cause of the law’s demise and so the source of the president’s rage. In fact, the word “mandate,” as argued before the court, appears nowhere in the ACA. What they were litigating was Subtitle F, Part I. Rather than “mandate,” its Orwellian title is the “Individual Responsibility Requirement.”

We already know that 67% of polled people think the mandate, which compels individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional. That number might go closer to 100% if people got a look at the law’s language.

The ACA calls the act of purchasing insurance a “required contribution.” Naturally, many will wonder if they can get out of this. That depends on the meaning of “required contribution,” as defined in “Chapter 48—Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage, (e) Exemptions, (B) Required contributions:

“For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means . . .: (ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan though the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year).”

In the original “Oz,” the wizard voluntarily abandons the yellow brick road, discovers humility and returns to earth. The ending in our version will require an election.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared April 5, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Supreme Court Lands in Oz.

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

President Obama’s plan is failing and he is attacking all opposing plans

April 5, 2012 – 6:53 am

I really believe that we should balance the budget now!!! I really don’t understand how people can seriously think that bringing in 2.2 trillion while spending almost double that can continue very long without us heading to Greece.

President Obama recently was critical of Paul Ryan’s plan and he said some very hateful words like “social darwinism” about it. Yet Democratic President left office with our government spending 18.2 % of GDP when Ryan’s plan spends much more than that!!! Is Obama attacking other plans because his is failing?

Alison Acosta Fraser

April 3, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Why would the President, elected to the highest office in the land, stoop to attack a plan authored by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan (R–WI)? It’s a budget whose individual policies stand virtually no chance of ever becoming law, if for no other reason than the President’s own veto pen.

Obama has chosen to directly criticize the plan. In doing so, he curiously elevates Ryan to the level of contender, worthy of direct presidential attention in a contentious election year. Why not just let this plan die quietly in the Senate, as Harry Reid (D–NV) has already promised? Perhaps Obama is stinging from the sound rejection of his own budget proposal. Not a single Democrat voted in for it in the House last week. Last year’s budget fared no better in the Senate. It is Obama who truly has the radical plan: Do nothing.

Perhaps the President is worried about his own policies. He should be; they have failed to get the economy’s engines revving at full speed, and unemployment is still unacceptably high. On his watch, the debt has increased dramatically. Despite his lofty rhetoric about “an obligation to future generations to address our long-term, structural deficits, which threaten to hobble our economy and leave our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt,” his plan would do nothing. This year Obama proposed, again, a budget which fails to tackle the twin crises of spending and debt and hikes taxes to unprecedented levels with divisive class warfare arguments. So, as a counter to his failure to lead us away from the fiscal abyss, Obama has chosen to attack Ryan and the House budget with scary rhetoric about Trojan horses, social Darwinism, and a radical vision for the country. (And whining about President George W. Bush’s policies—the great bulk of which Obama has maintained—doesn’t cut it any more.) Americans are a smart lot and are not fooled easily.

This is really about two visions for the future of the country. Under one, we follow in the footsteps of Greece and Italy, replete with debt crises and an economic and cultural meltdown and in the end, vastly higher taxes. Under another, we return to our smaller government roots with lower spending and lower taxation—for all Americans—and unshackle our system of free enterprise so Americans from all walks of life can seize opportunity.

Under Obama’s vision, we close our eyes and pretend that big government has all the answers to every risk and problem in society, real or perceived. Under Obama’s vision, fairness and prosperity come from spreading the wealth around and the government picking winners and losers. Crony capitalism, waste, and corruption capture the headlines. We do nothing about our entitlement crisis and instead pretend it doesn’t exist, while driving health care further into the clutches of unelected government bureaucrats and away from patient-centered care. Under Obama’s vision, we get crushing levels of debt or crippling levels of taxation, and America’s younger generations pay the price in terms of lost freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Obama truly has the radical plan.

Many of Ryan’s proposals are similar to proposals in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan. Under Ryan’s vision, health care is moved away from bureaucrats and into the hands of patients and their doctors. It starts with the repeal of Obamacare, which adds trillions in new government spending and puts the government in the middle of Americans’ health care decisions. The President doesn’t fix entitlements in his budget or his health law; instead, Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it by raiding it to pay for other new programs and handing control over to an unelected board of officials to further ratchet down its cost through perpetuation of the flawed price control model.

The Ryan budget takes a better route to preserve both the Medicare program and patient choice. It builds a premium support system for America’s seniors to choose a health plan that suits them best, expanding upon the success of choice and competition that seniors already experience today under the Medicare prescription drug program. Ryan’s vision would drive down costs without meddling from Washington and would preserve Medicare for today’s and tomorrow’s seniors. His budget also addresses the need for change in Medicaid, reforming the program’s financing to remove incentives for its runaway costs and encouraging states to improve the quality of the program for beneficiaries.

Rather than punitive tax hikes, Ryan would tackle the entire mess of today’s tax code with the goals of increasing growth, wages, and of course jobs. It’s not that affluent American’s aren’t part of the solution in the Ryan plan. But rather than raising their taxes, Ryan simply reduces the taxpayer-funded contributions to their benefits. Taxes stay low, and so does spending. Under Ryan’s plan, defending the nation is a priority, not a casualty. Under Ryan’s plan—passed by the House of Representatives—today’s soaring spending levels decline, the level of debt stabilizes and then declines, while taxes are kept at roughly their historical level.

Under the President’s vision, we walk squarely and knowingly into a Grecian-style debt and democratic crisis. Under Ryan’s vision, we correct course and unshackle opportunity for all Americans. No, Obama has the truly radical plan. Curious he would choose to highlight it to the American people.

Obama on Ryan Plan: “It’s Laughable. It Is a Trojan Horse. It’s Thinly-Veiled Social Darwinism.”

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has hit a home run with this post. If Congressman Paul Ryan could get criticized for wanting to bring down our federal spending to around 20% in 11 years  and earn the label of “social darwinist” from President Obama then surely President Obama would have thought President Clinton’s effort to cut spending to 18.2 % of GDP in 2001 as extremely devilish.

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

Obama is easy to make fun of at times

April 4, 2012 – 2:48 pm

Exempting half the people from paying income tax does not seem like a bright idea. President Obama has a funny way of spinning that.  Dan Mitchell’s blog has a good way of presenting that.

I’ve already posted on Obama’s class-warfare approach to tax policy, and I’ve also posted about the pitfalls of a tax system that exempts 50 percent of the population.

Well, here’s a cartoon that cleverly combines both themes.

Related posts with material from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute:

Corrupt scams like Solyndra and bailouts make people resent paying their taxes and look for tax havens

The Economic Case for Tax Havens Uploaded by afq2007 on Sep 10, 2008 Statist politicians and international bureaucracies such as the OECD and UN routinely attack tax havens, claiming that they lead to “harmful tax competition.” Yet at no point do critics bother to provide any evidence for this claim. This mini-documentary from the Center […]

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on President Obama’s “Social Darwinism speech”

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly has pointed out that President Obama is off base to be critical of Paul Ryan’s budget since it allows the government to grow by over 3% each year and he wished that the Republicans would taking a sharper knife to the budget cuts!!!! Appearing on PBS to Debate […]

The real truth about Obamacare can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare You want to know the real truth about Obamacare then check out these videos and articles linked below: American people do not want Obamacare and the regulations that go with it March 7, 2012 – 8:02 am In this article below you will see that the American people do not […]

Videos by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has some great videos and I have posted lots of them on my blog. I like to go to Dan’s blog too. Take a look at some of them below and then the links to my blog. It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes Uploaded by afq2007 […]

Massive government spending encourages fraud and discourages hard work in private market

The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 29, 2010 Government spending can promote economic growth if money is used for core “public goods” such as rule of law and property rights. But the burden of government spending in the United States and other industrialized nations is far higher […]

Cato Institute praises Bill Clinton’s restraint to spend, President Obama calls that level of spending “social darwinism”

Dan Mitchell always has some great cartoons he posts: Michael Ramirez is a first-rate cartoonist for Investor’s Business Daily. Here are two of his recent gems. As always, humor works when it is based on something true. With that in mind, do you prefer this cartoon, which shows Obama scolding the Founding Fathers for their […]

Obamacare expands dependence on government health care

Tim Sandefur Discusses ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains some of the implications of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. ___________________ Great chart from Heritage Foundation on Obamacare: Obamacare expands dependence on government health care DOWNLOAD HIGH-RES (JPG, Color) Slide 1 | […]

Obama wants millionaires to at least pay what their secretaries pay, here is the solution

Take a lot at these figures from the Cato Institute: New Academic Study Confirms Previous IMF Analysis, Shows that Lower Tax Rates Are the Best Way to Reduce Tax Evasion Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Leftists want higher tax rates and they want greater tax compliance. But they have a hard time understanding that those […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 54)

Uploaded by WSJDigitalNetwork on Feb 23, 2012 Editorial board member Steve Moore breaks down Mitt Romney’s and President Obama’s tax plans. _____________________ 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 […]

Ernie Dumas:Tax cuts explode deficit

Ernie Dumas in the Arkansas Times, Jan 18, 2012 argued: A big majority of Americans are concerned about growing income inequality and government favor for the rich, and they understand that lower taxes do directly affect federal budget deficits, which Republican orthodoxy for 30 years has denied. However, I like most Republicans would argue the […]

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

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute on President Obama’s “Social Darwinism speech”

April 4, 2012 – 6:57 am

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute rightly has pointed out that President Obama is off base to be critical of Paul Ryan’s budget since it allows the government to grow by over 3% each year and he wished that the Republicans would taking a sharper knife to the budget cuts!!!!

I posted yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding principles.

This was followed by an opportunity yesterday evening to debate Jared Bernstein on the PBS NewsHour.

Here’s the interview, though I warn you that excerpts of Obama’s  speech take up the first 3:17 of the video, and you won’t get to the debate until about 4:20.

Uploaded by on Apr 3, 2012

In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the CATO Institute’s Daniel Mitchell discuss the GOP budget plan.

__________

A few observations about the interview (other than that I need a haircut).

By the way, Jared Bernstein is a co-author of the infamous White House report that claimed unemployment would never rise above 8 percent if we squandered $800 billion on a faux stimulus package based on Keynesian economics. But I’m a nice guy, so I chose not to raise that issue.

Related posts:

The real truth about Obamacare can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare You want to know the real truth about Obamacare then check out these videos and articles linked below: American people do not want Obamacare and the regulations that go with it March 7, 2012 – 8:02 am In this article below you will see that the American people do not […]

Videos by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute found here on www.thedailyhatch.org

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has some great videos and I have posted lots of them on my blog. I like to go to Dan’s blog too. Take a look at some of them below and then the links to my blog. It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes Uploaded by afq2007 […]

Cato Institute praises Bill Clinton’s restraint to spend, President Obama calls that level of spending “social darwinism”

Dan Mitchell always has some great cartoons he posts: Michael Ramirez is a first-rate cartoonist for Investor’s Business Daily. Here are two of his recent gems. As always, humor works when it is based on something true. With that in mind, do you prefer this cartoon, which shows Obama scolding the Founding Fathers for their […]

Obamacare expands dependence on government health care

Tim Sandefur Discusses ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Mar 26, 2012 http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9074 Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation explains some of the implications of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. ___________________ Great chart from Heritage Foundation on Obamacare: Obamacare expands dependence on government health care DOWNLOAD HIGH-RES (JPG, Color) Slide 1 | […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 47, A response to your budget)

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending Uploaded by senatorcorker on Feb 14, 2011 In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced […]

 

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

The real truth about Obamacare can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

April 4, 2012 – 6:16 am

Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare

You want to know the real truth about Obamacare then check out these videos and articles linked below:

American people do not want Obamacare and the regulations that go with it

In this article below you will see that the American people do not want Obamacare but yet it is being crammed down their throats and all the regulations that go with that too. Sickening Regulation by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the […]

Arkansas Times praises good results of Obamacare

Gerard Matthews wrote on March 21, 2012 in the Arkansas Times: Children cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Young people can stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until they are 26 years old. Preventive services, which will ultimately help control health care costs, have been added to some plans at no […]

Brummett is arguing over the chairs on the Titanic as Obamacare will surely bankrupt state

Michael Cannon on Medicare and Healthcare In his article, “Medicaid and the consequences,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 20, 2012, (paywall), Brummett admits, “Medicaid will break the bank of state government if we don’t do something.” However, he never gets around to saying that Obamacare is going to ruin the state financially. It will expand this failing […]

If the Democrats want to back Obamacare then let them go down with the ship

On March 19, 2012 Jason Tolbert pointed out that the Democrats in Little Rock were using Obama’s talking points concerning Obamacare, but it appears to me that they go down with the ship according to the mood in the country. Take a look at this fine article from the Cato Institute. In this article below […]

Setting Biden Straight on Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate

Setting Biden Straight on Obamacare’s Anti-Conscience Mandate Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Mar 3, 2012 Vice President Biden didn’t get the story quite straight. As the Obama Administration reels from the backlash for Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate that forces religious employers to provide coverage and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, Biden yesterday set out to convince America that […]

Obama’s affordable lightbulb

It seems that government was in control of the desert then we would have a shortage of sand as Milton Friedman used to quip. You Keep Using the Word ‘Affordable.’ I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. Posted by Michael F. Cannon The federal government gave a $10 million “affordability” prize […]

Brummett misses the boat on Obamacare again

Uploaded by HarrysRetroArchive on Aug 7, 2010 The stooges join the “Women Haters” club and vow to have nothing to do with the fair sex. Larry marries a girl anyway and attempts to hide the fact from Moe and Curly as they take a train trip. Director: Archie Gottler Cast: Marjorie White, A.R. Haysel, Monte […]

Brantley is wrong about Republicans losing debate on Obamacare and conscience

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 […]

“War on Women?”

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 […]

Is anything “free?”: According to Obama there is

Somebody will pay. You can bet on that. Obama’s Political Prophylactic Posted by Roger Pilon “White House compromise still guarantees contraceptive coverage for women,” reads theWashington Post headline coming out of President Obama’s press conference this afternoon. Trying to tamp down the escalating political storm his administration created three weeks ago when it ruled that, under Obamacare, employers with […]

Single-Payer healthcare system work? (Free Market response, Part 2)

_____________________________________________________ I would like to respond the idea of a single payer healthcare system by quoting from David Hogberg’s article “Free Market Cure – The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care.” He notes: A single-payer health care system is one in which a single-entity — the government — collects almost all of the revenue for and pays almost all of […]

 

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

Cato Institute praises Bill Clinton’s restraint to spend, President Obama calls that level of spending “social darwinism”

April 3, 2012 – 3:43 pm

Dan Mitchell always has some great cartoons he posts:

Michael Ramirez is a first-rate cartoonist for Investor’s Business Daily. Here are two of his recent gems.

As always, humor works when it is based on something true.

With that in mind, do you prefer this cartoon, which shows Obama scolding the Founding Fathers for their extreme libertarian views?

Or what about this cartoon, which makes the obvious point that growth is rather difficult when the productive sector of the economy is hobbled by too much government.

Obama on Ryan Plan: “It’s Laughable. It Is a Trojan Horse. It’s Thinly-Veiled Social Darwinism.”

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has hit a home run with this post. If Congressman Paul Ryan could get criticized for wanting to bring down our federal spending to around 20% in 11 years  and earn the label of “social darwinist” from President Obama then surely President Obama would have thought President Clinton’s effort to cut spending to 18.2 % of GDP in 2001 as extremely devilish.

Actually, Bill Clinton must be something even worse than a social Darwinist. That’s because the title of this post is wrong. Obama said that Paul Ryan’s plan (which allows spending to grow by an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next decade) is a form of “social Darwinism.”

Proponent of social Darwinism?

But the proposal from the House Budget Committee Chairman only reduces the burden of federal spending to 20.25 percent of GDP by the year 2023.

Yet when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic output.

And by the President’s reasoning, this must make Clinton something worse than a Darwinist. Perhaps Marquis de Sade or Hannibal Lecter.

Here’s a blurb from the New York Times on Obama’s speech.

Mr. Obama’s attack, in a speech during a lunch with editors and reporters from The Associated Press, was part of a broader indictment of the Republican economic blueprint for the nation. The Republican budget, and the philosophy it represents, he said in remarks prepared for delivery, is “antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it.” …“Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism,” Mr. Obama said. “By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development — it’s a prescription for decline.”

I’m particularly amused by the President’s demagoguery that Ryan’s plan is “antithetical to our entire history” and “a radical vision.”

Is he really unaware that a small and constrained central government is part of America’s history and vision? Doesn’t he know that the federal government, for two-thirds of our nation’s history, consumed less than 5 percent of GDP?

Of course, that was back in the dark ages when people in Washington actually believed that the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, actually enumerated the powers of the federal government. How quaint.

No wonder this Ramirez cartoon is so effectively amusing. It certainly seems to capture the President’s view of America’s founding principles.

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

An open letter to President Obama (Part 56)

April 3, 2012 – 12:32 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.

When you look at how good the private enterprise does with deliveries and then compare it to how bad the federal government does with the same duties it is laughable. The answer to the federal post office problem is to encourage private entrepreneurs to fill the gap and provide competition for the post office in the delivery of first class mail.

I grew up in Memphis and I am very familar with a company called Federal Express and its president Fred Smith. Actually I have lived in Little Rock since 1983 and Federal Express was started in Little Rock in 1971 and then moved to Memphis in 1972. Entrepreneurs like Fred Smith need to be encouraged, not discouraged by government. Here is a funny Fed Ex Commercial from the 1980’s.

 
On July 3, 1981, I was in Prague, Czechoslovakia in the middle of a 20 country student tour. Our group of 48 American students had the opportunity to speak to a Communist government official for over an hour. We asked him several questions. My questions were quite direct and I share some of them at a later time.
 
However, I did want to share one question that I asked. I told the official about an entrepreneur from Memphis named Fred Smith. Back in the early 1970’s we heard about how Smith had this crazy idea about delivering overnight packages from LA to San Francisco via Memphis. Sounded like it would not work, but Smith was able to invest all his money and eventually it paid off. His idea was successful.
 
I asked the simple question: Could something like this happen here in Communist Czechoslovakia? He responded, “No. That is because no private citizen is allowed to own that much capital. The government must do things like that.”
 
There was no chance for entrepreneurs to exist in communist countries. I was simply pointing out that economic freedom allows an environment for entrepreneurs. Why would someone put the time and energy in putting together a grand plan like Fed Ex when the benefit and reward would just go to a communist government? Entrepreneurship should be encouraged, but many times today in the USA we find that our lawmakers pass laws that discourage entrepreneurs.

USPS: Stuck With the Government Business Model

Posted by Tad DeHaven

The U.S. Postal Service has released a new five-year plan for congressional consideration that it says would get the beleaguered government mail monopoly on sounder financial footing and thus avoid a taxpayer bailout. The plan repeats previous suggestions (i.e., workforce reductions, postal network consolidations, elimination of Saturday delivery, elimination of the retiree healthcare benefit funding requirement) and proposes an increase in the price of a first-class stamp from forty-five to fifty cents.

Whether or not it would achieve what the USPS hopes, it probably doesn’t matter given that asking Congress for greater operational flexibility is like asking a two year old to stop playing with their food. That’s why the focus should be on completely transitioning the USPS from a government-run business to a privately-run business (or perhaps businesses).

Over at the Courier Express and Postal Observer blog, Alan Robinson says that “just like all plans that came before, [the new USPS plan] started with the assumption that the Postal Service remains a quasi-governmental entity.” As a result, Robinson notes that the plan is missing two key ingredients for success that foreign posts have utilized: private capital and an expanded range of products and services.

In an essay on the U.S. Postal Service, I discuss how liberalization in other countries has enabled foreign mailers to diversify into non-postal activities:

Consultants at Accenture have found that diversification not only has a measurable impact on the performance of international posts, but that it is what ultimately distinguishes high performers from low performers. America’s relatively dynamic economy is particularly suited for the diversification opportunities that would arise under postal liberalization.

Germany’s former postal monopoly, Deutsche Post, illustrates the type of transformation possible by liberalization. Today, the private Deutsche Post World Net has changed its compensation structure, imported managers from other industries, modernized the mail and parcels network within Germany, and developed new products such as hybrid mail and e-commerce. The company now has interests in not only the traditional mail and parcels business but also express mail logistics, banking, and more.

Given that the USPS’s plan is going to be unpopular with various postal stakeholders (i.e., special interests), Alan says that they should consider the advantages of privatization:

It is clear that the business plan that the Postal Service has chosen is not the one that has worked in other countries. The plan avoids talking about either private capital or expanding the breadth of service offerings as neither is on the legislative table.    Introducing thinking about how private capital could be introduced and the product offerings could be expanded forces stakeholders to think about privatization, an idea that is nearly as unpopular as the changes that the proposed business model introduced.   However, as this brief post notes, privatization offers significant financial advantages that could reduce the operating and price changes envisions by the Postal Service’s business plan. Therefore, those who see the greatest harm from this plan need to see if the advantages of privatization could benefit their interests sufficiently to overcome long-held objections to the idea.

I think Robinson is right, but I suspect that the “stakeholders” believe there’s a good chance that Congress will ultimately come to their aid with some sort of taxpayer bailout. Therefore, it’s possible that they believe that it is in their best interest to continue fighting for the status quo. Unfortunately, the recent bipartisan federal bailouts of the financial industry and the automakers suggest that they could be correct.

 

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Related posts:

Privatize the post office

The Arkansas Times rightly jumped on Republicans for whining about the local post office branches that were closing.  (It is sad to me that Republican Presidential Candidates are not very brave about offering any spending cuts.) The real answer is privatizing the post office. Here is a good article from the Cato Institute:   The USPS […]

Post Office on the brink of financial collapse

Post Office on the brink of financial collapse You’ve Got (No) Mail: Is the End Near for the Postal Service? By James Gattuso September 29, 2011 The United States Postal Service (USPS) stands on the brink of financial collapse. According to the Postmaster General, by next month, USPS coffers will be down to a week’s […]

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